From Earthquake to Political Crisis in Thailand: Instability Threatens the Paethongtarn Government

On March 28, a quake struck Bangkok—but the true tremor threatening Thailand is political. Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra now faces existential risks, including coalition infighting, as this natural disaster has exposed significant cracks in her leadership. The damage presents challenges beyond her control; it jeopardizes the progress of democracy.

The government’s fragility was most visible in its bungled earthquake response, which became a metaphor for broader leadership failures. While 7.7 magnitude quake exposed more than ineffective crisis management; it mirrored Thailand’s institutional rot. The state’s failures—from delayed alerts to rescue gridlock—reflected a system where accountability dissolves between agencies, much like the lax enforcement that doomed the collapsed State Audit Office building. This –presented a significant challenge to public perception of trust and transparency. This event swiftly triggered alarms and sparked extensive conjecture about possible corruption.

Opposition parties took advantage of the situation by connecting the government's inadequate disaster response to ongoing issues, including the Uighur repatriation to China and accusations of , tax evasion against Paetongtarn , specifically her failure to pay a gift tax on shares received as part of her family's distribution of business wealth. These issues became central to a no-confidence vote, which concluded just before the earthquake with 319 out of 488 MPs backing the motion. The opposition now portrays Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra as leading a weakened government. Similarly, Paetongtarn's credibility was further eroded abroad as a result of her foreign policy decisions.Even attempts at mediation under ASEAN’s non-interference principles drew fire, as outreach to Myanmar’s junta reinforced scepticism about the Shinawatra family’s ties to authoritarian regimes. While the government framed its engagement as pragmatic diplomacy—aimed at fostering regional stability—critics saw it as a betrayal of democratic values, further eroding trust at home and abroad.

Coalition Constraints: Infighting and Erosion of Trust

As foreign policy missteps mounted, internal fractures worsened. The coalition’s infighting turned legal in May after the Medical Council disciplined doctors over Thaksin’s hospital care, confirming critics’ claims of preferential treatment. A NIDA poll showing 59% public distrust cemented the perception of a government adrift, further destabilising an already fragile coalition. While Bhumjaithai’s political manoeuvring, which includes publicly opposing Pheu Thai’s flagship policies including a costly entertainment complex project with negative consequences on multiple levels, and exploiting scandals such as Thaksin’s controversial hospital stay, has heightened tensions. The party's defiance reached its height in May when its Senate allies were implicated in vote-rigging, putting their existence at risk. In June, Pheu Thai responded by trying to regain control of the Interior Ministry through a cabinet reshuffle, a strategy that might diminish Bhumjaithai’s influence as the 2027 election approaches. This friction, however, stems more from opportunism than ideology: Bhumjaithai is repositioning itself as a nationalist alternative in light of Pheu Thai’s declining credibility.

Border Flashpoints: Nationalist Posturing

The government’s weakening authority became starkly apparent in its handling of national security. The delay in approval for the military's decision to reinforce troops along the Cambodian border after the skirmish at Chong Bok in Ubon Ratchathani underscored the ongoing challenges in coordination between civilian and military leadership. Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra's notably restrained diplomatic response, particularly when contrasted with Cambodia's more assertive posture, has attracted sharp criticism. Her administration maintains that this caution is a strategic decision aimed at preserving peace and order along the border — prioritising de-escalation and safeguarding Thailand's legal claims in light of the volatile regional dynamics. Yet critics interpret it as indecisiveness, arguing that such restraint risks emboldening Cambodia. To some observers, such restraint has reinforced perceptions of indecisive leadership and a reluctance to assert Thailand’s national interests with clarity. This perceived hesitancy may, in their view, embolden Cambodia to advance its territorial claims more assertively, including through international legal mechanisms —particularly given Cambodia’s previous success at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Preah Vihear case in 1962 and 2013.

This viewpoint has been further exacerbated by critics who have increased scrutiny of the Shinawatra family's longstanding relationship with Cambodia's ruling elite, arguing that the Prime Minister's restraint and compromise reflect a conflict of interest rather than a display of statesmanship. A notable similarity also emerged in the political narratives surrounding both leaders: just as Paetongtarn's leadership is frequently dismissed as a 'proxy government' for her father, Thaksin Shinawatra, Cambodia's Prime Minister Hun Manet—himself the son of former strongman Hun Sen—faces similar accusations of dynastic deference. This perceived dual dynamic has complicated bilateral negotiations, with both leaders being characterised as prioritising familial legacies over national interests. The military’s defiance on the Cambodian border—paired with Bhumjaithai’s nationalist rebranding—has left Paetongtarn’s government isolated, echoing Thailand’s cycle of civilian-military discord.

The ongoing border dispute with Cambodia has exposed significant weaknesses in Thailand's governance and highlighted popular increasing support for military authority. The government of Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra continues to advocate for diplomatic solutions. Meanwhile, tensions between Thailand and Cambodia remain high as nationalist dialogues and social media are flooded with messages that support the military forces of both countries. This dynamic undermines the government’s authority and fuels perceptions of weak leadership. Seizing the opportunity, the Bhumjaithai Party has aggressively positioned itself as a patriotic alternative to the Pheu Thai government. The party has launched a social media campaign urging supporters to change their profile pictures using a frame with the hashtag #ไทยนี้รักสงบแต่ถึงรบไม่ขลาด (Thais love peace but are not cowards in war)—a not-so-subtle jab at Pheu Thai’s restrained approach. This move rallies nationalist sentiment and aligns Bhumjaithai with the military’s tougher stance, further isolating the Pheu Thai government in crisis.

A Government on the Brink: Beyond Survival, Towards Reform

Prime Minister Paetongtarn's government finds itself at the epicenter of Thailand’s deepening crises, exposing fundamental weaknesses at the nation’s core. What began as a mismanaged disaster response has morphed into a cascade of political, institutional, and moral fissures. With a restless coalition, a resurgent opposition, and an increasingly impatient electorate, the administration's stumble reveals a critical truth: Thailand can no longer afford leadership that views governance as mere damage control or diplomacy as personal negotiation.

For the current administration, simply clinging to power won't stabilize the precarious ground beneath Thailand’s democracy. The nation urgently needs a decisive break from the ingrained habits that have fueled this turbulence: opaque patronage, elite impunity, and non-democratic interference. Without a clear commitment to transparent crisis management, impartial justice, and genuine civilian supremacy, any cabinet reshuffle or temporary truce will serve as nothing more than a superficial patch on a crumbling structure.

The ultimate question is not whether this government survives, but whether Thailand's institutions can finally break free from this destructive cycle. This demands far more than just reshuffling ministers or surviving no-confidence votes. It necessitates rebuilding trust with a public that’s running out of patience. The choice facing the Prime Minister and Thailand's broader political class is stark: confront the deep-seated institutional rot now, or risk a systemic collapse with the next tremor—one that will be political, not geological. Reform is no longer just a rallying cry; it is Thailand's last line of defence.

DISCLAIMER: All views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of IIPA and this platform.

---

Author

Suthikarn Meechan is a non-resident research fellow at the Institute for Indo-Pacific Affairs, and is an Associate Professor at the College of Politics and Governance, Mahasarakham University in Thailand.

---