Thailand Court Halts Move Forward Party’s Push for Royal Insults Law Change

Explore the latest development in Thai politics as the Constitutional Court halts the Move Forward party’s efforts to amend the royal defamation law. Discover the implications of this decision on political reform and freedom of expression in Thailand.

Despite winning the election last year, the progressive Move Forward party was prevented from taking office in part because of its pledge during the campaign to pursue royal reforms.

BANGKOK: The progressive Move Forward party faces dissolution after Thailand’s Constitutional Court decided on Wednesday that it must stop pushing for changes to the royal defamation legislation.

The court’s nine judges deemed it unconstitutional to advocate a change in Article 112 in the country’s Criminal Code — also known as the lèse-majesté law — which protects the royal institution from criticism by imposing severe penalties on those found to violate it, including up to 15 years in jail per offense.

Opponents claim that the law is frequently used as a weapon to silence political criticism. Beginning in 2020, student-led demonstrations in favor of democracy publicly denounced the monarchy, a topic that had previously been taboo and resulted in harsh legal consequences.

According to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, more than 260 persons have been charged with the crime since those events.

After aggressively emphasizing the need to alter Article 112 and other democratic reforms, the Move Forward party won the general election in 2023. Following almost ten years of governance ruled by the military, the victory indicated that Thai voters were open to change.

But the military-installed Senate effectively blocked the party from power when they refused to approve then-party leader Pita Limjaroenrat as prime minister. Senators said they opposed Pita because of his intention to seek reforms to the monarchy.

In July, Teerayut Suwankesorn, a lawyer associated with royalist politics, petitioned the court to block Pita and the Move Forward party from seeking to change the law. He contended that a constitutional provision prohibiting attempts to topple the institution of constitutional monarchy was broken by the election campaign pledge to change the legislation regarding royal defamation.

The court’s decision stated, “The two accused exercised their freedom and rights to try to overthrow the Democratic System under His patronage. We therefore order that all opinions, including writing, speaking, publishing, and advertising to amend 112, be ceased.”

The ruling, according to the party and its detractors, opens the door for additional legal action that may result in the party’s dissolution.

Supporters of Move Forward think that the party’s political power is being undermined by decisions made by the state’s Election Commission and other courts, which are ardent upholders of the status quo.

However, after King Bhumibol Adulyadej’s passing in 2016, there has been an increasing amount of agitation for a more permissive environment surrounding the topic of discussion.

Pita was asked if the court’s decision meant that attempts to change the strict lèse-majesté statute would now come to an end during a press conference on Wednesday following the ruling.

“Today we lost an opportunity to use the parliament to find different points of view and to find the consensus building for such an important, critical, and fragile issue; parliament would have been the best place to do it,” he retorted.

“What do I want to convey to the voters?” he said. “We’ve done our best, and our sincere goal is to determine the legal balance between the preservation of the monarchy and the reasonable exercise of free speech in contemporary Thailand.

Pita had been suspended from the legislature pending the court’s ruling on whether he violated the election law by owning shares in a media company. He served as the executor of his father’s estate, which had stock in a business that was the owner of an independent television station that had closed. Thailand’s Constitutional Court ruled Jan. 24 that Pita did not violate the law and can retain his seat in Parliament.

In anticipation of the court’s decision over whether Pita’s ownership of shares in a media firm violated election law, he was placed on suspension from the legislature. As the executor of his father’s estate, he was given ownership in a business that owned and operated a closed independent television station. As per the ruling of Thailand’s Constitutional Court on January 24, Pita is eligible to keep his Parliament seat since he did not break any laws.

While he awaited the court’s decision on whether Pita’s ownership of shares in a media firm violated election law, he was suspended from the legislature. His father left him ownership in a corporation that operated a closed independent television station, and he was his father’s executor. The Constitutional Court of Thailand decided on January 24 that Pita was law-abiding and entitled to keep his Parliament position.

Conclusion

The Thai Constitutional Court’s decision marks a setback for political reform and freedom of speech in Thailand. By blocking attempts to amend the royal defamation law, the ruling hinders efforts to address concerns about the abuse of legal mechanisms to stifle dissent. As Thailand navigates its democratic transition, the balance between protecting the monarchy and upholding democratic principles remains a contentious issue.