EC errors for the monarchy?

While we understand that sometimes reporting gets details wrong, we could not help but be perplexed by a report at the Bangkok Post headlined: “EC defends court request to dissolve MFP.” The report begins:

The Election Commission (EC) on Thursday defended its decision to seek the dissolution of the opposition Move Forward Party (MFP) over its support for the revision of the lese majeste law by saying that the move followed proper legal procedures under the organic law on political parties.

Reportedly, this was made more difficult for the EC when its Chair Ittiporn Boonpracong remarked “in a video clip that the EC did not follow the legal steps…”.

According to the report, the EC has had to “clarify” its position “after the Constitutional Court on Wednesday instructed it to submit further evidence in the dissolution case against the MFP. The main opposition party had cried foul, saying the poll agency forwarded the case without any prior investigation.”

The story then cites EC commissioner Pakorn Mahannop, appointed in 2017 by junta apparatchiks in the appointed Senate, who is quoted as saying:

the commission’s decision was based on Section 92, not Section 93, of an organic law, which authorises the EC to file a request with the Constitutional Court to disband the MFP without conducting an inquiry.”

Pakorn. Clipped from The Nation

Mr Pakorn pointed out the differences between both sections. Section 92 of the 2018 Political Parties Act says that after obtaining credible evidence that a party has committed an act deemed hostile to the constitutional monarchy, the EC must propose the dissolution of the party to the court without a need to conduct an inquiry, he said. Cases under Section 93 require the EC to launch a probe and allow the accused to respond to the allegations, while Section 92 does not, he said.

What does Section 93 actually say? This is from the version that we have, dated 2560, and provided by the EC:

Section 92. The Commission, when having believable evidence that any political party performed any of the following actions, shall file a petition to the Constitutional Court to dissolve such political party.

(1) To overthrow the democratic form of government with the King as head of state or to perform any action to get the power to govern the country by any means that are not in the due process of law as prescribed in the Constitution.

(2) To perform any action that may be adverse to the democratic form of government with the King as head of state.

(3) To perform any action that is an offense under Section 20 Paragraph Two, Section 28, Section 30, Section 36, Section 44, Section 45, Section 46, Section 72, or Section 74.

(4) There is a ground to dissolve a political party as prescribed by laws.

The Constitutional Court, after the hearing and if there is believable [credible] evidence that the political party performed any action under Paragraph One, shall give an order to dissolve such political party and deprive the right to apply as election candidate of the executive committee of such political party.

Section 93. The Registrar, whenever discovering that any political party performed any action under Section 92, shall collect the facts and evidence and present his or her opinion to the Commission to consider, which shall be under the rules and methods specified by the Commission….

“The Registrar” is defined in Section 6:

Section 6. The Secretary-General of the Election Commission shall be the Registrar and shall have duties and authorities under this Organic Act, which shall be under supervision and control of the Commission.

What does all of that mean? It seems that the EC secretary-general, as Registrar, has failed to follow Section 93’s directions regarding a petition under Section 92.

But, as Pakorn rightly states in the report, there’s a precedent for all of this monkeying around, and it all has to do with the royalist notion of “protecting” the monarchy:

the EC’s request for the dissolution of the Thai Raksachart Party ahead of the 2019 election was also based on Section 92 of the political party law. The petition was accepted by the Constitutional Court which ruled to dissolve the TRC….

Of course, back then, in the face of Thaksin Shinawatra nominating the king’s eldest sister for the TRC, the king had issued a declaration that caused the EC to jump into action and the Constitutional Court to deliver a “verdict.”

We are guessing that, on Move Forward, the EC didn’t follow procedures because it is (again) “protecting” the monarchy.