Thanaporn Srivangkul criticized the Orange Party, urging them not to use vendetta instead of evidence. He pointed out that the Election Commission's resolution does not destabilize the government, warned against generalizing attacks on senators as it could obstruct constitutional reforms, and called on the Election Commission to apply the same standards to the Orange Senators.
On 16 Sep 2026 GMT+7, Associate Professor Dr. Thanaporn Srivangkul, a political analyst, commented on the People’s Party's stance regarding the Election Commission's resolution on the Senate selection case. He viewed attempts to expand the case to pressure the government as reflecting hopes to shift political power, but emphasized that legal proceedings must be based on evidence, not desires to remove opponents from power.
Dr. Thanaporn stated that the decision to proceed against 77 accused individuals—including 26 current senators—while dismissing complaints against certain politicians, should be understood through the Election Commission’s explanation of the evidence. The inability to sufficiently link allegations to specific individuals does not justify immediately concluding that the adjudicating body is protecting one side.
He added that the People’s Party and its supporters accusing the Election Commission of "protecting the Blue faction" should explain why politically influential individuals appear among the accused, citing the example of Pol. Lt. Gen. Boonchan Nuansai, who is reportedly close to Nawamin Chidchob, along with Somjet Rimpaphan and Supachai Phosuk.
“If anyone claims they are protecting their own group, they should reasonably explain the case of Mr. Boonchan to me,” Dr. Thanaporn said.
He viewed this list as a counterargument to the claim that those connected to the Blue faction are entirely shielded. However, he noted that the accused still have the right to defend themselves, and being named does not mean a court has ruled them guilty.
Dr. Thanaporn emphasized that the Election Commission’s duty is to examine and filter evidence according to the law. Calls to send everyone to court must be supported by clear evidence for each individual. He clarified that affirming this principle does not prohibit criticism of the Election Commission, as dissenters can still file complaints, conduct oversight, or propose rule changes through relevant channels.
Regarding complaints about the so-called “Orange Senators” group and activities at Jupiter Room, Muang Thong Thani, Dr. Thanaporn urged the Election Commission to apply the same standards by thoroughly reviewing behaviors, consent for others’ actions, related benefits, and legal elements. He stated that if evidence is insufficient, no action should be taken, but if complete, the same criteria must apply. He noted he was unaware of the review schedule or number of accused in this group.
Dr. Thanaporn also criticized the People’s Party’s strategy, warning that blanket attacks on all senators might backfire by damaging constitutional amendment efforts that require Senate support under legal conditions. Creating hostility with the entire Senate could make cooperation more difficult.
Having supported drafting a new constitution and campaigned for referendums, he urged the People’s Party to consider the public’s desire for change rather than focusing solely on defeating opponents at the cost of undermining their own goals.
Regarding the impact on the government led by Anutin Charnvirakul, Dr. Thanaporn assessed that the Election Commission’s resolution does not automatically remove the government from office or halt its duties, nor does it justify immediate parliament dissolution.
While the opposition could use the issue for a no-confidence debate, he believed outcomes depend on parliamentary votes. Past key legislation, including loan decrees and budget bills, showed cooperation among government supporters. If coalition partners wish to withdraw support, they can express this through such votes.
Dr. Thanaporn referred to witness number 16, identified in interviews as Mr. Ekkarat Changlao, saying that changes in testimony require assessing credibility alongside other evidence, including claims of threats. No single statement should be taken as conclusive alone.
Finally, he concluded that some actions in the Senate selection case stem from dissatisfaction with political competition and defeat rather than long-term strategy. He advised the People’s Party to separate legal scrutiny from hopes of toppling the government and accept that all allegations must meet the same evidentiary standards.