Gambling Shares Scandal Expands to Digital Minister
A gambling shares scandal involving Bhumjaithai MP Suphada Sangthanthan has expanded to implicate Digital Economy Minister Chaiyachonk Chidchob. Opposition figures demand investigations into potential conflicts of interest during her tenure as the minister's secretary and question why certain gambling platforms remain accessible. Authorities including the DSI and NACC are urged to examine financial trails and enforcement consistency.
The controversy over Bhumjaithai Party Chaiyaphum MP Suphada Sangthanthan's alleged gambling website shares is widening to implicate Digital Economy and Society Minister Chaiyachonk Chidchob. Former MPs Rangsima Rom of the Prachachon Party and Sirichok Sopha of the Democrat Party have raised questions about conflicts of interest and the suppression of online gambling sites. Rangsima poses pointed questions about the MP's explanation of the share sale: several points still need proof — sold to whom, sold when, was money actually transferred? Because claiming the shares were sold does not mean all doubts disappear. But the more interesting issue is the period when the MP served as secretary to the DE Minister, which has the duty to suppress online gambling. If during that time she still had involvement in the gambling business, it must be examined whether a conflict of interest existed or whether official authority was used to benefit any website. Meanwhile, Sirichok Sopha, who gave information to the DSI on the Shuffle.com platform, questions why that website remains in service when the DE Ministry has the duty to block illegal gambling sites, and demands an investigation into the financial trail and all involved parties. Both cases show this is not limited to verifying the MP's asset declaration or proving whether her husband truly sold the shares, but expands to the question of whether state agencies enforce the law impartially and whether some websites receive different treatment. However, all allegations and doubts must still await investigation results from relevant agencies. A website remaining accessible does not by itself prove state officials are assisting it, just as holding shares or business connections must be examined case by case based on facts and law. For Minister Chaiyachonk, although no conclusion of involvement exists yet, in his capacity as DE Minister he cannot escape questions about the ministry's performance, especially if irregularities are found in gambling suppression during the period the MP served as his secretary. The crux of the matter must rest on evidence, not mere suspicion or accusation. Therefore, the DSI or even the NACC must investigate the financial trail and the performance of duties by those involved clearly. This is the critical intersection. From a gambling share case clinging to one MP, if investigations uncover links reaching the ministerial level, it will open the door for the opposition to use it as a direct no-confidence debate issue against the DE Minister.
