Why Thailand's PM Paetongtarn Shinawatra was suspended and what it means for fragile political landscape

Independent

a day ago

Thailand's prime minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra has been suspended from her duties following a ruling by the Constitutional Court over allegations she violated ministerial ethics in connection with a leaked phone call with former Cambodian leader Hun Sen.
The suspension comes amid renewed border tensions between the two Southeast Asian nations and has further shaken Thailand's already fragile political landscape.
On Tuesday, the nine-member court decided by a 7–2 majority to remove Ms Shinawatra from her prime ministerial role while it investigates the complaint brought by 36 conservative senators.
The petition accuses her of undermining Thailand's military and national interest by describing a Thai Army commander as her 'opponent' and referring to Mr Hun Sen in familial terms – calling him 'uncle' – during a private conversation that was later leaked.
Ms Shinawatra's duties have now been handed to deputy prime minister Suriya Juangroongruangkit in a caretaker capacity while the inquiry proceeds, reported Al Jazeera. However, she retains her place in the cabinet, having been named culture minister during a recent reshuffle.
Following the court's ruling, she appeared before reporters at Government House in Bangkok and said: 'The ruling has come out, and I accept the court's decision. I'd like to reiterate that it's always been my intention to do the best thing for my country.'
Impact of phone conversation on Thailand's politics
The leaked conversation, reportedly intended to de-escalate tensions following a deadly cross-border clash on 28 May that left one Cambodian soldier dead, has sparked a political storm.
Critics, particularly from the conservative bloc, accused Ms Shinawatra of appeasing Cambodia and disrespecting the military. The backlash has weakened her Pheu Thai Party -led coalition, which was already dealing with internal strains. One party has exited the alliance, and a no-confidence vote in parliament is now anticipated.
Political scientist Dr Purawich Watanasukh of Thammasat University said the temporary suspension would contribute to further instability.
'In the longer term, the government's stability is likely to become even more fragile due to the uncertainty surrounding Paetongtarn's situation,' he told Al Jazeera. A final ruling could take weeks or even months, leaving the administration in a state of limbo.
Ms Shinawatra is the third member of her family to serve as Thailand's premier, following her father, Thaksin Shinawatra, and her aunt, Yingluck Shinawatra.
Both were ousted in previous coups and court rulings widely viewed as politically motivated. Analysts suggest her suspension continues this pattern of judicial intervention against the Shinawatra dynasty.
Dr Pavin Chachavalpongpun, a professor at Kyoto University 's Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, described the court's decision as a move that erodes Ms Shinawatra's authority and legitimacy.
'This decision could deepen rifts within Pheu Thai's coalition and embolden its rivals, both inside and outside parliament,' he said, adding that such instability could distract the government at a time when the country faces serious economic and geopolitical headwinds.
The suspension comes as Thailand grapples with a resurgent border conflict with Cambodia, rooted in longstanding disputes over land demarcation.
The immediate cause of the renewed hostilities was an exchange of gunfire in a contested frontier zone on 28 May, resulting in the death of a Cambodian soldier. Both nations claimed they acted in self-defence, but tensions have escalated since.
The 817km boundary between Thailand and Cambodia, drawn during the French colonial era in 1907, has never been fully demarcated.
Cambodia has historically relied on the original French maps to assert its claims, while Thailand contests the accuracy of those documents. Periodic violence and nationalist flare-ups have punctuated efforts to resolve the disputes.
One of the most contentious sites is the Preah Vihear temple, an 11th-century Hindu monument perched atop a cliff along the border.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) awarded the site to Cambodia in 1962, but Thailand has long disputed the ruling, particularly the surrounding land.
Armed clashes over the temple flared in 2008 when Cambodia applied to list it as a Unesco World Heritage site, with further violence erupting in 2011 and again in 2013, when the ICJ reaffirmed Cambodia's sovereignty over the area and ordered Thai troops to withdraw.
Although the latest incident in May occurred away from the Preah Vihear temple, the area remains symbolic of broader territorial and historical grievances.
Cambodian officials have indicated they plan to take four unresolved areas, including the site of the most recent clash, back to the ICJ. Thailand, meanwhile, insists that all border disagreements should be settled through the bilateral Joint Border Commission established in 2000. Officials in Phnom Penh have argued that this mechanism has failed to produce results and should be abandoned in favour of international arbitration.
In response to the 28 May clash, both countries issued statements pledging to maintain peace and pursue dialogue. However, each side has taken aggressive steps short of military confrontation. Thailand imposed heavy restrictions at its border, allowing crossings only for humanitarian or essential purposes. Cambodia retaliated by halting imports of Thai fruits, vegetables, fuel and cultural content such as films and TV shows. It also severed select internet and electricity links, further raising tensions.
The political implications of the conflict have added pressure on Ms Shinawatra's administration. While her government initially struck a conciliatory tone, the Thai military adopted a more assertive stance, warning of a potential 'high-level operation' if Thai sovereignty was perceived to be under threat.
Ms Shinawatra later echoed these remarks while reaffirming Thailand's preference for peaceful resolution. The mixed messaging underscored deeper divisions between her civilian government and the military establishment – a divide that has shaped Thai politics for decades.
Critics view the court's decision to suspend Ms Shinawatra as another episode in the protracted power struggle between elected governments and Thailand's conservative establishment, which includes the judiciary, military and royalist elites. Her predecessor, Mr Srettha Thavisin, was also removed by the Constitutional Court in 2024 over alleged ethical violations. The same constitutional provisions – specifically Article 170, which requires ministers to demonstrate "evident integrity" – have been invoked again in this case.
Dr Prem Singh Gill, a constitutional law scholar at Muhammadiyah University in Indonesia, said the case raised broader concerns about judicial overreach and the politicisation of constitutional ethics.
'This isn't merely political theatre; it's constitutional adjudication with serious separation of powers implications,' he said. He also pointed out that diplomatic exchanges such as the one between Ms Shinawatra and Mr Hun Sen are typically protected under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. 'Their weaponisation constitutes a potential breach of diplomatic protocol and customary international law,' he said.
Mr Hun Sen's decision to release the phone call has also come under scrutiny. Though no longer prime minister, he remains an influential political figure in Cambodia as Senate president and father to current prime minister Hun Manet. The Shinawatra and Hun families have long-standing ties, and their continued involvement in politics has shaped bilateral relations.
In Thailand, the ruling has sparked renewed criticism from opposition parties.
Parit Wacharasindhu, a Member of Parliament for the People's Party, wrote on social media: 'The People's Party has never feared anyone and never trusted the Paetongtarn government … but changing the government must not come at the cost of undermining democratic principles.' He warned that removing an elected leader without due process risks deepening public disillusionment.