Photo courtesy of Bangkok Post

 

A petition has been filed by a red-shirt leader, Niyom Nopparat, seeking the dissolution of the Bhumjaithai Party (BJT) and the People's Party (PP) over a controversial memorandum of agreement (MOA). This MOA facilitated the formation of the current coalition government, which Niyom argues could potentially breach the constitution's Section 49. The section pertains to attempts to overthrow the democratic system, raising concerns about the legality of this political alliance.

 

Niyom's petition follows a refusal by the attorney-general to consider the case, prompting Niyom to approach the Constitutional Court directly. Parliamentary debates by former ministers Dr. Cholnan Srikaew and Pol Col Tawee Sodsong previously questioned the constitutionality of the MOA. These debates highlighted procedural and ethical concerns about the MOA's five-point agreement and its implications for democracy.

 

The petition also criticizes the procedural challenges faced by citizens in bringing constitutional cases to the court. Niyom referenced an ethics case involving Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, dismissed due to procedural constraints, which underscored the difficulties ordinary citizens encounter in legal proceedings. Another recent petition was filed by reserve senator Akkarawat Pongthanachalitkul against Mr. Anutin and opposition leader Natthaphong Rueangpanyawut, accusing them of undermining democracy through the MOA.

 

Akkarawat's petition describes the agreement as a "slave contract," claiming it could destabilize democratic governance by promising a minority-led government with a rapid parliamentary dissolution plan. Critics argue such an unstable arrangement could weaken government functionality, erode public trust, and prompt unnecessary elections. Additionally, accusations against the PP suggest it has failed in its role as a political watchdog, which has disheartened its voter base.

 

Key Takeaways

• A petition challenges the legality of the Bhumjaithai-PP coalition agreement.
• Concerns center on potential democratic system violations under Section 49.
• Critics argue the government's structure could lead to instability.

 

Related Stories

Thai Parties Face Hurdles in Charter Rewrite Agreement

Political Rift: People's Party Faces Backlash for Backing PM

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from Bangkok Post 2025-10-15

 

 

Why is it that the People's Party does not have a lawyer with knowledge of the Constitution? Their utter naivety in believing that no one will accuse them of anything is just incredibly annoying. Looks like they will disappear one day.

51 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

red-shirt leader, Niyom Nopparat, seeking the dissolution of the Bhumjaithai Party (BJT) and the People's Party (PP)

 

Hmm, if these two parties are dissolved, which party is left, and what relation does Nopparat with that party.

 

Answers on a postcard.

 

Sound as if someone was set up, because if i recall correctly, Thaksin encouraged PP to endorse Anutin

With the elections coming they must dissolve the feared big winner already .. Peoples Party will win the elections and than the army and elite will loose their power and so it is time  to take action now... and it will be stretched till it is impossible to let them take part in the elections in a new party

5 hours ago, CallumWK said:

 

Hmm, if these two parties are dissolved, which party is left, and what relation does Nopparat with that party.

 

Answers on a postcard.

 

Sound as if someone was set up, because if i recall correctly, Thaksin encouraged PP to endorse Anutin

Haha Thaksin again.

Please show proof I doubt Thaksin would want Anutin in as PM 

15 minutes ago, Hunz Kittisak said:

Haha Thaksin again.

Please show proof I doubt Thaksin would want Anutin in as PM 

 

This good enough for you?

 

The People's Party, led by Natthaphong, emphasised the importance of ensuring no external candidate could assume the role of prime minister. The party fears that a lack of majority support could lead to an outsider taking charge. Over the past five days, negotiations with the Pheu Thai and Bhumjaithai parties have reached a detailed understanding.

 

 

I have noticed that part of the world loves a bit of admin. Making nothing understandable so they can go down the rabbit hole into endless litigation 

I doubt the MoU is binding, so terming it a "slave contract" is incorrect. Usually, it outlines the intentions and general terms of cooperation between parties. It is usually not legally binding, unless it explicitly states otherwise. It describes roles, responsibilities, and goals, but usually lacks detailed legal obligations.

 

It is NOT a contract, which specifies detailed obligations, rights, and remedies for each party, and would be legally binding and enforceable in court.

 

With all this petty bickering nonsense from politicians and activist serial petitioners constantly throwing the teddy out of the pram, it's a wonder anything gets done here... unless it's about making foreigners' lives more difficult.