The People's Party calls on the public to closely watch the re-election on 22 February, questioning whether the Election Commission will use "barcode ballots" at some polling stations. They demand three key actions: disclosure of the marked score sheets (Form 5/11) and improvements in the official election result dissemination to make them easier to access.
On 19 February 2026 at 10:30 a.m., on the 7th floor of the Future Building at the People's Party headquarters, Mr. Kittichai Techakulwanich, Deputy Leader of the People's Party and Director of the party's Election Operations, along with party spokesperson Mr. Parit Watcharasindhu, held a press conference updating on the monitoring of the 2026 Election management by the Election Commission and called on the Commission to answer public questions to clear doubts.
Mr. Parit said regarding barcodes and QR codes, the party reiterates its position: they want the public to closely observe the 22 February re-election. It is now clear that the party-list MP ballots contain barcode codes that can be traced back to identify which voter voted for whom. The debated question in society is whether the presence of barcodes compromises the secrecy of the vote cast on 8 February.
Currently, there are two opinions. The first, which the People's Party agrees with, is: 1. The question of whether the vote is secret concerns whether it can be traced back to reveal individual voting choices, regardless of access to any data. Therefore, if voting is truly secret, it must be impossible to trace back either theoretically or practically. This aligns with the People's Party's stance that the vote was not secret because theoretically the barcode allows verification of who voted for whom.
2. The Election Commission defines secrecy differently, stating that voting is considered secret even if traceable theoretically but difficult practically. The Commission claims under this definition that the 8 February election remains secret, arguing that ballots and stubs are kept securely. While the party accepts the Commission's definition of secrecy, verifying who voted for whom is not that difficult. It is unrelated to whether the Commission securely stores ballots or stubs because there are verification processes that can identify voting choices without accessing those ballots or stubs.
Mr. Parit added that he does not claim that such a process occurred on 8 February, but the existence of barcodes on ballots opens vulnerabilities that undermine voting secrecy. If a candidate understands the barcode system, they can exploit this loophole to check who voted for whom. This issue will be tested and observed again in the 22 February re-election at some polling stations. It is understood that in Bangkok’s 15th electoral district, there is one polling station undergoing re-election.
“We want to communicate that if the Election Commission insists that the ballots themselves are problem-free, we should see two things: 1. The Commission uses ballots with barcodes on 22 February; 2. The counting process shows no attempts to conceal barcodes. My concern is that the Commission might issue directives to hide barcodes. If so, that would admit there is a problem with barcodes because such directives would differ from those on 8 February. I stress that if the Commission insists the ballots are fine, it must use the same ballots and avoid any orders that try to conceal barcodes or alter the counting process from 8 February,” Mr. Parit said.
The People's Party spokesperson also said that regarding the party's demand to disclose data from certain polling stations, yesterday the Election Commission issued a statement saying it has disclosed Form 5/18 results for all 400 districts on its website, except for those with recounts or re-elections. However, upon verification, the People's Party has three demands.
1. They want the Commission to confirm whether, excluding recount or re-election stations, Form 5/18 has been fully disclosed for every polling station, because the party has still received complaints from civil society that some stations have not uploaded Form 5/18 documents, and some districts have all stations but are missing advance voting results from outside the district or abroad.
2. They demand the Commission publish Form 5/18 or polling station score reports in a format convenient for public analysis or verification. Currently, this information is scanned and stored on Google Drive, making it difficult for the public to aggregate numbers. The Commission should publish it as Excel tables, which they presumably already have.
3. They urge the Commission to consider releasing the marked score sheets (Form 5/11) for all polling stations. Although not legally required, such disclosure would reduce public doubts because these sheets are observed by election monitors who can challenge discrepancies. They discovered several cases where images of Form 5/11 taken by party representatives or citizens on counting day, 8 February, show scores that do not match the corresponding Form 5/18 documents for the same station.
Meanwhile, Mr. Kittichai said that releasing Form 5/11 is important and aligns with the Form 5/18 announcements. He prepared 8-9 cases as examples showing real problems. They have received over 100 complaints about inconsistencies between Forms 5/11 and 5/18. For instance, in Chiang Mai's 6th district, the People's Party candidate number 2 had 59 votes on Form 5/11, but the Commission's published Form 5/18 shows the candidate's votes reduced by 10. This is one example explaining why they demand rapid disclosure of Form 5/11, which compiles the vote counts at the polling station on the day, collected by civil society.
If the Commission wants to clear all election doubts, they should quickly release Form 5/11 for verification. Additionally, in some stations, the list of polling station committee members differs between Forms 5/11 and 5/18, making it unclear which is correct. Also, some candidates received fewer votes in Form 5/11 but more in Form 5/18 at certain stations.
Mr. Kittichai also mentioned the case of Samut Prakan's 6th district, where the Commission reportedly stated the process is complete with no plans for recount or re-vote. However, Election Commission regulations clearly require that after voting concludes, all equipment including marked sheets and ballots must be securely stored inside ballot boxes sealed tightly. This relates to the Commission's recent announcement showing that sealed ballot boxes must be stored safely. But in reality, Form 5/11 sheets ended up in a garbage dump, making it impossible to verify how these sheets came to be there. They call on the Commission to urgently investigate this. The People's Party candidate there plans to file criminal charges against the provincial Election Commission director responsible for managing the Samut Prakan election.
Currently, the party has compiled complaints from their candidates and the public, totaling 58 cases reported to the Election Commission or provincial offices. These include 16 cases of ballot discrepancies or mismatches between eligible and actual voters, 1 case of discrepancies between district and party-list voter numbers, 17 cases of committee members not following regulations properly, 1 case of vote-buying behavior, and 23 cases of false accusations.
When asked about the Commission’s explanation concerning Samut Prakan, Mr. Kittichai said the regulations clearly state that documents and equipment must be stored securely inside ballot boxes. Damage can occur, but the key issue is how Form 5/11 sheets escaped from the boxes and ended up in a garbage dump. The Commission must urgently investigate how these sheets leaked out. They reiterate the necessity of opening these records to clear doubts. They want the Commission to release all data fully, as some Form 5/18 documents have yet to be disclosed for every station, urging quick transparency.
Mr. Parit emphasized that Form 5/11 is not an official document but a marked score sheet that citizens are entitled to photograph. Many have done so. However, on counting day, citizens could not attend every one of over 100,000 stations. It is not confidential and, although not legally mandated, can be lawfully disclosed.
