Was it one big conspiracy?

Was it one great crime?

Experts are tempted to attribute the new departure of Srettha Thavisin as prime minister to a Pheu Thai “exit strategy” if one were ever developed for its strongly contentious digital budget scheme.

Many in the ruling group may have been shocked by Mr. Srettha’s removal from office on August 14th due to the Constitutional Court’s treatment. Some social observers, however, had predicted Mr Srettha’s end the day the event against him was accepted by the court.

Despite knowing full nicely about his contempt of court judgment following his pay effort in the Supreme Court, the court held Mr. Srettha accountable for appointing Pichit Chuenban as prime minister’s office secretary.

By handing them a paper case containing 2 million baht in income a month earlier, Pichit and two other attorneys attempted to pay Supreme Court leaders.

In a case before the Supreme Court in 2008, the three attorneys represented Thaksin. Thaksin Shinawatra, who was at the moment the prime minister, was facing legal action for assisting his then-wife, Khunying Potjaman na Pombejra, in getting a perfect area package on Ratchadaphisek Road at a discount.

The three were not charged with attempted bribe, but instead were always arraigned because the police, who were looking into the situation, found insufficient evidence to support their indictment. Afterwards, the Attorney-General decided not to prosecute the trio on suspicion of bribery.

But, the Supreme Court found the attorneys guilty of contempt of court in connection with the alleged corruption.

Pichit’s high-profile faith very much became common knowledge, and the Constitutional Court said that, as prime minister, Mr Srettha should have been fully aware of Pichit’s faith, which rendered him unqualified by law to hold a government chair.

The courts made the case that Mr. Srettha was conscious of Pichit’s controversial past. They highlighted that on Aug 29 last year, he held an immediate appointment to review Pichit’s skills, indicating that he knew there might be an issue.

By choosing Pichit to be a minister, Mr. Srettha, in the court’s opinion, had committed a serious moral violation that warranted his departure as prime minister.

A social observer concluded that Mr. Srettha’s departure may have been planned with the intention of sinking the modern wallet plan in its current and likely law-breaking form.

The observer noted that Pichit’s credentials were problematic when he was mentioned for a supervisory position in the first Srettha cupboard, which was formed shortly after Mr. Srettha took the oath of office last year.

At the time, Pichit’s election was apparently withdrawn.

The watcher hypothesized that Mr. Srettha may have been pressured by strong Pheu Thai officials to accept Pichit into the cupboard, launching a “timebomb” that would put him in serious trouble as a result of the ethics legislation introduced by the current law.

Criticism had targeted Mr. Srettha because he had failed to unite the Pheu Thai elite and luminaries behind him. He was perceived as being sensitive to being overshadowed by some officials because he was not an MP with no known party to the back, according to the spectator.

The modern wallet was heavily criticized for putting a strain on the finances, and authorities expressed concerns about the propriety of putting together a project worth a staggering half a trillion baht.

The spectator wondered whether Mr Srettha’s death had been anticipated, if never orchestrated, to form a new government and enable a restore of the bag program.

Because it was an election assurance that Pheu Thai is legally required to fulfill, the scheme may be canceled. Making Pheu Thai head Paetongtarn Shinawatra primary minister, which has introduced a new government, was, however, allow for the scheme to be rejigged to make it more palatable to the populace.

For example, the new government has stated that in the initial phase of the program, beneficiaries will receive income rather than digital money. It takes longer to money in for the participating stores and is generally more difficult to access and use, especially for older consumers.

Given that Pheu Thai had put two different prime ministerial applicants on its supply listing, the observer claimed that Mr. Srettha may not have been a necessary leader right away. They were Ms Paetongtarn and gathering top professional, Chaikasem Nitisiri.

Officials of the coalition parties were summoned to an immediate appointment at the Chan Songla castle owned by Thaksin the moment Mr. Srettha was removed from office. The leaders were officially informed of Thaksin’s decision to pick Mr Chaikasem as Mr Srettha’s alternative.

But, Pheu Thai individuals demanded that Ms Paetongtarn succeed Mr Srettha. They finally came out on top when Ms. Paetongtarn announced soon after that she was ready to lead the new government.

Concerns keep on coming

Social researchers are unsure of how much the case will be in place because Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and her Pheu Thai Party are alleged to have received nine problems while it was being formed.

One key petition, which was filed with the Election Commission (EC ) on Aug 19 by an anonymous complainant, alleges that the main coalition party has allowed itself to come under the influence of Thaksin Shinawatra, Ms Paetongtarn’s father, who is no longer a party member.

It is against the law for a celebration to permit a non-member to effect, dominate, or direct group actions in any way under parts 28 and 29 of the Political Parties Act. Such an offence comes with serious consequences, including the dissolution of a party.

The Constitutional Court’s ouster of Srettha Thavisin as prime minister on August 14 for her lack of integrity in appointing former prisoner Pichit Chuenban to the cabinet is thought to have sparked the petition.

At Thaksin’s Chan Songla mansion on Charan Sanitwong Road in Bangkok, allegedly oversaw a meeting about replacing Mr. Srettha’s replacement, were prominent coalition figures spotted there. Pheu Thai MPs chose Ms Paetongtarn instead of Chaikasem Nitisiri, despite early reports saying they had decided to support Chaikasem Nitisiri.

Observers claim that Thaksin did not resisted speaking out in public about politics, and that it is evidence that he continues to be the true leader behind the ruling Pheu Thai Party and the new government.

His” Vision for Thailand 2024″ speech, which was attended by the Paetongtarn government for a high-profile dinner on August 22, received criticism for being a condensed version of the policy statement that parliament will soon adopt.

A PPRP-led group led by Prawit Wongsuwon has also been cut out of the coalition by Pheu Thai. One misstep could spell trouble for Ms Paetongtarn, according to political observers.

Stithorn Thananithichot, director of the Office of Innovation for Democracy at the King Prajadhipok’s Institute, told the Bangkok Post that how long Ms Paetongtarn’s administration stays in power depends on its performance.

Because Thaksin is anticipated to lead the conservative party in the fight against the People’s Party, the petitions are unlikely to have a negative impact on the Pheu Thai Party. The party is expected to hold onto its position of power for the rest of its term if Pheu Thai fulfills its promises and wins over voters, he said.

The analyst also considers whether the government’s ability to implement Thaksin’s ideas and whether they are appropriate for the country’s situation and in line with the law.

” Policy implementation must follow the legal framework, unlike when the Thai Rak Thai Party was in power.” Let’s wait for the policy statement. If it turns out to be as bland as Mr Srettha’s, it wo n’t work”, he said.

Thai Rak Thai, founded by Thaksin, was dissolved over electoral fraud.

According to Mr Stithorn, Mr Srettha was never fully committed to any issues, including the digital wallet handout programme, despite it being Pheu Thai’s flagship policy. The former prime minister never went into specifics about the charter rewrite, just making broad statements about it.

The Pheu Thai-led government’s major flaw is regarded as having ethical standards, but the coalition is working to address the issue and prevent falling into the same trap, he noted.

Narumon Pinyosinwat was nominated by a faction led by PPRP secretary-general Capt Thamanat Prompow to succeed him as minister of agriculture and cooperatives, while Chada Thaised’s Bhumjaithai’s Chada Thaised withdrew his bid to join the cabinet, allowing his daughter Sabeeda Thaised to become a deputy interior minister in place.

” Obviously, they were trying to spare the government legal trouble in the future”, he said.

Even though the government enjoys strong support in the House, according to Phichai Ratnatilaka Na Bhuket, a lecturer in political science at the National Institute of Development Administration, its fate is likely to be determined by the complaints made against it.

The prime minister is expected to resolve a number of issues, including the purchase of a contentious monastic plot that includes the Alpine Golf Club and a residential complex.

The land in Pathum Thani’s Klong Luang district was donated by a widow, Noem Chamnanchartsakda, to Wat Dhammamikaramvoraviharn in Prachuap Khiri Khan back in 1971.

After her death, the Mahamongkut Ratchawittayalai Foundation, which was appointed as executor of her estate, sold the land to Alpine Real Estate and the Alpine Golf and Sports Club, of which Ms Paetongtarn is a shareholder.

Any petitions questioning Ms Paetongtarn’s ethics will take time to process, as they will be reviewed by the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the Supreme Court’s Office for Holders of Political Positions, he noted.

The Constitutional Court will examine the petition for the dissolution of the Pheu Thai Party, but it may only take six months. Therefore, the government is anticipated to pass the first six months without any difficulties. After that, it’s anybody’s guess what will happen”, he said.