Move Forward MPs prominently displayed the three-finger salute in parliament on Wednesday, a symbolic act following the Constitutional Court’s directive to dissolve the party. As it stands, all 143 of Move Forward’s MPs are set to migrate to a newly established party to be announced on Friday. (Photo: Chanat Katanyu)
In light of the party’s dissolution, Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin addressed growing international concerns on Thursday. While acknowledging the apprehensions from other nations, he reassured that Thailand remains a sovereign and democratic country, independent of foreign sway. Addressing queries about the US State Department’s recent statement following the court’s decision, he unwaveringly insisted, “Thailand is fully capable of managing its own affairs without any external influence,” Mr. Srettha asserted with conviction.
He emphasized, “I am certain that all Thai people understand we will not allow a foreign nation to interfere with our sovereignty.” While adopting a diplomatic tone, he added, “I prefer not to call it ‘interference’; instead, I see it as a recommendation. In today’s fragile world, we must all navigate together.”
The prime minister revealed plans to consult the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to craft a response that acknowledges the US’s goodwill, ensuring respectful and appropriate wording. The backdrop of the court’s ruling—that Move Forward’s attempts to amend the lese-majeste law were deemed threatening to the monarchy and national security—sets the stage for complexity.
Despite the strong reaction to the ruling, Mr. Srettha reflected on the party’s intent, “I believe Move Forward’s position was merely a reflection of its stance and its determination to remain active in the political sphere.” He expressed confidence that Move Forward would respect the judicial decision and act accordingly.
He has already engaged with security officials to assess potential protests following the ruling, reassuring the public, “No immediate threats have been detected.” Turning to his own pending Constitutional Court case, scheduled for a decision on August 14, Mr. Srettha acknowledged feeling slightly unsettled but affirmed it would not impede his duties.
The case, which revolves around the contentious appointment of Pichit Chuenban as a Prime Minister’s Office minister, continues despite Mr. Pichit’s resignation aimed at shielding Mr. Srettha from political repercussions.
Separately, the Constitutional Court underscored the importance of diplomatic decorum while noting that all nations have their distinctive laws and regulations. Following the ruling, the US State Department remarked that the court’s decision “jeopardises Thailand’s democratic progress,” and conflicts with the public’s aspirations for a robust democratic future.
Matthew Miller, spokesperson for the State Department, added, “The United States does not favour any political party, yet as a close ally, we encourage Thailand to ensure inclusive political participation and safeguard democracy along with freedoms of association and expression.”
The European Union (EU) echoed these sentiments, viewing the court ruling as “a setback for political pluralism in Thailand,” highlighting Move Forward’s significant electoral victory in 2023, where it garnered 14 million of the 39 million total votes. “No democratic system can sustain itself without a breadth of parties and candidates,” said a statement from the European External Action Service press team.
Amnesty International voiced strong criticism, labeling the court’s decision “untenable,” and suggesting that Thailand’s laws are being used to silence dissent. Meanwhile, the Asian Forum for Human Rights warned that the ruling posed “serious risks to democratic principles.”
This ruling is a blatant attempt to stifle dissent. The judiciary shouldn’t be used as a political weapon!
Uh, it’s about protecting our traditions and safeguarding national security. Did you even read why they dissolved the party?
Sure, but the lese-majeste law is outdated and suppresses free speech. Reform is necessary for true democracy.
Agreed. A law that shuts down debate isn’t healthy for any society.
I’d rather have a government that respects its culture than one that bows to foreign pressure.
Culture evolves, and clinging to old laws prevents progress.
There’s a balance to be had between preserving tradition and allowing modern political discourse.
I think Srettha handled it diplomatically. Independence is key, but ignoring international advice could be risky.
Only if that ‘advice’ isn’t just a mask for interference. Thailand needs to be careful.
Why is everyone so paranoid? Not every suggestion is a conspiracy.
Sonya43, balance is needed, not paranoia. Constructive feedback is part of being a global community.
Diplomatically, sure, but his tone dismisses real international concerns.
The dissolution of Move Forward is a step back for democracy in Thailand. 14 million voters are essentially being ignored.
Ignoring voters? More like enforcing the law. These actions were necessary.
It feels like suppressing opposition rather than enforcing the law.
Exactly, Ava. Democratic voices are being stifled under the guise of legality.
Thailand should be cautious of US and EU involvement. They have their own agendas.
Every nation has an agenda, but it’s not wrong to listen to concerns about democracy.
It’s always a balance, Henry. Ignoring allies could isolate Thailand diplomatically.
Can we talk about how the judiciary is influencing politics? Courts shouldn’t have this much power.
The three-finger salute in parliament was powerful. A bold statement against the ruling.
International reactions are overblown. Thailand is maintaining order, not suppressing democracy.
Maintaining order at the cost of freedom isn’t a fair trade-off.
Freedom without order leads to chaos. We need structure.
Move Forward’s new party could be even stronger. Sometimes adversity brings out the best.
Thailand should take the US’s advice with a grain of salt. We’ve seen how US interventions can go wrong.
Advice and intervention are different. Listening doesn’t mean you’re controlled.
True, but history shows how advice can lead to intervention.
I’m concerned about the potential protests. Will the government use this as an excuse to crack down harder?
Governments always have an excuse ready. Look at history.
Sophie, I think they will be cautious. Another crackdown could lead to worse international backlash.
Thailand’s sovereign decisions should be respected, but are we cornering ourselves by rejecting all external feedback?
Does anybody else find it ironic that the US is criticizing another country’s democratic process?
The international community should focus on supporting democratic principles rather than dictating them.
Supporting without dictating is easier said than done.
Amnesty International is right. This is a dangerous precedent for free speech and assembly in Thailand.
Prime Minister Srettha’s balanced approach may be the best move in this fragile situation.