Political activist Ruangkrai Leekitwattana is stirring the pot once again, as he petitions the Election Commission (EC) to scrutinize the People’s Party (PP), the latest form of the disbanded Move Forward Party (MFP), for potential breaches in party regulations. If Ruangkrai’s suspicions prove accurate, the PP’s August 9th decision to appoint new party executives would be null and void. According to Ruangkrai, he has already mailed his formal petition to the EC.
At a special meeting on that contentious day, the PP elected Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut as party leader, Chutima Kotchapan as party treasurer, Natthawut Buapratum as party registrar, and Phicharn Chaowapatanawong to the party’s board, among other key roles. The controversy stems from Regulation No. 52 of the Thin Kakao Chaovilai Party—the PP’s former identity—which dictates that meetings must be publicly announced a week in advance. Given that the MFP was dissolved only on August 7th, Ruangkrai claims the August 9th appointments violate this rule, rendering them possibly illegal.
Meanwhile, Arpath Sukhanunth, the House’s secretary-general, received an invitation from the NACC last month to provide testimony on the MFP’s attempt to amend Section 112 of the Criminal Code—commonly referred to as the lese majeste law. Arpath shared that the bill, originally submitted to the House on March 25, 2021, was rejected on grounds of unconstitutionality.
The controversial bill aimed to remove Section 112 from Chapter 1 of the Criminal Code, which deals with matters of national security. This section was to be relocated to a newly created chapter comprising two fresh sections. One section addressed the crime of defaming or showing hostility towards the King, and the other section concerned similar offenses against the Queen, other royal family members, and the regents.
Despite the bill’s rejection, the MFP re-submitted it unchanged, prompting another review by the House’s coordination committee. According to Arpath, the committee reaffirmed the bill’s unconstitutionality and highlighted three additional reasons to veto the proposal. Even after its first submission, the bill met the same fate during the second round of evaluation.
There you have it, folks—a political saga steeped in controversy, bending rules, and a whirlwind of legal twists that wouldn’t seem out of place in a dramatic thriller! The drama continues to unfold as Ruangkrai presses for justice, and the NACC delves into the implications of the MFP’s actions. For now, the People’s Party must await its fate under the EC’s magnifying glass.
Ruangkrai is nothing but a troublemaker trying to stay relevant! Why doesn’t he focus on real issues instead of splitting hairs over technicalities?
He’s ensuring political accountability! If laws were broken, they need to be addressed. You can’t just keep bending rules!
Agreed. Rule of law is paramount. This isn’t just some minor issue; it’s about maintaining integrity within political institutions.
Sometimes, all these technicalities just seem like a big waste of time and resources. We have bigger problems to tackle!
The People’s Party knew what they were getting into by appointing officials right after their reformation. This just shows their arrogance.
It does seem a bit suspicious how quickly they moved. But maybe they were just trying to get a fresh start quickly.
I think TheRealBrad has a point. Their actions look anything but transparent.
The real issue here is the lese majeste law. It’s outdated and suppresses free speech. The MFP was right to want to reform it.
But it’s part of maintaining respect for the monarchy. Many countries have similar laws. Why should Thailand be any different?
Because times change and laws should evolve to reflect contemporary values and freedoms!
Exactly, GreenThumb. Sticking to archaic laws just for tradition’s sake can hold a society back.
I’m still not clear on how the PP’s appointments violate the former party’s regulations. More details, anyone?
The main point is about the timing. The MFP was only dissolved on August 7th, and they didn’t announce the new meeting a week in advance as required.
Got it. So it’s mainly about failing to meet the advance notice requirement. Makes sense now.
Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut as leader? Sounds like a desperate move to me.
Desperate or strategic? He’s got a clean image and can garner public support.
Maybe, but it’s still too soon to tell if this will work in their favor.
Why are we even debating this? The EC will decide soon enough. Let’s wait for the official ruling before jumping to conclusions.
This entire debacle is a distraction. We need to focus on economic recovery and public health.
Absolutely. Politics always gets in the way of real progress. It’s frustrating.
But you can’t ignore political accountability. It’s all interconnected.
What does this mean for the future of the People’s Party if the EC sides with Ruangkrai?
Worst case scenario: their appointments are null and void, and they’ll have to re-elect the leaders following proper regulations.
Ruangkrai’s actions might seem petty, but they expose how political maneuvers can exploit loopholes.
True. Political transparency should be non-negotiable, even if it means dealing with these ‘petty’ issues.
Glad you see my point, Jenny. Small cracks can lead to bigger issues if left unchecked.
The whole situation reflects the broader issue of political instability in Thailand. Reforms are urgently needed.
I honestly think the lese majeste law debate is far more crucial. It affects the core of freedom of expression in Thailand.
Focusing too much on this law is a distraction from more pressing, immediate economic and social issues.
Can’t we see that everything is part of the democratic process trying to find its footing? Calm down, everyone.
Easier said than done. When laws are bent and political transparency is compromised, people have the right to be uneasy.
Regardless of the outcome, PP and its supporters will find a way to spin the narrative. The real losers here are the common people caught in the political crossfire.