On July 7, 2025, a political spat unfolded within the Thai Parliament that has stirred curiosity and raised questions about behind-the-scenes dealings among lawmakers. The incident centers on Pai Leekpai, Member of Parliament for Kamphaeng Phet representing the Kla Thammachat Party, and Ice Rukchanok Srinork, MP for Bangkok from the Prachachat Party.
The drama began when Pai took to social media to question why Ice did not livestream a meal she had with Anutin Charnvirakul, leader of the Bhumjaithai Party. Pai’s post was more than idle curiosity; it reflected rumors he had heard about potential government formation talks or exchanges happening during that meal. Speaking to the media later that afternoon at the Parliament, Pai clarified his intent: “I genuinely wanted to know what they discussed,” he said, emphasizing that his post was a personal inquiry rather than an accusation.
However, the exchange quickly escalated. Ice responded sharply to Pai’s questioning, prompting him to say, “If she comes on strong, I’ll respond in kind. I go as they come.” This back-and-forth played out publicly, highlighting tensions within the coalition negotiations and political maneuvering.
Digging deeper, Pai revealed that the conversation at the meal reportedly went beyond just government formation. He mentioned hearing about discussions involving 44 MPs from the Prachachat Party, including Ice and Rangsiman Rome, both of whom are reportedly facing cases under Article 112 of the Thai Criminal Code. Pai expressed concern that such talks, especially occurring before a government was officially formed, could create suspicion and potential unfairness in legal processes. “If they said they were just eating, that would be fine,” Pai stated. “But they said they were discussing 'area matters,' which is work-related, and that makes me uneasy.”
Ice, for her part, dismissed the rumors and any suggestion of secretive dealings. When asked about the alleged discussion of the 44 MPs, she firmly denied it. “There was no such talk. I don’t lie and always speak directly,” she told reporters. She also criticized Pai’s work ethic, remarking, “He doesn’t really work much, just signs in and disappears.”
When asked about her combative social media response, Ice said she only replied because someone sent her Pai’s post. She called the whole matter “pointless” and chose not to engage further with the media, walking away from reporters when pressed for comments on the feud and the use of the word “nature” (sundarn) in the exchanges.
Meanwhile, Pai remained unfazed by any damage to his image as an MP. He said, “This is my personal space. She came at me aggressively first, so I responded the same way. It doesn’t matter if she’s a woman or a man; we respect each other.” He also noted that his use of the term “nature” was self-referential, saying, “I said I have a good nature; I never said she had a bad one. If she’s offended, that’s her choice.”
The tension was palpable just before the Budget Committee meeting for the fiscal year 2569 (2026), where both MPs were present. Ice arrived early, asked reporters if “Pai was here yet,” and then went to put away her personal belongings in the meeting room, seemingly maintaining a professional demeanor despite the ongoing spat.
Asked about working together on the committee, Pai said it was “normal” and would not affect their collaboration. This suggests that despite the public disagreement, parliamentary duties continue as usual.
This episode sheds light on the complex dynamics within Thai politics, where alliances are fluid and trust is often questioned. The backdrop of legal challenges facing some MPs adds another layer of sensitivity to the situation. Pai’s suspicions about the 44 MPs and potential discussions related to Article 112 cases underscore the precarious balance between political negotiation and judicial scrutiny.
It also highlights the role of social media as a battleground for political discourse, where private suspicions become public confrontations. The fact that a simple question about a livestreamed meal could escalate into a broader discussion about government formation and legal cases illustrates the charged atmosphere in Thai politics right now.
At its core, this story is about transparency, trust, and the delicate dance of coalition-building in a fragmented political landscape. Pai’s demand for openness clashes with Ice’s insistence on straightforwardness and denial of rumors. Both sides claim respect yet engage in sharp exchanges, reflecting the underlying tensions that define their interactions.
As the Budget Committee moves forward with its work, observers will be watching closely to see if this spat influences legislative cooperation or if it remains a brief flare-up in an otherwise routine political process. For now, the question remains: what really was discussed over that meal, and how will it shape the future of coalition politics in Thailand?
