EC rejects petition alleging Thaksin’s dominance over parties in forming government
The investigation found no evidence that the 6 political parties lacked decision-making independence, a key element of wrongdoing under the Political Parties Act.
- Thailand's Election Commission (EC) has dismissed a petition that sought the dissolution of six political parties.
- The petition alleged that former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, a non-member, illegally dominated these parties during the government's formation.
- An EC fact-finding committee investigated the claims and concluded there was no evidence that the parties had lost their independence or decision-making autonomy.
- The EC clarified that for domination to be legally proven, it must be shown that an individual's influence caused a party to lose its independence, which was not established in this case.
Sawaeng Boonmee, Secretary-General of the Election Commission of Thailand (EC) and registrar of political parties, gave an interview on Friday (September 12) regarding the progress of investigating the petition to dissolve six political parties.
The petition alleges that these parties allowed Thaksin Shinawatra, the former Prime Minister and non-member of the parties, to influence and dominate the formation of the government.
This follows the 2024 Constitutional Court ruling that resulted in the removal of Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin from office, prompting the need for a new prime minister. Subsequently, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, leader of the Pheu Thai Party and Thaksin's daughter, was supported as the new prime ministerial candidate.
The petitioners pointed to instances where party leaders had instant noodles with Thaksin at his home as evidence of undue influence.
In response, the registrar of political parties dismissed the petition after establishing a fact-finding committee to investigate. Upon hearing from the six parties involved, the committee confirmed that there was no loss of independence or decision-making autonomy.
Sawaeng further explained that political party domination is a sensitive social issue, with many petitions still under review. While many of the complaints centre around speeches and statements, legal scrutiny is necessary to determine whether actual domination has occurred.
According to the law, domination must be such that it deprives a party of its independence. If, after full legal consideration, the facts show that a person’s influence leads to the loss of a party’s autonomy, that would be grounds for dissolution.
Regarding Thaksin's public speeches at various events, Sawaeng stated that there is no credible evidence to suggest that this constitutes legal domination. It is not merely a matter of perception; it must be evaluated according to the relevant legal provisions.
He also revealed that there is still an ongoing petition regarding Thaksin's alleged influence over the Pheu Thai Party, which is under review by the fact-finding subcommittee.
When asked about the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the People’s Party and the Bhumjaithai Party to support Anutin Charnvirakul, leader of the Bhumjaithai Party, as Prime Minister, Sawaeng explained that if this were to be classified as domination, it would need to meet the legal criteria specified in Section 28 of the Organic Act on Political Parties. The issue will require further investigation into the facts before any conclusions are drawn.
