Guest contributor
Kannikar Petchkaew
Though court petitions and public outcry over the accusation of complicity and insufficiency kept it frantically busy, 10 days after the country’s latest general election on February 8, the Thai Election Commission finished the ballot count.
The political outcome is already clear.
The incoming cabinet will be led by Anutin Charnvirakul, the same prime minister who took office in September last year, dissolved the House within six months, and stood as caretaker before forming a new government.
Anutin is not new to politics. He entered parliament in 1996 and has held cabinet portfolios for years. What is new is his consolidation of power. His Bhumjaithai Party won close to 200 seats, the most successful outcome in party history.
Anutin maintains strong ties to the Senate and some revered institutions.
In the new coalition of more than 300 MPs, Bhumjaithai will dominate key ministries. Anutin is expected to retain both the premiership and the Interior Ministry — the same dual control he had before the election.
Some analysts predict stability. Thailand averages 1.8 years per government since 1990; this one may last longer.
But longevity does not equal transformation.
The myth of the “man of change”
Let us revisit February 5 last year, when the electricity supply was abruptly cut to Myanmar border towns. The move was dramatic. It was framed as decisive action against transnational criminal networks operating across the Thai border.
Anutin physically executed the cut. He pressed the button to cut off the electricity with his own hand that morning.
For many observers concerned about Myanmar, it appeared to signal a shift—that Bangkok might finally recalibrate its posture toward Naypyidaw.
But the sequence matters.
For weeks before the cut, Anutin resisted public pressure. The previous prime minister, Srettha Thavisin, had already instructed him, as the Interior Minister in May 2023, to halt power exports. Nothing happened.
Only after mounting domestic criticism and, more importantly, intense pressure from Beijing following the abduction of Chinese actor Wang Xing did the switch finally flip — and only after formal authorization from Thailand’s National Security Council.
The crackdown that followed, involving cooperation between Thailand, China, and Myanmar, quickly faltered. Scam networks adapted.
This was not the act of a reformer. It was crisis management under external pressure.
Sovereignty as strategy
Anutin’s political momentum accelerated during the June border crisis with Cambodia. His party withdrew from the coalition, citing a leaked phone conversation between then–Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and Cambodian Senate President Hun Sen as undermining Thai sovereignty.
Days later, Paetongtarn fell. Anutin consolidated support and returned to Government House.
He wasted no time. Six visits to the Cambodian border followed—half of them in camouflage. Sovereignty became campaign oxygen.
His party advocated constructing walls and fences along the frontier. He later floated similar rhetoric regarding the southern border with Malaysia.
In interviews, Anutin explained that a “wall” meant physical infrastructure, while a “fence” symbolized military strength.
National security sells. It delivered the largest electoral victory in the Bhumjaithai party’s history.
What this means for Myanmar
Thailand shares a 2,400-kilometer border with Myanmar. Refugee flows, armed conflict spillover, disrupted trade, and transnational crime are not abstractions; they are daily management challenges.
Under the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Thailand has consistently prioritized stability over political transformation. While it barred junta leaders from high-level summits following the 2021 coup, Bangkok maintained quiet engagement. Informal meetings continued with Naypyidaw.
Humanitarian coordination operated through state-approved channels. The language was always “constructive engagement.”
Thailand has not formally elevated Myanmar’s National Unity Government (NUG) within ASEAN. It works with whoever controls Naypyidaw. That doctrine has endured across governments.
Within ASEAN, Thailand acts as a stability broker, a communication channel to the junta, and a buffer state focused on containment.
It is not a driver of accountability. It is not a democracy crusader.
Anutin is unlikely to change that equation. He will liaise with the central authorities in Myanmar. Ethnic armed actors along the border seeking alternative political futures should temper expectations.
Unless violence escalates dramatically, his government will prefer management to confrontation.
Continuity, not reinvention
Thailand’s Myanmar policy has always been pragmatic, shaped by geography and economic gravity. Deep economic interdependence will remain. Security coordination will persist. Quiet diplomacy will endure.
Operating under the ASEAN umbrella provides diplomatic cover. Public rhetoric may harden on trafficking and transnational crime — issues with domestic resonance — but structural ties will not be dismantled.
Hedging, however, has limits. Thailand sits at the logistical hinge of mainland Southeast Asia. Energy exports, intelligence coordination, and cross-border regulatory tools are leveraged.
Used deliberately, they can shift incentives. Left untouched, they preserve inertia.
Under a Bhumjaithai-led coalition government, continuity is not accidental. It aligns with Anutin’s transactional politics and broader elite preferences for predictability over disruption.
One area to consider, though, is that the U.S.-Iran conflict, which has resulted in global fuel and security uncertainty, is itself a major disruption.
Thailand’s ban on fuel exports to Myanmar’s border areas, imposed early last year, is therefore unlikely to change despite a national policy that will continue fuel exports from Thailand to Myanmar and Laos. The border will be tightened to prevent fuel smuggling.
But one area will remain flexible: migrant labor policy. Thailand depends heavily on Myanmar workers, particularly after more than half a million Cambodian workers returned home.
Restrictions are unlikely to tighten, not out of leniency but out of economic necessity.
A note of cautious optimism
The Philippines, which assumed the ASEAN chair in 2026, has signaled its willingness to review the bloc’s stalled Five-Point Consensus peace plan for Myanmar. That may introduce new diplomatic energy.
Thailand Foreign Minister Sihasak Phuangketkeow, who is very likely to be in the same seat in the new cabinet, recently acknowledged concerns that Myanmar’s elections may not be free or credible — a rare public acknowledgment in Thai diplomatic language.
Sihasak also stated that Bangkok is prepared to act as a “bridge” to help Myanmar re-engage with ASEAN, but Naypyidaw must demonstrate responsiveness to both ASEAN and the international community.
These are signals. Barely guaranteed.
The border will decide
Thailand is unlikely to reinvent itself as a champion of democratic transition in Myanmar. The new government will choose management over confrontation.
In the end, the direction of Thailand’s Myanmar policy will not be decided in Bangkok’s cabinet room. It will be shaped along the frontier itself — where security pressures, trade, migration, and conflict intersect every day.
And along that border, continuity still holds the advantage.
Kannikar Petchkaew is an independent Thai journalist covering mainland Southeast Asia for over 30 years.
DVB publishes a diversity of opinions that does not reflect DVB editorial policy. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our stories: [email protected]
