Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra inspects an air force plane loaded with relief supplies destined for flood victims in Chiang Rai. The scene unfolded at the Wing 6 headquarters in Bangkok on a bustling Sunday. (Photo: Varuth Hirunyatheb)
Political activist Ruangkrai Leekitwattana has reignited controversy by urging the Election Commission (EC) to probe whether Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra properly resigned from her numerous executive roles in her family’s sprawling business empire before she was elected. On Monday, Mr. Ruangkrai questioned if Ms. Paetongtarn adhered to the Department of Business Development’s formal procedures while stepping down from these executive positions.
His contention revolves around the stringent protocols mandated by Section 187 of the constitution, which expressly forbids ministers from owning more than 5% share in any commercial enterprise or being employed by a private firm. Alleged anomalies in Ms. Paetongtarn’s resignation process could potentially breach this constitutional stipulation.
Adding another layer of complexity, Mr. Ruangkrai scrutinized the resignation process of Deputy Interior Minister Sabida Thaised from her own executive role and shareholdings in a private company subsequent to her appointment. Mr. Ruangkrai noted that Ms. Sabida, who is the daughter of former deputy interior minister Chada Thaised, appeared to strictly follow the Department of Business Development’s prescribed procedures. This diligent adherence has cast a contrasting shadow over Ms. Paetongtarn’s case.
With a sense of tenacity, Mr. Ruangkrai clarified his actions as an exercise of his constitutional rights under Sections 41 and 50, maintaining that he holds unwavering respect for decisions rendered by independent public agencies. This challenge to Ms. Paetongtarn’s compliance is not Mr. Ruangkrai’s first. Late last month, he petitioned the election body to meticulously review the circumstances surrounding her resignation dates from various family business positions.
Ms. Paetongtarn’s prime ministerial journey began on Aug 16, marking the end of Srettha Thavisin’s tenure after his ousting by the Constitutional Court. In his formal petition, Mr. Ruangkrai demanded clarity from the EC regarding whether Ms. Paetongtarn genuinely tendered her resignation from all her family’s executive roles by Aug 15, the eve of her election, and why official resignation records were delayed until Aug 19, three days post-election.
The reported sequence of the resignation process adds to the intrigue. It’s alleged that on Aug 15, Ms. Paetongtarn authorized a trusted aide to handle the resignation documentation on her behalf. This delegate then submitted the vital paperwork to the Department of Business Development on Aug 19. Intriguingly, this authorization was granted just a day after the Constitutional Court’s ruling to dismiss Mr. Srettha from his prime ministerial post, as noted by Mr. Ruangkrai.
The narrative is one fraught with procedural drama and political chess, providing enough fodder for curious citizens and political analysts alike. As these investigations proceed, all eyes remain on the unfolding drama, wondering if procedural discrepancies will cast any shadow on Ms. Paetongtarn’s leadership at the helm of the nation’s governance.
How can we trust Paetongtarn when she’s entangled in such a mess? This is just another example of politicians bending the rules.
But isn’t it normal for new leaders to face scrutiny? Let’s wait and see how the investigation unfolds before jumping to conclusions.
I agree with Samantha. People are too quick to judge without knowing all the facts.
It’s about transparency. If she didn’t follow proper procedures, it speaks volumes about her respect for the law.
Ruangkrai’s actions seem motivated by political rivalry more than concern for legality. Anyone else gets this feeling?
Totally! This feels more like a witch hunt than a genuine effort to uphold the law.
Whether or not it’s political, it’s still important to uphold constitutional regulations.
That’s true, but the timing and the focus on just Paetongtarn seem too convenient, don’t you think?
Maybe Paetongtarn did follow the rules but the paperwork got delayed. Sometimes bureaucracy works like that.
Or maybe she used those few days to manipulate her holdings. There’s always a possibility of shady dealings.
I still believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise.
Why do politicians always have these scandals? It feels like they can’t do anything without making a mess.
It’s not all politicians, Dina. Every field has its bad apples. We just hear more about these because of media coverage.
Considering the political backdrop in Thailand, this controversy isn’t surprising. The drama seems never-ending.
More than the resignation dates, I’m curious about how Paetongtarn plans to navigate through this politically charged atmosphere.
Good point. Her leadership skills will truly be tested now, both in governance and in handling this scrutiny.
Why wasn’t there any uproar when Sabida did the same thing? It seems like a double standard is at play here.
Sabida followed all procedures to the letter. There was no reason for any uproar.
This is the classic case of selective outrage. Sabida was just meticulous enough not to attract this kind of attention.
We should be focusing on whether Paetongtarn is actually effective in her role rather than just the procedural technicalities. Isn’t that what’s more important for the country?
But part of being effective is following the law. Ignoring these ‘procedural technicalities’ is a slippery slope.
If the investigation concludes that Paetongtarn broke the rules, she should face consequences, period.
Exactly, Eduardo. No one should be above the law, especially not those in power.
Honestly, it feels like these controversies distract from real governance. What about the flood victims?
Flood victims would be better served if the leaders are genuinely committed to their roles and not sidetracked by legal issues.
The timing of Ruangkrai’s complaint is suspect. Why wait until now to bring this up?
Possibly because waiting until now gives his political rivals the most trouble. It’s all strategic.
This drama is giving me a headache. Can’t we just focus on what really matters—governance and policy?
Governance and policy can’t be detached from the legal and ethical conduct of leaders. Both matter equally.
Do you all think this investigation will actually lead to any significant change? Or will it just be more of the same bureaucratic circus?
Probably more of the same, Alex. Rarely do these probes lead to substantial outcomes, just lots of noise.
Has anyone thought about how these investigations might affect Thailand’s international image? Many countries won’t take a nation seriously if their leaders are embroiled in scandal.
True, Mia. A country’s international standing can be damaged by these domestic issues. It’s something the government should handle swiftly.
Are we really that naive to think politicians anywhere else don’t do the same things? This is a global issue, not just a Thai one.
Fair point, but just because it’s a global issue doesn’t make it right or acceptable. We need to hold all leaders to account.
I just hope all this noise and drama don’t distract Paetongtarn from her actual job of helping people.
It’s a tough balance for sure. Leaders need to prove their legitimacy while also doing right by their citizens.
If Paetongtarn is found guilty, it will be a huge blow to her credibility. The stakes are very high here.
It would be more credible if the EC didn’t have such a controversial reputation itself. Who watches the watchmen?