A group of 25 Members of Parliament (MPs) from the People's Party are facing a serious ethics probe that could result in lifetime political disqualification. The investigation stems from their proposal to amend Section 112 of the Thai Criminal Code, which concerns lèse-majesté, or insulting the monarchy. The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has launched the investigation, alleging a "serious breach of ethics."
The ACC's actions have sparked a heated debate about the boundaries of political expression and the role of ethics in governance. The investigation targets 44 former MPs of the Move Forward Party, the predecessor to the People's Party, who initially proposed the amendment. It remains unclear whether all 44 have received the formal accusation documents.
Political Reactions and Concerns
News of the investigation has triggered strong reactions from key political figures. Rangsimon Rom, an MP from the People’s Party, questioned the timing of the ACC's actions, suggesting they could disrupt preparations for an upcoming no-confidence debate. “Why now?” Rom asked, implying a possible political motivation behind the investigation.
Natthapong Rueangpanyawut, leader of the People's Party, has announced plans to request an extension of the initial 15-day period for responding to the allegations. He emphasized the need for a fair and individualized investigation. 
"This is not a bundled case," Rueangpanyawut stated, "each individual should be judged on their own merits."
Amornat Chokpommitkul, a former MP from the Move Forward Party, defended the right of the legislative branch to amend laws. She pointed out that Section 112 has been amended twice previously. She also noted that a similar proposal by the Election Commission was once part of the Move Forward Party's platform.
Potential Penalties and Past Precedents
If the ACC refers the case to the Court of Justice's Criminal Division for political office holders, and the court finds a serious breach of ethics, the consequences could be severe. The maximum penalty is lifetime political disqualification, including a permanent ban from running for office, a 10-year election ban, and a prohibition from holding any political positions.
This type of penalty has been applied in several recent cases under the 2017 Constitution. For example, former Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin was removed from office after the Constitutional Court ruled his actions constituted a serious ethical violation. 
Other politicians, such as Parina Kraikup and Kanokwan Wilavan, have also faced permanent disqualification for various ethical breaches.
“The issue of ethics has dramatically heightened the risk of politicians being ousted from office or permanently barred from political participation. This has significantly weakened both the executive and legislative branches.”
The Ethics Case and Potential Amendments
The case originated from a petition filed by Teerayut Suwannakesorn, a lawyer, in February 2024. The petition accused the 44 former Move Forward Party MPs of breaching ethical standards by jointly submitting a draft amendment to Section 112. This followed a Constitutional Court ruling that deemed such an amendment to undermine the democratic system.
In response to the increased risk of political disqualification, both the Pheu Thai Party and the People's Party are attempting to propose constitutional amendments to clarify ethical requirements for office holders. The People's Party advocates for abolishing judicial authority in interpreting political ethics, while the Pheu Thai Party seeks to define specific ethical requirements in the Constitution. However, these proposals have faced challenges in gaining the necessary parliamentary support. 
The future of these amendments remains uncertain.
The ongoing investigation and the debate surrounding it highlight the complex interplay between political expression, ethical standards, and the law in Thailand. The outcome of the case could have significant implications for the future of political discourse and the balance of power within the government.