Voter turnout figures Bangkok election This year, after counting 95% of the votes, the results were quite surprising as only 2,201,739 voters cast ballots for governor out of 4,428,644 eligible voters, representing 49.7% Meanwhile, for the Bangkok council election, 2,077,921 out of 4,384,693 eligible voters participated, equaling 47.4%
These figures, which did not reach even half, not only missed the 70% target set by the Election Commission (EC), but also sparked widespread online debate about what is happening in the capital, known as the democratic center of the country.
The issue escalated into political party conflicts, with some supporters comparing politicians who returned from abroad to vote as citizens at the polling stations to others who announced from the start they would not vote.
Amid this political drama, the question troubling many iswhy this significant local election in four years did not allow early or out-of-area voting like previous national parliamentary elections.
This aligns with comments from a Bangkok governor candidate who said at the polling station that it was unfortunate there was no early or absentee voting, which undeniably was a key factor causing many to miss the chance to vote, since many people work on Sundays or have registration in Bangkok but live or work in other provinces.
Having to travel back just to vote on one day is difficult, and lower turnout directly affects the vote counts and true intentions of all candidates.
The question has been answered before by Lieutenant Phasakorn Siriphakya-phon, Deputy Secretary-General of the EC, who explained that local elections for Bangkok governor, councilors, as well as Pattaya city mayor and council members are for local executives and council members, and this type of election does not include early or out-of-area voting like national elections. However, if eligible voters cannot return to their registered address to vote, the law allows them to notify the district registrar or use the SMART VOTE application either before or within seven days after election day.
Acceptable reasons under the law cover urgent business requiring travel to remote areas, illness, disabilities, elderly who cannot travel easily, travel outside the kingdom, or residence more than 100 kilometers from the polling station. It also includes official orders to serve outside the electoral district and other emergencies as specified by the EC. Although this notification system exists,
the question society still awaits an answer to iswhether future local elections can be designed to better facilitate full participation by all citizens.
Beyond the electoral system management, another fiercely debated issue is whether voting is merely a 'right' or fundamentally a 'duty'. A user on platform X posted that voting is a personal right and urged society to respect those uninterested in politics.
On one hand, this can be viewed as the freedom to choose any candidate or abstain, but legally, the Constitution, Section 50 (7), states that all Thai people have the duty "to freely exercise their right to vote or participate in referenda, prioritizing the national interest."
The difference between a right and a duty is that if one neglects this duty without lawful reason, one will lose important political rights such as standing for election as MP, senator, local council member, local executive, village headman, or community leader. They will also lose rights to petition for removal of local executives and be disqualified from political official roles or advisory and secretarial positions in local councils.
These legal measures emphasize that voting is not merely a liberty to exercise at will but a civic obligation citizens must fulfill.
Looking historically, Thai voting rights are notable and progressive compared to many countries. Although lacking mass suffrage movements like those in Western history, Siam was among the first countries globally to grant voting rights to women alongside men from the outset.
The article"Women's Suffrage in Thailand: A Southeast Asian Historiographical Challenge"by Katherine Bowie, published in the journal Comparative Studies in Society and History in 2010, clearly states that this foundation began with the Local Administration Act of R.S. 116 or 1897 CE in King Rama V’s reign, a reform law establishing subdistricts and villages. That law allowed both male and female subjects to vote for their village headmen for the first time, with district officers serving as chairmen.
This political inclusion has been embedded in Siamese society ever since, with evidence of women continuously standing for election at subdistrict and provincial levels until a major turning point after the 1932 Siamese revolution, when the country transitioned to democracy.
The provisional constitution and the first constitution did not discriminate by gender in voting rights, resulting in the first national parliamentary election in 1933 where all citizens could vote and run equally. Although initially no women were elected immediately, this paved the way for female MPs in the future.
This century-long development of voting rights intertwined with Thai political society serves as a reminder that we should recognize and fulfill our civic rights and duties whenever the opportunity arises.
At the same time, the government and relevant stakeholders should listen and question the current electoral system regarding how election rules can be improved to facilitate easier voting for all citizens.
This would ensure that election outcomes, whether at national or local levels directly affecting daily life, truly and fairly reflect the intentions of the majority living together.
#ThairathPlus #Thairath #BangkokElection69 #BangkokElection #BangkokGovernorElection69