Prit exposed the Election Commission’s (EC) ruling concerning the qualifications of Senator Praneet Keram from Group 16, Buriram province. Although Praneet himself signed off on a self-introduction document identifying him as a senior athlete, the EC ruled that no misconduct occurred.
On 30 Jul 2026 GMT+7, Mr. Prit Watcharasindu, a party-list MP from the People’s Party, posted the EC's ruling on Senator Praneet Keram’s qualifications (Group 16, Buriram). Recently, social debate has arisen over the EC’s rulings on qualifications of two senators from Amnat Charoen province (Daeng Kongma and Somphan Palasak), raised by iLaw and questioned by former EC member Somchai Srisutthiyakorn on whether the EC neglected its duties to benefit these candidates.
Today, I invite everyone to analyze another EC ruling that citizens have questioned similarly. Attached is EC ruling No. 251/2567 concerning Senator Praneet Keram (Group 16, Buriram). Part of the complaint stems from Praneet listing in his application and candidate introduction documents that he was a “senior football athlete from 1984 to 2004.”
However, calculating from his age of 61 years at candidacy in 2024, Praneet would have been 21 to 41 years old between 1984 and 2004. The Sports Authority of Thailand defines a “senior athlete” as a competitor aged 35 or older.
This means:
1. It is impossible for Praneet to have been a senior athlete throughout the entire period of 1984–2004 as stated in the introduction document.
2. If the only experience Praneet cited was as a senior athlete, he could have had at most 6 years of such experience (from age 35 to 41 during 1998–2004), which is less than the 10 years of experience required for the position he applied for.
During the inquiry, Praneet addressed point 2 by explaining he has over 10 years of football experience, starting competition at the subdistrict level at age 16, then being selected in 1984 to play for a military battalion during his service, and continuing to compete at subdistrict and district levels until 2004. The ruling cited testimony from others who played football with him (the credibility of which requires further analysis and verification).
However, I find Praneet’s explanation regarding point 1 suspicious. In summary, he stated:
1. He did not personally write the application and self-introduction documents but verbally provided information to staff who wrote them.
2. He insisted he only told staff he was a “football player from 1984 to 2004,” but staff added the word “senior” by themselves.
3. When signing to certify the accuracy of the self-introduction document (which included the phrase “senior football athlete 1984–2004”), he claimed he did not have his glasses with him and thus signed without noticing the discrepancy.
Although staff testified as witnesses that they added the word “senior” based on discussions with the candidate, it is suspicious that staff would insert information not intended by the candidate. Even if so, the document should have been reviewed and signed for accuracy by the candidate.
Therefore, the EC’s decision that no wrongdoing occurred and its acceptance of these discrepancies raises questions about the EC’s duty performance, especially when considered alongside other EC rulings on candidate qualifications.
P.S. If anyone has information about other candidates whose self-introduction documents contained discrepancies but received different EC rulings, please comment or send messages for further investigation.