Thailand’s Former Foes Unite, Oppose Thaksin’s Perceived Impunity
Thai politics, often described as a kaleidoscope of shifting alliances and deep-seated historical grievances, has offered yet another striking example of its complex dynamics. Two figures who once stood on opposite sides of the political spectrum, Sondhi Limthongkul, a leader of the yellow-shirt People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), and Jatuporn Prompan, a prominent figure in the red-shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), have publicly joined forces. As reported by the Bangkok Post, their shared target is none other than Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister and father of the current prime minister, Paetongtarn Shinawatra.
This unlikely alliance underscores a crucial truth about political systems: personal rivalries and ideological differences can be subsumed by perceived existential threats or newly aligned interests. Sondhi, who famously used his media empire to spearhead protests against Thaksin in the mid-2000s, culminating in the 2006 coup, now finds common cause with Jatuporn, once a staunch Thaksin ally.
Why this sudden change? The explanation lies in a constellation of factors:
- Perceived Impunity: Jatuporn’s criticism centers on the perception that Thaksin has evaded justice despite admitting to law violations, fueling resentment over what is seen as privilege and double standards.
- Maritime Dispute: Sondhi’s primary concern revolves around the 2001 memorandum of understanding (MoU) on maritime claims with Cambodia, arguing that it disadvantages Thailand and cedes valuable resources within an overlapping claims area (OCA). His threat of street protests highlights the volatile potential of this issue.
- Institutional Mistrust: Jatuporn’s call for a “restart” adhering to the strength of Thailand’s main institutions hints at a broader dissatisfaction with the existing political order and a desire for reform.
This is not simply about personalities; it’s about the systems and structures that enable certain power dynamics to persist. Consider this:
The convergence of Sondhi and Jatuporn, despite their historical animosity, reveals a deeper current of discontent—a shared feeling that the existing political framework benefits certain individuals and factions at the expense of fairness and national interest. It is a testament to the enduring influence of Thaksin, even in absentia, that he remains a lightning rod for disparate groups.
The MoU on maritime claims signed during Thaksin’s administration is a key point of contention. Sondhi argues that this agreement, specifically concerning the overlapping claims area rich in fossil energy resources, benefits Cambodia at Thailand’s expense. He claims the MoU allows Cambodia to delineate its territorial waters within Thai maritime territory as defined by King Rama IX in 1973. The concern that a loss of sovereignty will result, even decades after the agreement was signed, points to the long tail of political decisions and their enduring impact on national sentiment.
Ultimately, the alliance between Sondhi and Jatuporn is a symptom of a deeper malaise in Thai politics—a system grappling with issues of accountability, transparency, and the enduring legacy of past conflicts. Whether this unlikely partnership can translate into meaningful political change remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the specter of Thaksin Shinawatra continues to shape and reshape the political landscape of Thailand in unpredictable ways.
