Supachai Defends Election Case Ruling Against Claims Of Political Targeting
A ruling MP defended the Election Commission's independence against claims of political targeting in a disputed election case, arguing that the investigation relied too heavily on DSI conclusions without critical scrutiny.
At 16:40 on September 10, 2025, Supachai Jaisamut, a list-based MP from Phak Phumijai Thai, spoke during the budget debate on independent agencies, saying these bodies should be treated fairly and judged on performance and public benefit rather than subjected to automatic budget cuts whenever reviewed by a parliamentary committee. He emphasized that support should depend on whether an independent agency is working effectively and delivering value, and withdrawal of support should come only if there is evidence of poor performance or negative impact.
Supachai then pivoted to the main subject occupying parliament for months: the disputed election case. The case began with DSI investigations in September 2567, during which the DSI director at that time authorized investigators to examine 229 flagged individuals—an unusual figure, as candidates from other election factions were never subject to such flagging.
Supachai noted that the complaint originated from a former police officer and ex-DSI director who had since retired, run for parliament, and later become an adviser to a government ministry. This complaint prompted the Election Commission to establish Committee 26 to review the case, notably staffing it with three investigators from the DSI, which Supachai suggested showed bias toward a predetermined outcome.
"I am raising this not to ask the Election Commission to help or hurt anyone, because the heart of the matter lies with the Commission's independence and its September 14 ruling," Supachai said. He added that Committee 26 and the sub-investigative committee are not courts and do not render legal judgments; the Commission's independence is grounded in the constitution.
Supachai went on to argue that when tracing the source of Committee 26's findings, investigators had simply bundled together DSI conclusions without critical scrutiny—a problematic foundation that had muddied the entire investigation. "When data moves from one agency to another, it becomes a problem if people uncritically adopt whatever they receive and flag individuals in the same way those data came from," he said. He stopped short of alleging corruption but emphasized the seriousness and potential criminal implications of the approach, noting that the accusations carry jail sentences and that the analytical methods used may not hold up under criminal law standards.
