For as long as it has been around, the Move Forward Party (MFP) has prided itself as an agent of change, a party known for adamantly resisting the status quo and the obsolete “norms” of the old political machinery.
However, events of the past several weeks have landed it in a pool of indignation for failing to practise what it preaches.
Particularly damning was Pita Limjaroenrat’s unexpected resignation as MFP leader, which critics theorised to be an alleged plot to maximise political leverage for the party looking to have its cake and eat it too.
Since being handed the order by the Constitutional Court suspending him from duty as an MP pending a conclusion to his shareholding case, Mr Pita’s absence from the political scene has been noted.
Meanwhile, the MFP is losing visibility in parliament after refusing to assume the opposition leadership. The reason lay in Mr Pita being put in the political freezer and the MFP continuing to keep its MP, Padipat Santipada, as deputy House speaker.
Spooked that its prominence was under threat, the MFP moved quickly to organise its assembly to elect its new leader and board of executives on Sept 23 to grab the opposition leader seat, which proved useful for the party in finding its feet at the opposition bench.
The move marked an about-face for both the party and Mr Pita, who earlier declared the MFP prioritised the deputy House speaker post over that of the opposition leader. Mr Pita made it quite clear that supporters did not choose the party to see it end up in the opposition wing.
However, a major roadblock stood in the way. The new MFP leader could not occupy the opposition leader post unless and until Mr Padipat stood down as the first deputy House speaker, a position he held since July 5 before the ties between the MFP and the Pheu Thai Party, its once steadfast buddy in the so-called pro-democracy alliance, soured with the latter pulling away to form a government with parties in the previous government.
However, an alleged plan had been conceived that would prove strategically astute for the MFP and the opposition bloc as a whole.
Section 106 of the constitution stipulates that the opposition leader is appointed from the biggest party in that camp. Its MPs must not serve as cabinet ministers or as the House speaker or deputy speaker.
So, with Mr Padipat serving as the first deputy House speaker, the MFP, which commands the largest number of seats at 151, could not legally lead the opposition camp.
To sidestep such a restriction, it was seen that the MFP would have to expel Mr Padipat to enable him to move to another party and keep his deputy House seat while freeing the MFP to have its new leader serve as opposition leader.
The one-MP Fair Party, closely aligned to the MFP, had pledged several times to take Mr Padipat under its wing if he was purged. And purged he was last month. Shortly after that, the Fair Party accepted him into its fold.
Mr Padipat himself admitted his expulsion was one of several options, which some observers agreed has worked to the optimal advantage of the MFP.
Mr Padipat recently explained that his expulsion from the MFP had been mulled over as a tactic to prevent him from losing the deputy House speaker post.
“I can’t expel myself from the MFP. But it’s certainly one of many options being entertained,” he said before he was driven out of the MFP.
Some observers, however, have said taking such an option has ultimately backfired on the MFP, whose reputation could suffer a setback from resorting to trickery to have its way.
The party has championed itself as a breath of fresh air for Thai politics, long dominated by many wheeler-dealers in the cloak of MPs. The party has steadily gained a large following to emerge as the biggest party in the polls thanks largely to its pledge to revolutionise the old system of buoying the status quo by ditching the malpractices and pursuits of hogging power at all costs, regardless of ethical question that may arise.
While it holds true that Mr Padipat is required to belong to another party in order to retain his deputy House seat, which technically cuts him off from the MFP, the observers insisted that in practice, Mr Padipat remains bound ideologically to the MFP.
The expulsion was also nothing but a ploy the MFP engineered to prevent the power of the deputy House speaker post from slipping from its grasp so it could drive its legislative agenda smoothly, according to critics.
Being dealt an image deficit may not bode well for an MFP intent on expanding and eventually scoring a landslide win in the next election, resulting in the party ruling the next government solo.
Critics aghast at PM’s ‘diplomacy’
The safety of Thai workers who are caught in the Israel-Hamas violence is undoubtedly the government’s top priority, considering how resources are being mobilised to facilitate their evacuation, according to political observers.
Padipat: Admits expulsion was a ploy
So, Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin’s display of frustration early this week — upon learning some of them have changed their minds and stayed behind and risked their lives after being offered an increase in pay by their Israeli employers — is understandable.
The generous offer also came amid reports that some Israeli employers had delayed salary payments to Thai workers until Nov 10 in a bid to keep them in the country despite the escalating conflict.
Feeling the situation was not in the best interest of the Thai workers and should be resolved, Mr Srettha said he would turn to the Israeli ambassador, Orna Sagiv, for assistance.
“Money must not be an issue… I have to call the ambassador and ask for cooperation because it is not truly right [for the workers to remain working],” the prime minister was quoted as saying on Monday. “Thai labourers deserve much better care than this.”
The prime minister rang the Israeli ambassador as planned, and he revealed the details of the conversation to the press the following day.
“I said [to the ambassador] bluntly that it’s unacceptable to lure people to stay with money. I don’t think it’s right. The ambassador had no knowledge of such reports and would investigate the matter.
“I also stressed that reports regarding payment delays were true, and I strongly urged them to look into the matter for us,” Mr Srettha was quoted in media reports as saying.
However, while several political observers say they can relate to Mr Srettha’s feeling of frustration as evacuation operations will be harder to arrange if the conflict intensifies, they are left aghast by the way the premier approached the diplomat.
One of those who felt the prime minister’s actions were utterly unacceptable is Olarn Thinbangtieo, a political science lecturer at Burapha University.
In his view, the premier unnecessarily resorted to a confrontational tone, which is considered inappropriate when engaging with a diplomat from a country with which Thailand maintains friendly relations. Mr Srettha should have taken a more gentle approach in requesting the diplomat’s assistance in resolving the matter.
“Maybe it slipped his mind that we have a foreign minister who ought to understand diplomacy better than him,” Mr Olarn said, pointing out that it was not the first time Mr Srettha’s attempt at exercising leadership could spell trouble.
According to the academic, the prime minister was rushed to condemn Hamas when the violence broke out early this month. He was referring to a message posted by Mr Srettha on social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter.
“We strongly condemn this attack, which has tragically resulted in loss of innocent lives and injury to civilians,” read part of his message, which was posted in English on Oct 7.
Foreign Minister Parnpree Bahiddha-Nukara came out to clarify that Thailand’s stance was a neutral one, and the country would not condemn either side but would denounce the use of violence.
Mr Srettha’s action might have been prompted by the need to demonstrate leadership as the former property tycoon is regarded by his critics as the puppet of jailed former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, according to the analyst.
“But it’s politically incorrect for him to act in this manner. Mr Srettha might have won the applause of some Thais, but there is a tactful way to approach the matter because Thailand and Israel retain friendly ties.
“This is not to mention that the Thai workforce is happy to work in Israel because they offer high wages and the Thai workers are employed in the jobs locals are reluctant to do,” said the academic.
Mr Olarn’s concern is that the prime minister’s lack of tact does not bode well for the country as it seeks to advance the nation’s interests at the expense of diplomacy.
“We must realise we don’t have authority over them. It’s totally inappropriate to use such a tone with the ambassador,” the academic insisted.
In response to claims about payments to retain the workers, the Israeli embassy issued a statement denying that salary payments were being delayed to get Thai workers to stay.
It noted that the complaints might come from those wishing to receive wages earlier than usual, which are paid on the 10th of each month.
The embassy also said Thai workers played an important role in the agricultural sector and the food supply chain and their visas were extended. and special allowances were approved for those who decided to remain in their jobs near the Gaza Strip until the end of this year.