Social analysts had a combined opinion of the two-day condemnation debate, in which only Paetongtarn Shinawatra was the target.
Former poll director Somchai Srisutthiyakorn claimed on Wednesday that no significant changes were anticipated as a result of the debate’s link between the government and the criticism.
Ms. Paetongtarn’s responses, despite having a capable copy team, were no instructive, and she only provided specific details regarding the issue of fine dust pollution, he claimed.
Mr. Somchai claimed that Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut, the opposition chief, who presented the censure activity, failed to present a clear picture and draw attention to the audience during his opening discussion. He claimed that Mr. Natthaphong missed an opportunity to show the government’s and the leader’s shortcomings when making the closing statement and rather gave just a summary of the discussion.
However, Mr. Natthaphong was credited with having developed a well-organized debate strategy by Phichai Ratnatilaka Na Bhuket, a political science lecturer at the National Institute of Development Administration ( Nida ). He claimed that the opposition made the case that the Pheu Thai Party and the conservative camp worked together to oust past leading Thaksin Shinawatra and Ms. Paetongtarn’s parents at the cost of changes and the interests of the country.
The opposition’s claims about Ms. Paetongtarn’s purchase of shares from her family also raised questions about social standards, he said, adding that kids often buy shares from their parents and that the purchase was made in an effort to avoid paying taxes.
He claimed that Ms. Paetongtarn’s strengths were her incisive and satirical use of language to rebut queries, but it backfired as a result because she used it when she should have rather offered up simple answers.
Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University professor Yutthaporn Issarachai expressed sorrow with the lack of comprehensive information, claiming memes overshadowed the program. He claimed that despite the excellent handling of the conversation, the prime minister’s responses were not accurate and verifiable. He claimed that the opponent’s performance was disappointing in comparison to the year before.
Mr. Yutthaporn claimed that the opposition may have chosen the incorrect approach by focusing on the prime minister, which allowed the coalition colleagues to squabble.
Assoc Prof Pornamarin Phromkert, a professor at Khon Kaen University’s humanities and social sciences university, claimed that many issues, including Ms. Paetongtarn’s order of stock from her home, caught the attention of the general public.
The opposition, he said, was able to demonstrate that the prime minister was the president’s weak point by focusing only on her, noting that she lost credibility when she used sarcasm to respond to questions.