PP's push for reform

The People’s Party (PP), once hailed as a powerful engine for reformist change in Thai politics, now finds itself cornered with only one remaining flagship agenda: charter amendment.

- 

Other reformist priorities, most notably the push to amend Section 112 of the Criminal Code— commonly known as the lése majesté law — have stalled under immense resistance from both the establishment and rival political factions. This leaves constitutional reform as the party’s final battleground to prove its relevance and deliver on its promises to supporters.

When PP rose to prominence, it carried the hopes of a broad coalition of younger voters, pro-democracy activists, and disillusioned urban middle-class Thais. Their mandate was clear: confront Thailand’s entrenched structures of power and push through bold reforms.

The campaign platform centred on three pillars: reforming the constitution to dismantle authoritarian legacies, rectifying Section 112, and restructuring the economy to be more equitable.

Initially, the momentum was strong. The party dominated conversations around democracy, human rights, and political reform. Its youthful leadership and progressive policies differentiated it from traditional power brokers.

However, once in parliament, the realities of coalition politics, institutional checks, and resistance from conservative actors blunted much of its reformist edge.

The clearest sign of such an impasse came with the attempt to rewrite Section 112. The Ise majesté law has long been one of the most sensitive issues in Thai politics. It criminalises perceived insults against the monarchy with severe penalties, making any effort to amend it an almost impossible endeavour within the current political climate.

PP championed changes, arguing that the law has been abused for political purposes and weaponised to silence dissent. But resistance came from all sides: conservative politicians labelled the move as an attack on the monarchy, several parties distanced themselves for fear of alienating their voter base, and even some civil society groups expressed concern about the risks of pursuing the reform head-on.