Chusak” sees “Thirayut” filing a petition to dissolve the Pheu Thai Party as going too far, pointing out that the content of the petition clearly shows who is behind it, confirming that there is no behavior that undermines or destroys.
Mr. Chusak Sirinil, Minister attached to the Prime Minister’s Office, gave an interview about the case where Mr. Thirayuth Suwannakasorn filed a petition to the Constitutional Court to order Mr. Thaksin Shinawatra, former Prime Minister, and the Pheu Thai Party to stop the actions that are the exercise of rights and freedoms leading to the overthrow of the democratic regime with the King as Head of State, according to Article 49 of the Constitution. He said that the petition under Article 49 of the Constitution, regarding the overthrow of the democratic regime with the King as Head of State, is a provision that compares this type of offense to rebellion. Therefore, this letter is written to request the cessation of the actions. Therefore, overall, we can see that the 6 issues
that Mr. Thirayuth filed a petition are far beyond the reasons to overthrow the regime. This word has two overlapping words: the first is overthrow of the democratic regime, plus the King as Head of State. And he tried to describe it to meet the criteria of the Move Forward Party’s ruling that it is an erosion or destruction, which he thinks is much farther than the reason. He gave an example such as the description of the petition that the amendment of the law, the implementation of the policy, and the going to the 14th floor of the Police General Hospital are to undermine or destroy, which is an exaggeration and he thinks it is baseless. When comparing this issue, both Pheu Thai Party and Mr. Thaksin, regarding the institution, we think that we have always stood firm on this issue. Mr. Thaksin, in particular, considers this issue to be very important. In 2007, when the constitution was amended, Mr. Thaksin was abroad and advised through his working group that if the constitution was to be amended, Chapter 1
and Chapter 2 should not be touched. This is the clearest example. It has been brought to this government. The policy is clear that we will amend the constitution. We will not touch Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. We adhere to this point. And it is certain that Pheu Thai Party has no issues that will erode or undermine democracy. Furthermore, when I looked at the details of the petition, which stated that Pheu Thai Party collaborated with the opposition to amend the constitution, the question is what did the cooperation in enacting the law do wrong? What did it erode or undermine? And the law that was amended was about amending ethics to make it clearer and be beneficial to democracy, not to repeal it. And I do not see how it favors Mr. Thaksin in any way. I repeat that overall it is excessive. Trying to explain it to fit the elements, to make it the same as the previous ruling. I see that they are different issues and not related.
When asked if he was not worried about the petition, Mr. Chusak said that overall, h
e did not think he was worried because we have always adhered to this, which is the democratic regime with the King as head of state.
As for whether a working group will be set up to provide clarification to the Constitutional Court, Mr. Chusak said that we must first see whether the court will accept the petition. If it does, we will be happy to provide clarification, and we already have a working group because this matter involves the Pheu Thai Party.
When asked if Mr. Chusak will be the head of the working group himself if the court accepts the petition, Mr. Chusak stated that he cannot escape if the court accepts it, but he must reiterate that we do not behave in such a way. There is a clear example of dominance. After the case where Mr. Settha was removed from the position of prime minister, there was a meeting of the coalition parties and there were rumors that another person would be proposed. But in the end, the Pheu Thai Party held a meeting and we selected another person, changing it to be Prime M
inister Paethongtarn. It shows that we are ourselves. We have the power and discretion to make decisions. In terms of our decisions, this is a clear example that we are a political party. We have an executive board. As for who will give advice, I think it is the nature of every society that we have to listen. If it is good, we will use it.
When asked whether this matter would have any implications in the future, because Mr. Paiboon said it was the starting point that would lead to the collapse of a major political party, Mr. Chusak said that he did not want to think that far ahead. He only thought about whether the court would accept the case or not. If it did, he would explain.
When asked if he thought there was something behind this, Mr. Chusak said, ‘I don’t know.’ The background lies in the conflict because in one of the petitions, it was written that Mr. Thaksin was behind the removal of the Palang Pracharath Party from the coalition government. It is politics, there is a background.
When asked again
whether the Palang Pracharath Party was behind this, Mr. Chusak said, ‘Look at the petition.’ Before smiling and chuckling, he added, ‘Look at the petition and you will see.’
Source: Thai News Agency