People’s Party faces probe over executive appointments
Political activist Ruangkrai Leekitwattana petitioned the Election Commission (EC) to investigate the People’s Party (PP), the successor of the disbanded Move Forward Party (MFP), for allegedly failing to comply with party regulations.
If violations are confirmed, the party’s August 9 resolution to appoint new executives could be deemed invalid, according to Ruangkrai, who noted that he has already submitted a written petition to the EC by post.
During a special meeting on August 9, the PP appointed several key figures to its executive board, including Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut as party leader, Chutima Kotchapan as party treasurer, Natthawut Buapratum as party registrar, and Phicharn Chaowapatanawong as a board member.
Ruangkrai highlighted that under Regulation No 52 of the Thin Kakao Chaovilai Party, the former name of the PP, meetings must be announced at least one week in advance. However, the MFP was only dissolved on August 7, which calls into question the legality of the appointments made on August 9, said Ruangkrai.
“If the meeting was not announced properly, the appointments of the PP executives may be unlawful.”
Additionally, the Secretary-General of the House, Arpath Sukhanunth, revealed that he was invited last month by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to answer questions regarding the MFP’s submission of a bill to amend Section 112 of the Criminal Code, also known as the lese majeste law.
The bill, initially submitted to the House on March 25, 2021, aimed to remove Section 112 from the Criminal Code’s Chapter 1, which deals with security.
It proposed creating a new chapter with two sections: one concerning the offence of defaming or acting with hostility towards the king, and the other addressing similar offences against the queen, other royal family members, and regents.
Arpath explained that the bill was rejected due to concerns over its constitutionality.
He said during his questioning by the NACC that the bill was believed to be unconstitutional.
After its initial rejection, the MFP re-submitted the same bill without making any revisions, prompting the House’s coordination committee to review it again. Arpath noted that the committee also found the bill to be unconstitutional for the same reasons as before and identified three additional points to support their decision to veto it, reported Bangkok Post.
