Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra — currently suspended as the Constitutional Court reviews allegations surrounding a leaked phone call with Cambodian Senate leader Hun Sen — has made a clear decision: she will not be physically present at the court when tomorrow’s ruling is handed down. Instead, the 39-year-old Pheu Thai leader plans to watch events unfold from the safer vantage of Government House, flanked by close allies and party officials.
Deputy Prime Minister’s Secretary-General Somkid Chueakong told reporters on August 27 that Paetongtarn will arrive at Government House around midday on August 29 and remain there while the court issues its verdict. Pheu Thai Cabinet ministers will be on hand, and party MPs are expected to drift in during the mid-afternoon — roughly between 3pm and 4pm — to demonstrate solidarity. Meanwhile, Paetongtarn’s legal team will be present at the Constitutional Court to field the formal ruling.
The court’s review stems from a petition filed by 36 senators who allege that Paetongtarn breached ethical standards during a phone conversation with Hun Sen, the former Cambodian prime minister who now chairs the Cambodian Senate. For the duration of the court’s review, the Constitutional Court suspended her duties — a procedural move that has placed the embattled leader at the centre of intense political scrutiny.
If the judges find Paetongtarn guilty, the verdict would mark a dramatic and historic moment: she would become the third member of the influential Shinawatra family to be removed from office. Her father, Thaksin Shinawatra, was ousted in the 2006 military coup, and her aunt, Yingluck Shinawatra, was stripped of power by the Constitutional Court in 2014 — just weeks before another coup followed.
Somkid, who has been tasked with calming jittery coalition partners and the wider public, dismissed a flurry of rumours that Pheu Thai was preparing a massive 2-billion-baht fund to sway MPs’ votes should the court hand down an unfavourable ruling. “This is just speculation,” he said, according to reports. “The coalition numbers remain unchanged. If the ruling is negative, we will vote for Chaikasem Nitisiri, another Pheu Thai candidate. If positive, the government continues as usual. The government is not concerned.”
Chaikasem Nitisiri — a former attorney-general — was the third nominee put forward by Pheu Thai when the coalition government was first assembled. Somkid underlined that Chaikasem is ready to step into the breach if necessary, and that such a contingency would not destabilise the wider coalition.
More bluntly, Somkid brushed off the idea that Pheu Thai would suddenly splurge cash to buy loyalty. “Buying votes is something people might consider, but cannot execute,” he said. He also argued that even if smaller parties such as Bhumjaithai tried to present a rival candidate, they would struggle to make any headway without Pheu Thai’s backing. “There’s no reason to switch sides,” Somkid insisted. “Do you think the People’s Party would support them? And even if they did, would it be sufficient? The risk is too high.”
The secretary-general also indicated that talk of a coalition dinner to reaffirm alliances hasn’t yet moved beyond the suggestion stage, though party whips are in regular contact as they coordinate on legislation. Rather than relying on last-minute charm offensives or big spending, Somkid said he believes the government’s longevity will be decided by its performance: deliver results, and you retain support.
Looking further ahead, Somkid predicted the next general election would likely be held before May 2027 — a timeline he framed as more dependent on political reality than on courtroom theatrics. And for those still whispering about the mythical 2-billion-baht plot, he had a parting bit of homespun advice: “Save your money, instead, for your children’s snacks.”
The scene around this case has been part high-stakes constitutional drama, part political theater. Paetongtarn’s decision to stay at Government House while her legal team faces the judges is a calculated, symbolic move: show unity, keep the party visible, and avoid the spectacle of a leader entering a courtroom under suspension. Whether that strategy will sway public opinion or calm coalition nerves remains to be seen.
Tomorrow’s ruling will not only determine Paetongtarn’s immediate political fate but could also reshape the tenor of Thai politics in the months ahead. For now, Pheu Thai is presenting a composed front, Somkid is telling supporters to keep their wallets closed, and the nation waits for the court to complete its deliberations.
Photo of Somkid Chueakong courtesy of Thai PBS World via Line Today. Photo of Chaikasem Nitisiri courtesy of The Nation.
Watching from Government House is smart politics; it reduces the drama but signals control. It looks like a staging move to show unity without risking arrest or spectacle. I think it’s more optics than substance, but it might calm some allies.
That ‘control’ is performative and cowardly to me — if you believe in your innocence go to the court. This is the kind of political theater that erodes trust in institutions. Staying behind closed doors looks like hiding from accountability.
Why can’t she just go? Are judges scary? I don’t get why Government House is safer. It feels like a school play where the lead hides backstage.
Sam, it’s not about fear of judges but about optics and security protocols when duties are suspended. Also, being flanked by MPs shows solidarity and keeps the government functioning. It’s a calculated move, not necessarily cowardice.
Anyone who thinks there wasn’t a 2-billion-baht whisper is naive; Thai politics has a long history of money changing hands. Even if Somkid says ‘save your money’, that doesn’t mean deals aren’t happening behind closed doors. The timing and party discipline smell like incentives.
Allegations without hard proof are dangerous; we should focus on the court’s evidence not gossip. Accusations fuel polarization and distract from the legal questions at hand. If there is corruption, show receipts.
Money politics is real, but sometimes claims are used to delegitimize opponents. I want transparency: public campaign finance reporting and stronger penalties would reduce this endless suspicion. Right now everyone assumes the worst.
Narin, Alex, transparency is the right answer but the reality is messy and opaque. Until we get better disclosure, suspicion will persist when power and cash converge. Somkid’s quips about snacks won’t cut it.
If the Constitutional Court removes Paetongtarn it will be a seismic event with clear historical echoes, especially given her family’s past. The legal standard and the court’s reasoning will set an important precedent for political speech and transnational contacts. Observers should parse the written judgment closely for reasoning, not just the outcome.
As a constitutional scholar I agree: the court’s written opinion will be the lasting artifact that scholars and lawyers cite. Watch for how they interpret ‘ethical standards’ and whether they frame this as personal misconduct or a broader national-security concern. That distinction matters for future officeholders.
Exactly, Dr. Park — the distinction you mention will influence whether the decision is seen as a targeted political strike or a principled enforcement of ethics. Media summaries may miss those nuances, so experts will need to explain the legal tests used.
So courts decide like referees? Cool, I like that analogy.
This is a clear attack on the Shinawatras again; it’s how powerful interests keep their grip. The family has been targeted repeatedly and now it’s happening to Paetongtarn. People should be angry about the pattern, not just one phone call.
Accusations of a conspiracy are convenient but circular. Pointing to ‘patterns’ doesn’t explain wrongdoing if there was misconduct. We should demand evidence rather than conspiracy narratives.
Tom, evidence has often been buried or manipulated in the past; skepticism of the processes is understandable. Still, I agree that independent verification is crucial — that’s why civil society and international observers matter.
Courts in politicized environments rarely have clean hands, and this looks like one of those cases. The suspension itself is legally allowed but politically explosive, and the result will have ripple effects on coalition stability. Watch for backroom horse-trading after the verdict.
Horse-trading is already happening behind closed doors; claiming it’s not would be naive. The coalition’s rhetoric about ‘performance’ sounds more like damage control than a plan to govern effectively.
Ben, it’s important to separate speculation from documented exchanges. Scholars and journalists should monitor parliamentary votes and public records for any anomalies post-ruling. That’s the best way to catch actual bargaining.
Even if deals are struck, the public backlash could be severe and destabilizing. People are tired of elite switching and impunity; a perceived theft of democracy would bring protests and uncertainty.
Don’t underestimate small party math. Bhumjaithai and others have leverage and can upend plans if they want to, especially around ministries and budgets.
Marco, precisely — small parties can be kingmakers, and that’s why Somkid’s calm is partly posturing. The real action is in budget allocations and ministry promises, not speeches about snacks.
Paetongtarn staying at Government House could be smart crisis management: keep messaging tight, protect the leader, and avoid creating martyrs. It also preserves a command center for immediate policy responses if needed.
Ananya, command center or command performance? It’s both, and perception will drive whether this stabilizes or inflames supporters. Calm messaging can backfire if people smell insincerity.
Fair point — authenticity matters. If the party can couple presence with tangible policy wins, it might shore up support rather than just theatrics.
This case is a textbook example of the intersection of constitutional law, party politics, and personal networks. The broader implication is how constitutional mechanisms are used to resolve political disputes, potentially substituting legal outcomes for electoral competition. Academics will be parsing this for years.
I was thinking the same — the judiciary’s role as arbiter can either strengthen institutions or be perceived as weaponized, depending on consistency. Comparative cases in the region will be instructive.
Exactly, Priya. Consistent application of standards and transparent reasoning are what protect judicial legitimacy; anything less feeds narratives of bias.
As a local voter, I’m tired of big drama and no answers. Whether she watches on TV or sits in court, we still want roads, hospitals, and jobs. The performance matters less than outcomes for ordinary people.
But politics shapes policy — if the government collapses you might lose those things. Stability sometimes requires compromises, even if they’re unsightly. Pragmatism beats purity in governance.
True, SomkidFan, but there should be accountability alongside pragmatism. Compromises shouldn’t mean tolerating corruption or unaccountable power.
The precedent is worrying: will future leaders be scared of any contact with foreigners? The court’s message may chill diplomatic and regional engagement. That could be bad for policy and ASEAN relations.
If leaders are calling foreign strongmen, that is worrying too. There’s a line between diplomacy and cozying up to controversial figures, and the optics are bad for sovereignty concerns. We shouldn’t normalize blurred loyalties.
Brian, the nuance matters — engaging with neighbors is normal but secretive or personal deals with foreign powerbrokers are different. Transparency in contacts would help.
Ava and Brian raise twin concerns about diplomacy and ethics. The court may try to craft a ruling that condemns private, potentially compromising contacts without hampering official diplomacy, but that’s a narrow path to walk.
Is she guilty? My teacher said judges should be fair but news looks messy. I just want to know if the country will be okay after this.
Justice isn’t instant — the court will issue reasoning and then politicians respond. Whether you’re worried or hopeful, pay attention to parliamentary votes and the written decision to understand the legal basis. Institutions will determine the next steps.
Thanks Chaikasem, that helps. I hope adults figure it out and don’t fight in the streets.