The Election Commission (EC) has strongly denied as false reports that it had filed criminal complaints against members of the media and the public for photographing ballot papers in order to intimidate press freedom.
The EC stressed that members of the public and the media are entitled set up video cameras or take photographs of ballot papers while polling station officials announce and count votes, including showing to the public ballots that have already been adjudicated.
Filming and photographing the environs of voters exercising their rights is not illegal, provided that it does not:
- violate the rights of voters
- interfere with or obstruct the duties of polling station officials
- undermine the EC’s responsibility to oversee the electoral process and results
The EC said that, as can be seen during the February 8th general election and the re-runs on February 22nd, the public was allowed to inspect every stage of the election process.
The EC is, however, legally obliged to act and cannot neglect its duties if any external scrutiny violates these rules.
The EC statement said the complaints filed were directed specifically at those who allegedly worked together in an organised manner.
The EC has filed complaints with Crime Suppression Division police against:
- Parit Wacharasindhu, spokesman for the People’s party
- Somchai Srisutthiyakorn, former EC member
- Thuntee Sukchotrat, director of D-Vote at Sri Pathum University
- Thanarat Kuawattanaphan, CEO of Domecloud and an expert in blockchain and computer software
- Chaiyapon Chawanwanitchai, owner of M.I.B Marketing in Black
- Songpon Ruengsamut, chief photographer of Spacebar
The EC statement alleges that, on February 22nd, some individuals were found to have set up video cameras early in the morning to film voters arriving to cast ballots and continued filming through the vote count.
At the front of the polling station, others allegedly attempted to “decode” photographed ballot papers to identify which voter had cast which ballot, but the law mandates that voting must be direct and secret.
The EC said the group attempted to disclose, or risked disclosing how people had voted, claiming that they were conducting some form of verification, even though only the official results would be used.
The EC claimed that such actions undermine its legal authority, damage the credibility of the electoral process and that the methods used could not be considered actions taken in good faith. It noted that, if this had been a mock election with no official consequences, it would have been a different matter.
Given that the February 22nd vote was official, the EC filed complaints on the following grounds:
- Obstruction of the EC’s work
- Some eligible voters reportedly chose not to vote after learning that cameras would be recording the process. There were also reports that images of voters would be processed using recognition technology to identify individuals voting that day.
Legally, attempting to read barcodes on ballot papers, to determine how someone voted, is a form of electoral fraud. The EC therefore has the authority and duty to take legal action. Claims that the EC took legal action against ordinary citizens are untrue
The EC has never prosecuted anyone in such circumstances before. The current case is a first, filed in Constituency 1 of Chon Buri province by the constituency election director, because some people involved allegedly acted in bad faith and in violation of the law, not as ordinary citizens.
Some of the six suspects named in the EC complaint were present at the scene, with evidence including jointly presented information, photographs and other materials linking them to the alleged operation.
Others were not there in person, but had arranged with those who were to disclose their actions to the public. Their conduct indicates complicity in the operation.
The EC also mentioned certain social media activity, including the posting of content compiling information about ballot barcodes, in an apparent attempt to undermine ballot secrecy.
The EC said the methods used were “dishonest” and involved “coordinated efforts to stir public unrest”, potentially threatening national security.
