On September 9, 2025, Thailand’s Supreme Court ruled that former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra must serve a year in prison. The court ruled that his month-long stay in a police hospital did not count as time served. The ruling followed a review of medical records confirming that he was not severely ill.
Thaksin Shinawatra is one of Thailand’s most famous politicians. He served as prime minister from 2001 to 2006, before a military coup ousted him. He lived abroad for several years and returned in 2023 to face legal cases of corruption and abuse of power. When he returned in 2023, he initially received an eight-year sentence, which was subsequently cut to one year. He spent much of this time in a police hospital before being granted parole. His parole instigated public criticism over perceived favoritism and how powerful people can avoid prison. However, the Thai Supreme Court’s new ruling effectively erases his hospital stay and resets his sentence. News coverage has highlighted how unusual Thaksin Shinawatra’s path has been: returning from 15 years abroad as a former prime minister, receiving a reduced sentence, and then spending a month in a hospital before being granted parole. The Thai Supreme Court’s decision undoes that leniency and draws a clear line on what counts as custody time. It also strains coalition politics because any shift in Shinwatra’s legal standing can quickly reorder party alliances and who sets the country’s agenda.
For Shinawatra’s supporters, this ruling is seen as another clash between electoral mandates and established institutions. Many of Thaksin’s supporters are from rural and working-class communities who benefited from his welfare policies and feel that the system has repeatedly pushed back against their elected leaders. For his opponents, who are often part of conservative or royalist networks, this ruling is a reaffirmation that the justice system has the capacity to check influential political figures. People who support the ruling argue that it levels the playing field, leaving no room for special treatment. People who have opposed this ruling say that the law is being used as a political tool to constrain electoral movements without returning to voters, a concept known as rule-by-law. In Thailand, courts are central to politics, and a decision like this can quickly shift power dynamics.