The Move Forward Party's (MFP) reluctance to mount a censure motion against the government in parliament is lending credence to rumours of a backroom deal being struck between the main opposition party and the ruling Pheu Thai Party.
However, if such a deal exists, it must benefit both parties, and some pundits are wondering what it would mean for the MFP.
A source said a censure debate did not rank high on the MFP's agenda from the outset. In fact, two prominent figures connected to the party sounded sympathetic toward the government when asked by reporters if the opposition planned to initiate a no-confidence motion any time soon.
The MFP, as the main opposition party, announced recently that the opposition was opting for a general debate rather than a no-confidence one. The significance of this is that a general debate entails no censure vote that could lead to the government's demise if enough "dirt" was dug up against it.
MFP list-MP Pakornwut Udompipatskul, the opposition chief whip, and Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, former leader of the now-defunct Future Forward Party (FFP) and chairman of the Progressive Movement (PM), were lukewarm about holding a censure debate even though the motion would be potent enough, if prepared well, to sink the government.
Mr Pakornwut said it made no sense to grill the administration when it has been in office barely six months. He and Mr Thanathorn agreed the government deserved more time to prove its worth.
The political source noted it was uncharacteristic of opposition politicians not to be enthused by the opportunity to keep the government in check, especially when the law permits it to have a censure debate once a year.
An observer added it was untypical of the MFP to be soft on the government, considering that it jumped at every chance it had to attack the Prayut Chan-o-cha administration.
Brushing aside such observations, Mr Thanathorn explained that when he led the Future Forward Party in opposition, he would not agree to lodge a censure motion until he was certain he had enough evidence of government mismanagement to go in for the kill.
It would be counterproductive to initiate a no-confidence move for the sake of censuring.
"This government has been in office for six or seven months and there's nothing amiss about the cabinet's budgeting practice.
"We should, by good measure, be fair to both Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin and the MFP," he said.
Mr Thanathorn warned that staging a censure attack without solid evidence would backfire on the opposition, while the government being let off the hook was bound to emerge stronger.
"A censure motion represents the opposition's primary tool in maintaining checks and balances. But it shouldn't be overused," said the former leader of the FFP which morphed into the MFP after it was ordered disbanded by the Constitutional Court over an illegal loan the FFP secured from Mr Thanathorn in February 2020.
He also insisted he did not believe the MFP had entered into a secret deal with Pheu Thai, in which both parties would avoid ruffling one another's feathers so that they could one day reunite as coalition partners.
"That's a matter of opinion. It has nothing to do with any deal and everything to do with the MFP needing to preserve its integrity to function with a well-maintained working standard," he said.
On the same day, Mr Pakornwut also defended his party's position, saying if the MFP knew it was unable to put together an effective censure debate, it would not initiate it in the first place.
He admitted he felt heavy-hearted about following a "ritual" of filing a censure motion every year. The old-school censure debate centred heavily on personal issues and not much else in the way of administrative failures, which rendered the motion ineffective in bringing down a government.
"Let's take a moment to think. If the opposition decided to invoke the motion, as it can rightfully do, and gave a lousy censure performance, that would be what fuels allegations of a secret deal by creating an impression of deliberately helping the government sail through the debate.
"The government would be seen as having passed with flying colours at the expense of the opposition's reputation," the MP said.
However, Mr Pakornwut said that the MFP has remained watchful of the government as it is monitoring 40 to 50 issues related to its performance, which could come in handy if and when the party decides to submit a censure motion.
According to the source, many critics have found the explanations furnished by both Mr Thanathorn and Mr Pakornwut less than convincing and have not ruled out the possibility of a Pheu Thai-MFP secret deal.
If such intrigue was being covered up, the underlying question is: what does the MFP stand to gain politically from the deal? Should an alliance between the two parties be unfolding, it would involve Pheu Thai ditching its neo-conservative cloak and betraying the ultra-conservative bloc which helped the party rise to power in last year's election.
Judgement day looms for MFP
The fate of the main opposition Move Forward Party (MFP) and its key party figures hangs in the balance now that the Election Commission (EC) has decided to seek the party's dissolution over its stance on the controversial lese majeste law.
Chaithawat: Dissolution no answer
According to the EC, its unanimous decision to petition the Constitutional Court to disband the MFP led by Chaithawat Tulathon is rooted in the Jan 31 ruling handed down by the court.
The court said the MFP's continuous efforts to change Section 112 of the Criminal Code, also known as the lese majeste law, constitutes an attempt to end the constitutional democracy with the King as head of state, a violation of Section 49 of the charter.
Section 49 prohibits people from using their rights and freedoms to overthrow the constitutional monarchy.
In its Jan 31 ruling the court did not prescribe any punishment, only ordered the MFP to cease all activities related to its campaign to amend Section 112. However, the decision left the party at risk of being dissolved and sparked calls for the EC to initiate dissolution proceedings against the party and political bans for its executives.
Having studied the court's ruling in full, the poll agency this week resolved to move against the party on the grounds that it had breached Section 92 of the organic law on political parties.
Under Section 92, if the EC has evidence that a political party has engaged in activities aimed at overthrowing the constitutional monarchy, it is required to petition the Constitutional Court to consider dissolving that party and banning its party executives from applying to run in elections for 10 years.
While some observers believe the party's demise is imminent, others argue that the MFP could still weather the storm.
Jade Donavanik, a legal scholar and ex-adviser to a charter drafting panel, told the Bangkok Post that the court's Jan 31 ruling described a series of events providing a comprehensive account leading to the decision.
The MFP proposed a bill to amend the lese majeste law in 2021, which was aimed at lowering the status of the royal institution because it required the Royal Household Bureau to file any lese majeste complaints. Consequently, the institution would be placed in direct opposition against members of the public in defamation cases, according to the court.
But the bill was not put on the House agenda. This should have been the end of the matter but instead of letting it rest, the MFP adopted the proposed amendment as a party policy. The party and its former leader Pita Limjaroenrat also took part in campaigns with youth groups opposing Section 112 and applied for bail for suspects in lese majeste cases.
These activities were deemed as undermining the institution and the party was told to halt these activities.
"I think the court wants the party to stop all these activities. If the party no longer engages in them, the case is over. If the party stops, the case stops, too," he said.
But the party dissolution is not off the table considering that there are two separate paragraphs in Section 92. The distinction between Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 involves different criteria or conditions under which a party can be dissolved.
Paragraph 1 involves actions that overthrow the system of the constitutional monarchy or acquire the power to govern through an unconstitutional means. Paragraph 2 deals with actions that are hostile to the system of constitutional monarchy.
The party is still likely to be spared dissolution if the case is filed under Paragraph 1, especially if it has taken concrete action such as removing the policy to amend the lese majeste law and ceasing the campaign related to it.
On the other hand, if the case is lodged under Paragraph 2, the situation becomes more complex and could lead to a less predictable outcome.
"So the party has to wait for the details of the EC's official petition to the court. If the petition contains more details than what is mentioned in the EC's statement issued this week, anything can happen to the party," said the analyst.
On Wednesday, Mr Chaithawat insisted the party would do everything in its power to defend itself in court. However, he admitted the Constitutional Court's Jan 31 ruling would make it a hard case to contest.
He added the party held out hope that it would be allowed the time and opportunity it needed to mount a defence in court.
"Disbandment of a political party will not solve any political problems. On the contrary, it is likely to escalate political conflict," Mr Chaithawat added.