Coalition in crisis

Bangkok Post

08-07-2025

Amnesty bills are now taking precedence over the more controversial Entertainment Complex Bill as the administration walks a political tightrope, with critics wondering if the move is a sincere attempt to reconcile a fragmenting coalition or rather a strategic manoeuvre by an embattled government.
As the House of Representatives held its first day of debate after it reconvened on July 3, the government has postponed the Entertainment Complex Bill -- which would legalise casinos within certain parameters -- in favour of advancing four amnesty-related draft bills.
This has sparked widespread speculation about political motives, coalition dynamics, and the real intent behind the move.
Strategic Retreat
The decision to delay deliberation of the Entertainment Complex Bill stems from fears that the government, now sitting on a thin majority, lacks sufficient parliamentary support to pass the legislation.
With the Bhumjaithai Party (BJT) having recently joined the opposition, the coalition has lost at least 69 crucial votes.
The Democrat Party, which has 25 seats, and the Prachachat Party (nine seats), which opposes the bill on religious grounds, have also indicated some resistance.
Meanwhile, the position of the United Thai Nation (UTN) Party, which has 36 seats, remains uncertain due to an ongoing internal rift. Faced with this fragility, the government chose to avoid risking an early defeat by shelving the bill for now.
Amnesty Bills Steal the Spotlight
Instead, the House will begin discussions on four amnesty bills: a people's amnesty bill (proposed by civil society), a general amnesty bill (proposed by the main opposition People's Party, or PP), a peace-building bill (put forth by the Thai Teachers for the People Party), and a peace-building bill (sponsored by the UTN Party).
A fifth bill from BJT has also been added. These bills differ in scope and detail -- especially concerning the inclusion or exclusion of cases under Section 112 of the Criminal Code, better known as the lèse majesté law.
Section 112 remains a contentious issue, which is expected to be a key factor in whether each bill passes the initial approval stage in parliament.
Pheu Thai 'Seeks Closure'
Wisut Chainarun, a Pheu Thai Party MP and chief government whip, said the push for amnesty was a genuine attempt to reconcile political divisions that have persisted for over two decades.
He highlighted the disproportionate suffering of grassroots political activists -- particularly red-shirt supporters -- many of whom remain incarcerated for their involvement in past mass protests. Mr Wisut argued for compassion and closure, not for powerful figures, but for "the small people" who deserve a second chance.
While confident that at least two bills -- those not involving Section 112 -- will pass the first reading, Mr Wisut admitted the differing opinions across parties, especially around Section 112, could complicate progress. Still, he insisted the initiative was not a popularity ploy.
"This is not about scoring points... It's about peace," he said.
Opposition: Sincere Reconciliation?
Natthawut Buaprathum, a list-MP of the PP, questioned the government's motives, suggesting the shift to amnesty bills was more about political convenience than genuine reform.
He warned against using amnesty as a political bargaining chip and called for all four original bills to be accepted for further consideration in the second and third readings.
He further noted that if reconciliation is truly the goal, then no bill -- regardless of its sponsor -- should be preemptively dismissed. The refusal to even consider bills covering Section 112, he said, contradicts the spirit of inclusive political healing.
Mr Natthawut also warned that, amid speculation suspended Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra may lose her case at the Constitutional Court regarding the leaked audio clip of her conversation with Cambodian Senate President Hun Sen leading to a dissolution of parliament, the future of the amnesty legislation remains uncertain.
"This shouldn't be about delaying or defusing censure. It should be about real change," he said.
He was referring a no-confidence motion BJT plans to file against the government. A parliament vote set for Wednesday to adopt any, if not all, of the amnesty bills for debate may be a key factor in the PP deciding to join the no-confidence campaign since it advocates in favour of amnesties for those who violate the lèse majesté law.
Political Trap or Just a Distraction?
Political activist and former red-shirt leader Jatuporn Prompan sees the amnesty bills leap-frogging the Entertainment Complex Bill as a "political trap" designed to create divisions among the opposition -- particularly between the PP and the BJT -- just as the two appeared ready to file a joint no-confidence motion.
Mr Jatuporn characterised the move as "a shallow trick" to sow confusion, distract from internal tensions, and pave the way for the later passage of the Entertainment Complex Bill under a different name.
He also cast doubt on the sincerity of the reconciliation effort, stating that Pheu Thai lacks the moral authority of past leadership. He accused the government of resorting to "day-by-day survival politics".
Academics Warn of Political Chess, Not Reform
Olarn Thinbangtieo, deputy dean of Burapha University's Faculty of Political Science and Law, echoed similar concerns. He described the amnesty push as a tactical plot by Pheu Thai to discourage the PP from moving forward with a no-confidence motion.
Since the PP demands that any amnesty bill should include violations of Section 112, which the BJT opposes, Mr Olarn said the government is banking on sowing bad blood and hoping that internal disagreements derail the opposition's motion. Without the PP's support, the BJT lacks sufficient votes to push the motion through.
Moreover, Mr Olarn argued that the Entertainment Complex Bill would have sparked fierce protests if it were introduced now. Instead, the amnesty issue offers a softer political landing, at least temporarily.
"They're trying to kill multiple birds with one stone," he said, referring to Pheu Thai. "But that won't win back public trust."
A political source said the government's choice to prioritise amnesty legislation reveals both a political opportunity and a vulnerability.
With razor-thin parliamentary margins and mounting internal challenges, the coalition is attempting to stabilise its position by addressing long-standing political wounds. Yet the inclusion, or exclusion, of Section 112 remains a litmus test for the sincerity and reach of reconciliation. Whether such a shift will unify or further fracture parliament and the public remains uncertain, according to the source.