Bangkok: The Election Commission is being urged to vote on September 14th to send the 229 individuals involved in the Senate collusion case to the court for trial. Parit Wacharasindhu, a party-list MP from the People's Party, has called on the seven Election Commissioners to make a decisive vote, pointing out that crucial evidence, including financial trails, meeting arrangements, and documents, still exists. He emphasized that the situation cannot be dismissed simply because of a single witness retracting their testimony, stating that such an act wouldn't make "the whole elephant disappear."
According to Thai News Agency, Parit Wacharasindhu expressed his views in an interview regarding the case that the Election Commission (EC) is set to consider. He stated that the seminar on independent organizations aimed to emphasize the need for these entities to perform their duties honestly and without interference. He stressed that the EC's role in this case is significant and closely monitored by society.
Mr. Parit reiterated the People's Party's demand for all seven Election Commissioners to vote to indict the 229 accused in court. He clarified that this action is not to declare them guilty but to recognize that there is enough evidence to proceed with a judicial process to determine responsibility. He cited previous instances where the Election Commission indicted individuals based on evidence of vote matching, noting that this case presents even stronger evidence of coordinated efforts, including financial transactions and voting slips.
Parit further highlighted that four out of the seven Election Commissioners have potential conflicts of interest, as they received their positions with the Senate's approval, which includes some of the accused members. To mitigate this conflict, he suggested that these members should refrain from using their discretion in favor of those who appointed them and instead send the matter to court. Alternatively, they should consider the opinions of the three Commissioners without conflicts and vote in alignment with them to avoid accusations of bias.
Addressing concerns about the event being a pressure tactic before the vote, Mr. Parit defended the action, asserting that demanding lawful performance from independent bodies is not inappropriate and is a fundamental duty of elected representatives. He expressed concern over any improper execution of duties or inconsistent application of standards across cases, underscoring the need for fair and impartial investigations.
When questioned about leaked documents suggesting a witness retracted their testimony, Mr. Parit questioned whether these should indeed be considered "leaked" or rather "released" documents. He noted that the content aligned with previous parliamentary debates by Bhumjaithai Party MPs and emphasized that the Senate case's evidence does not rely on a single witness but rather on multiple sources, including financial records, contact history, and voting slips.
Parit remarked, "There was a whole elephant. The fact that one witness retracted their testimony didn't make the elephant disappear." He added that if the initial testimony was politically pressured, it must be investigated whether the retraction, favorable to the Bhumjaithai Party and occurring during its time in power, was also pressured. He insisted that both testimonies should be examined alongside other evidence.
Mr. Parit further questioned the later testimony denying voting slip creation, pointing to contradictory evidence such as CCTV footage and the consistent distribution of votes across groups. He challenged the notion that voting slips could have been created retrospectively to align with the results.
Looking ahead to the actions post-September 14th, Mr. Parit warned that should the Election Commission dismiss the complaint or fail to prosecute despite clear evidence, the matter would persist. He stated that the Election Commission must be ready to face questions during the presentation of its annual report in parliament. Accused executives will also have to respond during the no-confidence debate. Legally, further actions must be considered, potentially involving prosecutions for abuse of power, which may require the aggrieved party to file complaints.
Parit affirmed his readiness to pursue all necessary legal actions to ensure justice, highlighting the risk of fostering a political system where those in power are perceived as infallible. He cautioned, "What I fear most is that some factions will be above the law."