Bangkok: The Democrat Party spokesperson urged the Bangkok City Council President to investigate a City Council member from the People's Party regarding the alleged proxy voting scandal, fearing it would damage public trust. The spokesperson emphasized that the Bangkok City Council must be accountable, questioning whether transparency is limited to some members or if collusion among others is possible.
According to Thai News Agency, Pongsakorn Kwanmuang, spokesperson for the Democrat Party (DP), posted on Facebook questioning allegations of proxy voting by Bangkok Metropolitan Council (BMA) members. He noted that during the recent BMA Council meeting, several agendas aimed at increasing transparency were pushed, particularly live broadcasting of meetings, an initiative spearheaded by the new Speaker and Deputy Speaker. However, a suspicious incident arose: the proxy voting between BMA Council member Sairam (Sathorn district) and BMA Council member Phattharasak (Yannawa district), both from the People's Party. Phattharasak's subsequent explanation that Sairam's voting machine had been malfunctioning since the previous week caused them to sit closer together, leading to an accidental press of the wrong button. This explanation contradicts his earlier statement during the meeting, where he insisted his own machine was broken and he had to use Sairam's. Phattharasak explained that the BMA Council's voting syste m displays three flashing lights during the voting period; after a vote is cast, the lights stop flashing and remain lit.
'I would like to ask the following questions: 1. Before Councillor Phattharasak cast his vote on Councillor Sairam's computer, what kind of malfunction occurred in his own computer, and was the light on his computer normally illuminated beforehand? Because if his computer was functioning normally and he successfully cast one vote (for himself), why did he need to cast another vote (for Councillor Sairam) during the same period when the light was flashing, which is a limited time frame?'
2. Senator Sairam was outside the meeting room and left only to make a phone call. The question is, why didn't he return immediately upon learning that a vote had taken place while he was away, to request a re-vote specifically for his part, instead of letting it become a point of contention in Parliament?
3. Will the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House request to review CCTV footage to confirm the times when Sairam left and returned to the room, as well as the manner in which Councillor Phattharasak pressed the voting button-whether it was a genuine oversight or if the camera in that area was malfunctioning?
4. Will the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House inquire with the official in charge of the voting machine system to verify whether the machine used by Councillor Phattharasak was actually malfunctioning/broken as claimed? This direct testimony from the system administrator will be crucial evidence for the next steps in the ethics proceedings.
5. Will the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House proceed with establishing a fact-finding committee, and if wrongdoing is found, will legal action be taken?
All of this will prove whether the Bangkok Metropolitan Council will take ethics seriously or choose to focus only on the suffering of the people, neglecting the ethical issues of the council members themselves. Today is the beginning of a good sign in making the Bangkok Metropolitan Council transparent, but the question is, will it be transparent only for some people, or will it be transparent for everyone equally? If this cannot be achieved, it will lead to problems of trust and suspicions of collusion among council members. This can be proven by whether the council president or vice-president answers the five questions above clearly," Mr. Pongsakorn concluded.