Suspended Premier’s Ethics Probe Deepens Thailand’s Political Crisis
What do you get when you combine a suspended prime minister, a newly endorsed cabinet role, and an ethics investigation triggered by a leaked phone call with a Cambodian leader? The answer, of course, is Thailand in 2025. But it’s also a reminder that democratic governance, even when achieved, is never truly complete. It’s a process, constantly being shaped and challenged, a particularly poignant observation in a nation grappling with a complex legacy of political upheaval.
Paetongtarn Shinawatra, scion of a powerful political dynasty, finds herself in precisely that situation. Freshly appointed as Culture Minister while simultaneously suspended from the Prime Minister’s office, thanks to a unanimous Constitutional Court vote. The trigger? Allegedly, attempts to defuse tensions with Cambodia’s Hun Sen veered into damaging appeasement, according to critics. Khaosod reports she remained silent and smiling at her swearing-in ceremony. But her silence speaks volumes.
Beneath the surface of this political theater lies a deeply ingrained pattern in Thai politics. This isn’t merely about one individual’s ethical lapse or a diplomatic misstep. It is a reflection of how power is won, wielded, and challenged. The Shinawatra family, in particular, has become a lightning rod for these forces. A dynasty that has repeatedly found itself ousted from power despite enjoying considerable popular support in certain regions.
“Critics said she went too far in appeasing Hun Sen and damaged Thailand’s image and reputation.”
The question isn’t merely whether Paetongtarn overstepped in her communication with Hun Sen. It’s why such communication carries so much weight, and what political actors and factions in Thailand are ready to do with that weight. Consider the sheer power of perception in Thai politics — the sense that a leader’s actions, real or imagined, can destabilize a precarious equilibrium.
Zooming out, we see a system constantly teetering. Thailand has experienced numerous coups and political crises in recent decades. Consider the 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin Shinawatra, Paetongtarn’s father, after he was accused of corruption and disrespect towards the monarchy. Or the 2014 coup that ousted his sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, following months of street protests. These events demonstrate the fragility of democratic institutions when faced with powerful military and royalist factions. This cycle of election, challenge, and intervention suggests a deeper structural issue. Namely, a fundamental disagreement over the balance of power. But, going even deeper, these events highlight a central paradox: Popularity doesn’t necessarily translate to legitimacy in the eyes of those who wield the levers of power.
These periodic interventions are deeply interwoven with the perceived threat to the monarchy. This dynamic gives certain actors the power to topple even democratically elected governments when those governments are deemed to overreach. It also creates a chilling effect, where even the slightest perceived misstep can be weaponized against a political opponent.
This is more than just internal politics. As historian Thongchai Winichakul argues, Thailand’s identity is deeply intertwined with its relationship to its neighbors, especially Cambodia. Recall the Preah Vihear Temple dispute, which fueled nationalist sentiments for decades. Paetongtarn’s alleged missteps therefore trigger deep-seated anxieties about Thailand’s standing in the region. It’s important to also consider the impact of global perceptions of Thailand on the stability of its government. Political scientist, Pavin Chachavalpongpun, has studied Thailand’s political upheaval by examining international relations, noting how international condemnation of coups has often been tempered by strategic considerations.
Ultimately, Paetongtarn Shinawatra’s situation reflects a fundamental tension at the heart of Thai politics. It is a contest between popular mandate and established power, between a desire for progress and a deep-seated fear of change. But it’s also about the limits of democracy itself, and the ways in which deeply entrenched power structures can subvert even the most promising democratic experiments. Her future, and perhaps the future of Thailand’s democratic experiment, depends on how that tension is resolved. But it also depends on a reckoning with the fundamental questions of who truly holds power, and how that power should be legitimately exercised.
