Abhisit turns the budget debate into a full-scale attack on the Election Commission, demanding the Senate collusion case go to the Supreme Court and calls for a 10% funding cut as the September 14 ruling looms.
Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva has launched a major parliamentary attack on the Election Commission, demanding that the sprawling 2024 Senate collusion case be sent to the Supreme Court. He also called for a 10% cut to funding for independent agencies, citing collapsing public trust, disputed EC criteria and a damaging standoff with the DSI. Most sharply, he questioned the position of four Election Commissioners approved by the current Senate now caught up in the case. Their role has thrown fresh scrutiny on the embattled Election Commission ahead of its crucial September 14 decision.
Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva launched a sustained attack on the Election Commission on Thursday. He accused the body of facing a severe crisis of public trust. Crucially, he demanded that it refer the Senate collusion case to the Supreme Court.
He said credible evidence was enough to justify a referral. The Election Commission (EC) did not need to prove the case itself. Instead, judges should examine the evidence and decide whether wrongdoing occurred.
At the centre of his attack was the looming September 14 decision. Four Election Commissioners expected to consider the case were approved by the current Senate, Mr Abhisit said. That Senate is itself at the centre of the collusion case. Consequently, he warned that a decision favouring those accused could expose the four commissioners to questions over conflicts and overlapping interests. Yet their withdrawal could leave the EC without a quorum. That problem has placed the commission itself squarely inside the controversy.
Abhisit seeks 10% budget cut as public confidence in Election Commission continues to deteriorate
Mr Abhisit delivered the broadside during debate on Thailand’s ฿3.78 trillion budget for fiscal year 2027. The House of Representatives met on September 10 for the bill’s second and third readings. At about 4 pm, he addressed Article 32 of the legislation. It covers independent organisations and the Office of the Attorney General. Their combined allocation totals ฿7.85 billion. Notably, Mr Abhisit proposed cutting the funding by 10%.
He stressed that he was not targeting particular projects. Rather, the proposed reduction would signal parliamentary dissatisfaction with the organisations’ performance. Mr Abhisit described independent bodies as crucial pillars of democracy. However, he said mechanisms for scrutinising them remained limited. Parliament can approve substantial funding for these organisations. Its ability to investigate their conduct is considerably more restricted.
As an example, he pointed to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). Parliament cannot simply investigate the NACC through ordinary procedures, he said. Instead, the Speaker must decide whether a complaint should reach the Supreme Court. Judges can then establish an independent investigative panel. Against that backdrop, Mr Abhisit identified budget scrutiny as an important parliamentary power.
His proposed cut was also tied to falling public confidence. In particular, he cited recent research by the King Prajadhipok’s Institute. The survey measured public confidence and trust in politically related organisations. According to Mr Abhisit, the EC recorded low credibility. Significantly, he said its standing had progressively deteriorated compared with the past.
Abhisit urges Supreme Court referral as he questions EC handling of sprawling Senate collusion case
Mr Abhisit linked that decline with concerns surrounding unfair and dishonest elections. At the same time, he questioned confidence in the process established to investigate election wrongdoing. That brought his speech directly to the Senate collusion affair. The Supreme Court should ultimately determine the evidence, he said. Accordingly, he challenged the EC to explain why judges had not already received the case.
The commission did not need to establish guilt before making a referral, Mr Abhisit argued. If credible evidence of fraudulent conduct existed, it should petition the Supreme Court. In support, he cited the EC’s own previous handling of election cases. The commission had already demonstrated that court referrals did not require exhaustive findings beforehand.
In 2019, for example, the EC referred an election case to the Supreme Court. Subsequently, judges ruled that the election was not free and unfairly disadvantaged other candidates. Mr Abhisit also said the EC continued sending cases to courts during 2024. By comparison, he described the present Senate controversy as much larger. He questioned why the commission was now applying a more complicated approach.
Several features of the Senate selection process formed part of his criticism. Among them were candidates who received zero votes. Separately, he cited vote-counting slips and meetings reportedly held at hotels. These matters had already entered the public domain. Mr Abhisit therefore questioned why extensive investigative spending was required before a court referral.
Zero-vote candidates, counting slips and hotel meetings fuel Abhisit’s demands for a court referral
He also challenged explanations that multiple criteria first had to be satisfied. The EC had referred smaller cases before, he argued. By contrast, he said the largest case now appeared surrounded by additional hurdles. Publicly available information had already raised doubts about whether the affair was straightforward. Furthermore, the accusations reached beyond Senate candidates to politicians and political parties.
Mr Abhisit then highlighted the response from some people facing accusations. He said even accused figures appeared unwilling to trust the Election Commission. Rather than clarify the underlying facts, some challenged whether the EC’s charges complied with the law. He used that response to reinforce his argument about declining confidence.
“In fact, even those accused within the party don’t really trust the Election Commission because many of them choose not to clarify the facts of their cases. They only try to argue that the Election Commission’s charges are not in accordance with the law. The party doesn’t trust them, and neither do I. So why hesitate to say that we don’t need the budget anymore? That’s enough to point it out,” Mr Abhisit said.
On another front, Mr Abhisit attacked relations between the EC and the Department of Special Investigation (DSI). The DSI investigated the affair and sent information to the EC for consideration, he said. According to Mr Abhisit, the commission refused to accept it. In parallel, the DSI requested information from the Election Commission. He said the EC also refused to provide that material.
Abhisit attacks EC and DSI information standoff as accused figures also challenge commission charges
Mr Abhisit then questioned how the public could trust such a process. In response to growing criticism, EC Secretary-General Sawaeng Boonmee outlined three criteria governing whether charges would be filed. The explanation followed social media criticism and the public release of information. Mr Abhisit described those criteria as strange.
Firstly, he said one criterion required the accused person to be a Senate candidate. The accusations, however, extended beyond candidates. Politicians were also accused, he said. Secondly, Mr Abhisit cited Section 76 of the relevant law. He said it covered political office holders connected with parties and offences involving Senate elections.
That provision had a particular purpose, according to Mr Abhisit. The Senate election was intended to remain free from political party involvement. Therefore, he argued, restricting scrutiny to candidates did not address the broader accusations. The case involved claims concerning political figures as well as those standing for Senate seats.
There was also a geographical dimension to his criticism. Allegations had been made across several provinces, Mr Abhisit said. Nevertheless, he said only one political party had been targeted. Financial transfers were another element under scrutiny. In addition, he questioned suggestions that those transfers were simply coincidental.
Taken together, Mr Abhisit said these issues justified putting the evidence before judges. The court could then determine its significance. His argument returned repeatedly to the EC’s threshold for making a referral. He said the commission had previously sent considerably smaller election cases to court.
Abhisit questions EC criteria, political links and financial transfers in widening Senate election case
The sharpest section of his speech concerned the September 14 meeting. Mr Abhisit said four Election Commissioners due to decide the matter were approved by the current Senate. That Senate is itself implicated in the collusion case. Under ordinary administrative procedure principles, he argued, the four would face questions over whether they should participate in the decision.
The EC’s specialised status creates a further complication. If all four withdrew, the remaining commissioners might not constitute a quorum. As a result, the commission could become unable to make a ruling. Yet participation could expose the four to immediate conflict questions, Mr Abhisit said. The commission therefore faces a difficult procedural position before September 14.
“The four Election Commissioners who will make a decision on September 14th were approved by the Senate that is accused in this case. Under the general administrative procedure law, they would have no right to consider the matter. However, because it is a specialised organisation, if they don’t consider it, there might not be a quorum and therefore no ruling could be made. But according to the principles of good governance, if these four make a decision favourable to those who helped put them in office, they cannot escape accusations of having an interest, reciprocal benefits or overlapping interests. Therefore, the Election Commission’s budget needs to be cut as well,” Mr Abhisit said.
Mr Abhisit then widened his attack beyond the Election Commission. Specifically, he proposed reducing the National Anti-Corruption Commission’s budget under the same 10% proposal. He said the NACC’s working processes also caused concern. To illustrate the problem, he disclosed the outcome of an investigation involving himself.
Four Election Commissioners face conflict questions as September 14 Senate case decision approaches
The NACC recently informed Mr Abhisit about accusations dating back 15 years. The commission told him that its investigation had cleared him. Mr Abhisit thanked it for confirming his innocence. Even so, he questioned why the decision had taken 15 years. He also asked whether other unresolved matters remained within the system.
He said he had previously sought answers concerning similar cases. One involved a former minister who was forced to leave office. The Constitutional Court ruled that the minister remained a partner in a company. Consequently, the minister had to leave the post. Other complaints had also been filed, Mr Abhisit said.
Those additional matters should have been decided immediately, according to Mr Abhisit. Yet he said no answer had been received. For that reason, he argued Parliament should use its control over public spending. Organisations should not receive funds without meeting performance indicators, he said. Their operations should also reflect their constitutional responsibilities.
As part of this, Mr Abhisit proposed streamlining NACC investigations into assets held by political office holders. Asset declarations still require verification after submission. Relevant information, however, is held across several state organisations. He proposed formal agreements allowing the NACC to obtain those records more efficiently.
Abhisit turns on NACC over 15-year case delay and calls for stronger parliamentary budget pressure
Mr Abhisit specifically named the Bank of Thailand, Department of Land Transport and Department of Lands. Those agencies hold information relevant to asset checks. Under his proposal, political office holders would provide signed consent for the inspections. This would reduce the expense and workload involved in locating information, he said.
“I suggest the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) request information from relevant agencies, making agreements with the Bank of Thailand (BOT), the Department of Land Transport, and the Department of Land, to inspect the assets of political office holders. We would then need their signed consent to conduct this inspection. This would save money and eliminate the burden of searching for this information.”
Beyond the initial declarations, Mr Abhisit stressed that the information still had to be verified. He placed responsibility on Parliament to ensure the oversight system functioned as designed. In turn, he presented the proposed 10% budget reduction as Parliament’s immediate response. It would affect independent organisations receiving funding under Article 32.
“Even after submitting asset declarations, verification is still required. If this system doesn’t function according to the democratic principles we’ve established, and if it can’t truly happen, the responsibility of preserving the system falls on all of us in this parliament. We can start by signalling a 10% cut in the budgets of these organisations,” Mr Abhisit said.
Abhisit proposes direct state data access to speed NACC checks on assets held by political office holders
The intervention transformed part of the ฿3.78 trillion budget debate into a direct attack on two independent organisations. Foremost among them was the Election Commission. Mr Abhisit questioned its credibility, its procedures and its handling of the Senate collusion investigation. He also challenged its dealings with the DSI and its threshold for court referrals.
At issue were several strands of information already surrounding the Senate affair. These included zero-vote candidates, vote-counting slips and reported hotel meetings. Added to those were financial transfers and accusations involving political figures. Mr Abhisit said the scale was greater than cases previously referred to judges.
Meanwhile, the position of four Election Commissioners has added another dimension before September 14. All four were approved by the current Senate, now implicated in the collusion case. Mr Abhisit warned that a decision favouring those accused could raise conflict of interest questions. Their withdrawal, however, could prevent a quorum. That leaves the composition of the deciding body itself under scrutiny.
Abhisit puts EC credibility and Senate case handling at centre of fierce ฿3.78 trillion budget debate
Mr Abhisit’s proposed route was direct. The EC should send the case to the Supreme Court and allow judges to examine the evidence. He said credible evidence was sufficient for a referral. Past Election Commission practice, he argued, showed that such action was already available.
At the same time, the Democrat leader used the budget debate to target institutional performance. He proposed cutting 10% from the ฿7.85 billion allocation under Article 32. The proposal covered independent organisations and the Office of the Attorney General. He said Parliament should use public funding to demand improved performance.
Abhisit shifts to active support for opposition’s efforts to expose massive collusion in 2024 Senate election
Abhisit Vejjajiva calls for scrutiny of flagship AI project being pursued by Digital Economy ministry
The immediate political focus, however, remains September 14. The Election Commission is due to make a decision concerning the Senate collusion case. Ahead of that meeting, Mr Abhisit has put its public standing under intense parliamentary scrutiny. He has also demanded that the largest questions surrounding the affair be decided in the Supreme Court.
Join the Thai News forum, follow Thai Examiner on Facebook here
Follow Thai Examiner on Google here
Receive all our stories as they come out on Telegram here
Follow Thai Examiner here
Further reading:
Opposition and People’s Party leader attacks ‘blue regime’ on the 12th anniversary of the 2014 coup
Thammasat University legal scholar and 1992 protest leader warns another coup cannot be ruled out
