Thai PBS Verify traced the post from: Facebook
A post was found with images alleging that Natthapong Rueangpanyawut, also known as Teng, leader of the People’s Party, had spoken to international outlets regarding the amendment of Article 112.
The post was circulated in a Facebook group called “Top News Thailand Fans”, which has more than 200,000 members. It was published on January 29, 2026, with the caption:
“How can this party be trusted? They say one thing to villagers and shopkeepers while campaigning in the market, another thing on TV programs, and yet another to foreign media. But the behavior that can be predicted is that they will amend or abolish Article 112, repeal the 2026 Constitution, and draft a new one by removing Chapters 1 and 2. This is their agenda.”
The accompanying image contained the text:
“He has told the world they will amend 112, but has said to Thais they will not.”
It also included what was claimed to be an excerpt from one of Natthapong’s interviews published on the Time website, stating:
“Article 112 still causes problems in Thailand,” he says. “And if we get power, we will fix this law in compliance with the Constitutional Court verdict.”
Verification on Natthapong’s statements in Thai media
The interview with Natthapong Ruengpanyawut, published on the Time website on September 15, 2025, carried the headline: Thailand’s Opposition Leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut Is ‘Ready to Run the Country’ — written by Charlie Campbell, Senior Editor at Time.
Part of the content cited in the viral Facebook post concerned the People’s Party’s stance on amending Article 112 of the Criminal Code, as well as its position regarding issues related to the Thai monarchy. The post referenced an excerpt from the full interview, which read:
Still, the elephant in the room remains the People’s Party’s attitude toward Thailand’s sacrosanct monarchy, since reform of Article 112 lay behind Move Forward’s dissolution.*
Natthaphong says that the Constitutional Court verdict simply stated that parties were not allowed to campaign on amending the legislation, so while he will keep such goals off any manifesto or stump speech, the movement’s ambitions remain unchanged. “Article 112 still causes problems in Thailand,” he says. “And if we get power, we will fix this law in compliance with the Constitutional Court verdict.”
Regarding the role of the Royal Family more broadly, Natthaphong says the “monarchy must be above politics … and still the core institution in Thailand. We must amend the law to reposition them and make them accepted by Thai people in the modern world.”
– Editor’s note: the asterisk (*) part of the interview was Campbell’s observation, not Natthapong’s opinion. –
To summarize, Natthapong stated in his interview with foreign media that if his party forms a government, they will amend the law to comply with the Constitutional Court’s ruling.
The Thai PBS Verify team contacted representatives of the People’s Party to confirm whether Natthapong had indeed made such remarks to Time, and whether the content had been distorted in context. The party’s representative confirmed that Natthapong did give the interview and used those exact words.
Verification on Natthapong’s statements in Thai media
As for the claim in the post that “He has told the world they will amend 112, but has said to Thais they will not,” Thai PBS Verify reviewed Natthapong’s remarks and interviews in Thai media regarding his stance on pushing for an amnesty law that would cover cases under Article 112, as well as references to amending the Criminal Code. It was found that in one of his appearances in Thai media outlets, Natthapong expressed his position on this issue during the pre‑election debate in 2026. He acknowledged that, although Article 112 cannot be used as a campaign policy under the Constitutional Court’s ruling, the law still poses certain problems, such as the minimum penalty. He noted that the Court’s framework leaves room for future consideration of amendments through political processes and consensus within society.
Natthapong’s remarks from a Thairath debate program, broadcast on December 23, 2025, addressed the issue of amnesty for Article 112 cases. The debate was moderated by Phongkasem Satayaprasert.
When Phongkasem asked the participating Prime Ministerial candidates, “If you were Prime Minister, would you support an amnesty law that includes political prisoners under Article 112? If you agree, please raise your hand.” Natthapong was the only participant to raise his hand.
He explained, “We are trying to push forward within the existing constraints. The amnesty bill has already passed Parliament. As for the next steps, if the People’s Party forms a government, we want to reaffirm our commitment to protecting the rights and freedom of the people. No one should go to prison for their words. According to the Constitutional Court’s current ruling, no political party can use Article 112 reform as a campaign policy. But I want to leave my position clear. We have to accept that this law still has problems, for example, the minimum penalty. The Court’s framework actually leaves room for amendment. The question is how to amend it within political constraints. The People’s Party hopes Thai society will reach a consensus on this issue and find ways to improve the law in the future.”
Source of the image: a Thairath debate program on December 23, 2025.
“Natthapong” states that there is no Article 112 amendment included in the People’s Party’s campaign policies
Meanwhile, the social media post in question, accompanied by images of campaign activities, claimed: “How can this party be trusted? They say one thing to villagers and shopkeepers while canvassing in the market, another thing on TV programs, and yet another to foreign media. But the behavior that can be trusted is that they will amend or abolish Article 112, repeal the 2026 Constitution, and draft a new one by removing Chapters 1 and 2. This is their agenda.”
Using Google Lens to verify the image, it was found to match a report from the Channel 3 news programs, “Rueng Lao Chao Nee (เรื่องเล่าเช้านี้),” broadcast on January 7, 2026. The report stated that the leader of the People’s Party gave an interview while canvassing at Dongtan Beach, Sattahip district, Chonburi province.
Further keyword searches uncovered a livestream recording from the Friends Talk YouTube channel, showing Natthapong canvassing in support of Yodchai Phuengphon, the People’s Party constituency MP candidate for Chonburi’s District 9, at Dongtan Beach. At around the 1:00:00 mark of the broadcast, a member of the public asked whether Article 112 reform was still part of the party’s policies. Natthapong replied, “There is no longer any policy to amend it. No, not anymore.”
Does the People’s Party’s amnesty policy include Article 112 cases?
Upon reviewing the People’s Party’s policies, no explicit mention was found regarding amendment of Article 112 of the Criminal Code. According to the Democracy and New Security section, published on the party’s official website, the main policies listed include: modernization of the armed forces, reform of the justice system, new security and democracy. Within the Democracy section, the policies include pushing for an Anti‑SLAPP Law, amending Article 95 of the Criminal Code to address impunity for state officials who violate citizens’ rights, promoting an amnesty law for political cases involving all groups of citizens since 2006 (excluding coup makers), and revising the Public Assembly Act (2015) to align with international standards.
Regarding the amnesty law for political cases, which is part of the People’s Party’s platform, comparison was made with the draft Promotion of Social Peace Act currently under Senate consideration. Party representatives told Thai PBS Verify that it remains unclear whether the existing draft will be withdrawn or replaced with a new one. The only difference, they explained, is the addition of a proposal to establish a committee to review all political assembly cases individually, without exempting any particular category.
Meanwhile, the draft Promotion of Social Peace Act under Senate review explicitly excludes amnesty for Article 112 cases. As in Section 3, it prescribes that:
“This Act shall not apply to offenses of corruption or misconduct, offenses under Article 112 of the Criminal Code, and offenses resulting in death or constituting personal crimes or acts against individuals outside of state agencies, whether individually or in groups.”
Timeline: from Move Forward Party’s legislative proposals to the Constitutional Court’s dissolution ruling
Looking back to 2021, while still operating as the Move Forward Party, the party submitted five draft bills to protect rights and freedom of expression and rights in the justice process on February 10, 2021. One of these was a draft amendment to the Criminal Code concerning defamation offenses.
At the time, the Move Forward Party argued that the laws on defamation and insult, specifically Article 112, were structurally flawed and imposed disproportionate penalties. They noted the absence of exceptions to protect good‑faith expression and warned that the law could be misused for harassment. The party therefore deemed an amendment necessary to align with democratic principles and to ensure penalties were proportionate. Furthermore, reform of Article 112 was included as part of the party’s campaign platform published on its website ahead of the 2023 general election. It subsequently resulted in the following events:
■ Mr. Ruangkrai Leekitwattana and Mr. Teerayut Suwanakesorn submitted a petition to the Election Commission (EC), requesting that the EC file a motion with the Constitutional Court to dissolve the Move Forward Party under Section 92 of the Organic Act on Political Parties B.E. 2560 (2017). They argued that there was sufficient evidence to believe the party had engaged in actions tantamount to overthrowing the democratic system with the King as Head of State, and that such conduct could be deemed hostile to the constitutional monarchy.
■ Later, the Election Commission, as the one making the request, submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court asking for the Move Forward Party to be dissolved according to Section 92, paragraphs one (1) and (2) of the Organic Act on Political Parties B.E. 2560 (2017).
■ On January 31, 2024, the Constitutional Court issued Ruling No. 3/2024, determining that the Move Forward Party’s campaign policy to amend Article 112 of the Criminal Code constituted an exercise of rights and freedoms aimed at overthrowing the system of government, pursuant to Section 49 of the Constitution.”
■ On August 7, 2024, the Constitutional Court issued Ruling No. 20/2024, ordering the dissolution of the Move Forward Party in connection with the case filed by the Election Commission.
Constitutional Court ruling prohibits electrical campaigning to amend Article 112
According to Constitutional Court Ruling No. 3/2024 Re: Application for a Constitutional Court ruling pursuant to Section 49 of the Constitution, in pages 48–49, the Court ordered the respondents to cease expressing opinions, speaking, writing, publishing, advertising, or communicating in any other manner with the aim of repealing Article 112 of the Criminal Code. The ruling further prohibited any attempt to amend Article 112 through means outside the legitimate legislative process in the future.
The Court stated:
“The Court ruled that the actions of the two respondents constituted an exercise of rights and freedom aimed at overthrowing the democratic system with the King as Head of State, under Section 49, paragraph one of the Constitution. The Court ordered the two respondents to cease expressing opinions, speaking, writing, publishing, advertising, or communicating in any other manner with the aim of repealing Article 112 of the Criminal Code. Furthermore, the respondents are prohibited from seeking to amend Article 112 of the Criminal Code by any means other than lawful legislative procedures in the future, pursuant to Section 49, paragraph two of the Constitution and Section 74 of the Organic Act on Procedures of the Constitutional Court (2018).”
