The Deputy Secretary-General of the Election Commission explained that regarding the Civil Service Subcommittee's resolution to dismiss "Dr. Suphat," whether this amounts to disqualification as a Member of Parliament candidate must be examined in detail. He noted that the law applies from the date the dismissal order is officially signed.
At 3:00 p.m. on 26 January 2026 GMT+7, Lieutenant Commander Pasakorn Siriphakayaporn, Deputy Secretary-General of the Election Commission (EC), was interviewed regarding the case of Dr. Suphat Hasuwanakit, also known as Dr. Suphat, who is a candidate for MP in Songkhla’s 2nd district from the Prachachon Party. He was dismissed from government service by the Civil Service Subcommittee of the Ministry of Public Health, following the Severe Disciplinary Investigation Committee's finding that Dr. Suphat, while serving as director of Chana Hospital in Songkhla Province, was guilty of wrongdoing in the procurement of ATK test kits. The question is whether this affects his qualifications to run for MP. In such cases, it is necessary to determine whether he was officially ordered removed from his position, and whether the removal was due to corruption. Election law Section 42 (10) states that anyone previously ordered removed from government service or a state enterprise due to corruption in their duties is disqualified. However, regarding corruption or misconduct in government service, we must examine the facts to see whether he was actually ordered removed and on what grounds.
Regarding whether Dr. Suphat’s resignation before the investigation result, which led to the previous resolution, should be counted, Lieutenant Commander Pasakorn stated, it depends on when and how the dismissal order was issued. The law says “previously ordered removed from government service or state enterprise due to corruption in duty.” The term “previously” is ambiguous, but once it applies, disqualification follows immediately. However, legally, the order is effective only after the official signing. If there is only a resolution without a signed order, it does not count yet.
As for the timing issue, if the cause is factual and real, it is the responsibility of the district election director to petition the Supreme Court to consider removing the person from candidacy. If the director has evidence or reasons, they have the authority to file the petition. The law specifies this must happen “before election day.”
When asked what happens if the order is signed after the election and the person has been elected as an MP, Lieutenant Commander Pasakorn said that if elected, this represents a disqualifying condition. The EC then has the authority to decide whether to certify or reject the election result.