Supachai emphasized that if one is to draw connections regarding senators’ collusion, there must be the courage to investigate every link, noting that mere connections are not crimes, and urging the use of uniform standards for all parties involved.
On 31 Aug 2026, Supachai Jaismut, party-list MP and legal chief of the Bhumjaithai Party, posted on social media addressing reports presenting "circumstantial evidence" and "relationship links" connecting various individuals to the Bhumjaithai Party. This coverage could lead society to prematurely assume that the party or associated persons committed offenses related to the Senate selection. He affirmed that while the party does not refuse investigation, it insists such scrutiny be based on clear facts and evidence.
Supachai stated that when discussing "circumstantial evidence" or "relationship links," one must clarify what the evidence actually is, who did what, where, when, and with whom, and which legal provision the act violates. Knowing each other, communicating, or having connections does not itself constitute wrongdoing. He elaborated:
If one draws "connection lines," there must be courage to investigate every line. Presentations have shown that various "circumstantial evidence" and "relationship links" revolve around the Bhumjaithai Party, which may cause society to prematurely believe that the party or related persons have committed offenses concerning the Senate election.
As the Bhumjaithai Party, we do not deny investigation but simply ask: what is this evidence? Who did what, where, when, and with whom? Which legal offense does that action fulfill? Because knowing each other, communicating, or having "relationship links" is not a crime in itself. Accusing any individual requires proving their actions, intent, and individual evidence. It is inappropriate to generalize relationships and conclude all are part of the same conspiracy.
It is even more important to ask whether those who analyze or publicly assert conclusions have reviewed the entire case file, seen both prosecution and defense witnesses, or merely accessed partial information, news, or documents released publicly—whose origin, completeness, and legality may themselves require scrutiny.
Supachai noted that the authority to investigate and adjudicate at the Election Commission level lies solely with the Election Commission as mandated by law—not with iLaw, the opposition, academics, or social media courts. Everyone has the right to critique and offer information but should not pressure the Election Commission to rule in any particular direction. The Election Commission must independently and fairly consider all evidence and the circumstances of each accused person. If today the method of "drawing relationship lines" causes public suspicion of others, the same standard should apply when questioning oneself.
In the past Senate selection process, activities like the "Senate Market" involving iLaw were also mentioned. If society seeks truth, it can investigate who participated, who coordinated with whom, who had relationships with candidates, and whether those activities or contacts carry legal significance. Such questioning does not imply that iLaw committed wrongdoing, just as personal ties to the Bhumjaithai Party do not imply illegal conduct by those individuals or the party.
This is why a single standard must be applied. If the formula is "knowing each other + communicating + joint activities = circumstantial evidence," then this formula must be used to examine all parties, not selectively against those one wishes to accuse. Bhumjaithai insists on a simple principle: those who commit offenses must be held legally accountable. Conversely, those who publicly make accusations must also bear responsibility for their words.
Freedom to investigate is not freedom to defame. If factual statements about individuals amount to false accusations harming third parties’ reputations, causing insult or hatred, legal defamation issues may arise. Consideration must include wording, context, facts, public interest, and legal elements on a case-by-case basis.
Supachai concluded that Bhumjaithai welcomes investigation but insists it be fact-based, not predetermined with every connection drawn to fit a desired conclusion. If investigations rely on "relationship links," then society must be ready to apply the same scrutiny back onto the accusers. Ultimately, the Election Commission should perform its legal duties and let evidence speak. "Connection" is not "crime," "doubt" is not "proof," "trends" are not "evidence," and "freedom of speech" is not "freedom to defame."
All parties can be investigated, but the law must apply the same standards to everyone.