The Move Forward Party ( MPF ) is accused by critics of trying to portray itself as a victim of political persecution as it prepares to go public.
The MFP held a media conference last Sunday at its headquarters to present its defenses against the claims made against it in the breakdown situation.
Despite the Constitutional Court’s warning that the MFP and the Election Commission (EC ) should abstain from speaking out on the matter pending a trial, this was done in opposition to the Constitutional Court’s order.
The court claimed that doing so could deceive the jury and influence the outcome of the trial.
The MFP claimed at the click event that the court has no authority to dissolve it and that the dissolution case is unrelated to the party’s prior decision regarding the party’s position on the stability majoreste law.
Pita Limjaroenrat, the MFP’s deputy adviser and former president, claimed that he and his side’s legal affairs team had examined the constitution and found no provision that gave the court the authority to dissolve a party or withdraw its political rights.
Additionally, Mr. Pita claimed that his organization had not had enough information about the breakdown event or an opportunity to stand up for the accusations made.
This occurred despite the judge repeatedly forbidding a party’s defense.
Additionally, Mr. Pita responded to the court’s plea to the group to end its efforts to amend Section 112 of the Criminal Code, also known as the der guess rules.
Mr. Pita claimed that the reading into the breakdown case should concentrate on what has already happened while the warning concerned something that has not yet occurred.
Social spectators, however, said they found it difficult to support the MFP’s claims and that it is unlikely to be disbanded.
In contrast, on Wednesday the judge also said it will learn the MFP defection case tomorrow.
Playing prey?
Wanwichit Boonprong, a professor in political science at Rangsit University, claimed the MFP was attempting to inform the public that it had been badly treated and subject to political persecution.
The party has tried to connect this with the current dissolution case and the court’s earlier ruling regarding the party’s position on the der majeste law.
” I believe the MFP is trying to play the target to win support from the people,” Mr. Wanwichit said.
I think the MFP is presently considering what should be done in the near future. If the group is dissolved, it could be reborn and renamed. It may continue to gain popularity and expand its foundation of supporters.
” However, the group may diminish as many important statistics will be banned from elections as a result of the group’s dissolution”, Mr Wanwichit said.
He claimed that the MFP wants to be a new force in order to balance the influence of big parties like the Pheu Thai Party and liberal parties.
The new group that emerges from the disbanded MFP will still have a better chance of winning the majority of House seats in the upcoming vote if the MFP was disbanded and the Pheu Thai-led state also failed to live up to the person’s expectations.
Wanwichit: MFP ‘ playing target ‘
Unconvincing claims
The MFP misled the Bangkok Post when it made up the allegations in the breakdown case, according to Pattana Reonchaidee, a professor at Ramkhamhaeng University’s faculty of law.
” The party did n’t need to explain the procedure to the court,” the court said. Rather, it really concentrate on defending itself from accusations made against it.
” Its claims were poor. The MFP may have a difficult time]fighting the situation in court],” Mr Pattana said.
Pattana: Focus on military
According to Jade Donavanik, a professor of law at Dhurakij Pundit University, the breakdown situation against the MFP is based on the Political Parties Act rather than Area 112 of the Criminal Code.
” The MFP is trying to cause distress. The MFP is attempting to conjure up the Criminal Court proceedings with those of the contract court. According to Mr. Jade, the group is not charged with breaking Part 92 of the Political Parties Act.
The MFP’s claim that the Constitutional Court has no authority to break the party was also refuted by Mr. Jade, who was a member of the previous law drafting committee. In fact, for electricity is stipulated by the Political Parties Act, he said.
Jade: MFP trying to cause distress
Komsan Phokong, an impartial academic and former participant of the 2007 law writing assembly, echoed the watch that a party breakdown situation falls within the court’s jurisdiction.
The MFP’s case involved allegations that the party’s actions, including its efforts to amend Section 112, indicated an attempt to undermine the constitutional monarchy. He claimed that only the charter court has the authority to decide the case.
” The MFP’s arguments were not convincing,” Mr Komsan said.
Komsan: Case’ not convincing’
In March, the EC requested a ruling on the party’s dissolution in a petition.
It was responding to the court’s ruling on January 31 that the MFP’s efforts to alter Section 112 showed an intention to undermine the constitutional monarchy.
The EC argued that the party violated Section 92 of the organic law governing political parties in light of the ruling.
The section grants the court the authority to dissolve any organization that poses a threat to the constitutional monarchy.
The court granted the hearing request on April 3.
Under Sections 92 and 94 of the law, the EC requested the court dissolve the party, revoke party executives ‘ right to contest elections, and forbid anyone who violates those rights from registering or serving as party executives for ten years.
Any lese majeste complaint must be filed by the Bureau of the Royal Household, according to the amendments MFP proposed.
Police are currently required to conduct an investigation into allegations of royal defamation against anyone. In consequence, the party claims, politicians and other authority figures have used the law to stifle dissenting opinions.
Additionally, the group has urged less severe sentences for convictions in the least restrictive countries.
A Section 112 conviction carries a sentence of 3- 15 years. People who are awaiting trial or appealing their convictions are frequently cited by judges as the cause of their refusal to be free of charge.