When a political rumour spreads faster than a Bangkok monsoon, someone’s bound to grab an umbrella — or, in this case, a megaphone. The Pheu Thai Party has emphatically stomped on whispers that it plans to name former coup leader and ex-prime minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha as its next candidate for premier. The party’s secretary-general, Sorawong Thienthong, told reporters bluntly that the speculation is pure fiction: “We’ve never considered Prayut for any role. This didn’t come from us.”
A denial, not a detour
The buzz about a political U-turn — an unlikely reconciliation between Pheu Thai and the Bhumjaithai Party, which once sat in coalition but now sits in opposition — was enough to set off alarm bells. Pheu Thai’s message, however, was crystal clear: no deal, no nomination, no reunion. Sorawong labelled the story fake news and made sure there was no ambiguity about the party’s stance.
Backing their suspended leader
Far from preparing a pivot toward Prayut, Pheu Thai reaffirmed its full support for its suspended leader, Paetongtarn Shinawatra. Her political fate is now in the hands of the Constitutional Court, which is due to hand down a decision on August 29 in an ethics case tied to a controversial leaked audio clip.
Paetongtarn has been suspended from duty since July 1 after a complaint lodged by a group of senators. The allegations stem from a private phone call — leaked on June 18 — in which she is said to have criticised a Thai military commander and sought to reassure former Cambodian prime minister Hun Sen about a sensitive border dispute. The leak arrived as tensions along the Thai-Cambodian border were rising, magnifying both scrutiny and suspicion.
Sorawong insists the party has no contingency plan in case Paetongtarn is ousted. “She will be at the hearing on Thursday — her 39th birthday,” he said, noting his belief in her innocence and voicing confidence that the court will base its ruling strictly on facts and evidence. There was a quiet defiance in that remark: even amid the storm of allegations and leaks, Pheu Thai appears determined to stand by its chosen leader.
The transparency tug-of-war
As Paetongtarn prepares to face the Constitutional Court, calls for openness are growing louder. Former senator Somchai Sawangkarn and lawyer Nitithorn Lamlua have urged that the hearings be broadcast live, arguing that public trust in the process hinges on seeing and hearing the testimony in real time. Somchai went so far as to warn National Security Council Secretary-General Chatchai Bangchuad not to shield Paetongtarn in ways that might compromise national security — a tense reminder that perceptions of secrecy can be as damaging as the allegations themselves.
“This hearing should be made public. People want to hear the truth first-hand,” Somchai told reporters. “If the proceedings are televised, the public will see for themselves whether the testimony is honest.” It’s a familiar refrain in democracies wrestling with transparency: the belief that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that televised hearings can tamp down conspiracies and rumours faster than any official statement.
Political theatre and the real stakes
There’s a theatrical element to politics in Thailand — grand gestures, dramatic allegations, and midnight leaks that set the news cycle alight. But beyond the spectacle sit real consequences: the stability of a government, the management of a sensitive international border, and the careers of young political figures trying to carve out legitimacy in a turbulent arena.
For Paetongtarn, this is both a personal and political crucible. She faces not only legal judgment but the court of public opinion — and the pressure-cooker environment of a country where political loyalties and rivalries don’t cool quickly. For Pheu Thai, standing firmly behind their leader is a calculated move: it signals unity to supporters and pushes back against what the party calls misinformation aimed at destabilising their camp.
What to watch next
- August 29: The Constitutional Court’s ruling — will the court base its decision on hard evidence, or will accusations of political bias persist?
- Transparency demands: Will the court allow live broadcasts of the testimony, and if so, how will televised proceedings shape public perception?
- Border tensions: How will any fallout affect relations with Cambodia, especially in the wake of the leaked phone call?
- Coalition dynamics: If the rumours persist, could they inadvertently reshape alliances — or will Pheu Thai’s categorical denials put an end to the chatter?
Politics in Thailand rarely lacks drama. But for now, Pheu Thai has drawn a line in the sand: no Prayut, full support for Paetongtarn, and a demand that justice — and perhaps a little daylight — decide the next chapter. Whether that’s enough to calm the storm outside remains to be seen.
Photo courtesy of Thai Newsroom
If Pheu Thai really named Prayut I’d be shocked, but I also wouldn’t be surprised by the political theatre. Standing by Paetongtarn makes sense electorally, but the court decision could blow this wide open.
Prayut reappearing with Pheu Thai is a nightmare scenario for democracy, that’s why these rumours spread so fast. The military-linked figures still have too much influence behind the scenes.
I think the party saying ‘no’ loudly is smart PR, but actions speak louder than denials. If they try anything shady later, trust will evaporate quickly.
Exactly — talk is cheap. If Pheu Thai really wanted to calm people they should push for full transparency at the hearing and let the public decide.
But will the court actually allow televised hearings? The pressure from elites can easily keep things behind closed doors, and that scares me.
Rumours like this often test alliances. Bhumjaithai might be baiting Pheu Thai to react publicly and fracture their base, don’t fall for it.
Televised hearings are essential for legitimacy; secrecy breeds conspiracy theories and further destabilises trust in institutions. The people deserve to witness the process firsthand.
Public hearings improve accountability but can also politicise judicial processes, especially under intense media framing. The challenge is balancing openness with fair trial safeguards.
I agree transparency is valuable, but live broadcasts risk turning testimony into theatre and pressuring witnesses. There should be strict rules to avoid grandstanding.
Honestly, a live feed would either reveal the truth or expose the circus, and both outcomes are better than mystery.
Prayut should stay out of civilian politics forever. Military leaders returning to power under any banner is a step backward for Thailand.
You say that, but many voters are tired of instability and might prefer a strongman image for ‘order.’ It’s naive to assume elections alone fix deeper fractures.
Sounds like grown-up stuff, but to me it’s simple: people want safety, not chaos. If Prayut promises that, some will vote him back.
The Constitutional Court’s impartiality will be scrutinised regardless of the verdict, which highlights long-term institutional credibility issues. This is a test case for judicial independence in a politically charged environment.
Spot on. The court must apply the law cleanly, and explanations for its reasoning must be thorough to reduce perceptions of bias. Precedent now shapes future political adjudication.
But who’s going to hold the court accountable if elites influence outcomes? Public pressure helps, but it’s an uphill battle when power networks are entrenched.
Lawyers calling for televised hearings isn’t just theatre — it’s a practical demand to rebuild trust. Transparency puts constraints on behind-the-scenes bargaining.
Sometimes I think legal arguments are just smoke while real power games happen in coffee shops and backrooms, not courtrooms.
This feels personal; Paetongtarn is a young woman under attack by old guard tactics. Gendered criticism and leaks are a tactic to undermine legitimacy.
Absolutely, female leaders often face harsher scrutiny and rumor campaigns. The timing of the leak smells coordinated to me.
We must be careful not to reduce every political attack to sexism alone; evidence and context matter, but I agree gendered double standards exist.
The border tensions with Cambodia make this more dangerous than a domestic scandal; any misstep could inflame nationalism and military posturing. That leaked call isn’t just gossip, it’s geopolitics.
Right, the regional implications are huge. If the court acts unfairly, it could push rivals to use the border dispute to rally support, which is risky.
Plus, Hun Sen’s mention heightens sensitivity. Even private chats can be weaponised to question loyalty or competence in foreign affairs.
Pheu Thai’s categorical denial may be sincere, but it’s also a strategic choice to maintain coalition discipline and voter confidence. Political signaling matters as much as legal outcomes.
Indeed, political parties often double down under pressure to avoid appearing weak. This could strengthen internal cohesion even if it increases short-term polarisation.
Good point — signalling can rally the base, but it risks alienating centrists if seen as dogmatic. Political capital isn’t infinite.
Their gamble is visible: back the leader loudly and risk everything on a legal win. If they lose, the fallout could be catastrophic for their coalition.
Why is it always leaks and secrets? Can’t politicians just be honest or talk openly? This drama is exhausting for younger voters.
Young voters crave transparency, but politics has always used secrecy as leverage. The push for live hearings is partly a response to that generational demand.
If nothing else, these episodes teach us how fragile trust is and how quickly it can be weaponised.
Broadcasting the hearing might make people feel better, but it could also inflame emotions and feed partisan media narratives. There’s no perfect solution.
Better an imperfect public airing than opaque decisions that breed conspiracy. At least televised proceedings allow citizens to judge for themselves.
I worry about misinterpretation though. Clips get taken out of context and shared with inflammatory captions, so responsible media coverage is crucial.
We should also watch how other parties react; if Bhumjaithai keeps sowing doubt, coalition dynamics could shift dramatically regardless of the court ruling.
Rumours often test party cohesion. If Pheu Thai withstands this without offering alternatives, that’s a show of strength to both supporters and rivals.
Or it could be a trap: deny now, pivot later. Political memory is short; leaders have been betrayed before for power.
Fake news claims are now automatic political defense. Saying ‘it’s fake’ doesn’t fix the narrative once it’s out there. Damage control is reactive and rarely sufficient.
That’s why evidence and open hearings matter. You can’t just label something fake and move on without addressing the root claims publicly.
Agreed, a proactive approach would involve transparency and rapid disclosure, not just denials.
Politics in Thailand is a long game of alliances and betrayals. Today’s denials could be tomorrow’s compromise; watch the subtler moves behind headlines.
Seasoned perspective. Political actors often leave breadcrumbs in public statements that hint at future bargaining positions.
I just hope this doesn’t distract from policy issues voters care about, like the economy and healthcare. Personality politics is exhausting.
As someone outside Thailand, this looks messy and fragile, and it worries me for regional stability. International partners will be watching closely.
External actors already pay attention; reputational damage can affect investment and diplomacy, so the stakes are real beyond domestic headlines.
True — a perception of instability can ripple out and influence foreign policy calculations in ASEAN and beyond.