Bangkok: "Wanwichit" points out that to prosecute those involved in collusion within the Senate, evidence of bribery, vote rigging, and predetermined results is required.

According to Thai News Agency, Assistant Professor Wanwichit Boonproong, a political scientist from Rangsit University, analyzed the issue of the selection process for senators, stating that the current system requires candidates to introduce themselves, exchange information, and coordinate support among themselves, especially in the cross-voting round. If a candidate does not interact or build relationships with others, their chances of being elected are significantly reduced.

Assistant Professor Wanwichit stated that discussions, lobbying, or arrangements to exchange votes are natural occurrences within the system and are not limited to any one political group. There are coordinated efforts and organization within almost every network, regardless of whether they are blue, orange, or red factions.

However, determining whether an act constitutes collusion or illegal activity must be separated from normal informal conversations. Clear evidence linking the act to directives or exchanges of benefits is necessary, such as documents, audio recordings, photographs, travel records, or financial transaction records consistent with the voting period, and demonstrating that the money was used to influence the vote.

"If we rely solely on eyewitness accounts or linking multiple events together based on assumptions, the weight of evidence in the justice process may not be sufficient. This is because some witnesses may be stakeholders, especially those who were not elected. Therefore, circumstantial evidence is needed to support the view that the corruption was systematic," Assistant Professor Wanwichit said.

Assistant Professor Wanwichit also stated that the discovery of documents containing lists or numerical data of applicants alone is not sufficient to immediately conclude that it is evidence of collusion, as it lacks financial connections. Applicants may have compiled these lists to remember other candidates or to strategize their voting under a system where they are supposed to choose among themselves.

Regarding money transfers between individuals associated with a Senate candidate, the details of the relationship and the purpose of the transfer must be considered on a case-by-case basis. If it is a normal transfer, such as for travel expenses, operational costs, or expenses between team members, it is not sufficient to conclude that it is vote buying. However, if it is found that the money was transferred shortly before or after the voting, has no business or work-related relationship behind it, and there is clear evidence that it was compensation for electing a Senate candidate to meet a specific target, then it will carry different weight.

Associate Professor Wanwichit believes that a significant part of the problem stems from the design of the Senate selection system, which aims to open up opportunities for individuals from diverse professional fields to participate and allow candidates to elect each other. However, Thailand lacks extensive experience with such a system, leading to questions and differing interpretations.

Meanwhile, the Election Commission should clearly define what actions are permissible and what behaviors are illegal, in order to prevent misunderstandings among candidates and the public.

'When the system requires candidates to choose each other, introductions and discussions are unavoidable. However, to hold anyone accountable, there must be more than just feelings or suspicions. There needs to be verifiable evidence of orchestrated decisions, bribery, and control of voting processes, involving financial connections,' Assistant Professor Wanwichit said.