Bangkok: The Election Commission of Thailand (ECT) has issued a ruling affirming the qualifications of "Nang Daeng," a pork vendor, and "Somphan," a chicken noodle vendor, as Senators from Amnat Charoen. The ruling follows a petition challenging their eligibility, which has been dismissed by the ECT.
According to Thai News Agency, Yingcheep Atchanont, director of the Internet for People's Law Project (iLaw), had demanded transparency regarding the ECT's decision to dismiss the petition against Daeng Kongma and Somphan Palasak. The petition questioned their qualifications for Senate candidacy under Group 10, which pertains to individuals engaged in businesses outside small and medium-sized enterprises. Somphan and Daeng have announced plans to file a lawsuit against Yingcheep, accusing him of defamation and causing public confusion.
The Election Commission's website published two rulings dismissing the petitions. Ruling No. 249/2567, dated December 23, 2024, concerned Ms. Daeng's candidacy. The petition alleged that she had operated a pork stall without the necessary business licenses, violating the Organic Act on the Acquisition of Members of the Senate. However, the ECT found that Ms. Daeng had been selling pork since 1997 and was a member of the Market Development Committee since 2004. Her candidacy was supported by the market owner and three vendors, confirming her qualifications and experience.
Similarly, ruling No. 17/2568, dated January 13, 2025, addressed the complaint against Mr. Somphan. The petition argued that he lacked the required business licenses for his noodle shop. However, the ECT's investigation revealed that Mr. Somphan had been operating "Pook Fishball Noodles" since 2009, with supporting documentation from the Department of Business Development. Witnesses confirmed his experience, and no government agency had challenged his qualifications.
The ECT concluded that both Ms. Daeng and Mr. Somphan possessed the necessary qualifications and experience, dismissing the allegations of ineligibility. The rulings highlight their compliance with Sections 11 (10), 13 (3), and 74 of the relevant legislation, affirming their positions as Senators.