"Itim" closely follows "Mongkol," who refuses to respond to video clips showing collusion in the Senate election, revealing money flowing from Surat Thani investment groups and accusing the sacrifice of the light blue faction to protect the dark blue faction.
On 17 June 2026 at the Parliament, Parit Wacharasindhu, a party-list MP and deputy leader of the Pachan Party, commented on Mongkol Surasajja, President of the Senate, who declined to answer questions after video clips exposing collusion in the Senate election were released. Parit expressed confusion as to why the focus was turned to him since he was not in the clips. The question was clear: just ask Mongkol to confirm whether the person in the clip is him. Mongkol should know best and simply say yes or no. However, he noted that Mongkol did not answer, and sometimes silence itself is a form of response.
Therefore, we can infer from the evidence in the clips and the Senate President's refusal to answer that the person in the clip is indeed Mongkol. Parit believes this reinforces the questions he raised to the Election Commission since releasing the clips last Saturday, as well as his follow-up question to the Senate President about the identity of the person in the clip. Additionally, documents submitted to the EC specify details such as who prepared them. Yet, to date, no answers have been received.
Emphasizing numerical evidence indicating a systematic setup.
Parit said that the released clips represent only a portion of the data and evidence collected to question the EC's handling of the Senate collusion case. He understands that the EC might explain that noting numbers is permitted for memory aid and is not illegal. However, what raises questions is the EC's reaction seen in the clips: they requested documents and warned candidates. If the documents had no issues and the behavior on that day was proper, why did the EC call for document collection and caution candidates? Furthermore, Investigation Panel 26 reportedly holds various other evidence sets, such as repeated voting card numbers, which, when analyzed mathematically, could not occur naturally but suggest a coordinated setup. The case files are expected to include evidence of pre-election meetings, travel expense payments to involved individuals, and financial trails connected to the accused.
Exposing money flow from Surat Thani investment groups.
"Based on information received, the EC will first focus on Surat Thani province. This follows tips submitted by the opposition whip last week, revealing financial flows from an investor group supporting multiple channels, including current senators, their teams, and MPs in that province. We want all evidence to be considered together and irregularities recognized. The EC must conduct its duties honestly and not obstruct justice by preventing the case from reaching the courts. Recently, the DSI director stated that the incidents shown in the clips and questioned by the EC were never included in the DSI's investigation files, and that the EC official in question has not appeared as a witness. The Investigation Panel 26 must clarify whether the questions raised since Saturday, the whereabouts of the betting slips, and the inclusion of these clips in the case files for examination are being addressed transparently. So far, no clear answers have been provided," Parit said. Parit added.
Blocking and sacrificing the light blue faction.
Parit commented on whether this is a delay tactic, stating that by law, the EC must make a decision within 90 days after the initial review. Close attention must be paid to whether there will be attempts to obstruct justice by preventing prosecution of any accused individuals with clear evidence.
When asked how he would respond if the EC ultimately decides the case lacks merit, Parit said he would initially demand explanations from the EC. Since Investigation Panel 26, a collaboration between the EC and the DSI, concluded that evidence is sufficient to prosecute at least 229 individuals, if the EC decides not to file any cases in court, it must explain to the public why it made that decision.
. . . "I invite further thought: if the EC decides to file charges against only some individuals, and some cases are dropped or dismissed, others will question whether the differing decisions are due to the strength of evidence or an attempt to sacrifice certain people to lessen public pressure or protect those closer to the center of power. I call this the '50 shades of Blue' system. There is concern that the light blue faction, those sacrificed, may face court, while the dark blue faction, closely tied to power, may avoid court. Therefore, if the EC's decisions on these 229 cases differ, the public must ask if the differences are based on evidence strength or on who is closer to the power center or the blue faction system," Parit said. Parit concluded.