A woman, brandishing a sign reading “Vote for change, not to be dissolved,” stands resolutely among supporters of the Move Forward Party (MFP) at their Bangkok headquarters on August 7. They await the pivotal ruling from the Constitutional Court, a decision that would precipitate the party’s disbandment. This catalyst spurred Udom Rathamarit and Jiraniti Havanon, who are simultaneously Constitutional Court judges and guest lecturers, into the crosshairs of university student activists. (Photo: Varuth Hirunyatheb)
In the aftermath of the court’s controversial ruling, student activists from Thammasat and Chulalongkorn universities are mobilizing against the judges’ dual roles. These academic and judicial positions seem incompatible to many, especially with such a contentious court verdict hanging in the balance. Last Wednesday marked a watershed moment that saw the disbandment of the MFP, igniting a fervor among students who believe that the judges failed both academically and judicially.
On the vibrant Thammasat University campus, the Student Council from Rangsit and the Faculty of Law committee unleashed their dissatisfaction on Facebook on Saturday. They called on law students to rally behind a petition urging the removal of Udom Rathamarit from his role as a special lecturer. The accusations were explicit: Rathamarit had allegedly undermined the sanctity of the legal field with a constitutional interpretation that betrayed his own teachings. With an aim to gather support, they plan to present the signed petition to the Dean of Thammasat’s Faculty of Law on Wednesday.
Echoing the sentiments of their peers, the Student Council at Chulalongkorn University has invited Jiraniti Havanon, another embattled judge and special lecturer, to an open discussion on the ruling. Scheduled for 1 PM this Wednesday, this meeting promises transparency, as it will be broadcast live on Chulalongkorn’s Student Council Facebook page. The council has highlighted the blunders of the Election Commission’s procedural missteps that the Constitutional Court judges seemingly ignored. They argue that such a significant punitive measure, like party dissolution, should be an absolute last resort.
The student leaders warn that the court’s decision deviates from the core principles of the Legal State and the Rule of Law, potentially tarnishing the academic rigor and reputation of their universities’ law programs, both now and in the future.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Court President Nakarin Mektrairat has decided to stay tight-lipped about the student-led campaigns against his colleagues. Further adding to this tempest, the court’s imminent ruling on the future of Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin looms on the horizon, scheduled for Wednesday.
In a separate, yet tangentially related incident, Warner Music Thailand found itself in the eye of a social media storm. Over the weekend, a contentious post featuring a doctored image of the Constitutional Court’s judges, set against a backdrop including portraits of the current monarch and King Rama IX, stirred uproar. This altered image, widely considered disrespectful and possibly infringing on lese-majeste laws, prompted Warner Music to issue an immediate apology and take corrective measures. The offending post was replaced with a note of contrition, and the employee responsible is now facing a disciplinary hearing for violating the company’s standards.
As tensions rise and the legal landscape continues to shift, these events underscore a riveting chapter in Thailand’s political and academic discourse. The unfolding drama highlights not just the power of judicial decisions but the potent activism that emerges in response, reverberating through university corridors and echoing in the halls of justice.
Be First to Comment