❓ Content reviewed: The Future Forward Party and the Move Forward Party did not issue any statements expressing their positions after being dissolved by rulings of the Constitutional Court.
❌ Fact-check result: Incorrect information — both the Future Forward Party and the Move Forward Party delivered verbal statements on the days the Constitutional Court ruled to dissolve them.
📝 Summary: On 22 Nov 2025, “Kham Phaka,” a columnist and TV host, posted on X (@kamphaka): “When the Future Forward Party was dissolved, and later Move Forward, I didn’t see any statements at all—just a shrug and moving on. Then they quietly removed the Section 112 policy.” This was posted in response to Sirote Klampaiboon, a columnist who wrote an article criticizing the Pheuthai Party for remaining silent on reports that the Attorney General was preparing to appeal a case in which Thaksin Shinawatra is a defendant under Section 112 of the Criminal Code, and on the Supreme Court’s ruling ordering the Revenue Department to collect 17.6 billion baht in taxes from the sale of Shin Corporation shares.
“Clear evidence that Pheuthai has completely ‘cowered’ is that even when Khun Thaksin faces a Section 112 appea lwhich could lead to a one-year prison term and a 17 billion baht share-tax case, the entire party did not state at all,” Sirote wrote in his article titled ‘Gray Politics in the Thaksin Case and the Police Conflict’, published on the Matichon Weekly website on 21 Nov.
Kham Phaka countered on X that issuing statements would not change anything and that “judicialization of politics” is nothing new. She argued that Pheuthai therefore chose to spend its time on other work and election preparations instead of issuing statements, while also referring to the Future Forward Party and the Move Forward Party, claiming that neither party issued statements after the Constitutional Court ruled to dissolve them.
🔎 Cofact investigation: The key issue examined by Cofact was whether the Future Forward Party and the Move Forward Party truly failed to issue statements after being dissolved.
Based on reports from multiple media outlets and videos published on the former Move Forward Party’s YouTube channel, Cofact found that executive committee members of both parties did publicly state their views and positions following the dissolution rulings, as follows:
▪️ 21 Feb 2020: The Constitutional Court ruled to dissolve the Future Forward Party and revoke the electoral rights of its executive committee members for 10 years, due to the party borrowing 191.2 million baht from party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, which the funds were unlawfully obtained under the 2017 Organic Act on Political Parties.
On the evening of the same day, Thanathorn and party executives held a press conference at party headquarters, broadcast live on the party’s Facebook and YouTube channels as well as by media outlets such as Thai PBS. Several media organizations reported on the event, including Matichon, which ran the headline: “Piyabutr and party executives declare disagreement with the ruling dissolving the Future Forward Party”. The Momentum headlined: “Future Forward issues statement after court orders dissolution, vows to move forward only changing the way it moves.”
▪️ 7 Aug 2024: The Constitutional Court unanimously ruled to dissolve the Move Forward Party and revoke the electoral rights of its executive committee members for 10 years, citing actions deemed an attempt to overthrow the democratic system with the King as Head of State, based on the party’s proposal to repeal Section 112 of the Criminal Code and its use of this proposal as a campaign policy.
After the ruling, Move Forward leader Pita Limjaroenrat and party executives held a press conference at party headquarters. Secretary-General Chaithawat Tulathon read out a statement, followed by remarks from Pita. The event was broadcast live on the party’s social media channels and by media outlets such as Thai PBS and The Standard.
Key points of the statement included the Move Forward Party’s assertion that it had not engaged in actions to overthrow or oppose the democratic system with the King as Head of State, and its insistence that both the text and enforcement of Section 112 of the Criminal Code have genuine problems that should be addressed through parliamentary mechanisms.
📌 Cofact conclusion: Media reports and widely circulated video recordings of these press conferences confirm that both the Future Forward Party and the Move Forward Party issued statements after the Constitutional Court rulings dissolving them on 21 Feb 2020 and 7 Aug 2024, respectively. Therefore, Kham Phaka’s claim that “when the Future Forward Party and Move Forward were dissolved, there were no statements at all…” is not consistent with the facts.
As for the claim that the Move Forward Party removed its policy to amend Section 112 from the party website, this is true. However, the policy was removed after the Constitutional Court’s ruling on 31 Jan 2024 that Pita and the Move Forward Party’s proposal to amend Section 112 and use it as a campaign policy constituted an attempt to overthrow the system. The party’s secretary-general stated that the policy was removed following legal advice, as the Constitutional Court indicated in its ruling that retaining the policy on the website could be interpreted as an intent to undermine protections for the monarchy.
