As Thailand’s 2026 general election approaches, the country is confronting a familiar, unresolved problem—vote buying. Deep-rooted in Thai politics, the practice has resurfaced aggressively, highlighting a systemic failure of the nation’s democratic safeguards. 

While the practice has long been illegal, weak enforcement and lack of proactive oversight have allowed vote-buying to flourish over and over again. Here is how vote-buying operates in Thailand and why enforcement measures continue to fall short.

A recent survey conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Commerce, Industry and Banking revealed that money spent on vote-buying during the December 2025 - January 2026 period reached 7,500 baht per person, stirring a public uproar.  Although 42% of the respondents anticipated that vote-buying would be more aggressive in the upcoming elections, the amount of money involved apparently exceeded public expectations.

Evidence is legion. Bank of Thailand (BoT)’s governor Vitai Ratanakorn recently revealed that BoT detected unusual cash withdrawals, saying that two customers withdrew a combined 450 million baht from Thai commercial banks in 100 and 500 baht notes. Concerned about how the money would be spent, Vitai vowed that the bank would introduce measures to oversee such suspicious transactions in the future.

In an interview with Prachatai, Prinya Thaewanarumitkul, a legal professor at Thammasat University, also noted the large volume of money derived from illegal activities like online gambling which now flows into politics and facilitates vote-buying in general elections.

Meanwhile, Election Commission of Thailand (ECT) Secretary General Sawang Boonmee told the media that reports of vote-buying are ongoing, despite preventive measures being implemented by local administrations, the police, and the ECT.  In a quip he was later obliged to apologise for, Sawang said that candidate were welcome to get their cash ready for vote buying should not hand it out.”  Preparing money to buy votes is also an offence, but one difficult to prove as perpetrators can easily evade charges when evidence is insufficient.

The ECT is reportedly prepared to use strict measures against those who distribute money. Its failure to disclose the mechanics of these 'strict measures' has fuelled scepticism over their effectiveness, however.  As vote-buying appears as prevalent as ever, unsupported claims and vague promises are no longer enough to restore public trust.

Patterns and complexities of vote buying in Thailand

Vote-buying occurs in both local elections and national elections. The difference between these two levels is not in the method itself, but rather in how risk and return are calculated.

Basically, the most common form of vote buying involves door-to-door visits, where ‘cash’ is directly offered to voters.

Unlike urban residents living independently in gated communities, social life in rural Thailand is built around close-knit communities, where people depend on one another. As a result, vote-buying in rural areas tends to be more aggressive, according to Nuttakorn Vititanon from Chiang Mai University’s Faculty of Political Science and Public Administration.

Nuttakorn Vititanon from Chiang Mai University’s Faculty of Political Science and Public Administration

The practice is often carried out through canvassers, influential figures well known in the community who serve as key intermediaries between candidates and voters, such as village heads.

According to Nattakorn, losing is not an option in local elections, particularly city municipalities with a massive allocated budget, as large interests are at stake. As a result incumbents under pressure to defend their position are prepared to spend a huge amount of money on vote-buying. He added that the smaller the constituency, the more prevalent vote buying becomes.

According to the professor, the most intense phrase often occurs the night before polling day. In highly competitive areas, candidates who think that they might be falling behind attempt to buy votes in order to make up the difference. In some cases, they even top up money to outbid rivals.

In contrast, Nuttakorn says, vote buying in general elections is more strategic. “On a national scale, because there are so many candidates from multiple parties, not all parties engage in vote-buying. Those that do usually … have the potential to win; only then are they ready to spend money.”

The practice varies by party. Some provide financial support for their candidates to buy votes but if a party has a clear stance against vote-buying, its candidates will probably refrain from the practice.

While classic forms of vote buying remain pervasive, the practice continues to adapt. Nuttakorn points to a more sophisticated approach used during party rallies held across several provinces. Some offer cash to attendees. Legally, this also constitutes vote-buying, but it can be framed as support and compensation for travel or participation. Even for voters who are genuine supporters, travelling to such an event, particularly from remote areas with limited public transportation, can impose a financial burden.

As for more traditional practices, Prinya asserts that overt vote-buying is also common. In some cases, vote-buying lists, used by a canvasser to keep track of who has received money in a given area, are openly discussed in public spaces, such as coffee shops. The emergence of such blatant practices reflects both how normal vote-buying has become and how weak enforcement measure are.

When vote buying no longer guarantees votes

Although it is expected that a huge amount of money will be spent in the upcoming election, experts agree that the practice is no longer as effective as it used to be because modern voters now prioritise political parties over cash rewards.

According to Natthakorn, in general elections people tend to choose political parties and money is no longer a significant factor in their decision-making. This new approach was evinced in the 2023 general elections, when the Move Forward Party, a predecessor of the People’s Party, won in seven out of ten constituencies in Chiang Mai province.  “Money was not the sole factor. Even though rivals spent a huge amount, they could not beat the popularity of Move Forward Party, its prime ministerial candidate, and its policies,” noted the professor.

Prinya also observes practices have changed.  40 years ago, 70-80% of the electorate would vote for the candidate who paid them. Today, people still accept money but the number who vote for the candidate that paid them has declined significantly.  Based on his research, money only has a real impact on around 5% of voters. “Most people accept money … but vote according to their own preference.”  In other cases, people take money but would have made the same choice anyhow.

Is cracking down on vote-buying a fool’s errand?

Ubiquitous, vote-buying is likely to persist. Pointing fingers at those who buy or sell votes does not appear to be a solution. Thailand’s election watchdog rarely takes proactive action, and existing mechanisms fail to create a safe space for those who complain.

According to the law, those who buy votes could face up to 10 years in prison and a 20-year ban from politics, while those who sell votes could be sentenced to five years in prison and have their voting rights revoked.

The law is seldom applied, however.  According to a report in The Active, of 80 vote-buying complaints involving 200 individuals from eight political parties filed with the ECT, only eight individuals were found guilty.

Part of the problem is procedural. A vote-buying accusation must be directly filed with the ECT but, according to Natthakorn, prosecution jurisdiction is split in half: before and after the certification of elected candidates.

Before certification, the ECT has full power to disqualify a winning candidate and order a by-election if vote-buying is found. As the mechanism, referred to as issuing an “orange card,” depends on the ECT, it can have repercussion for the body.

In the 2019 general elections, the ECT issued an ‘orange card’ to Suraphol Kietchaiyakorn, former MP from the Pheu Thai Party, over alleged vote buying. The case stemmed from a complaint that he donated money to a temple during the election period, while the law prohibited a candidate from offering money or any other benefits to temples, communities, or educational institutions during the elections. The ECT later filed a case with the Supreme Court.

Suraphol argued that the money was a personal donation made on the occasion of his birthday, and he later filed a petition against the ECT with the Civil Court, where the ECT was ordered to pay over 60 million baht in damages. The Supreme Court also dismissed the case as well, concluding that Suraphol’s action did not constitute electoral corruption.

According to Nattakorn, the case was a turning point. “Since then, despite nearly 8,000 local elections up to present, the ECT has never issued another orange card.”  He believes that the ECT’s hesitation has fostered a sense of impunity, encouraging candidates and political parties to engage in vote-buying without fear of consequences.

After elected candidates are officially certified, the ECT no longer has the power to disqualify candidates on its own and must instead bring cases before the Supreme Court. This stage, commonly referred to as issuing a ‘red card,’ it is also deeply problematic, according to Natthakorn.

Court proceedings require solid evidence and witness testimony, yet eyewitnesses or complainants are often unwilling to appear. “They are afraid of the influence of those already holding power after ECT certifification.”  As a result, although candidates engage in vote buying, they can often avoid prosecution due to insufficient evidence.

The ECT is well aware of this loophole. According to the ECT Secretary General, when people report a vote-buying case to the ECT, they can do so anonymously, but when a case is brought to the court, complainants must testify in person alongside an accused. If an accused is an influential figure in the area, complainants, mostly ordinary people, often feel unsafe confronting them. Many refuse to appear and some even reverse their testimonies out of fear. 

Watchdog operates on a complaint-driven basis

Prinya argues that the persistence of vote buying is largely the result of the ECT’s own approach.  Noting that its officers sit in the office and waiting for complaints, he wonders “who would dare to come forward” and suggests that more proactive measures be adopted.

Prinya Thaewanarumitkul, a legal professor at Thammasat University

He adds that the ECT has implicitly encouraged vote-buying by doing nothing to suppress or deter it since the 2023 general elections up to the recent local elections last month.

Given that vote-buying relies on a large amount of money that must be withdrawn from the banking systems, he thinks that the ECT should cooperate with commercial banks and relevant agencies to intercept unusual cash flows before they reach the voters, rather than relying on the BoT governor to flag anomalies after the fact.

The ECT has an application called “Pineapple Eyes,” which was launched 10 years ago to enhance public participation in reporting electoral corruption. It was not well promoted and there are complaints that the app is not user-friendly and does not function properly. The organisation also recently announced a reward of up to one million baht for whistleblowers if a case reaches the court. As such cases are seldom taken seriously, Prinya suspects that such financial incentives are unlikely to address the problem, particularly when measures to protect whistleblowers remain insufficient. A million baht … is not worth risking one’s life for.

Prinya believes that the ECT’s failure to take action to suppress vote buying, has eroded trust in the institution, that people now wonder whether the commission is deliberately turning a blind eye on the practice.

“Think of a football match. If a footballer from one team starts playing dirty or cheating, and the referee does nothing — whether out of negligence or by deliberately turning a blind eye — the result is that dirty play prevails.”