File photo courtesy: Wikipedia

 

The Move Forward party's advisory chief, Pita Limjaroenrat, has accused the Election Commission (EC) of double standards. This follows the EC's expedited move to bring the party’s dissolution case before the Constitutional Court without allowing Move Forward a chance to defend itself.

 

Move Forward, the main opposition party, faces threats of dissolution and a decade-long political ban on its executive committee. Allegations against them include attempting to undermine the constitutional monarchy, linked to their election pledge to amend Thailand's stringent lèse majesté law.

 

Pita Limjaroenrat criticised the EC’s petition to the Constitutional Court as illegal, arguing it hinges on the court's earlier ruling (3/2567) from January 31, which pertains to a separate case. He referenced a 2010 ruling where the court dismissed a similar EC dissolution request against the Democrat party for procedural oversights.

 

During a press conference, Pita contended that the EC's petition bypassed standard procedures. He stated this omission makes the EC's current petition invalid. “The EC has proceeded without giving us the opportunity to defend ourselves,” Pita said, highlighting what he sees as an unjust and rushed process.

 

Move Forward has been actively contesting the EC's decision. Their objections include questioning the EC’s authority to request such severe penalties. They argue the stakes are disproportionate to the alleged infractions.

 

The Constitutional Court has set hearings for July 3 and July 9 to consider these serious accusations.

 

The political climate remains tense as this high-stakes legal battle unfolds. The outcome could significantly impact Thailand's political landscape, especially the opposition’s capacity to challenge policies and influence governance.

 

Overall, the confrontation between Move Forward and the EC underscores growing tensions and potential shifts in the nation's political dynamics.

 

-- 2024-07-01

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Quote

Move Forward Slams EC for Blocking Its Defence in Dissolution Case

The EC is in dire need of several good slammings, Forward, Backward and Sideways, to help it adjust its perspective.

The EC is the worst commission in THailand and we should get rid of it as soon as posible

Without a credible opposition party Thailand is undemocratic with a dictatorship in control.

3 hours ago, webfact said:

“The EC has proceeded without giving us the opportunity to defend ourselves,” Pita said, highlighting what he sees as an unjust and rushed process.

 

Don't expect justice when you try to fight the system .

Prepare for the worst outcome .

The ruling elite does not want change , even it is desperately needed .

The idea of change does not let them sleep good anymore ... they will protect by all means what they consider to be theirs .

But , there is always a way ...

6 hours ago, webfact said:

the confrontation between Move Forward and the EC underscores growing tensions and potential shifts in the nation's political dynamics.

Not "growing" but continuous since 1932. The facade is that sovereignty of the nation lies with the Thai people.

It is contentious that Thailand is a constitutional "anything" that incorporates classic democracy.

I still don't understand how anyone can be prosecuted for something they haven't done yet. Yes, the MFP had said it will make adjustments to the lese majeste law, but have not done that yet. 

Perhaps wait until MFP is the government before bringing the case?

It all sounds like a thought crime today.

2 hours ago, Purdey said:

I still don't understand how anyone can be prosecuted for something they haven't done yet. Yes, the MFP had said it will make adjustments to the lese majeste law, but have not done that yet. 

I'm not sure that MFP actually said that they would make adjustments, I thought they had said they would put forward a proposal for changes to the laws which would be discussed in parliament and obviously wouldn't be implemented unless those proposals received the required number of votes?

 

Quite why proposing a discussion within parliament is a crime baffles me?

17 hours ago, nahkit said:

they would put forward a proposal for changes to the laws which would be discussed in parliament and obviously wouldn't be implemented unless those proposals received the required number of votes

That's how a constitutional monarchy works. The People (aka the Electorate) have sovereignty of the nation to control the authority of a monarch through agreed upon constitution and laws.

Example the Magna Carta - prevent the king from exploiting his power, and placed limits of royal authority by establishing law as a power in itself. https://www.parliament.uk/magnacarta/

Representatives of the People have the right to propose new laws, amend laws and remove laws without premature interjection of the Courts or monarch in such legislative processes. But there is recourse to challenge any results, ie., a Constitutional Court.

 

Practically in the present case, MFP is a minority coalition in the National Legislative Assembly (House and Senate) and unlikely to achieve passage of any of its proposals for changes in lèse-majesté laws.

Should MFP achieve any degree of change through the majority vote of the NLA, the Court remains the final arbitrator. But that has already taken odd premature positions:

• Jan 21, 2563 BE — Thai court finds opposition party not guilty of sedition charge.
• Nov 11, 2564 BE — Thai Court Says Calls for Royal Reform May be Seditious.

Off topic (slightly), but related to the EC and their decision making process: When was Prayuth made a member of the privy council? I read an article alluding to his position there, but don't remember ever reading about the announcement in the news.