Bangkok Post
Natthaphong’s risky political gamble
Compiled by KHAO Editorial — aggregated from 1 outlet. See llms.txt for citation guidance.
◌ Single Source
The main opposition People’s Party (PP) is under intense scrutiny after its criticism of privy councillors attending a recent high-level water management meeting chaired by Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul appeared to backfire, opening a broader debate about the party’s political strategy and direction ahead of the Bangkok gubernatorial election on June 28.
Key facts
- The main opposition People’s Party (PP) is under intense scrutiny after its criticism of privy councillors attending a recent high-level water management meeting chaired by Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul appeared to backfire, opening a
- The controversy erupted when People’s Party lawmakers questioned the appropriateness of privy councillors participating in the meeting, suggesting their presence could be interpreted as interference in government administration
- The previous survey, conducted before the allegations emerged, showed Mr Chadchart leading with 67.3% support
- Nearly 49% of respondents said they preferred independent candidates, compared with 33% who favoured party-affiliated contenders to win the race.
- The findings also pointed to a flexible voting pattern, with 54% saying they intended to select candidates from different camps rather than support a single party or group across both ballots.
- The People’s Party won all 33 seats in the capital in the Feb 8 general election, up from 32 in 2023.
Summary
The controversy erupted when People’s Party lawmakers questioned the appropriateness of privy councillors participating in the meeting, suggesting their presence could be interpreted as interference in government administration. The party argued that the role of the Privy Council should remain strictly advisory to the monarchy and separate from executive affairs.
Party leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut said the presence of privy councillors at a meeting with government officials could compromise the neutrality of the Privy Council and run counter to democratic principles.