DSI’s Senate Election Investigation: Unraveling Allegations of Collusion and Bloc Voting

In the intricate world of politics, where tension and intrigue often go hand in hand, the Department of Special Investigation’s (DSI) special cases board is on the brink of navigating a complex web of allegations tied to last year’s Senate election. Scheduled for a pivotal decision by Tuesday, the board is weighing whether to launch a full-blown investigation into the simmering allegations of collusion and bloc voting that have plagued the political scene.

With Justice Minister Tawee Sodsong at the helm and Deputy Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai steering the ship, the emphasis is clear: strict legal procedures, void of any political meddling. Phumtham, doubling his roles with precision as board chair and something of a political tightrope walker, highlighted the importance of allowing due process to unfold without undue bias or interference.

The genesis of these complaints is rooted in the grievances of a contingent of unsuccessful candidates, amongst them some reserve list hopefuls, who have expressed frustration over what they perceive as the Election Commission’s (EC) sluggish pace in addressing their grievances. Speculation, as rumor mills often thrive on, suggests the finger of blame is being pointed at “blue bloc” senators, a group presumed to show allegiance to the Bhumjaithai Party (BJT), a cornerstone member of the ruling coalition.

At the heart of the matter lies a request by the EC to class the allegations as a special investigation-worthy case. Phumtham echoes this sentiment, underscoring that the decision is not politically driven but a legal imperative. “Given a compelling legal foundation, the case might navigate the special investigation waters,” he remarked, further asserting that the process is far from final. Rather, it dances on the precipice of evolving investigations and lightstorms of witness accounts.

In the cloak and dagger dance of politics, a two-thirds majority vote by the board is requisite to deem the matter a special case. This procedural safeguard adds another layer of complexity to an already intricate situation. Phumtham, in his concurrently held role as defense minister, assures that protective cover won’t shelter anyone found culpable should the evidence be convincing enough.

Sparking the flames of a burgeoning controversy, Pol Col Tawee recently vowed that the DSI would take a microscope to criminal offenses enumerated in the Criminal Code regarding the selection of the new Upper House. This declaration triggered a swift backlash, notably from Deputy Speaker Gen Kriangkrai Srirak, who swiftly accused the minister of malfeasance, pledging to seek his removal from office.

The criminal charges bandied about include allegations of criminal association posing a national security threat under Sections 116(3) and 209 of the Criminal Code. Amidst this charged atmosphere, Pol Col Tawee noted that evidence and testimonials would undergo intensive scrutiny before the board, with the charge of criminal association foregrounded by the complainants themselves.

As the story unfolds with the cautious suspense of a political thriller, Mr. Tawee, brushing off the threatening undertones of an impending probe, absented himself from a Senate session intended to illuminate the DSI’s strategies. His absence left the Senate waiting, unanswered questions hovered like specters. The word being Pol Col Tawee was attending to pressing matters elsewhere, rendering him unavailable for discourse in person.

Gen Kriangkrai, wearing his hat as a former adviser to Bhumjaithai Party leader Anutin Charnvirakul, stated that the Senate’s agreement on an inquiry against Pol Col Tawee arose unanimously from Senate whips. Highlighting the constitutional role of both DSI and senators, he noted ongoing EC investigations, with many senators already grilled for insights.

A closed-door conclave of Senate whips later rekindled the debate, where Senate Speaker Mongkol Surajajja vocalized an insistence that the DSI was overreaching its jurisdiction. According to him, the EC alone should bear the responsibility for handling Senate-related complaints. Clarifying his stance, he contended that the senators’ election followed the procedural course the charter envisioned.

In the throes of these controversies swirling around the political arena, Mr. Anutin distanced himself from the so-called blue faction, affirming confidence that all complaints were undergoing thorough reviews by appropriate agencies.

Though the shroud of controversy hovers mightily over last year’s selection of the 200-member Senate, with accusations of orchestrated collusion lurking in its shadow, the narrative is one that continues to unfold with each passing day.