The Bangkok Metropolitan Council meeting addressed the proxy voting issue, approving the appointment of three councilors from Khlong Toei, Din Daeng, and Lat Krabang districts to an investigative committee. The process will follow ethical regulations fairly, with a 60-day completion target.
At 09:30 on 17 August 2026, the Bangkok Metropolitan Council convened its third ordinary session (fourth meeting) of the year at the Arawat Pattana Building, Bangkok City Hall 2 (Din Daeng). Ms. Pataraporn Kengrungreungchai, the Council President, chaired the meeting, which considered establishing an investigative committee in response to complaints about proxy voting by council members during the 31 July 2026 meeting. The allegations potentially involve misconduct, abuse of power, and ethical violations.
The Council President informed the meeting that complaints were received from Mr. Srisuwan Janya and several council members, including Mr. Napapon Jeerakul (Bangkok Noi), Mr. Pinit Kanjanchoosak (Samphanthawong), Mr. Wirat Kongkakhet (Bangkok Yai), and Mr. Somchai Tempiboonkul (Khlong San). The Secretariat’s preliminary review found the complaints met the criteria for investigation under the complaint procedures. The matter was thus submitted to the Council President to request forming a three-member fact-finding committee under Article 29 of the 2016 Code of Ethics for Council Members to collect initial facts and report to the President within 60 days.
Councilor Surachit Pongsingwitthaya of Lat Krabang proposed three councilors for the investigative committee: Mr. Suchai Pongpianchob (Khlong Toei), Mr. Wiphut Sriwaurai (Bang Rak), and Mr. Amarin Sawasayanuphap (Din Daeng). He emphasized that the inquiry is a critical test of the Council’s credibility, requiring adherence to good governance, accuracy, transparency, and impartial consideration of supporting and opposing arguments. The final conclusions should be based on facts, not public sentiment or bias. The three nominees were selected through member consultations prioritizing governance, transparency, and factual truth over social pressures.
Councilor Somchai Wesaratchtrakul of Sai Mai district raised concerns about fairness and transparency, noting that some nominees belong to the same party as the accused, which might cause public suspicion. He urged the President to consider changing nominees to ensure maximum neutrality and public confidence. Meanwhile, Councilor Adison Ruklaksani of Don Mueang stressed that the committee’s role is to find and collect facts for presentation to the Council, not to judge right or wrong. He emphasized the need for fairness regardless of committee members’ affiliations and the importance of preserving the Council’s dignity.
Councilor Methavee Thardamrong of Pathumwan remarked that all 50 councilors from 50 districts work together in the Bangkok Council regardless of party or group affiliation, so political divisions should not hinder their work. She expressed confidence in everyone's capability and fairness. Councilor Kantapong Dechaya of Taling Chan noted that the proposed three nominees already include members from both complainant and accused sides. If the Council wishes to change nominees, members should propose new names and let the Council decide by majority vote.
Later, Mr. Wiphut thanked the Council for the nomination but requested to withdraw to allow members with legal expertise and seniority to serve, thereby enhancing the investigation’s credibility and acceptance. Subsequently, Mr. Somchai Tempiboonkul of Khlong San reiterated that the three-member committee’s role is not to judge guilt but to determine whether the complaint has merit. If so, the Ethics Committee will be convened per the 2016 Code of Ethics to consider disciplinary measures.
At one point, Councilor Kantapong suggested that if committee members’ affiliations to any party are to be considered, the same standards should apply to all. He believed the Council should decide on nominees submitted by members, with each member having one equal vote to determine how the process proceeds. He then proposed Mr. Anurak Lertwattanaipai of Wang Thonglang as a committee member, but Mr. Anurak later withdrew due to the sensitivity of the issue and the need for clear understanding before accepting the role.
Councilor Sutthichai Wirakulsoonthorn of Chom Thong explained that the committee must examine evidence such as CCTV footage and digital data from the card-swipe registration system, calling this a historic duty for the Bangkok Council. He viewed the three-member committee as responsible for gathering preliminary evidence and facts, thus urging the Council to proceed with the committee to enable the investigation. If credible evidence is found, the case will be forwarded to the Ethics Committee for disciplinary consideration.
Regarding the committee’s authority, the Bangkok Council Secretariat’s legal team clarified that the committee’s role is to conduct a preliminary fact-finding investigation, gather evidence, and assess whether the complaint has merit before reporting to the Council President. The committee cannot determine guilt or the severity of any wrongdoing. If the investigation finds merit, the case will proceed to the Ethics Committee for further disciplinary review. Later, a member from Wang Thonglang district nominated a councilor from Khlong San who has been following the proxy voting issue since the beginning to join the committee.
The Council President consulted the Secretariat’s legal department and informed the meeting that Mr. Somchai is among the complainants and thus has a vested interest under administrative law. Although the Code of Ethics does not explicitly address this, comparing it to the law suggests that fact-finding committee members should not have direct involvement or vested interest in the complaint. Following this, Mr. Wiphut proposed Mr. Surachit as a committee member, who accepted, pledging to perform duties transparently and fairly. Mr. Amarin (Din Daeng) and Mr. Suchai (Khlong Toei) also confirmed their readiness to conduct a straightforward fact-finding investigation to uphold the Council’s good governance.
The Bangkok Metropolitan Council then approved the appointment of the three-member investigative committee consisting of:
1. Mr. Suchai Pongpianchob, Councilor of Khlong Toei district
2. Mr. Amarin Sawasayanuphap, Councilor of Din Daeng district
3. Mr. Surachit Pongsingwitthaya, Councilor of Lat Krabang district
Towards the end, the Council President urged the committee to promptly and fairly review the complaint and report back to the Council. However, the fact-finding committee must complete its investigation within 60 days from the date it receives the complaint from the Council President. If necessary, the committee may request a 30-day extension from the President. This follows the regulations on complaint receipt, consideration, fact-finding procedures by the investigative committee, and disciplinary processes by the Ethics Committee of the Bangkok Metropolitan Council, B.E. 2560 (2017).