• Paetongtarn Shinawatra was ousted as Prime Minister after a leaked call with Hun Sen sparked public and political outrage.
• The call hurt Paetongtarn Shinawatra’s credibility and exposed her struggles within Thailand’s power structure.
• Paetongtarn Shinawatra’s removal worsened instability, as border tensions with Cambodia fuel uncertainty for policy and investment.

Why is Paetongtarn Shinawatra’s power rapidly freezing?

Answer: Paetongtarn Shinawatra was suspended and removed from office after a leaked call with Hun Sen sparked public outrage.

On June 18, 2025, a leaked phone call between Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and former Cambodian leader Hun Sen became the central focus of a national political crisis in Thailand. In the call, which was widely circulated online, Paetongtarn was heard discussing a border dispute between the two nations in what was perceived as an overly deferential tone. The contents of the conversation and her perceived criticism of a Thai army commander quickly provoked widespread public outrage, leading to accusations that she had compromised Thailand’s sovereignty and national dignity.

The fallout from the call was immediate and severe. A group of 36 senators filed a petition with the Constitutional Court, accusing the Prime Minister of ethical breaches and dishonesty. The court accepted the petition and on July 1, 2025, it ordered Paetongtarn to suspend her duties while the case was under review. Simultaneously, the Bhumjaithai Party, a key coalition partner of Paetongtarn, announced its withdrawal from the government, citing the leaked call’s damaging impact on Thailand’s sovereignty. The defection of its 69 lawmakers left the coalition with a razor-thin majority and ultimately precipitated the  government’s collapse.

On August 29, 2025, the Constitutional Court delivered its final verdict. In a 6-3 vote, the court formally removed Paetongtarn Shinawatra from her position as Prime Minister for violating the constitution. The ruling made her the fifth prime minister since 2008 to be removed by the same court and brought an official end to her government. Following her dismissal, a political vacuum ensued. After a period of intense negotiations, parliament ultimately elected Bhumjaithai leader Anutin Charnvirakul as the new Prime Minister on September 5, 2025, marking the end of the Shinawatra political network’s latest hold on executive power. latest hold on executive power. 

What is changing Paetongtarn Shinawatra’s heat level?

Answer: Paetongtarn Shinawatra’s credibility and ties with key political and military figures were weakened by the leaked call.

The leaked phone fundamentally exposed Paetongtarn as inexperienced,  leading to an irrevocable loss of public credibility. The conversation with former Cambodian leader Hun Sen was not merely a diplomatic misstep; it was an act of coercive diplomacy weaponised by Hun Sen to exploit the weakness of Thailand’s fractious domestic politics. Paetongtarn’s use of familial language, such as “uncle,” and her overtly submissive tone when discussing a national boundary issue, was instantly perceived across the political spectrum as a national humiliation.

This single incident caused her approval rating to plummet from 30.9% to a mere 9.2%, an immediate and critical loss of political capital that transcended her Pheu Thai party’s traditional support base. The phone call transformed Paetongtarn’s modern, fresh political image into a symbol of old-style patronage politics and leadership naivety. 

This public perception of incompetence, rather than any criminal wrongdoing, created the grounds  for her removal in the public eye, demonstrating that she no longer held the popular mandate or the moral authority to govern effectively. Her subsequent public apology failed to mitigate the damage, as the established narrative painted her inexperience, once seen as an asset, as her fatal flaw.

Paetongtarn’s comments in the call created irreparable rifts with key stakeholders, ultimately paving the way for her political isolation and removal. In a particularly damaging segment of the conversation, Paetongtarn privately referred to a Thai army commander as being on the opposite side and dismissed his rhetoric regarding the border. This direct, internal criticism of the military was immediately interpreted by the powerful, conservative establishment as an act of disloyalty, providing the state’s core power structure with a public, undeniable justification to oppose her.

This misstep highlights her critical failure in navigating the delicate Thai power structure, where a civilian government’s survival depends on a functional relationship with the military and royalist elite, who act as powerful veto players. By alienating the army leadership and simultaneously damaging the personal, network-based diplomatic channels with Hun Sen, Paetongtarn cornered herself. 

The leak did not merely expose existing tensions; it actively changed the operational environment by converting the latent distrust of the traditional elite into an open, justified campaign for her ouster. The incident thus supplied the crucial strategic leverage, both the casus belli and the numerical mandate, needed for the Constitutional Court and the breakaway coalition partner, Bhumjaithai, to proceed with her definitive political isolation and removal. 

What is driving Paetongtarn Shinawatra?

Answer: Paetongtarn Shinawatra was driven by the goal of maintaining her family’s political influence and managing the border dispute with Cambodia.

The primary driver was a calculated maneuver to uphold the Shinawatra family’s legacy and validate its network-based political model. Her rise was the latest strategic play in the two-decade-long struggle between her family’s populist brand and Thailand’s conservative establishment. Her use of familial language, calling Hun Sen “uncle,” was a strategic activation of the family’s deep-rooted, personal diplomatic network, a signature Shinawatra tactic to bypass formal channels and achieve rapid de-escalation in a volatile border crisis. 

This psychological drive sought to prove the enduring relevance of the Shinawatra brand as an indispensable political problem-solver. By attempting to resolve a major national security issue with a single, private call, she aimed to cement her government’s effectiveness and the family’s continued political vitality.

Furthermore, Paetongtarn was propelled by the personal ambition to establish her own statecraft legitimacy, actively moving beyond the perception of being merely a dynastic heir. This imperative fueled a high-stakes gamble for a defining personal triumph. Her defense of the call as a pragmatic negotiation tactic was an attempt to control the narrative, framing her action as a bold, necessary move for national security, rather than an error.

She believed successfully resolving the dispute would be her inaugural, legitimizing accomplishment, separating her from her father’s shadow. However, her inexperience led to a political disaster; she misjudged the domestic climate, resulting in a catastrophic drop in popularity and discrediting her core claim to capability. The ultimate loss of her premiership was a direct consequence of this high-risk ambition to prove her statecraft.

What does this mean for you?

Answer: Thailand’s political instability, leadership changes, and unresolved border tensions with Cambodia are creating uncertainty for policy decisions, investment, and regional security.

The political turmoil is creating a short-term and long-term economic environment defined by policy paralysis and investor uncertainty, directly impacting international business interests. The immediate consequence of Paetongtarn’s removal is a political vacuum and the installation of a fragile minority government under Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, which has a limited, four-month mandate to dissolve the House. 

The repeated judicial removal of elected leaders is setting a dangerous precedent that undermines democratic norms and diminishes Thailand’s credibility as a stable regional partner. The border dispute with Cambodia remains a volatile issue. While the new government has pledged to de-escalate tensions, the political instability at home could compromise its ability to engage in sustained and effective diplomacy. 

This means that the region loses a stable anchor, making it more vulnerable to broader geopolitical and security risks. This political risk is a major concern for any nation or business with a stake in a stable Southeast Asia, as the pattern of institutional coups and internal conflict undermines ASEAN’s image as a reliable partner.