In a recent twist that set Thailand’s political landscape ablaze, Constitutional Court Judge Udom Sittiwirattham found himself at the center of controversy following remarks that critics claim undermine his judicial impartiality. The backlash erupted after Udom appeared to take credit for the court’s decision to dissolve the Move Forward Party earlier this month. This decision, which left the party’s supporters disheartened, was a major shake-up in Thailand’s political arena, disbanding the election-winning party on August 7 and causing its MPs to regroup under the People’s Party (PP) banner.
As the judicial firestorm continued, Udom defended his stance at a seminar in Surat Thani on August 15, ironically noting that MPs from the disbanded Move Forward Party should actually thank him. His argument? The dissolution allowed them to amass millions of baht in donations in mere days, a windfall since reforming as the People’s Party. Critics quickly pounced, highlighting that dissolving political parties could weaken democratic institutions rather than fortify them.
The Constitutional Court has a notorious history of disbanding numerous parties over two decades, often on technical grounds. While many were minor parties, major players like Thai Rak Thai, its successor, and more recently both Move Forward and Future Forward, have also faced the court’s axe.
Chulapong Yukate, a PP list MP, hinted that Judge Udom’s remarks may have been intended as sarcasm. However, he stressed that the comments could still call into question the judge’s ethics, as judicial decorum traditionally forbids public commentary on cases. Another PP list MP, Wiroj Lakkhanaadisorn, urged Judge Udom to revisit the judicial code of conduct, expressing doubt that Udom’s fellow Constitutional Court judges would support his actions.
Adding to the chorus of disapproval, former election commissioner Somchai Srisutthiyakorn highlighted that Constitutional Court judges must abstain from actions that dishonor their position, show prejudice, or disrespect human dignity. Echoing those sentiments, Prinya Thaewanarumitkul, a law lecturer at Thammasat University, took to Facebook, voicing his surprise over any judge speaking sarcastically about a defendant. He reminded the public that the code of conduct mandates judicial impartiality.
Law lecturer and former prime ministerial adviser, Tongthong Chandransu, also weighed in, emphasizing on Facebook that post-ruling calmness is crucial to confirm that decisions are made without bias.
The seminar in Surat Thani saw Judge Udom, at the venerable age of 70, questioning the legality of the donations amassed by the People’s Party following its unceremonious rebranding. Since its inception on August 9, the party has impressively garnered over 25 million baht and enlisted more than 50,000 members. Udom revealed that the party was channeling donations through the bank account of the Thin Kakao Chaovilai Party—a strategic move made during its transformation.
In a firm defense of the court’s actions, Judge Udom noted that numerous political parties had been disbanded for violating laws. Specifically, regarding Move Forward, he stated that the court’s ruling elaborated on the far-reaching consequences of the party’s activities. According to him, supporters of these dissolved entities focus solely on condemning the disbandment rather than understanding the underlying reasons.
Despite winning the May 14 general election last year, Move Forward found its efforts to amend Section 112 of the Criminal Code—more widely known as the lese-majeste law—constituting their downfall. The court ruled that their attempts jeopardized the constitutional monarchy and national security, culminating in their dissolution this month.
Whether Udom’s controversial remarks were a misstep or a blunt elucidation, they have unquestionably sparked a broader debate about judicial conduct and the fragility of democratic institutions in sweeping political reforms. As Thailand continues to steer through its turbulent political waters, all eyes remain on how such judicial scrutiny will shape its democratic future.
Judge Udom’s comments are completely out of line. How can a judge be so dismissive about dissolving a party that millions voted for?
Judges are humans too. Maybe he was just being honest about the situation. People can’t handle the truth.
Being candid is one thing, but sarcastically telling MPs they should thank him is unprofessional and disrespectful.
Exactly, it’s one thing to be honest but another to mock people who are already disenfranchised.
I see your point, but consider the financial benefits they got. It’s not all bad.
The dissolution of Move Forward was justified, they were undermining the monarchy. The court did its job.
Undermining the monarchy? They were pushing for necessary reforms. The judiciary is stifling democracy.
Necessary reforms or not, they crossed a line. There are other ways to push for change without threatening national security.
But was there truly a threat to national security, or is that just rhetoric to justify political suppression?
If dissolving parties keeps the peace, then why not? Democracy isn’t a free-for-all.
That’s a slippery slope. Today it’s one party, tomorrow it’s anyone who disagrees with the government.
Udom should be removed from his position for making such irresponsible comments. It undermines the judiciary!
Removing him won’t fix the inherent issues. It’s the system that’s flawed.
True, but if we don’t hold people accountable, it sets a dangerous precedent.
This is a clear example of why the judiciary needs to stay impartial. Any bias snowballs into undermining public trust.
Impartiality is a myth. Everyone has biases, especially judges. We just need better checks and balances.
True, but when those biases are so blatant, it’s harmful. Better checks move us in the right direction but we need more.
The issue isn’t Udom’s comments, it’s the fact that Move Forward was trying to change the lese-majeste law. That’s suicidal in Thailand.
But maybe that’s what’s needed for progress. Holding on to outdated laws stifles growth.
Progressive or not, there’s a right way to go about it. Shaking the core of your nation’s identity isn’t it.
I’m tired of politics. Judges should just do their jobs and keep their mouths shut. We vote for politicians, not judges.
Exactly, less talk, more action. The judiciary isn’t a soap opera.
Udom’s age may have contributed to his outdated views. It’s time for younger, more progressive judges.
Age brings wisdom. New doesn’t always mean better.
Wisdom, sure, but also rigidity. We need a balance of experience and fresh perspectives.
It’s horrifying how easily political parties can be dissolved. What’s the point of elections if the judiciary overrides public will?
Checks and balances are necessary, but when overused, they can undermine the very democracy they aim to protect.
Thailand’s judicial system needs a complete overhaul. This isn’t the first time a major party has been disbanded for ‘technical’ reasons.
This situation mirrors past political crackdowns. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Does anyone know if there’s an international body that can step in to review such judicial decisions?
Why are we focusing on Udom’s comments? The bigger issue is the glaring bias within the entire judicial system.
There needs to be a third-party audit of the judicial practices in Thailand. Only transparency can restore faith.