Move Forward leader Chaithawat Tulathon (centre right) and his predecessor Pita Limjaroenrat are seen addressing the media, following the landmark ruling by the Constitutional Court on January 31st regarding the party’s controversial attempts to amend the lese-majeste law. (Photo: Nutthawat Wichieanbut)
On a lively Friday morning, the Move Forward Party (MFP) staunchly rejected the Election Commission’s (EC) controversial bid to dissolve the party, claiming the process itself is fundamentally flawed. According to the MFP, the EC did not adhere to the steps outlined in the organic law regulating political parties. The main opposition party reacted vehemently to the EC’s defense on Thursday amidst public concerns that the case had bypassed a crucial step – a thorough investigation and meticulous fact-finding mission.
EC member Pakorn Mahannop disclosed that the commission took their decision based on Section 92, rather than Section 93, of the organic law, which uniquely empowers the EC to call on the Constitutional Court to disband the MFP without the necessity of an inquiry. However, MFP chief Chaithawat Tulathon argued that these sections should be interpreted in tandem. He asserted that the EC was obligated to provide the MFP an opportunity to defend itself before forwarding the case to the Constitutional Court.
Section 92 mandates that if there is credible evidence that a political party has engaged in activities undermining the constitutional monarchy, the EC should petition the court for the party’s dissolution. Conversely, Section 93 requires the political party registrar to collect facts and evidence upon discovering such activities and present them to the EC, adhering to the established rules and methods.
Mr. Chaithawat criticized the EC’s rationale for pursuing dissolution under Section 92, deeming it “problematic.” He emphasized that for a party to be dissolved under Section 92, the provisions of Section 93 must be fulfilled first.
The EC’s determination to recommend the court dissolve the MFP followed a court ruling on January 31st. The ruling identified the MFP’s persistent efforts to amend Section 112 of the Criminal Code – better known as the lese-majeste law – as indicative of intentions to undermine the constitutional monarchy.
Drawing an intriguing analogy, the MFP leader emphasized that even a pickpocket apprehended red-handed must undergo an investigative process before facing prosecution. “Dissolving a political party is no small feat; it necessitates fact-finding and investigation. The EC must adhere strictly to the law, not just interpret it flexibly,” Mr. Chaithawat asserted.
Further, he noted that the court’s ruling on the lese-majeste law case does not exonerate the EC from its responsibility to conduct a detailed fact-finding and evidence-gathering process. “We must not muddle the process of evidence-gathering with the credibility of the evidence itself,” he explained, adding that this would be a key point in the party’s defense strategy.
Adding to the drama, MFP chief adviser Pita Limjaroenrat reflected on the EC’s past conduct during the dissolution of the now-defunct Future Forward Party (FFP). At that time, the EC employed the 2017 regulations meant for investigating criminal cases which allowed some leeway. Yet, he pointed out a crucial shift in 2024 when new regulations demanding thorough fact-finding and evidence-gathering came into effect. According to Mr. Pita, these updated rules oblige the EC to comply precisely when initiating proceedings to dissolve a political party under Sections 92 and 93.
The unfolding political saga, filled with legal intricacies and constitutional wrangling, has captured the public’s attention. As the battle rages on, the MFP stands its ground, ready to challenge the EC’s actions tooth and nail, ensuring that every procedural step is scrutinized under the law’s watchful gaze.
This is an outrageous attack on democracy! How can they just dissolve a party without a proper investigation?
Exactly, Mary! It sounds like a gross misuse of power to me. They should follow the legal procedure.
If evidence exists, then why shouldn’t the EC act decisively? Sometimes speed is of the essence to prevent further harm.
Speed is important but so is justice. Without proper investigation, it’s just tyranny disguised as law.
I get that MFP might be pushing boundaries, but the rule of law must be upheld. This rushed process is problematic.
Boundaries or not, everyone deserves due process. This isn’t just about one party—it’s about protecting democratic norms.
Exactly, Sara. Precedent matters. Skipping steps now could impact future cases too.
Absolutely, Analyst123. This isn’t just about politics; it’s about the integrity of our legal system.
But MFP is clearly trying to change the lese-majeste law, isn’t that a threat to the monarchy?
Questioning laws isn’t the same as undermining the monarchy. Reforms can coexist with respect for institutions.
True, but such sensitive topics need careful handling. Was this controversy avoidable?
Can someone explain why sections 92 and 93 are interpreted differently?
Sure, Chanita. Section 92 allows for faster action without an inquiry, while 93 requires detailed evidence collection first. The controversy is over whether 92 can be used without fulfilling 93’s requirements.
Got it, thanks! Seems like a legal grey area.
The EC is just doing its job. If the MFP wants to avoid dissolution, they should avoid activities that even hint at constitutional violations.
Does anyone else get the feeling this is politically motivated? We’ve seen patterns like this before in other countries.
Totally agree, Joe. The timing and manner of these actions are just too convenient to be purely legal.
But isn’t it possible that the MFP is genuinely at fault here? We shouldn’t jump to conclusions without evidence.
This is a classic case of an authoritarian regime trying to silence dissent. Stand strong, MFP!
People need to understand that national security is paramount. The EC is acting in the nation’s interest.
Why does the lese-majeste law exist in the first place?
It’s meant to protect the monarchy, which is a central institution in Thailand. Critics say it’s abused to stifle dissent, though.
Got it, thanks! Seems like a double-edged sword.
This whole thing is a mess. Both sides have points, but can’t we find a middle ground?
In an ideal world, yes. But politics is rarely about compromise, sadly.
True, Helen. But we can hope, right?
The courts will sort this out. We just have to trust the system.
Interesting that Pita references past EC conduct. History does have a way of repeating itself.
The fact-finding step is crucial. Skipping it is like condemning someone without a fair trial.
Well said, MFPForever. Justice needs to be both seen and done.
Thanks, RealPolitik. Let’s hope reason prevails.
Sometimes it feels like the law bends according to who is in power. This case isn’t any different.
Why isn’t there more international attention on this? It feels like a significant democratic issue.
Because the world’s busy with other crises. But you’re right; this is definitely worth international attention.
Exactly my point, GlobalWatcher. It shouldn’t take a major meltdown for people to notice.