
Dissolved MFP Ex-MPs Face Court Over Charter Amendment Bid
Forty-four former MPs of the now-dissolved Move Forward Party (MFP) are facing a Supreme Court case for alleged serious ethical misconduct related to submitting a bill to amend Section 112 of the Criminal Code. The court has scheduled the first hearing for August 25, while a separate petition to suspend the People's Party leader was dismissed.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday scheduled the first witness hearing for Aug 25 in a case against 44 former MPs of the now-dissolved Move Forward Party (MFP). They are accused of serious ethical misconduct for jointly submitting a bill seeking to amend Section 112 of the Criminal Code. The court also dismissed a separate petition seeking to suspend People's Party (PP) leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut from performing his duties. The now-dissolved MFP has since been reconstituted as the PP. The Supreme Court held its first hearing on Tuesday after the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) petitioned it to determine whether the former MPs had committed a serious breach of ethical standards. Of the 44 respondents, 10 are now members of the opposition PP, including its leader, Mr Natthaphong. The court accepted written objections from all 44 respondents and scheduled an examination of evidence for Aug 4. Both sides were instructed to submit proposed examination procedures and any requests to summon witnesses by July 25. The first witness hearing is set for Aug 25, with further hearings on Sept 22 and Oct 27. The court plans to hear 17 witnesses and has set a one-year timeframe for the proceedings. One respondent will act as his own lawyer, while another will conduct his own defence without appointing legal counsel. After the hearing, former Move Forward deputy leader Pol Maj Gen Supisarn Bhakdinarinath said he had exercised his legal rights in accordance with judicial procedures and had challenged the admissibility of certain evidence in his written submission. He said the outcome would depend on the court's fairness and added that the former MPs had encouraged one another throughout the process, with some appointing lawyers and others choosing to represent themselves. NACC assistant secretary-general Phattanaphong Chanphetphoon said the commission's submission detailed the conduct of each respondent individually. Whether the cases would be heard separately or together would be decided by the court. The commission has proposed 17 witnesses, including case officers and former Move Forward MPs who previously gave statements, although the final decision rests with the court. The court also rejected a petition by Nopparut Worachitwuttikun, a former leader of the White Dove 2006 group, seeking an order suspending Mr Natthaphong over remarks concerning the participation of some privy councillors in a meeting held by the Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation.
多角的分析
この訴訟は、タイの政治的安定性に対する懸念を浮き彫りにし、国内および外国からの投資に影響を与える可能性がある。特に、刑法112条の改正は、タイの政治的・社会的な議論において常に敏感な問題であり、その行方は経済政策やビジネス環境の予測可能性に間接的な影響を与える可能性がある。
投資家にとって、この訴訟はタイの政治リスクを再評価するきっかけとなる。MFPの解散とそれに続く元議員への訴訟は、政策の継続性や法制度の安定性に対する懸念を引き起こす可能性がある。特に、外国直接投資(FDI)を検討している企業は、政治的な不確実性が高まることで、投資判断を慎重に進めるだろう。
刑法112条改正を巡る議論は、タイ社会における言論の自由と王室保護のバランスという、根深い対立を反映している。元MFP議員への訴訟は、この問題に対する社会の分断をさらに深める可能性があり、市民社会の活動や公共の議論の場に影響を与えることが懸念される。特に、若年層やリベラルな意見を持つ層からは、政治的弾圧との見方も出ている。
タイ国民、特にMFPの支持者にとって、元議員への訴訟は政治的な失望感や無力感につながる可能性がある。刑法112条改正案の提出という、民主的なプロセスの一環とされる行為が訴追の対象となることは、政治参加への意欲を削ぐ要因となりうる。また、人民党(PP)の党首に対する職務停止申し立てが却下されたことは、一定の安堵感を与えるかもしれないが、根本的な政治的緊張は依然として残る。
背景・歴史的文脈
タイにおける刑法112条(不敬罪)は、国王、女王、王位継承者、または摂政に対する侮辱や脅迫を禁じる法律であり、長年にわたり政治的議論の中心となってきた。特に2020年以降、民主化を求める若者主導の抗議活動において、この条項の改正や廃止が主要な要求の一つとして掲げられた。前進党(MFP)は、この要求を党の公約に掲げ、2023年の総選挙で躍進した。しかし、MFPが議会で112条改正案を提出したことは、保守派や王室擁護派からの強い反発を招き、結果としてMFPは憲法裁判所によって解散命令を受けた。今回の訴訟は、MFPの解散後も、その政治的影響力を排除しようとする動きの一環と見られている。
原文ソース
Bangkok Post