Future Forward Party gets permission to hold first meeting

The party’s co-founders, Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit and Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, said on Friday that the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) had given them permission for the meeting, which will be held at Thammasat University’s Rangsit campus.
Known for its stance against the “undemocratic regime”, the party had sent an application to the NCPO to not only allow them to hold the meeting but also to lift all bans that hinder political activities for a healthy atmosphere ahead of the election.
While the NCPO still imposes a ban on political gatherings of five or more people, new parties can seek the NCPO’s permission to hold their first meeting to frame party regulations and select board members, according to the NCPO Order No 53/2017.
The permission is given on a case-by-case basis.
New systems introduced in the 2017 charter, such as the primary voting system required to select MP candidates, would mean that all parties have to step up to arrange sufficient number of members to enable themselves to compete in constituencies.
They also will likely face challenges for political campaigning as the ruling junta, which strictly controlled the 2016 referendum on the charter draft, would be in charge when the election is held.
Thanathorn and Piyabutr were speaking at a Facebook Live event on Friday at 8.30pm, a time that interestingly coincided with PM General Prayut Chan-o-cha’s weekly talk show.
In a veiled dig at Prayut’s “Returning Happiness to People in the Country” programme as it was previously called, the two Future Party leaders called their event “Thanathorn-Piyabutr return Friday to the People”.
“Those politicians and financiers who wish to support the NCPO and the undemocratic regime should show their stance openly. Their names should also be well recorded. This should be made politically clear for the people to decide,” Thanathorn said.
Piyabutr added that in the democratic system, the MPs are directly elected by the people to exercise powers on their behalf and it would be “a shame” for these MPs to support such a regime.