The point winning most praise is the stipulation that at least half of party committee members tasked with selecting MP candidates must come from regional branches. The stated aim of the CDC here is to return ownership of the parties to ordinary voters by ensuring they get representatives who better respond to their needs and demands. In the past, candidates have been imposed by the central executive committee, meaning that locally approved nominations were often overlooked.

The new system will only work, however, if local party organisations have sufficient political awareness and independence to fend off attempts by central-party executives to influence their selection of candidates. This is a potential weak point.

One provision drawing criticism is the requirement that 500 party founders contribute seed money totalling Bt1 million. Critics query whether this is either necessary or practical. They argue that the financial restriction violates the basic right of people who share an ideology to form a political party, since they might not be wealthy enough to raise the seed fund.

However, proponents counter that in the real world, political activities need to be funded, and the amount of seed money stipulated is reasonable and affordable.

Critics are also questioning provisions that prohibit the interference of “outsiders” in internal party affairs. That interference, wielded by wealthy outsiders who have often been banned from politics for serious violations, can even extend to de facto control over a party. As such it represents a serious barrier to parties being representative of ordinary members’ interests.

The controversial question here, though, involves the definition of “interference”.

If a non-member attends a party meeting but doesn’t offer a directive or a viewpoint, will that be seen as illegal intervention? Would an outsider’s persuasive comments at a meeting be regarded as interference?

Some outsiders attend the meetings simply to see how the members vote. Meanwhile anyone determined to influence the party’s direction could simply ignore the meetings and lodge his orders directly with the executive membership. In that case, how would it be possible to prove an offence had been committed?

The concept of interference obviously needs to be clearly defined in the new law. If the provision is too broad, it will be open to interpretation. That would leave the way free for genuine offenders to go unpunished or innocent people to be framed.