Anutin Denies Manipulating Nationalist Sentiment to Distract from Section 112 Debate

Prime Minister and Bhumjaithai Party leader Anutin Charnvirakul has denied accusations that he is cynically exploiting nationalist sentiment and the polarizing debate over Section 112 of the Criminal Code, also known as the lese majeste law, to shore up his party’s electoral prospects at the expense of genuine democratic discourse.

Anutin claims his campaign is focused on policy proposals and citizen engagement, rather than stoking division or scapegoating rival parties. He insists he has not targeted any particular group in his speeches, though critics argue that his rhetoric implicitly reinforces reactionary narratives.

These statements come after criticism from Nattawut Saikuar, a former red-shirt leader and prominent campaign aide to the Pheu Thai Party, who accused Anutin of painting his party as the exclusive guardian of patriotism while demonizing others. Nattawut called for political campaigns to prioritize substantive debate on public welfare over hollow displays of nationalist fervor and attacks on rivals’ loyalty.

At a recent rally in Lumpini Park, Anutin promoted policies on the economy, security, disaster management, and social welfare, while urging voters to support his party’s candidates in Bangkok. He stressed border security and institutional stability, calling on the public to prioritize so-called national interests above political debate—a stance critics say suppresses dissent and perpetuates authoritarianism.

Anutin also addressed claims that he is influenced by Bhumjaithai co-founder Newin Chidchob, asserting that as prime minister, he listens to diverse opinions and makes independent decisions. However, skeptics question the independence of his leadership given the party’s entrenched interests.

The debate over Section 112 remains a flashpoint in Thai politics, with progressive voices demanding reform of the oppressive lese majeste law, while conservative factions resist any change. Anutin reiterated his party’s opposition to amending the law, emphasizing the defense of territorial integrity and national institutions—a stance seen by many as a tool to silence dissent.

Nattawut responded by warning against the use of nationalist issues to manipulate voters, arguing that such tactics deepen divisions and undermine the possibility of genuine unity among Thais.

This exchange underscores the persistent tensions in Thai politics, as parties prepare for elections amid ongoing struggles over nationalism, legal reform, and the future of democracy.