Future Forward Party makes fearless stand for principles

Future Forward Party makes fearless stand for principles

Future Forward Party secretary-general Piyabutr Saengkanokkul argues about the need to issue an executive decree on the transfer of two military units to the palace. The decree was approved as the FFP voted against it. (Photo by Pattarapong Chatpattarasill)
Future Forward Party secretary-general Piyabutr Saengkanokkul argues about the need to issue an executive decree on the transfer of two military units to the palace. The decree was approved as the FFP voted against it. (Photo by Pattarapong Chatpattarasill)

The Future Forward Party's (FFP) decision to vote against the executive decree to place two important military units under royal command represented a huge risk.

Its stance will inevitably incur the wrath of royalists, particularly the military headed by army chief Gen Apirat Kongsompong. We can expect more charges of disloyalty to the throne to be hurled wildly at the party.

Just a week ago, Gen Apirat raised the political temperature several degrees when he accused opposition politicians, academics and political activists of subscribing to communist ideology.

In a lecture to an audience of hundreds at army headquarters, he said these "old communist elements" and extreme leftists were collaborating in "hybrid warfare" to undermine the country and the high institution.

While he did not name names, it was obvious he was targeting opposition politicians, including those from Pheu Thai and FFP.

But he reserved special treatment for Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit. During his suspension as an MP by court order, the FFP leader has been travelling widely here and abroad to meet with voters, foreign dignitaries, politicians and activists, including Joshua Wong in Hong Kong.

Gen Apirat couldn't resist the temptation to spew venom at the young politician, calling him names without actually mentioning his name.

The general's rhetoric evoked memories of events more than 40 years ago. At the time, state propaganda machines had whipped anti-communist sentiment into a frenzy, which culminated in attacks by state-backed vigilante groups on protesters gathering inside Thammasat University on Oct 6, 1976.

The attacks resulted in acts of unspeakable brutality against the mostly student protesters that left a black stain on Thai political history.

Responding to Gen Apirat's rhetoric, FFP secretary-general Piyabutr Saengkanokkul accused the general of meddling in politics and holding dangerously biased views of those with a more progressive political stance.

He warned the general's speech was Cold War-era rhetoric that would inflame hatred and widen gaping divisions in society, possibly leading to a repeat of the Oct 6 massacre.

Mr Piyabutr has defied expectations since becoming the FFP's de facto parliamentary leader in Mr Thanathorn's absence.

The rookie politician has proven himself a superb speaker, delivering his arguments with a veteran's confidence. Although maintaining a polite demeanour at all times, Mr Piyabutr has shown no fear in tackling controversial subjects that risk attracting the ire of the powers-that-be.

On Thursday he raised the bar a notch higher by delivering a speech against accepting the government's executive decree to hand over two military units to royal command.

The decree provides for the transfer of the 1st and 11th infantry regiments, together with their manpower and budget, to the royal security command unit. The regiments are said to have been crucial to past coups d'etat.

The decree was issued under Section 172 of the constitution. It empowers the government to act under national emergency without parliamentary approval. However, it needs to secure approval once the emergency has passed.

Mr Piyabutr questioned the nature of the emergency, saying the government had provided no evidence to substantiate its claim.

He accused Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha of being reckless in invoking Section 172 powers. The prime minister had become so used to exercising absolute power under Section 44 of the interim constitution, Mr Piyabutr said, that he now couldn't be bothered with respecting the constitution.

If that reckless exercise of power was allowed to go unchecked, Section 172 would soon become Section 44 in disguise, he added.

Mindful of the matter's sensitivity, Mr Piyabutr was careful to avoid associating the decree with the monarchy. His criticism was aimed directly at Gen Prayut as the person responsible for issuing the decree and exercising power under it.

Despite his rhetorical effort, the House voted 374-70 to pass the decree. Future Forward MPs stood alone in opposing its passage.

Some noted that the FFP had been abandoned during the vote by its opposition allies. But most observers were astounded the FFP voted against the decree at all, given the inherent danger in doing so.

Royalists and FFP haters will inevitably seize upon the moment to launch diatribes against the party. The vote, they will say, offers more evidence of the FFP's disrespect for the monarchy.

But to the party faithfuls, it was proof of the party's adherence to democratic principles against all odds.

Many say they know the tired old accusations of disloyalty will be hurled at the party, but they are proud that Mr Piyabutr and FFP chose to stand on principle when everyone else succumbed to pressure.

However, the vote will deprive FFP detractors of at least one piece of fake news used as a weapon to attack the party. Since all Pheu Thai MPs voted with the government, they can no longer call FFP members, particularly Mr Thanathorn, Thaksin Shinawatra's lackeys.

Wasant Techawongtham is former news editor, Bangkok Post.

Wasant Techawongtham

Freelance Reporter

Freelance Reporter and Managing Editor of Milky Way Press.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (31)