Thailand’s Election Commission (EC) is under intensifying scrutiny after pursuing criminal charges against six people who raised public questions about the conduct of the most recent general election, particularly over the use of QR codes and barcodes on ballot papers.
The dispute stems from a February 22 by-election at Polling Unit 9 in Constituency 15, located in Bangkok’s Kannayao district, which was organised as part of the broader election process.
Following the re-run, the EC filed a complaint with the Crime Suppression Division, accusing a group of individuals of taking photographs of ballot papers and their counterfoils and attempting to analyse the QR codes and barcodes printed on both constituency and party-list ballots.
According to the commission, these actions were allegedly intended to identify links between ballot information and individual voters, potentially undermining ballot secrecy.
Those named in the complaint include former election commissioner Somchai Srisutthiyakorn; Parit Wacharasindhu, spokesperson for the People’s Party; and Thuntee Sukchotrat, director of D-Vote at Sripatum University.
They also include a photojournalist from the online outlet Spacebar, Thanarat Kuawattanapan, chief executive of Domecloud, and Chaipon Chawalwanichcha, administrator of the MIB Marketing In Black Facebook page.
Prosecutors are pursuing a wide range of charges, including alleged participation in a secret organisation under Section 209 of the Criminal Code, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.
Other accusations include sedition under Section 116, obstruction of the EC’s official duties, violations of the Computer Crime Act related to false data affecting national security, and the unlawful opening of sealed documents.
Pol Col Chaiyut Kiatkongkamchai, deputy commander of the Crime Suppression Division, said a special investigative team of more than 10 officers has been assigned to the case due to its technical complexity and high public interest.
He said investigators are expected to convene in early March to determine, in consultation with the EC, whether summonses should be issued to the accused.
The EC’s decision has sparked backlash from politicians, media organisations and civil society groups, many of whom have warned the case could constitute a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP.
The Democrat Party criticised the commission’s approach, stating that the constitution protects the public’s right to examine the integrity of elections as long as such scrutiny does not interfere with officials’ duties.
The Thai Journalists Association also voiced concern, warning that applying organised crime laws to a photojournalist could have a chilling effect on press freedom.
Spacebar, in response, said its photographer acted in the public interest and took steps to obscure any information that could reveal voter identities.
Academics have also weighed in. Legal scholar Prinya Thaewanarumitkul of Thammasat University said examination of barcode systems used in elections should be encouraged rather than discouraged.
Meanwhile, Yingcheep Atchanont, director of iLaw, argued that photographing ballots showing barcodes does not automatically violate the law, suggesting the sedition charge may instead relate to public criticism of the electoral system itself.
Taking a different view, Mr Somchai said the EC should proceed with the case, arguing that a court process would allow for independent judicial review and could compel the disclosure of evidence that has yet to be made public.
