March 26, 2025: From news and social media headlines, the just-ended censure is a triumph of rhetoric over real information.
Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra expectedly won the vote, and the taunts she had received over the past few days in Parliament were not more extraordinary than what she normally got during non-censure times. That she said she “enjoyed” the experience might seem like a counterpunch or an attempt to paper over some pains, but it did reflect what others are also feeling, which was that the censure was easier for her than expected.
There was no solid punch. The price she had to pay is that some rhetorical labelling might stick, which is normal. Good news is that they did not hit her with earth-shattering, irrefutable information like when the past opposition attacked governments with the Sor Por Kor scandal (new, informative and impactful at the time) or the Bangkok Bank of Commerce controversy (which played a big role against an administration).
Tax-dodging allegations may have made headlines, but even hardline conservatives, as of now, are not getting formidable ammunition from them. Other charges are mostly what the Thai public already knew and the accusations have just been spiced up by political rhetoric.
Prawit Wongsuwan, the Palang Pracharath leader, has arguably emerged a strange “winner”, in that he may be the only one not feeling “awkward” in Parliament. Pheu Thai, the People’s Party and other conservative camps, for obvious reasons, had to worry about ideological paradoxes but he did what he was supposed to do: Attacking a leader of a party that he always fought against.
Another Shinawatra, another tax question
March 25, 2025: It all sounds very familiar, the prime minister and her tax issue.
What a shock! But, to be fair, her father legally got away with a far-bigger question. (Although politically, tax questions came back to converge with other problems leading to street protests and finally a military coup.)
Paetongtarn Shinawatra’s legal manoeuvring regarding her taxes did not involve the use of servants’ names in highly-suspicious share transfers and a sale of one big corporate leading to a tax-free income of tens of billions of baht.
The money involved, while jaw-dropping for man on the street, is relatively less than when Thaksin was the prime minister.
Tax scandals come with the territory in politics. Not just in Thailand, but in the most sophisticated democracies as well.
When it comes to taxation, rich people or wealthy entrepreneurs always find a way. But while whatever schemes they cook work for them when payment is concerned, those in the political sphere will have to deal with feelings of the general public, and the most important thing Paetongtarn has to realise is that if or when the electorate “taxes” her, no “legal” logic will be used.
In other words, how much she has to pay “legally” to the tax authorities is determined by them, but how much she has to pay “politically” is determined by the voters, who don’t care if the legal explanation is right or wrong.
Freak show begins
March 24, 2025: Frenemies turning against one another. Conniving rivals "joining hands". Knives in the back everywhere. Old news, but welcome to the latest sequel anyway.
Thailand’s Romance of the Three Kingdoms is far from over, but it’s entering a crucial chapter, one which can lead to yet another freakish phenomenon on the streets. The no-confidence debate will be a grand spectacle because the absurdity will again pan out on the parliamentary floor, but the real intrigue may come later, in the form of popular demonstrations that could bring together those analysts had believed would never be together.
Conservatives against conservatives is on show at the national assembly. So is Pheu Thai against the People’s Party.
It is weird, right? But wait until you see what can possibly happen outside Parliament.
As of now, sit back and enjoy the show.
Disney declines against worst backdrop possible
March 23, 2025: Either Snow White’s timing is bad or Ne Zha 2’s timing is good. Or it could be the combination of the two.
One has reached the top five of the Hollywood-dominated all-time grossing table, shattering all the financial records and raking in positive international reviews and global marvel. The other is struggling to escape from the label of being the worst theatrical phenomenon unravelling before everyone’s eyes.
One has been rated 8.2 on IMDB. The other has scored 2.3. (As of noon today. The numbers have been changing constantly but you get the idea.)
One has drummed up massive nationalism and promoted previously-unknown cultures. The other has been accused of destroying a much-loved origin and deepened national divide.
One cost $80 million to make, becoming one of the most profitable movies of all time with its nearly $2.1 billion earning (as of today). The other’s budget is beyond $200 million and the makers are being very nervous with emergency meetings and promotional campaigns reportedly taking place at a scale rarely known before, needing more money.
One talks about trying to overcome being demonised and beating back heavenly destiny. The other preaches female empowerment, but the power of innocence, the intriguing and unique charm of fragility, and fairy-tale kindness gave way to modern-day political strength in the process.
One is a demon child movie that has become a real-life fairy tale. The other is a fairy-tale princess movie that has become a real-life nightmare, due largely to the fact that the childhood concept of romance is gone.
One has been unheard of, coming out of nowhere to wow the world. The other has long been known because it courted one controversy after another from Day One, yet the world was expectant, thanks to the popular name-tag on the lips of all families around the world.
One is from China, which has no business up there near the summit of the lifetime box office. The other is from an American company that Snow White (the original) gave birth to.
Will PM smile or cry her way out of censure?
March 22, 2025: Face-reading experts will work overtime when the no-confidence session draws to a close. With numerical results never in doubt, how Paetongtarn Shinawatra behaves at the end of the tough forum will determine who wins.
The opposition says she will definitely shed tears. The government says the former is just bluffing, because its (the opposition’s) hand is “empty”. There have been no signs that information will triumph over rhetoric for either side, therefore winning and losing will be measured by how she looks after the debate.
Giggling. Or forced smiles. Or downright long face. Or public tears. Any of them is more important than the votes.
When Banharn Silapa-archa and Chavalit Yongchaiyudh were prime ministers, censure rattled them regardless of how many MPs voted for or against. What was said on the parliamentary floor effectively cemented negative impressions, meaning the opposition lost the battles but won the wars, setting the stage for an eventual government collapse.
The current opposition can create the same impact but the clock will be ticking as soon as the debate starts, because everything is pointing toward little or no extra time.
Snow White star as divisive as the man she decried
March 21, 2025: Mirror, Mirror on the wall, who has divided them all? Rachel Zegler, of course.
With Snow White arriving in Thailand, so have the taunts and acclaim that have been divided along ideological lines elsewhere.
Mainstream Thai reviewers are receptive. If they criticised, they did it mildly and tried to balance flaws with positives. Their counterparts on the social media are bolder if they don’t like it, echoing overseas critics who said childhood elements which made Snow White so great for kids were gone.
At the epicenter of the admiration and virtual trashing is Zegler, whose selection as the main character courted controversy from Day One. There was so much debate on how Snow White should look and how a fairy-tale princess should stay away from politics.
Zegler took to Instagram after Donald Trump was elected over Kamala Harris, saying the election result left her “speechless” and “heartbroken”. The actress also said she hoped “Trump supporters and Trump voters and Trump himself may never know peace.”
That did to her more than the poisoned apple did to Snow White. A lot of Republicans _ media and ordinary people alike _ would never let her know peace. Many Democrats love her, of course.
Zegler did apologise for her public remark, saying “hatred and anger have caused us to move further and further away from peace and understanding.” It was not without stating a right to express one’s opinion, though.
Anti-Zegler YouTube clips drew millions of views and counting. They did not only crucify her, but also slammed the whole movie. Some say they were rooting for the poisoned apple. Others say it’s not every day that a wicked queen in a fairy tale is actually more beautiful than a harassed princess, referring to “Wonder Woman” Gal Gadot who is the one who asked the Mirror in Snow White.
One says the movie should come with a disclaimer: “No dwarf is harmed in the making of this film, but childhood might.”
Training days
March 20, 2025: The upcoming censure is billed as a government on probation versus a fledging opposition. That sounds true in many aspects, but, jokes aside, the no-confidence debate is a real crossroads, one that can either really lead to political maturity or is heading back to Square One.
Both sides have so much to prove. The much-taunted prime minister will have to show she is out of her father’s shadows, or an image of a daddy’s little girl needing a lot of help will be cemented. The opposition will have to demonstrate that, despite the relatively-young ages, they will not be lured into playing old-fashioned politics without knowing it.
Tentatively, time allocation goes like this: The opposition will get 28 hours, as opposed to seven hours for the government side. The meeting chairpersons get approximately two hours to speak, and one hour each day is set aside for protests (Two days mean two hours in total.).
Many analysts doubt two days are enough for the debate, as protests alone can easily last more than one hour a day.
Due to serious political divide, gone are the days when no-confidence sessions featured hard-hitting information in the forms of documents or statistics, and rhetoric was used to support, not lead, them. And even so, censure had flaws in the past, and political games often blurred or erased the benefits that the Thai public were supposed to get.
Political divide is bad. Add perceived immaturity and the training days are extremely crucial.
People's Party and Prawit fighting side by side will be pure spectacle
March 19, 2025: Ironic political alliances are never in short supply in Thailand, but that doesn’t mean they can’t take it to the next level at the upcoming censure debate.
Palang Pracharath leader Prawit Wongsuwan will speak at the censure, as an opposition representative. He will do that alongside the MPs who had sworn to bring him down not so long ago.
People’s Party MPs will far outnumber Palang Pracharath counterparts at the debate, scheduled to take place in a few days, but Prawit will be star attraction.
Each party may pretend the other does not exist, but that will be a spectacle in itself.
How will he behave? What will he say (He knows a lot, doesn’t he?)? What will the People’s Party do? Will he be taunted by government MPs? Will the ruling coalition be able to distract attention from Paetongtarn and Thaksin Shinawatra to Prawit Wongsuwan and Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut?
Will Prawit and Natthaphong decry the “freak” government coalition? Will they hit them back by saying the opposition is also a freak? What if the People's Party mentions the "14th Floor" controversy and the government's response is "Why don't you ask the guy sitting next to you over there?"
It will be, to quote a song in Moulin Rouge!, “Spectacular, spectacular!”
They can't be serious!
March 18, 2025: Innocents are “justifiably” killed in this world and a man got $50 million for hot tea spilled on his lap.
There are three types of justice systems on earth. The first is an infamy, one that favours the rich and is biased against the poor. The second one is idealistic and rare, one that encapsulates the legendary Judge Bao’s Kaifeng Court.
The third one is a joke.
Lessons from South Korea
March 17, 2025: Many think of late Kim Sae-ron as a victim, but they should pity themselves as much. There are several things to be learned from the South Korean movie industry’s biggest and snowballing scandal, and the most valuable lesson is that any image _ any image at all _ can be hugely deceptive.
Kim Soo-hyun is all but finished. Just days ago, he was South Korea’s most popular, most expensive, most bankable and most adored actor. Not just in South Korea, but also globally. Now lucrative contracts are being cancelled left and right, at least one TV programme has edited him out, hostile online comments are cascading down in the millions, and many are justifiably fearing that such enormous pressure would make him take his own life.
Actress Kim Sae-ron took hers earlier, on his birthday. Both used to be romantically involved secretly, but a big part of the scandal concerns whether the relationship began when she was a minor. A drunk-driving accident which caused damage to properties and businesses destroyed her career in the entertainment industry. It led to massive compensation rulings that his “Gold Medalist” agency helped paid for “in advance” but later demanded that she paid the whole sum back.
(She reportedly had helped him train new actors at Gold Medalist and received nothing in return financially.)
She became extremely depressed by that Gold Medalist payment demand plus Kim Soo-hyun’s absolute silence when she texted him saying that paying his company back all in one go was impossible because she was losing her jobs due to social and professional boycotts after the drunk driving.
She committed suicide on his birthday in February. At that time, it looked like it had nothing to do with him. He remained as popular as ever, and movies and series still gracing Netflix. Then, bit by bit, shocking stories came out.
"From now on, every time he celebrates his birthday, he will remember her," said a Thai psychiatrist on TV. A widely-circulated catchphrase on the social media is "Good men only exist in TV series."
Now, many of the same people who condemned her after the road accident are condemning him. His backgrounds and past interviews, which were “cute” and “heartfelt” formerly, are being scrutinised inside and out, and now critics say they have detected signs of serious cold-hearted narcissistic pedophilia. Secret photos are also being released by her family.
If bad comes to worst, or if he was deemed to have violated the law for having a relationship with a minor and gaslighting her, causing her to kill herself, he might even end up in jail.
If Kim Soo-hyun’s real personality is the opposite of his projected image (he used to be called “the national husband”, meaning he was a model man that any woman should marry), it will be just a tip of the iceberg. Alleged manipulations are no different from accusations involving Thailand’s iCon Group or “people’s lawyer” Sittra Biabunkerd or alleged bitcoin scammers in nice suits in extravagant website ads or smiling down on commuters from flashy advertisement signs at intersections.
It goes up to high governmental or religious levels. If some actors, lawyers or start-up business people can project false images so convincingly, imagine what those with greater propaganda tools at their disposal can do.
Absolute no way back into love
March 16, 2025: If the Pheu Thai-People’s Party bridges have been burnt, two dynamites have been thrown into them for certainty.
The first dynamite was the People’s Party’s determination to make Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra suffer at the no-confidence debate. It has decided to single her out and would surely find a way to crucify her father Thaksin Shinawatra at the censure despite the House speaker’s stern warning against mentioning a “third party” at the forum.
The second dynamite was Thaksin’s suggestion a few days ago that that if he was a “scaffolding” to Pheu Thai, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit was also the same to the People’s Party.
The People’s Party is hitting Thaksin where it hurts, his daughter. Likewise, he is hitting the party where it hurts, Thanathorn.
And Thaksin would normally avoid slamming the People’s Party in public. Until a few days ago, of course, amid the showdown between the party and the House speaker over how the censure motion should be written.
Asked to comment on charges that he was a “scaffolding” intended to help solidify the government of his daughter, Thaksin smirked. “I wonder if they consulted the founder of the Future Forward Party about making this a political issue,” he said.
Clarify that, please, reporters, as if they did not know what he meant, demanded politely.
“(I mean) What about the Lamphun PAO chief? Is there someone helping him? You guys (reporters) had better calm down,” Thaksin said. He was referring to the Provincial Administrative Organisation election in Lamphun which was won by a candidate backed by Thanathorn’s political movement.
It’s apparently more profound than just the Thanathorn-Lamphun reference. Thaksin was effectively telling the People’s Party that political hypocrisy could come back to bite anyone. The public mention of Thanathorn and Lamphun is not as hard-hitting as what was between the lines. Thaksin was implying that if he was important to Pheu Thai, Thanathorn was also important to the People’s Party, so what happens to the ideology against “political persecution”?
What Thaksin might be thinking but did not say out loud: “I thought you of all people would understand. My name in the motion? Come on.”
It should set a standard
March 15, 2025: Has FA Thailand President Nualphan Lamsam just showed the country what needs to be done?
The push of the president of the Football Association of Thailand (FA Thailand) for legal action against predecessor Somyot Poompanmoung is unheard of. And while her “exposure” of Somyot is not unprecedented, it is rare, and it does not follow the bad tradition of hurling wild accusations that were hard to prove and would fade with time.
The attacks on Somyot requires clear-cut rebuttals from the accused. It will be not just her words against his, but also her records against his. Everything she said is on the official financial books, so it will be hard to invoke the popular-yet-notorious “Where are the receipts? response from the opposite side.
In countries like Thailand, where enemies take turn at the corridors of power, the kind of exposure Nualphan has introduced is useful when transparency is concerned. To unearth corruption, following money trails is important, and who are in the best positions to access, publicize or question suspicious money trails? The successors who come from the rival camps, of course.
Somyot has verbally denied suggestions that a lot of money was suspiciously earned and questionably overspent. But due to the bombshell nature of Nualphan’s “exposure”, his “denials” will have to be accompanied by reliable financial statements.
Fiercely cutthroat as it is, the Thai politics is anything but when it comes to corruption. Let bygones be bygones is the order of the day when enemies manage to take over. They are happy just to have won power and things that were buried under the rugs usually remain under the rugs.
Successors exposing predecessors with hard evidence is the way it should be. It will not only be for transparency’s sake, but it will also make everyone think twice before doing anything fishy, knowing that his or her successor will always find out and talk about it. And when the “exposure” happens, the accused has to be ready, because allegations are coming from the ones who know best.
Some may say fears of being found out and exposed could give the bad guys even more motivations to hold on to power. That assumption, however, is an insult to democracy, isn’t it? If democracy keeps electing bad people, what’s the point of it? In other words, good democracy should find a way to deal with them.
Trump the inspirer
March 14, 2025: After “Canadiano”, what’s next? “Europeano”? “Bangkokiano”? Use your creativity, and thank the motivator.
Donald Trump’s tariff policies are wreaking havoc on both friends and foes of America alike. The Canadians have struck back first, with some baristas renaming “Americano” as “Canadiano”. It’s a response that has been generally met with chuckles, but the White House should take it seriously.
“The (Canadian) move recalls, ironically, the long American tradition of rechristening food that bears the name of any country it happens to be miffed with,” the Indian Express said in an opinion piece.
The article mentioned the rebranding of French fries as “freedom fries” following France’s opposition to the invasion of Iraq proposed by the US in early 2003.
Meanwhile, Hollywood must be extremely busy this year because Ne Zha 2, a Chinese animation, is breaking into the top five of all-time box office. It’s a huge deal, as the prestigious top 100 had been totally dominated by English-speaking movies, mostly from America, for a long, long time.
Now, Ne Zha 2, in Thai theatres at the moment and about to belatedly wow European viewers, trails only Avatar (1st), Avengers: Endgame (2nd), Avatar: The Way of Water (3rd) and Titanic (4th) at the global box office summit. Due to limited screenings and promotions overseas, being fifth should be the best Ne Zha 2 can do, analysts say.
The newest sequel of Avatar is expected to come out this year, and will try to erase the embarrassment of Hollywood’s Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens losing the fifth spot to Ne Zha 2.
After all, having a Chinese film on fifth of the international grossing table is like an Apple showroom having a Samsung poster at the entrance. It should never happen, as far as Hollywood is concerned.
Seeking court opinion on "honesty" underlines Thai absurdity
March 13, 2025: The Constitutional Court’s thought on how to make political appointments is virtually a slap on the government’s face. Reading between the lines, the judges’ opinion is that "honesty" should be universal, and it’s you who should describe it, not us.
The Paetongtarn government sought the Constitutional Court’s opinion to avoid the kind of political demise that befell former prime minister Srettha Thavisin following the appointment of Phichit Chuenban as PM’s Office minister.
The Court practically told the Paetongtarn government that the Srettha ruling was based on a common sense regarding ethical and honesty standards that a political appointee should possess.
Another virtual message to the Paetongtarn government is that the judges cannot lay down ethical rules on things that have yet to happen.
Which is sensible, because otherwise the court will become the Constitution itself. The court’s duty is to rule if any act is against the will of the Constitution, not tell people what to do.
In short, the judges said don’t ask, because you should all know what honesty means. If not, make an appointment and we will tell you if it is against the constitutional will or not.
Claims against past affairs of Thai FA worth investigating
March 12, 2025: One of the most notorious agencies always flying under the anti-corruption radar is Thailand’s Football Association. Therefore, stories of suspicious activities raised by incumbent FA President Nualphan Lamsam should be investigated immediately.
A serious investigation will not only bring alleged wrongdoers to justice or clear innocent people. It will also significantly deter or even put an end to an absolutely-wrong tradition. It’s a tradition of retiring politicians or senior men in uniforms who have no or little knowledge about football taking over the FA presidency just to make one last big personal profit or bring undeserved glory to their family names.
Most of all, a fair, thorough and transparent investigation will help develop Thai football big time.
An emotional Nualphan told a press conference that she has inherited Bt132 million in debt and Bt360 billion the court has ordered the FA to pay Siam Sports Syndicate. All, she alleged, are results of dubious activities carried out by the previous management led by Pol Gen Somyot Poompanmuang, who was also former commissioner-general of the Thai police.
Her charges, involving business deals or loan deals as well as salary issues, are quite easy to investigate if there is a political will to investigate them. How much Somyot has been paid by the FA and how much money he has supposedly returned to the agency, for example, must be on the official financial records.
Somyot was renowned for his statement made after a big Thai loss in an Asian contest. At that time, he said, “Other people may not be ashamed, but I am.” It was a remark that set the stage for the departure of a well-respected national team coach.
It’s now the whole country’s turn to be ashamed if there is no serious and fair investigation into what happened while he was leading the Thai FA.
Shame if Thaksin tug-of-war undermines no-confidence debate
March 11, 2025: Cue Thaksin Shinawatra and flaws of parliamentary censure are threatening to get out of hand.
The tug-of-war between the House speaker and the People’s Party over whether his name, an “outsider”, could be put in the censure motion has even led to a previously-unthinkable scenario that the current semester of Parliament would end before a no-confidence debate can happen. That is unlikely, but, already, the whole ego war is chipping away at the remaining credibility of one of the key elements of democracy.
Parliamentary censure separates the democratic system from its rivals like authoritarianism. However, for too long, it has generated one political game after another, constantly diluting the sacredness and usefulness of the concept in the process. The latest one concerns House Speaker Wan Muhamad Noor Matha and the People’s Party, the largest political camp currently in the opposition bloc.
First, the former warned against mentioning “a third party” at the censure, and then he directly called for removal of Thaksin’s reference from the censure motion. The People’s Party is balking at that.
The House speaker, Pheu Thai and the government are being accused of trying to abuse the system by preventing or limiting the mentioning of Thaksin at the next censure. The current showdown understandably increases criticism that the ruling camp is “undemocratic” (a normal charge any opposition will raise and any government will face), but the People’s Party also has to take some of the blame.
When Thaksin was considered a “champion of democracy” in the past, among so-called Thai “liberals” and overseas supporters, nobody talked about the fact that he often managed to elude direct censure thanks to solid parliamentary strength. If that was “undemocratic”, it escaped a lot of people’s attention.
But the very people who did not care about it then are caring about it now. It’s an irony that when he got off the hook in the past, “democratic mandate” was cited, and when he is on the verge of getting off the hook again, charges of abuses abound.
No-confidence debate has always been used for political bargain, and every time a motion is submitted, a game begins. Thaksin, known for his dislike of being directly attacked by Parliament when he was prime minister, is always bad news as far as censure is concerned.
However, having said all that, the People’s Party’s insistence on mentioning him in the censure motion, is like a coin: It has two faces.
On the one hand, the party appears to preserve the democratic principle of exposing government wrongdoings at the highest level. On the other hand, it may be contributing to a fuss that can definitely be avoided or ended because it does not serve public interest at all. In other words, the People’s Party is helping a political game that is a big part of why no-confidence debate is losing its sanctity.
For Thailand’s sake, the party can take Thaksin out of the equation and tell the public, without naming him, why it thinks the Paetongtarn government’s policies could promote corruption and would not make Thai lives better.
(Football) ceasefire
March 10, 2025: One of the world’s fiercest sporting rivalries is taking a break for at least 24 hours. Everyone has a draw between Manchester United and Arsenal early Monday morning (Bangkok time) to thank.
The result sent Liverpool, Manchester United’s all-time and biggest enemy, significantly closer to England’s Premier League title with a 15-point lead over Arsenal. Social media channels have been flooded with messages of gratitude (some sincere and others mocking) from jubilant Liverpool fans.
Liverpool-Manchester United fan rivalry is one of the most intense of all sports, let alone football. It is rooted in historic economic and industrial conflicts and periods of dominations, with fans, players and partisan media figures feeding the mutual hate on literally a daily basis. The social media have been amplifying the hateful and irreconcilable relationship.
Some say it’s easier to turn a patriotic Ukrainian into a Russian spy than to make a Liverpool fan become a Manchester United supporter. One pro-Manchester United YouTuber had even joked that he hoped Donald Trump, Volodymyr Zelensky and Europe could raise global tension to the point of worldwide football cancellations so Liverpool’s march toward the Premier League glory can be void.
But the Manchester United-Arsenal result is very meaningful to title-craving Liverpool fans, because when their team won the Premier League title for the first time in 30 years, Covid-19 was wreaking havoc and the trophy had to be lifted in an empty stadium. There was no traditional parade, either.
There are other football fan rivalries worth mentioning. Span’s Real Madrid and Barcelona also have highly-passionate fans who would rather lose their arms than switch allegiance. Argentina has Boca Juniors and River Plate. Scotland has Celtic and Rangers. Italy has Lazio and Roma.
Gloating and bragging rights are the big part of the fandom, but tragedies like mass injuries and horrific deaths frequently occurred. Field invasions are common. It’s difficult to establish what event is the worst in history because there are a lot of bad ones. Since football is played in crowded stadiums, emotional fan rivalry can easily get out of hand.
Having said this, the Liverpool-Manchester United hostility is largely limited to mockery and extreme prejudices. Physical violence on a grand scale is virtually non-existent, partly because the rivalry between the two teams is so widespread that it covers office colleagues, school friends, university buddies and even lovers. The rivalry is in several countries and quite omnipresent in Thailand, which is often referred to as a “capital” of both Liverpool and Manchester United.
The ceasefire will be short-lived, though, as Liverpool and Manchester United resume their European competitions this week.
Opposition can score points without naming anyone
March 9, 2025: Digital Wallet and casino are highly questionable with or without Thaksin Shinawatra. That’s what the People’s Party needs to say at the censure debate.
Actually, it’s much ado about nothing regarding the questions whether Thaksin’s name can be put in the no-confidence motion or whether Thaksin could be mentioned during the parliamentary forum. It’s a showdown of the egos that does not benefit the Thai public at all.
First thing first, Thais don’t need to be told whose shadow is looming over the Pheu Thai Party. They can see it for themselves. From news reports. From his appearance at pro-Pheu Thai rallies. From his attempts to seek court approvals to go on political missions overseas.
Talk about Thaksin at the censure can be a good strategy, but it’s a strategy that only suits the talker, not the Thai people who will get virtually nothing from it.
Secondly, mentioning Thaksin might even raise the question of why a political party advertising itself as a campaigner against political “persecution” all of a sudden has chosen to attack someone wanting to put forth outrageous ideas to “help” Thailand but forced out of play by the system the party decries.
Thirdly and probably most importantly, good policies are good policies. If they serve the public, where they come from does not matter. Likewise, bad policies are bad policies and it does not matter who initiated them.
The People’s Party must forget about the ego fight with the House speaker and concentrate on telling the public why it thinks some major policies of the Paetongtarn government are bad for the country. New politics requires the opposition to do just that and minimise character attacks.
Censure promises protests galore
March 8, 2025: The House speaker’s official warning against talking about Thaksin Shinawatra at the no-confidence debate provides a glimpse of what to come. Censure without mentioning Thaksin Shinawatra is Oscar without megastars’ nominations or among the audience or on the red carpet.
But the lack of a big attraction is not the only thing to worry about. The opposition wants the debate to last several days, yet what is there to speak against the prime minister if you can’t mention her father? One day would be a stretch, let alone four or five days.
And as one news commentator says it, with the House speaker having underlined the don't-talk-about-Thaksin rules, protests and counter-protests will take longer than the actual debate if someone intentionally or accidentally slipped in the taboo name. Even adroit, indirect remarks can cause an hour-long disruption.
While Thai politicians are bad at many things, they are extremely good at protesting on the parliamentary floor.
Torn between two lovers
March 7, 2025: A big subplot in the emerging Romance of the Three Kingdoms, global version, concerns England. A headline in Social Europe, a major digital think tank publisher specialising in European affairs, makes a bold statement: Britain’s Choice: Europe or a Collapsing America.
Here’s the key paragraph of the article, which does not necessarily represent mainstream thinking: “The choice facing the UK, whether it wants to acknowledge it publicly or not, is whether to align with a collapsing American democracy or to be a leading player in the resurgence of Europe.”
The writer of the article, apparently pro-Europe, suggested there was “only one answer.”
The man torn between Europe and America is, of course, Keir Starmer, who knows a Brexit-style referendum on the love triangle is impossible but he has to do something anyway because so much has changed. Everyone wants to keep America invested in European security but nobody knows how much. (Or how much is too much to be more specific.)
It’s a difficult choice. Although we see in a Bridget Jones movie a UK prime minister defying an American leader in public, it’s quite different in real life. The cinematic scene is England doing what it wouldn’t (and probably couldn’t) in reality.
But the UK leader would sooner rather than later have to make up his mind, according to the article. “In the worst-case scenario, if Trump were to begin publicly coercing not just Kyiv but its European allies – for example withdrawing US troops to the 1997 line demanded by Putin – the speed and explicitness of Britain’s European orientation would have to increase,” it said.
Vague, if not dubious; time-consuming if sincere
March 6, 2025: Only one thing is certain: Everyone is scratching his or her head after today’s DSI development.
The announcement by the special case committee of the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) that the agency would investigate only alleged money laundering related to last June’s senatorial election raised more questions than it answered.
How long will it actually take, given the political nature of the case and documents to be needed as supporting evidence or rebuttal evidence, and imminent complaints and petitions, both official and politically-motivated? What if the investigation unearths (alleged) “grey-area” scheming, one which could be defined as both money laundering and political gang-up conspiracies? (More petitions and complaints then.)
What if one day somebody with authority bangs the table and says DSI is a political apparatus which is supervised by the government which comes and goes, meaning the DSI can do one thing today but the exact opposite tomorrow depending on how the political wind blows? Having said this, do we still need “independent” agencies if government-directed organisations are enough when trustworthiness is concerned? (This very issue will wreak havoc among potential charter writers.)
Finally, money laundering is a serious crime. So, does this all mean the names of the accused need to be publicised and those affected will have to suspend their parliamentary activities?
Was political seismic shift behind dress-code uproar?
March 5, 2025: Many think if Volodymyr Zelensky had worn a proper suit, things would have been fine. But what if what looks like a domino effect starting from something so small was in fact part of an inevitable upheaval on the global scale?
Donald Trump certainly does not want to go down in history as the US president serving when an America-backed country loses a war with Russia. He probably thinks a dual rivalry with Russia and China is too much, and thus he has chosen to be friendlier towards Vladimir Putin. And Trump may think more like a businessman (cost-oriented) than a politician when it comes to Europe.
In other words, the global status quo may be undergoing significant changes no matter how Zelensky was dressed. America was going to stop supporting Ukraine and downgrade its ties to NATO anyway. Politically, it’s debatable. Financially, it’s apparently sensible.
Is Trump’s White House giving up on “American leadership” abroad as alleged by some Democrats against the backdrop of his first address to Congress this week? “Giving up” sounds a little harsh. “Muddying” may be more proper. Following US footsteps is not easy nowadays, requiring flip-flopping abilities like never before.
“The American dream is unstoppable,” Trump told Congress. His rivals will say he, not the dream, is unstoppable and not in a nice way.
He has divided America. (To be fair, his opponents have helped him do that.) Now, he appears to take his country away from Europe as well. All the while, the world is unsure if Ukraine should have peace now or it should defeat Russia first.
When Oscar crucifies Israel and White House
March 4, 2025: No Other Land did not just win best documentary. It showed the world that America’s movie industry can defy, at least once in a while, the people who have been allegedly pulling its strings.
Awarding an Oscar to the collaboration between groups of Palestinians and Israelis is not the first act of the industry that challenges the powers-that-be in the United States. To name just a few, JFK questions the lone gunman theory in the John F Kennedy assassination, Casualties of War depicts American cruelty during the Vietnam War, and even Avatar highlights the concept of invasion for the sake of business interest.
But unlike the three examples, non-Hollywood No other Land did not wait for decades or centuries. (Yes, centuries. Avatar reminds us of the Indians, doesn’t it? One Avatar quote, though, deals with something relatively modern and sounds very familiar _ “When people are sittin' on sh** that you want, you make 'em your enemy. Then you're justified in taking it”.) The award-winning documentary, No Other Land, widens fresh wounds and it gets instant recognition that amplifies the pain.
The documentary film chronicles the eviction of Palestinians from their homes in the occupied West Bank, basically telling the story of the continued demolition by Israeli authorities of Masafer Yatta, a collection of villages in the Hebron mountains of the West Bank.
The political and military savagery took place where Basel Adra, one of the directors, lived with his family.
The documentary shows the Israeli government’s attempt to evict the villagers by force. Viewers see a local playground being torn down, the killing of Adra’s brother by Israeli soldiers, and other attacks by Jewish settlers while his community becomes hopeless and scared daily.
The film also shows the human connection between Adra and the film’s other creator, Israeli journalist Yuval Abraham, CNN reported.
While filming for No Other Land wrapped before Hamas attacked Israel in October 2023, prompting Israel to launch its brutal war in Gaza, killing a massive number of innocent children and women, the documentary’s themes are especially “relevant” during a time of heightened conflict in the Middle East, said CNN. It was also a time when America’s foreign policy came under unprecedentedly serious scrutiny.
Accepting the award, victim and director Basel Adra said No Other Land reflects the harsh reality Palestinians have been enduring for decades, according to Al Jazeera.
“About two months ago, I became a father, and my hope to my daughter that she will not have to live the same life I’m living now, always fearing settlers, violence, home demolitions and forcible displacements that my community is living and tasting every day under Israeli occupation,” saidAdra as reported by Al Jazeera.
The network reported about the film’s struggles to find a distributor in the US. Its makers had to arrange for it to have a one-week run at the Lincoln Center in November in order to qualify for the Hollywood-dominated Oscars event.
No Other Land had won the audience award and documentary film award at the Berlin International Film Festival in February 2024, as well as the New York Film Critics Circle award for Best Non-Fiction Film, said Al Jazeera. It added that the film highlights a lot of camcorder footages from Adra’s personal archive, showing Israeli soldiers bulldozing the village school and filling water wells with cement to prevent people from rebuilding.
“Major human rights groups have described the situation as apartheid, an allegation rejected by the Israeli government, which views the West Bank as the historical and biblical heartland of the Jewish people and is opposed to Palestinian statehood,” Al Jazeera said.
The documentary does not romanticize “God-given” land. It’s about human hope to just be able to live safely. The message is not that we have to live on this land because we have divine rights, but that we can’t keep moving on like frightened animals forever.
Europe's pretend fight with America
March 3, 2025: Volodymyr Zelensky is the wife of an abusive husband but will never leave him. Europe is a friend who gives her moral support, but no more and no less.
Donald Trump is the husband, who is telling the friend: “Go ahead and take her in. But you will never be able to give her sustained help. She needs me and you know it.”
Vladimir Putin is her harsh reality, which will only become harsher without the husband.
The friend knows full well the husband is telling the truth. She can comfort the wife, take her to a dinner, or even let her sleep in the guest room for a week or two. More than that and the wife will become an increasing burden.
The friend will condemn the husband, but will never ask her to shoot him or get an immediate divorce, because both women know they can’t live without him.
Why politics has no business in human rights (Part II)
March 2, 2025: Allowing politics in the Uyghur affair is like letting your cat play with a yarn ball and naively expecting the object to remain in the nice original shape afterwards.
We have had America condemn Thailand while turning a blind eye to Israel. (The whole scenario is comparable to a mother crab trying to lecture her children on how to walk straight.) Now, someone has dug up previous UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) internal documents which practically said that potential Chinese wrath should be taken into consideration in the treatment of Uyghurs detained by Bangkok.
According to the New Humanitarian, an independent, non-profit newsroom that has earned a lot of credibility in reports about humanitarian crises around the world, the UNHCR rebuffed requests from the Thai government to assist 48 Uyghur asylum seekers from China who have been detained in poor conditions in Thailand. The New Humanitarian strongly criticised Thailand in its report, but also was critical of how high-level politics in other places was affecting the detainees’ fate.
For years, UNHCR had bemoaned alleged “lack of access” to the detainees. However, the internal UNHCR documents, which date back to 2020, revealed that the Thai government began informally petitioning UNHCR a few years earlier to play a more active role in resolving the Uyghurs’ indefinite detention, and that agency staff advised against doing this.
UNHCR, the New Humanitarian said, has provided life-saving assistance to millions of asylum seekers around the world, but according to a 2023 report by the Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP), China’s growing influence over some host countries undermines “any political or humanitarian will to recognise and duly protect Uyghur refugees”. The internal documents suggested that China’s influence also extended to the UN’s refugee agency.
This is just the Chinese “influence”, mind you. Add other global political influences and the yarn ball can never be restored to its original nobility.
“The documents show that UNHCR has failed to uphold its mandate to protect Uyghur refugees,” one senior human rights activist was quoted as saying. “UNHCR leadership does not seem to be proactively trying to find solutions for the Uyghur refugees who are spending years in detention.”
What one gets from over-reliance on "democracy"
March 1, 2025: Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has learned it the hard way. Relying on democracy is great, as long as it doesn’t cause a swing that is too extreme. When a political upheaval happens in America, it seriously affects his embattled country, to the point of Ukrainians being unable to decide who they should fear more _ Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump.
Joe Biden’s America backed Ukraine to the hilt. Trump’s America is practically branding Zelensky ungrateful and all but angrily chasing him out of Washington. CNN describes the situation as “the most consequential moment in the war since Russia’s invasion.”
From relying heavily on US financial support and hardware _ which was so overwhelming that it enraged American taxpayers themselves _ Zelensky is staring at the real possibility of losing them all and Europe is looking like a bewildered and unsure sidekick of the United States.
Zelensky’s meeting with Trump and Vice President JD Vance at the Whilte House hours ago exploded in a way the diplomatic world had never witnessed before. The heated exchanges came right out of Gladiator movies or films about Roman tyranny when the emperors berated the Senate.
It’s all because of America’s November “democratic” votes that neutralised the Democrats and reinstalled Trump as president. If this is good, praise democracy. If this is bad, blame democracy.
Daily updates of local and global events by Tulsathit Taptim
