The opposition whip revealed two years of evidence on the Senate election, raising doubts about the Election Commission (EC) and suggesting it is covering up corruption cases by protecting the guilty. Conflicting results from two investigation panels were exposed.
On 4 Aug 2026, Pritch Watcharasindhu, leader of the opposition party coordination committee (opposition whip), spoke at an event marking the second anniversary of the Senate election titled “2 Years Since the Senate Election—In-depth Evidence on the Senate Collusion Case: How Much Can We Trust the EC?” He called on the Election Commission to promptly and fairly decide on the Senate election corruption case before the deadline, criticizing the EC as an independent agency potentially undermining public confidence and signaling attempts to 'whitewash' or cover up wrongdoing.
Pritch identified five key questionable behaviors by the EC that have seriously raised public suspicion: issuing over six regulations, notably Articles 57 and 122, allowing candidates to keep the same ballot number from the morning to the cross-voting round. This facilitated vote-buying and organized 'order slips.' Had numbers been randomized in the afternoon round, collusion would have been much harder.
The EC showed negligence in verifying candidate qualifications, allowing ineligible candidates to register and failing to check for false information in candidate introduction forms (S.W.K. 3), such as in Buriram province. Candidates also registered under incorrect occupational groups, but the EC accepted explanations and neglected these issues. On election day, despite early warnings about pre-marked ballots, some candidates were allowed to copy data onto other papers to bring into polling stations, with no immediate penalties, even though election law Section 59 authorizes the EC to suspend or cancel elections if irregularities are suspected.
Conflicting investigation results emerged: the 26th inquiry committee, working with the DSI, spent 120 days reviewing over 90,000 pages and found 229 people likely guilty. However, the special 36th adjudication committee appointed by the EC reversed this, ruling that no one was at fault. The EC has refused to disclose the origins or members of this special committee to the parliamentary commission. There is a conflict of interest risk if the EC delays, allowing the current Senate—many accused—to approve the new EC, creating a severe conflict of interest.
"At this point, the EC's role is not to prove evidence 100% true but to determine if there is reasonable cause. If so, the case must be sent to court for judgment. The seven EC commissioners cannot avoid this responsibility and must decide soon to prove they still act with honesty and fairness, free from any patronage," Pritch said.