Parliament, “Chaithawat” explains ‘Policy Section 112′ was spread on the website because he feared the court’s decision. But they still stubbornly say that MPs can speak up and are not afraid of the big sword executing politics. 44 MPs are ready to fight the case, saying that if they stay in the EU The ruling is unusable.
Mr. Chaithawat Tulathon, list of MPs and the leader of the progressive party Give an interview before the joint meeting Progress Party MP After the Constitutional Court ruled that the policy of amending the Criminal Code, Section 112, was used to campaign for the Progressive Party. It is considered to be the overthrow of the government. and was ordered to stop doing such things. Later, Mr. Rueangkrai Leekitwattana, a member of the Phalang Pracharat Party Has submitted a petition to the Election Commission (EC) asking to consider dissolving the party. and disqualified the executive committee members of the Progressive Party
Mr. Chaithawat said that today is a discussion with MP to understa
nd the situation correctly and discuss the work of the party after this MPs will continue to work as usual.
When asked about the case at the party website Delete the policy to amend the Criminal Law Section 112. Mr. Chaithawat said that because the legal department saw That is an issue that the Constitutional Court also raised in its decision, that there is still a policy on this matter on the website. It is a part that leads to the conclusion. that it is the overthrow of government In fact, we don’t think. that it will be an important issue
As for MPs or party members who still have opinions about amending Section 112 in social media, Mr. Chaithawat said that the ruling does not say that MPs cannot propose amendments to Section 112. Regardless of which party MPs he reiterated in yesterday’s press conference that Section 112 is still a problem. Therefore, the fact that some party members still have opinions that this section should be amended It can still be done. We just have to look at what is the legal p
roposal of the law according to the decision of the Constitutional Court.
When asked if today’s meeting was a gathering of MPs’ opinions or if the party’s legal team had already had guidelines, Mr. Chaithawat said that not yet because yesterday we listened to the decision. And we still haven’t had a chance to really talk. Because I had to quickly prepare a press conference for the media. Today, before everyone disperses for the weekend. Therefore, we took the opportunity to talk today, believing that the MPs would have an opinion. and offers to exchange
The part that has the past Progressive Party MPs such as Ms. Suttawan Suban Na Ayutthaya and Mr. Kanchanaphong Sutthanamanee also attended the meeting. Because it was one of the 44 names submitted to amend the law in 2021 or not? Mr. Chaithawat said he was not sure but thought he should come to the committee meeting. It is not an agenda to talk with the group of 44 MPs. They are still not sure.
For concerns about ethics complaints Which may be punishable by
the disqualification of political rights. Mr. Chaithawat said that the matter of ethics is different from the matter of being asked to dissolve the party. It’s a different process. and will likely take more time I didn’t say that if it was an ethics case. and was found guilty must be deprived of political rights for life Depends on the court In this part, the party’s legal department is already preparing to fight. We still have to wait and see the full verdict. Because there are still legal details.
‘No matter what you get complained about. Now what we are waiting for is waiting to see the full verdict. Because it will be important in terms of legal matters,’ Mr. Chaithawat said.
As for academics giving the opinion that the Progressive Party should submit it to an international organization to investigate decisions that violate international human rights principles, Mr. Chaithawat said that this matter had not yet been discussed. This is because the mechanisms that can monitor the use of judicial power in T
hailand are limited. Ready to give an example That if we were in the European Union and there was a decision like this, it would definitely not be enforceable. Because it is considered a violation of the basic rights and freedoms of citizens. Freedom of expression cannot be strictly prohibited. But this is Thailand.
Source: Thai News Agency