After taking office less than a year ago, the Senate has been put in the hot seat over allegations of collusion in last year’s Senate election. So what do we know about the case?

Last year, Thailand held its first ever Senate election under the current constitution to replace the 250 Senators appointed in 2019 by the military junta for a 5-year term. The election was held according to new regulations designed to eliminate political influence over the Senate. The Senate election system was the brainchild of the Constitution Drafting Committee, led by Meechai Ruchuphan. 

The process involves elections by candidates only (not the general public). Candidates register by social and professional groups and senators qualify through both intra- and inter-group elections through a multi-level voting system at the district, provincial, and national levels. This unprecedented election process is viewed as the most complicated ever, leading to rigging concerns.

Blue Senators

iLaw observed that this complex process resulted in a lack of public participation, as only candidates were eligible to cast votes, and the general public was not allowed to observe the polling process closely. It was also found that voting results were irregularly clustered and were linked to provincial-level political influence.

At the national level, dozens of candidates did not receive any votes, not even voting for themselves. These candidates were from the provinces dominated by MPs from the Bhumjaithai Party. In addition, identical voting patterns were observed in several cases.

It is obvious that since the senators assumed office, 120-130 of them have repeatedly voted in a bloc on multiple parliamentary motions, particularly the first motion to vote for the Senate president. The successful candidate, Mongkol Surasajja, a former Governor of Buriram Province with strong ties with the Bhumjaithai Party, received 140 more votes than the runner-up.

This group of senators are dubbed the ‘Blue Senators,’ because of their alleged affiliation with the Bhumjaithai Party. It is believed that there are no fewer than 130 senators in this group, allowing them to dominate the upper house.

In the latest motion on 13-14 February regarding the amendment of the Constitution, the Bhumjaithai Party, along with the Blue Senators, staged a walkout, leading the Constitutional amendment to fail due to a lack of quorum.

Why has DSI got involved?

570 complaints over irregularities in the Senate election were filed with the Election Commission (EC) during the Senate election. Some unsuccessful candidates on 3 February called on the EC to take action, claiming that the EC had delayed investigation for eight months without progress.

One of the well-known complaints involved Senator Keskamol Pleansamai, whose educational background has been questioned. The results of the investigation have yet to be released to the public.

The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) on 3 February submitted a classified letter to the EC about the allegation of vote rigging in the Senate election. DSI said the evidence indicated possible collusion during the elections at district, provincial, and national levels with offers of approximately 5,000-100,000 baht to Senate candidates.

The DSI revealed that around 2,000 Senate candidates were involved in this scheme, with 138 selected as senators. According to the DSI’s initial investigation, the acts constituted offences under Section 77 of the Organic Act on the Installation of Senators, under criminal laws regarding secret societies, and under the Money Laundering Act.

In the letter, the DSI requested to take over the case, as it believed that the scheme was more complicated than was thought and involved several people not identified in the initial investigation.

According to the law, all cases regarding elections are in the hands of the EC, but if a case involves a criminal offence, it could be classified as a special crime under the DSI’s responsibility.

Currently, the key issue lies in defining clear boundaries regarding which authority should handle this case and on the DSI’s decision on whether to accept the case at its Special Case Committee meeting on 6 March.

Some believe that this move was a card played by the ruling Pheu Thai Party to bargain with Bhumjaithai.

On 25 February, Phumtham Wechayachai, Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister, told the media after the Special Case Committee meeting that the alleged collusion in the Senate election is a new issue and should not be viewed as politically motivated.

He emphasised that the investigation must be carried out based on the facts and legal principles, regardless of whether those accused are affiliated with any coalition parties, asserting that those found guilty must be held accountable.

Meanwhile, the Senate President insisted that the investigation of this matter is the EC’s responsibility. 

Possible results

Three possibilities could happen following the collusion case regarding the Senate election

1. 138 incumbent senators are found involved in collusion, are disqualified, and are sentenced to up to seven years in prison.
2. Candidates on the reserve lists take their places as new senators. If the number on the reserve lists are not sufficient to fill all vacancies, a new Senate election will be held.
3. A petition to void the Senate election could be possibly filed with the Constitution Court.

Vote swapping is not illegal according to the law

Yingcheep Atchanont, iLaw’s Director, said the Organic Act on the Installation of Senators does not prohibit vote swapping since the Senate election system requires the candidates to vote among themselves and encouraging other candidates to vote reciprocally is not considered illegal. Instead, the election system is inherently designed for vote swapping among the candidates.

As long as no benefits are involved - such as offering money in return for a vote or promising a position as an assistant if elected – vote swapping does not violate the law.

In addition, the Senate candidates came from several sectors, and they had to cast votes among themselves. It was relatively challenging to review all the candidates’ profiles or even get to know one another before casting votes. Candidates with affiliations with certain groups or those who had been frequently seen in the public eye tended to gain more advantage than independent or lesser-known candidates.