Poll agency does fine job of not inspiring trust

Poll agency does fine job of not inspiring trust

Inset, Nat Laosisawakul, Election Commission deputy secretary-general: Trying to explain ballot security to a public that isn't convinced. (File photos)
Inset, Nat Laosisawakul, Election Commission deputy secretary-general: Trying to explain ballot security to a public that isn't convinced. (File photos)

As we enter the last leg of the election, the winner is yet to emerge but it has become clear who is the biggest loser -- the Election Commission (EC).

It is evident that trust is running low in the seven-man committee. The organisation's deputy secretary-general Nat Laosisawakul admitted he had to answer questions about the security of advanced voting ballots at least "15 times a day''.

Indeed, Mr Nat seems so fed up with the apparent lack of confidence in his organisation's ability to keep the voting clean and clear that he has invited media members and political parties to sleep with the ballots. The EC will arrange bedding, he reportedly said.

Atiya Achakulwisut is a columnist, Bangkok Post.

Whether Mr Nat was being serious or sarcastic, he should beware that the light is not shining on an organisation tasked with the crucial job of holding the first election after more than four years under military dictatorship.

Considering the deadly political conflicts of the recent past and how emotions have been running high prior to the March 24 poll, a much-expected political event that could set the direction for the country's future, the EC should know it will be standing in the bullseye. It should know it will have to be flawless in its performance. As political biases and bigotry run high, its appearance of honesty, transparency and fairness must be even higher.

Alas, the commission which is supposedly an independent body seems to have fallen short of these great expectations.

To begin with, the EC was allocated an unprecedentedly high budget of 5.8 billion baht to organise the election, compared to 3.8 billion in 2014. Early this month, there was news the commissioners spent about 12 million baht on trips to countries including England, Switzerland, Germany and the US to check on overseas voting.

Then came early voting for Thais abroad from March 4-16 and complaints abounded.

From Malaysia, more than 4,000 people registered for the early voting but only three voting booths were reportedly arranged resulting in hours-long queues. Eventually, the embassy staff had to improvise by using cardboard boxes as supplementary voting booths and extending voting another day.

Once photos of the makeshift cardboard voting booths were circulated online and generated criticism, EC secretary-general Jarungvith Phumma could say only that the improvised booths might not look elegant but they would do according to the law.

What the commissioner failed to explain is why the embassy was unequipped for the vote even though all the voters had registered in advance. They should have prepared enough voting booths for the more than 4,000 voters for a start. Also, what about the budget? Did the EC allocate enough money for the Malaysian operation? Does the amount justify the few voting booths prepared?

Then, we began to see angry posts online from Thai students in the UK and the US. One posted a photo of an envelope containing her ballot and said she wished the authority of Queen Elizabeth II on the postage would protect her ballot until it reached the destination without being returned to sender.

The posts are understandable following complaints from many Thais in the US, Canada and South Africa. Some did not receive ballots until almost the last day of early voting. Others sent their ballots back in the provided envelopes only to see them returned either because the destination address was written in Thai and unclear or the envelopes did not conform to the USPS standard.

Do these mistakes sound too simple to make for an organisation with more than five billion baht and a supporting network of Thai embassies and consulates? After all, more than 120,000 people registered for overseas voting. Do their votes count?

The EC's impartiality has also been tested after petitions against so-called pro-democracy parties seem to have been processed faster than those against the pro-regime side.

Its recent ruling that the Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP), which nominated Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha as its premier candidate, did not break the law during its 600-million-baht fundraising party did not inspire confidence either.

The petition asked the EC to probe if state agencies donated as that would be against the law. After much deliberation, the EC decided the PPRP was safe because none of the donors were foreign entities.

That is befuddling. But the EC's biggest test could be in a pending petition for it to see if Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha as head of the National Council for Peace and Order is a state official thus disqualified from being a prime ministerial candidate.

The petition was filed on Feb 11 but no progress has been made. There is no doubt its decision on this case will be a test of its diminishing mettle.

Atiya Achakulwisut

Columnist for the Bangkok Post

Atiya Achakulwisut is a columnist for the Bangkok Post.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (18)