The recent no-confidence debate in the Thai parliament proved to be a disappointment. The debate was seen as being rather about scoring political points than addressing the issues of real concern to the people.

Granted, it was clear from the onset that Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha’s coalition government would easily survive the vote of no-confidence given the majority it commands in parliament.

The dissolution of the opposition Future Forward Party just three days before the debate began and the banning of all members of its executive board from politics for 10 years sapped the strength of the opposition. The board included 11 sitting Members of Parliament of the FFP.  

Still, the debate from Feb 23 to Feb 27 gave Thais a ringside seat to gauge the performance of the opposition parties and the government.  

Telecast live, the debate resembled a boxing match. The opposition came out swinging, landed a few quick jabs but failed to pace itself. At times, it was swinging wildly and wasted many good opportunities. In the end, it ran out of time.

As the incumbent title holder, the prime minister was unusually composed. He took things in his stride, traded punches as and when necessary and, with some nifty footwork and jabs, managed to evade most of the heavy blows.

He exuded confidence, knowing full well that victory would be clinched based on points.  

On the positive side, the debate gave the public an opportunity to witness a generational change taking place in the Thai parliament.

It offered a sharp contrast between old-school type politicians on both the government and opposition sides who employed worn-out theatrics, polemics and diatribes at the expense of substance and the younger generation of opposition politicians, especially those of the defunct FFP, who had done their homework and made their case with solid arguments and well-researched facts and figures.

Despite its triumph, the government should see the no-confidence debate as a wake-up call.

The opposition parties voiced mounting public concerns in many important areas, especially the impact of the economic slowdown on ordinary Thais and the economic disparities that have left many people by the wayside.  

The remaining 55 former FFP MPs will reportedly form a new party in parliament to continue advancing the cause of the FFP and the Prayuth administration can expect this new party to continue  voicing their democratic aspirations.

There is talk about the need for a cabinet reshuffle to strengthen the capacity of the government to deal with the challenges ahead, particularly the repercussions from the spread of the Covid-19 disease.

However, this would require much bargaining — as well as bickering and horse-trading — among the 19 coalition parties. General Prayuth has said that this is not the time for a reshuffle, as the government must deal with the many urgent tasks at hand.

Meanwhile, attention has shifted to potentially more dramatic events as students began staging demonstrations on university, college and even high school campuses across the country.

The Constitutional Court’s decision to dissolve the FFP, whose progressive agenda of far-reaching changes and democratic reforms have won the support of over six million young voters, had sparked the wave of protests.

Powered by social media, the demonstrations spread quickly, simultaneously and spontaneously, without any advance organisation, planning or leadership. So far, the protests have been peaceful and confined within the grounds of campuses.

Those with elephantine memories would nevertheless be reminded of the student uprising and resultant bloodshed in 1973 and the violent crackdown on the student movement in 1976.

There are also fears over attempts to politicise the protests for political gains by groups at the extreme ends of the political spectrum.

It would be a grave mistake to see the student protesters only as supporters of the FFP. The protesters may be idealistic, but their movement in essence reflects the very real and tangible concerns of a new generation.

In sum, what they are calling for is that their voices be heard in shaping the future directions of the country because it is their future at stake.

The protests are still in their infancy and the student demonstrators have yet to fully articulate their agenda for change. But calls within the parliament for engagement and dialogue with the student movement are a welcome development.

It can only be hoped that these calls, coming from both sides of the floor, are genuine and not meant to advance political agendas.

Both the opposition and the government have recognised that a forum should be provided in the parliament for representatives of the student protesters to air their views and concerns directly but the specific format has yet to be worked out.

Engagement is certainly a step in the right direction and could provide a rallying point for a much-needed broader national dialogue and consensus building on the way forward for the country.

Thus, the end of the no-confidence debate marks the beginning of another political drama whose end is not yet in sight.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Sihasak Phuangketkeow, former permanent secretary of Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is visiting senior fellow in the Thailand Studies Programme at Iseas–Yusof Ishak Institute.