The newly formed Kla Party has catapulted to prominence by carving a niche for itself as it seeks to secure a position in politics.
Korn: Avoiding too big a splash
Already the party has been compared to the dissolved Future Forward Party (FFP), which appealed to previously passive voters as well as those disenchanted with the country's bitter polarisation.
Some political experts, however, believe the only similarity shared by the Kla and FFP is being new to politics.
The Kla has firmly adopted pragmatism as its core value, focusing on practical approaches to tackling economic woes and strengthening the new, technology-driven business model to fuel the country's growth.
The party is capitalising on the credentials of its leader Korn Chatikavanij, a former finance minister with close connections to many successful and upcoming start-up entrepreneurs.
In contrast, economics was never the FFP's strong point. Instead, the disbanded party was geared towards challenging the status quo, and rode high on its agenda to eradicate dictatorship.
In comparison to Mr Korn, the FFP's former leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit envisaged broader achievements, including social justice, before the party's life was cut short by a Constitutional Court ruling.
Another major difference is that the FFP began with a bang, exploding onto the scene with 81 MPs seats in the election last year. Predictions of an impressive electoral debut were exceeded when the FFP won the third-largest number of seats in parliament, shocking political pundits.
For Kla, Mr Korn has made it known he wants to avoid making the party too big, too fast. In fact, he has set a modest goal of winning about 20 seats in the next poll.
Observers also said the two parties command separate voter bases. Kla appears to have a relatively smaller group of supporters, many of whom are middle-class, mid-career professionals with a fair degree of political exposure. These seem to comprise a mix of keen voters, plus a "silent majority" previously indifferent to elections, but now enthused by the Kla's promise of a new approach to economic rejuvenation.
Turning to the FFP, one observer noted the party was a magnet for a broader segment of voters which included the red shirts, the middle class and liberal intellectuals. However, a sizeable portion of its supporters were young, first-time voters of the social media-savvy digital generation who identified with FFP's pledge to bring changes to society.
In contrast, these first-time voters do not seem to be on Kla's radar, if we judge by the party's low profile on social-media platforms popular with youngsters, particularly Twitter.
Certain user segments of Twitter, such as those accessed by the LGBT community, were "seized" by the FFP to deliver regular updates of its political activities and comments from its talking heads to young supporters' mobile phones, according to the observer.
It has been said that the way to a voter's heart nowadays is through their mobile.
Anutin: Denies 'MP fishing'
New members lift Bhumjaithai
Bhumjaithai is set to become the coalition government's second-largest party after taking nine MPs from the now-dissolved Future Forward Party (FFP) under its wing.
Bhumjaithai MP and party registrar Supachai Jaisamut has reportedly written to inform House Speaker Chuan Leekpai that the nine MPs from the now-disbanded party had applied to join his party. The defections was expected to be made official once the censure debate wrapped up.
With 61 House seats, the party led by Public Health Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, who is also deputy PM, will displace the Democrat Party and have more leverage in parliament, political observers say. In the wake of these so-called defections, rumours are swirling that Bhumjaithai lured these MPs with offers of big money. In a recently released audio clip, voices sounding like certain members of Bhumjaithai were heard offering money to FFP MPs in return for joining coalition parties.
Mr Anutin, however, has strongly denied this claim, insisting that there has been absolutely no "MP fishing" to enlarge the party and boost its bargaining power in parliament.
"We are happy to be a bridge for those who want to work. At the end of the day, it is the people who will benefit. Having more MPs just means we have more capacity to work for the people.
"The party oversees seven ministries and there is enough room to accommodate extra MPs. Also, the party can extend its work wider and deeper," Mr Anutin said in response to questions about the possibility of Bhumjaithai negotiating for more cabinet posts in the event of a reshuffle.
Several political observers believe Bhumjaithai can be considered a suitable choice for those who want to search for a new political home, instead of staying with the Future Forward Movement that was formed immediately after FFP was dissolved.
For instance, Chiang Mai MP Srinuan Boonlue chose to join Bhumjaithai after she was expelled from the FFP for apparent disloyalty.
While Bhumjaithai is not as progressive in its ideology as the FFP has made itself out to be, it is not old-fashioned either and does not engage in heavy political machinations. Also, instead of competing against each other, Bhumjaithai members stand by each other, a political source said.
According to Jade Donavanik, a legal expert and former adviser to the Constitution Drafting Committee, Mr Anutin has also proved to be a versatile politician who can play conventional politics or become a keyboard warrior using social media as his battlefield.
Mr Anutin's personality and Bhumjaithai's policy of never alienating other political parties are bound to put the new members at ease, compared to core coalition partners like the ruling Palang Pracharath Party, Mr Jade said.
The FFP was dissolved on Feb 21 by the Constitutional Court over a 191.2-million-baht loan it obtained from former party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit to fund last year's election campaign.
Its 16 executives were slapped with a 10-year ban from politics while its MPs, excluding 11 who sat on the executive board, now have 60 days to find a new party or lose their MP status.
Surapon: Verdict not in line with law
How dissolution was wrong
Agroup of 36 law lecturers at Thammasat University, including former university rector Surapon Nitikraipot, issued a statement voicing disagreement with the Constitutional Court's decision to disband the Future Forward Party (FFP) over a campaign loan.
Their statement was intended to confirm their stance against the verdict, which they said was not in line with legal principles written in textbooks. However, the lecturers said they only wanted to voice their opinion, not be critical of the court.
One of the lecturers who signed the statement said it was necessary to air their opinion and explain their stance because otherwise they would find it difficult to answer questions from their students in the future. The statement was signed by several lecturers from the fields of public as well as civil law.
In the statement, the lecturers said a political party can only be legally defined as a juristic entity, not a public organisation, and as a juristic entity it can obtain a loan.
As for the loan's low interest rate and late-repayment fee, which the court said was "unusual" business practice, the lecturers said a lender and borrower were free to agree on a rate. They also said it was not unusual for a lender to charge little or no interest, and that the loan did not qualify as a "donation or other benefits" as the court ruled.
They added that Section 72 of the political parties law, which was applied to dissolve FFP, did not apply in this case because it deals with funds acquired from illegitimate or suspected illegitimate sources such as the drug trade or other criminal activities.
The lecturers also said political parties are instruments in a democracy, and they represent the legitimate interests of various groups of people. As such, the Constitutional Court can only dissolve a political party if it is proven to have committed an extremely serious offence.
The lecturers added that the longstanding political conflict can be resolved if laws are enforced fairly and that democracy can only survive if legal specialists do their job without any bias and if people search for solutions using reason and patience.
The Constitutional Court has always insisted that it did not rush its decision and that it spent 71 days examining all necessary details before handing down the ruling.
It also explained that laws limiting the source of parties' income are intended to prevent the wealthy from wielding undue influence over a party.
As for whether a loan is a donation, the court said a political party is a public organisation and thus governed by relevant laws.
The FFP argued that as a juristic entity, it was governed by the legal principle that "everything which is not forbidden is allowed". Public authorities are instead governed by the rule that "everything which is not allowed is forbidden" -- a legal concept to limit state power.
