After a month of ham-fisted oil crisis management, Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul appears to be moving in the right direction.
His public apology over the government's handling of the fuel crisis on Saturday is welcome.
But it will be just an empty gesture if he cannot restore confidence in the Centre for Monitoring and Managing the Conflict in the Middle East (CMC) -- an ad hoc committee set up to deal with the oil crisis triggered by the war.
At the heart of the government's response to the fallout from the United States–Israel alliance against Iran is Deputy Prime Minister and Transport Minister Phiphat Ratchakitprakarn. In his capacity as the CMC's director, Mr Phiphat is essentially the nation's primary "energy crisis manager".
This role would not be cause for alarm if not for a glaring conflict of interest.
Mr Phiphat remains a major shareholder in PTG Energy, one of Thailand's largest oil companies. With interests spanning nearly the entire supply chain -- from logistics to retail pumps -- there is little doubt that PTG will be directly affected by the very policy decisions that he oversees.
The situation can be likened to a game in which the referee is also a player. Given that the company's bottom line is directly linked to crisis management, public doubt is not just understandable -- it is inevitable.
It is noteworthy that Mr Phiphat is aware of the mounting criticism.
He has argued that he was chosen to chair the CMC because he is one of the few energy experts in the administration, and has pointed out that he resigned as a PTG executive more than two decades ago. While this may be true, it does not alter the core issue of a structural conflict of interest.
On Monday, he told the media that he had already tendered his resignation from the CMC, yet the prime minister denied it.
After all, expertise is not an excuse to overlook ethics.
There is little doubt that the government's continued reliance on Mr Phiphat will further erode public trust. When energy policies and pricing decisions directly affect every citizen's wallet, the decision-maker must be beyond reproach.
Despite Mr Phiphat's assurances that he cannot interfere in PTG Energy's operations, in the public's eyes, the line between his official duties and his business interests has become dangerously blurred.
His suggestion that the public should wait to see whether PTG posts unusual profits in the first quarter or at year-end is beside the point. As he himself acknowledged, many have already reached a conclusion: it is fundamentally unfair to have "an oil merchant overseeing oil policy".
As tensions in the Middle East remain volatile, Thailand's energy crisis is likely to persist. The situation demands steady, impartial leadership -- one that can act on professional judgment without raising concerns about vested interests.
