Panida, a People’s Party MP, has proposed reducing the Election Commission’s budget for the entry-level investigator training program by 11.9 million baht, pointing out that the issue is not staff incompetence but the need for a system that guarantees independence in its processes.
On 10 September 2026, during deliberations on the draft budget bill for fiscal year 2027, Panida Mongkolsawat, Member of Parliament for Samut Prakan District 1 from the People’s Party, proposed cutting 11,914,000 baht from the Election Commission’s budget allocated to the entry-level investigator training program. She emphasized that she does not oppose personnel capacity development but believes the main problem lies in guarantees of independence and the election case adjudication process within the EC.
Panida stated that officers investigating election cases must possess knowledge, expertise, and professionalism, as their work involves witness testimony, documentary evidence, financial trails, communication data, and forensic evidence. However, she questioned how nearly 12 million baht spent on training could resolve the issue if the evidence gathered by capable staff is later overturned by another internal mechanism.
She cited the 2024 Senate election fraud investigation as a case study. On 3 February 2025, the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) notified the EC that the case had merit. Subsequently, on 28 March 2025, the EC appointed investigation committee set 26, which included three DSI officials. This committee spent about four months, holding nearly 100 meetings, summoning over 800 witnesses, and compiling more than 90,000 pages of documents before concluding on 17 July 2025 with a recommendation to proceed against 229 accused individuals.
However, the EC later appointed adjudication subcommittee set 36. Panida questioned the origins and work processes of this subcommittee, noting its conclusions significantly contradicted those of committee set 26. On 12 March 2026, the EC voted 5 to 2 to dismiss all 229 complaints. "One committee spent months interviewing over 800 witnesses and reviewing 90,000 pages of evidence, concluding there was credible evidence to proceed to court, while another committee reached the opposite conclusion," she said, demanding that the EC publicly explain the reasons for such divergent outcomes.
As a member of the Parliamentary Committee on Courts, Independent Organizations, and the Prosecutor’s Office, she noted efforts to summon the EC to clarify the work of subcommittee set 36, inquire about its establishment despite the existence of 35 prior adjudication subcommittees, ask whether its members have election case experience, and request details on how it reviewed the case files.
She further questioned whether subcommittee set 36 invited committee set 26 or the DSI to provide explanations, whether they personally reviewed the 90,000 pages of case files, and if they conducted additional witness interviews or coordinated with the DSI. Information gathered indicated that subcommittee set 36 did not invite DSI or committee set 26 to clarify, held about 30 meetings, compared to nearly 100 by committee set 26.
Panida gave an example of financial transactions in Surat Thani province, where one individual was linked to a political party official and received funds that were then transferred to several Senate candidates within the same district. Both committee set 26 and the DSI agreed this financial trail suggested wrongdoing, but subcommittee set 36 found no irregularities. She questioned the EC’s standards for evaluating evidence.
She also referenced cases of Senate candidates in provinces like Pathum Thani, Chonburi, and Nakhon Ratchasima, where the EC submitted cases to the Supreme Court based on evidence consisting mainly of Line app messages inviting or exchanging votes, without showing financial trails or other benefits. She questioned why the standards applied in the 229 Senate candidate fraud cases differed so markedly.
Regarding legal issues, Panida challenged the idea that cases must be proven beyond reasonable doubt before submission to court. She cited Section 62 of the Senate Election Act, which states that if there is "credible evidence" that a candidate or others committed or were aware of fraud making the election unfair, the EC must file a petition with the Supreme Court.
She explained that it is the Supreme Court’s role to determine guilt, while the EC is responsible for gathering evidence and following legal procedures. The Constitution’s Section 226 requires the Supreme Court to primarily consider EC’s investigative files. If a committee gathers sufficient evidence to recommend prosecution, why does the EC not forward cases to the court but instead uses another mechanism to halt proceedings? She reiterated that the problem is not staff capability but whether the system ensures independent consideration of evidence and work results.
“We do not want an organization with more skilled staff but lacking independence, nor do we want voluminous case files used merely as decision-making documents without clear standards,” she said.
In conclusion, Panida stated that before the EC requests additional public funds to train staff, it must first explain how the system will value the work and evidence collected after investigations are completed. She proposed cutting the entire 11,914,000 baht budget for the entry-level investigator training program, believing this budget is not a real solution to the EC’s core problems.