So where’s the opposition?

So where’s the criticism?

The Move Forward Party’s ( MPF ) resistance to filing a censure motion against the government in parliament supports rumors of a backroom agreement being reached between the ruling Pheu Thai Party and the main opposition party.

However, if for a bargain exists, it may benefit both parties, and some experts are wondering what it would mean for the MFP.

A source claimed that the MFP’s plan for a reprimand debate was off the table right away. In fact, when asked by reporters whether the criticism planned to launch a no-confidence motion any time soon, two well-known figures in the celebration sounded friendly toward the government.

As the main opposition party, the MFP recently revealed that the criticism would prefer a public discussion over a no-confidence one. A common debate does not require a censure vote, which could lead to the government’s destruction if enough “dirt” was uncovered against it, which is important.

MFP list- MP Pakornwut Udompipatskul, the opposition chief whip, and Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, former leader of the now- defunct Future Forward Party ( FFP ) and chairman of the Progressive Movement ( PM), were lukewarm about holding a censure debate even though the motion would be potent enough, if prepared well, to sink the government.

Mr. Pakornwut claimed that it was absurd to criticize the leadership despite only six months in office. He and Thanathorn agreed that the government needed more time to demonstrate its price.

The social source noted that it was unusual for opposition politicians to not be enthused by the chance to keep the government in search, especially when the legislation permits a reprimand conversation once a year.

An observer continued,” The MFP was unusual for it to be gentle on the authorities, given that it jumped at every possibility it had to strike the Prayut Chan- o gan management.”

Mr. Thanathorn explained, ignoring these observations, that he would not consent to file a censure motion until he was sure there was enough evidence of government incompetence to proceed.

In order to censure, it would be counterproductive to establish a no-confidence move.

There is nothing wrong with the commission’s budgeting practices, even though this government has been in business for six or seven weeks.

” We may, by great measure, be reasonable to both Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin and the MFP, “he said.

Mr. Thanathorn warned that launching a reprimand attack without compelling evidence would have a negative impact on the opposition and that the government would be more likely to emerge victorious.

” A censure movement represents the opponent’s key tool in maintaining checks and balances. However, it should n’t be overused, according to the former FFP leader, who later became the MFP after the Constitutional Court ordered it to bedissolved due to an illegal loan Mr. Thanathorn obtained from him in February of this year.

He added that he resisted the MFP’s claim that Pheu Thai and the MFP had struck a covert agreement that would allow them to prevent ruffling one another’s birds in order to eventually form coalition partners.

” That’s a matter of judgment. It has nothing to do with any bargain, and it has to do with the MFP having to maintain its integrity in order to operate at a high standard, he said.

Mr. Pakornwut also defended his party’s position on the same day, saying that if the MFP knew it could n’t start a constructive censure debate in the first place, it would n’t start it.

He acknowledged that he felt sentimental about pursuing the “rite” of filing a censure motion every month. The old-school censure debate focused primarily on personal issues and did n’t mention many other administrative errors, which ineffectively helped to bring down a government.

” Come take a moment to consider. The opposition’s decision to summon the motion, as it can legitimately do, would serve as fuel for the claims of a secret deal by giving the impression that it had been purposefully helping the government get through the debate.

” The state would be seen as having passed with flying colors at the cost of the opponent’s popularity”, the MP said.

But, Mr. Pakornwut claimed that the MFP has continued to monitor the state because it is reviewing 40 to 50 issues related to its performance, which could be useful if and when the party decides to file a reprimand motion.

Some critics, in the opinion of the source, have found the explanations provided by both Mr. Thanathorn and Mr. Pakornwut to be unimpressive, and they have not rejected the possibility of a Pheu Thai-MFP secret deal.

What does the MFP stand to gain socially from the offer if such drama was being concealed? Pheu Thai would need to shed its neo-conservative robe and betray the ultra-conservative alliance that helped the group rise to power in the last year’s election if an alliance between the two parties were to form.

Judgement time is approaching for MFP.

Now that the Election Commission (EC ) has decided to seek the party’s dissolution over its position on the contentious lese majeste law, the fate of the main opposition Move Forward Party ( MPP ) and its key party figures is in the balance.

The EC’s unanimous decision to appeal the Constitutional Court to dissolve the MFP led by Chaithawat Tulathon is based on the court’s decision on January 31.

The MFP’s continued efforts to amend Area 112 of the Criminal Code, also known as the der guess laws, are a violation of Segment 49 of the contract, according to the jury.

People are prohibited from exercising their legal dynasty through Part 49.

The court simply ordered the MFP to stop all activities related to its plan to alter Part 112, in its Jan 31 decision. The choice, however, raised the possibility of the party dissolving and sparked calling for the EC to start a dissolution proceeding against the organization and social executive bans.

The ballot company this week decided to sue the celebration on the grounds that it had violated Section 92 of the natural law governing political parties after thoroughly studying the court’s decision.

If a political party is found to be carrying out activities that are intended to overthrow the democratic king, it must appeal the Constitutional Court under Section 92 to have that group disband and forbid its gathering executives from running for ten times.

Some observers believe the party will eventually end, but some claim that the MFP was still survive.

Jade Donavanik, a former legal expert and former member of a contract writing section, claimed that the judge’s Jan 31 decision described a number of events that provided a detailed account of the decision.

The MFP proposed a bill to amend the der guess law in 2021, which required the Royal Household Bureau to report any der guess problems. In response, the court would put the organization in direct opposition to members of the public in slander situations.

However, the House did not include the expenses on its mission. The MFP may have decided that this was the end of the story, but instead of letting it settle, the proposed amendment was adopted as party policy. Additionally, the group and its former president Pita Limjaroenrat organized campaigns with youth organizations to oppose Part 112 and requested bail for suspects in der majoreste cases.

These actions were deemed to be undermining the institution, and the party was instructed to stop them.

” I believe the court wants the defendant to put an end to all these activities. The case is over if the party stops engaging in them. If the party stops, the case stops, too”, he said.

Given that Section 92 contains two distinct paragraphs, the party dissolution is still on the table. Different criteria or conditions are used to determine the distinction between Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2.

Actions that would otherwise give rise to the constitutional monarchy’s system or that would grant unconstitutional authority to rule are included in Paragraph 1. Actions that are hostile to the constitutional monarchy are addressed in paragraph 2.

If the party files a case under Paragraph 1, it is still likely to be spared dissolution, especially if it has taken specific actions, such as removing the policy to amend the Lese Majoreste Law and ceasing the campaign related to it.

On the other hand, if a case is filed under Paragraph 2, the outcome could be less predictable and the situation would become more complicated.

” The party must therefore wait to receive the details of the court’s official petition.” Anything could happen to the party if the petition contains more details than what the EC’s statement this week mentions, said the analyst.

On Wednesday, Mr. Chaithawat vowed that the party would do everything in its power to fight in court. However, he admitted the Constitutional Court’s Jan 31 ruling would make it a hard case to contest.

He continued,” The party held out hope” that it would have the opportunity to file a defense in court.

” The dissolution of a political party will not resolve any political issues. On the contrary, it is likely to escalate political conflict”, Mr Chaithawat added.