Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra addressed key concerns raised in a no-confidence debate on March 24, reaffirming her administration’s commitment to transparency and due process. The special session of the House of Representatives, convened under Section 151 of the 2017 Constitution, allowed opposition lawmakers to scrutinize her government’s handling of financial disclosures, land disputes, and past family business dealings.
During the debate, Paetongtarn responded to the Khao Kradong land dispute in Buriram province, a case involving the Department of Lands, the State Railway of Thailand, and local residents. She assured lawmakers that the matter is progressing strictly within legal frameworks and called for patience while the judicial process unfolds. She emphasized that no external influence would be allowed to interfere, ensuring fairness for all stakeholders.
Addressing allegations regarding her family’s historical involvement in the Alpine Golf Club land transaction, she clarified that the deal took place decades ago, when she was a child, and was conducted through a legally recognized company purchase. She maintained that all transactions adhered to Thai property law and were supported by valid title deeds.
On financial and tax matters, Paetongtarn’s advisor, Jirayu Huangsap, confirmed her compliance with asset disclosure regulations. Since taking office, she has submitted all required financial documents to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) and continues to cooperate with the verification process. She also explained the use of legally stamped promissory notes during a 2016 family shareholding restructure, stating that as payments remained incomplete, no immediate tax obligations had arisen, though all liabilities had been disclosed and would be settled accordingly.
The debate, which lasted 14 hours, did not result in any significant revelations. Government officials dismissed the opposition’s claims as largely repetitive, with chief whip Wisut Chainaroon stating that much of the discussion amounted to “old wine in a new bottle.” Pheu Thai MP Sutin Klungsang noted that while accusations were raised, they lacked substantive evidence. He also criticized the opposition’s tone, suggesting that some arguments risked veering into defamation rather than constructive critique.
