Latest news with #Prayut
Bangkok Post
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Bangkok Post
Travel scheme farce
The rollout of the "Tiew Thai Khon La Krung" campaign, or Thailand Travel Co-pay scheme, last week has proved to be unmitigated disaster, with no resolution in sight. This embarrassing episode reflects not only gross incompetence, but entrenched political pettiness among policy-makers. The scheme was designed to stimulate domestic tourism by subsidising travel and accommodation costs -- similar to the We Travel Together" campaign under the Prayut government, to boost Covid-hit tourism. Under the latest scheme, the government would cover up to 50% of hotel room rates during the low season. A total of 500,000 entitlements were allocated to the public, funded by money diverted from the suspended digital wallet initiative. But within minutes of registration opening, the system buckled and stopped. Registrants were instructed to verify their identity via the Interior Ministry's ThaID app. Without prior testing, the ThaiP platform crashed under the volume of users. Developers hastily removed the ThaID requirement and redirected users to verify their identity via email using a one-time password (OTP). This solution, too, failed. Most users registered with Gmail accounts, which flagged the mass-sent OTPs as spam, rendering verification impossible. Later, a new problem emerged: hotel prices on the platform were noticeably higher than on other booking sites. Some opportunistic hotel owners were accused of price-gouging to reap profit from the stimulus scheme. However, they explained the system forced them to apply a flat rate, regardless of weekdays, weekends, or peak-season differences. This left them with no choice but to set higher prices to cover costs. Several hotels, in an effort to avoid public backlash, suspended bookings through the programme altogether. Eventually, the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) suspended new registrations until the system issues could be addressed. This debacle exposes unprofessionalism at every level, ranging from Tourism and Sports Minister Sorawong Thienthong who fast-tracked the scheme without preparation, to the implementing agencies that failed to communicate clearly or anticipate foreseeable problems. From the outset, the public was led to believe the entitlements would be distributed on a first-come, first-served basis, prompting a stampede. Only after the system collapsed did TAT clarify that the 500,000 quota would only be counted upon actual booking and payment. Perhaps most galling is the government's refusal to use the Pao Tang application, developed by Krungthai Bank under the previous administration of Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha. The app is a proven stable platform that has handled numerous government schemes, including the "We Travel Together" campaign. Yet the current administration ditched Pao Tang. The only likely explanation is it does not want to give credit to the achievements of Prayut government. This backward, partisan decision-making is both wasteful and counterproductive. Why should taxpayers foot the bill to build new ineffective applications when a capable, well-tested system is already available? The Thailand Travel Co-pay fiasco is not simply a case of technical failure. It reflects a broader dysfunction, a mindset that places political image above public interest, and pride above practical governance. What could have been a showcase economic stimulus project and a feather in the government's cap, now stands as a black mark against Pheu Thai's record.
Bangkok Post
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Bangkok Post
Thai politics back at the brink (again)
The Constitutional Court's suspension of Paetongtarn Shinawatra from the premiership is déjà vu, exposing a pattern of systematic manipulation and concoction of political outcomes. After so many dissolutions of leading political parties and repeated bans of elected representatives over two decades, it is time to call a spade a spade. Thailand is a faux democracy. Its core foundations constitute an autocratic regime that does not really care about the country's future and the collective will of its people. This is not to say that Ms Paetongtarn was not in the wrong. Her leaked audio clip with Cambodia's former Prime Minister and Senate President Hun Sen was damning and damaging, whereby she compromised her position and Thailand's national interest by catering to the Cambodian strongman in a misguided attempt to defuse border tensions between the two sides. But having a group of senators from a dubious chamber petition a nine-member Constitution Court to go after her is questionable in itself. The 200-member senate has been hounded by allegations of collusion and vote-rigging, in which the Bhumjaithai Party is accused of gaming and manipulation in the senatorial election in June last year, when the upper chamber was picked from internal nomination processes at local, provincial, and national levels. It must be noted that the Constitutional Court on 1 July dismissed a petition against the Bhumjaithai Party as well as poll staff in the controversial senate election. Although the court has dismissed a petition that called out the controversial senate, questions linger in the minds of many about the integrity of the upper chamber. If this judicial assertiveness takes place as a one-off or once in a while, then we could overlook and consider it as due process in a passable legal and constitutional system. But when political parties and prime ministers are suspended and kicked out after every election for 20 years, something is not right with the democracy. Ms Paetongtarn is the sixth of such suspensions, although her removal or acquittal is still pending. Preceding her as suspended prime ministers were Samak Sundaravej, Somchai Wongsawat, Yingluck Shinawatra, Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha, and Srettha Thavisin. All of them, except Gen Prayut, were members of the Shinawatra clan, headed by Thaksin Shinawatra. Except Gen Prayut, who was suspended but later allowed to continue in the premiership, all others were booted out by the court or a military coup. Gen Prayut himself led the coup in 2014. To be sure, this is not just about the Shinawatra clan and Mr Thaksin, who is fighting charges of royal defamation and criminal violation of his jail conditions after returning from 15 years of self-imposed exile. We tend to forget because memories are short around here due to the constant political drama that keeps unfolding. Controversial charges about minor and obscure media shareholdings also led to the dissolution and removal of the Future Forward Party and its leader, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, in November 2019. Future Forward's successor, the Move Forward Party, and its leader, Pita Limjaroenrat, faced a similar fate after becoming the largest winner in the May 2023 poll. True, Mr Thaksin's enemies have been going after him and his clan because he indelibly and unwittingly opened up the Thai political system by awakening the rural masses and because he engaged in conflicts of interest and corruption in the process. But the forces that can seize power, impose long bans on elected representatives, and get rid of political parties are focused on the threat of the day and of the era, not just the Shinawatras. Now, we should be wondering that putting Ms Paetongtarn in limbo, even while she continues as culture minister after a cabinet reshuffle that preceded her suspension, will create conditions of political intractability and policy paralysis to frustrate the Thai public into calling for an extra-parliamentary intervention to end the manufactured deadlock. We have seen this kind of drama before in 2005-06, 2008, and 2023-14, when street demonstrations paved the way for either a military coup or a judicial intervention to determine political outcomes. What we do know is that Thailand has regressed internationally and economically over the past two decades because of its political standstill and autocratic preferences. In the interim, Thailand's political environment will be precarious and volatile. Clearly, the so-called "super deal" that brought Mr Thaksin back from exile was believed to keep Move Forward out, not to move Thailand forward under a Shinawatra-led government. Otherwise, Mr Thaksin would not have been put on legal leashes early on, and Ms Paetongtarn would not have landed in the political deep end today. With the court's 7-2 suspension decision and 9-0 to accept the case, her political survival appears doubtful. Even if the court returns a favourable verdict, Ms Paetongtarn will be hard pressed to continue in office in the face of street protests led by a conservative coalition comprising her father's enemies, an opposition grilling in parliament by both Bhumjaithai and Move Forward's successor, the Prachachon (People's) Party, the economic doldrums, and souring public sentiment. Ms Paetongtarn may be seen as a spent force, and her political longevity in the remaining two years of the current parliamentary term looks unlikely. Given that Thailand will always have a national assembly in place, it is still useful to anticipate what type it will be. If the current assembly stays without Ms Paetongtarn because of her expulsion, then a new prime minister will be chosen from the pre-election party lists of nominees. Bhumjaithai's leader, Anutin Charnvirakul, would have a good shot despite his party holding just half of the strength of Pheu Thai's 140 MPs. Pheu Thai's last eligible candidate is Chaikasem Nitisiri. On the other hand, a newly elected assembly would require a new poll. Ms Paetongtarn cannot dissolve the lower house while under suspension, and it is unclear whether acting PM Phumtham Wechayachai can opt for a snap poll. An appointed assembly would normally follow a military takeover. As Thai politics becomes murkier and governance more unruly, the prolonged political vacuum and ineffectual government will likely stoke conservative calls for a military takeover to end the morass and volatility. The risk of such intervention has risen visibly in view of Ms Paetongtarn's suspension, coalition squabbling, government uncertainty, and policy weakness and inertia, including the tariff negotiations with President Donald Trump's trade team and Thailand's budget bill for the next fiscal year from Oct 1. In truth, Thailand finds itself in a messy situation under a fragile democratic system and an entrenched autocracy, not out of randomness and pure chance. Thitinan Pongsudhirak is professor at Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Political Science and a senior fellow at its Institute of Security and International Studies in Bangkok.
The Star
05-06-2025
- Politics
- The Star
Thai Constitutional Court rejects two petitions involving GT200 and former PM Prayut
BANGKOK: The Constitutional Court of Thailand on Thursday (June 5) dismissed two petitions—one concerning the controversial GT200 bomb detector scandal, and the other involving former Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha's appointment of a Cabinet minister. GT200 petition rejected for lack of new evidence In the first case, the court rejected a petition by Colonel Kriangkrai Ladpala, who requested a review of a previous ruling concerning the GT200 fake bomb detectors. On Feb 5, 2025, the court had already dismissed Kriangkrai's original complaint, in which he argued that it was unconstitutional for the Ministry of Defence to take legal action against military officers involved in the purchase of the ineffective GT200 devices. His argument was that the officers had also been misled by the supplier and therefore should not be held criminally responsible. Following the court's rejection, Kriangkrai filed a second petition, asserting that the court had failed to consider the deception of the officers in its initial ruling. However, on Thursday, the court ruled that it had already decided the matter and that Kriangkrai had provided no new evidence to justify a review. As a result, the second petition was also dismissed. Petition against Prayut over Thamanat appointment dismissed In the second case, political activist Pirapong Supkitthanakul sought the court's ruling to retroactively remove General Prayut as prime minister. The petition focused on Prayut's decision to appoint Thamanat Prompow to his Cabinet, despite Thamanat's prior conviction for drug trafficking in an Australian court. Pirapong cited Article 170(4) of the Constitution, claiming Prayut had appointed someone lacking 'integrity and ethical standards,' which should disqualify him from serving as prime minister. Pirapong submitted the petition under Article 82, which allows individuals to challenge a prime minister's actions in court. However, the Constitutional Court unanimously ruled that Pirapong did not have legal standing under Article 82 to file the complaint. Therefore, the petition was rejected. - The Nation/ANN
