Can Pheu Thai continue to straddle the line?
Party also forced to tread carefully as divisions in opinion from within on amnesty bill again rear their ugly head
This time around, the Pheu Thai Party's path as a government is not as smooth as in previous terms. Beyond being a coalition government that must accommodate coalition partners to maintain stability, its populist policies of giveaways and discounts are encountering obstacles. Legal conditions, financial discipline, and concerns from relevant agencies all pose challenges for Pheu Thai.
Several economic policies promised during the election have yet to show signs of coming to fruition, even as the government approaches the remaining two years of its term. Public expectations, reflected in surveys such as those by NIDA Poll, reveal widespread concern over unmet economic promises, potentially undermining the Paetongtarn Shinawatra administration’s ability to continue.
What’s more, the economic challenges that people expect the government to address are now facing additional hurdles. At the same time, Pheu Thai’s attempt to champion an amnesty bill has faced internal division. While Pheu Thai initially took a leading role on this issue, party members expressed varied opinions on the blueprint, with many opposing it due to fears it would lead to pardoning those convicted under Article 112 (the lese majesté law).
At present, Pheu Thai’s stance on this issue is less unified than the People’s Party, which remains firmly committed to advancing amnesty for Article 112 cases. While Pheu Thai’s leaders have publicly opposed amnesty for Article 112, internal disagreements persist within the party.
Some MPs previously charged under Article 112 have their own reasons for insisting on amnesty, arguing that the law has been used as a political tool.
Pheu Thai’s stance on this issue starkly contrasts with that of coalition partners, who are firmly against any amnesty for Article 112 cases.
Pheu Thai is balancing multiple concerns, including preserving support from younger voters thus preventing them from shifting to the People’s Party, and maintaining its coalition status, on which it relies for stability. This delicate balance has left Pheu Thai in a political quagmire, unable to take a decisive stance on amnesty for Article 112 cases.
Further complicating matters are former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s own unresolved issues under Article 112, which forces Pheu Thai to tread carefully. Any strong move in one direction risks alienating various stakeholders.
Consequently, Pheu Thai appears to be maintaining a careful “footwork” strategy, aiming to protect its image without committing fully.
In the next parliamentary session, four amnesty bills will be up for discussion. While it is challenging to push any of these bills through, the issue will at least garner significant public attention, with both sides firmly positioned.
The question remains: will Pheu Thai continue straddling the line, or will it finally take a clear stance on the matter?
