In Thailand, the Pheu Thai party received backing from its major coalition partners to nominate a new prime minister after former Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin was removed from office over an ethical violation. The party executives are set to meet to decide on their prime ministerial candidate, with a vote scheduled for the following day.
Srettha was ousted by the Constitutional Court for an ethical breach related to appointing a Cabinet member who was involved in a bribery attempt. This ruling marks the second significant decision in Thai politics within a week, following the dissolution of the Move Forward party for proposing an amendment deemed unconstitutional.
Pheu Thai’s coalition partners, including the Bhumjaithai party and pro-military parties, have endorsed the party’s candidate. Anutin Charnvirakul of the Bhumjaithai party is also considered a frontrunner for the position.
Two eligible candidates for Pheu Thai are Paetongtarn Shinawatra, the daughter of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and Chaikasem Nitisiri, a former Minister of Justice. Pheu Thai, which finished second in the previous election, now has the opportunity to form a government with the support of coalition partners.
Following the exclusion of the Move Forward party from the coalition, Pheu Thai aligned with parties associated with the previous military-backed government. The move drew criticism, but party officials deemed it necessary for reconciliation after years of political divisions.
The former senators, who held veto power over prime ministerial candidates, lost that authority as their term ended in May. Now, a candidate only needs a majority from the lower house to secure the position. Coalition partners of Pheu Thai emphasized their refusal to support any amendments to the royal defamation law, a contentious issue in Thai politics.
The People’s Party, comprising ex-Move Forward lawmakers, announced they would not endorse a Pheu Thai candidate and will fulfil their role as the opposition. The royal defamation law, also known as Article 112, has been a point of contention, with critics claiming it stifles political dissent.
