'Ruangkrai' petitions the Election Commission to investigate the Prime Minister's appointment of 'Surapong' as a minister, violating Section 8 of the Code of Ethics or not, using the Kanchanaburi Court's ruling that vote-buying was involved in the election of the Mayor of Kanchanaburi Provincial Administrative Organization in 2020, based on the Constitutional Court's ruling in 2024 that the Prime Minister must appoint an honest and sincere person. Mr. Ruangkrai Leekitwattana revealed that today he sent a letter via EMS to the Election Commission (EC) to investigate Ms. Paethongtarn Shinawatra, the Prime Minister, regarding the nomination of Mr. Surapong Piyachote as Deputy Minister of Transport. Will it be considered as an obvious dishonesty according to Section 160 (4) of the Constitution? And will such actions be considered as a violation or failure to comply with the ethical standards section 8? Including whether it is a cause for the Prime Minister's ministerial position to end specifically according to the Constitution, Section 170 (4) in conjunction with Section 160 (4) (5)? Mr. Ruangkrai said that the facts for the EC to investigate are as follows: 1. On March 4, 2022, the Kanchanaburi Provincial Court ruled in Red Case No. A1141/2022 that the defendant was guilty under the Local Government Election Act B.E. 2562, Section 65 (1), 126, sentenced to 2 years in prison and a fine of 40,000 baht. The defendant confessed, which was beneficial to the consideration. There were mitigating circumstances, so the sentence was reduced by half according to the Criminal Code, Section 78, resulting in a 1-year prison sentence and a 20,000-baht fine. It was not apparent that the defendant had previously been imprisoned. The prison sentence was suspended for 1 year according to the Criminal Code, Section 56. Failure to pay the fine shall be handled according to the Criminal Code, Sections 29 and 30. Pay a bribe for the arrest of another half of the fine to the informant. Confiscate 1,500 baht in Thai government banknotes. Revoke the defendant's voting rights for 20 years." 2. The judgment also mentions Mr. Surapong Piyachote as follows: 'The plaintiff sued that on 19 December 2020 during the daytime, after the announcement of the election of the president of the Kanchanaburi Provincial Administrative Organization and members of the Kanchanaburi Provincial Administrative Organization Council, before the scheduled election date as announced by the Election Director of the Kanchanaburi Provincial Administrative Organization, the defendant gave cash assets of 500 baht each to 3 people who were eligible to vote for the president of the Kanchanaburi Provincial Administrative Organization and members of the Kanchanaburi Provincial Administrative Organization Council in Constituency 5, Nong Bua Subdistrict, Mueang Kanchanaburi District, Kanchanaburi Province, totaling 1,500 baht, to encourage the three eligible voters to vote for the president of the Kanchanaburi Provincial Administrative Organization for Mr. Surapong Piyachote, who was the candidate for president of the Kanchanaburi Provincial Administrative Organization, No. 3, which was a violation of the law. Therefore, the officers seized the banknotes as evidence and kept them for safekeeping. They requested punishment accordingly. The Local Government Election Act B.E. 2562, Sections 4, 32, 65, 126, Criminal Code Section 33, confiscate 1,500 baht of Thai government banknotes, revoke the defendant's voting rights for 20 years, and pay a bribe not exceeding half of the fine to the person who reported the arrest. The defendant confessed." 3. In the case of the verdict in which the defendant confessed, the facts regarding Mr. Surapong Piyachote appeared in the part that stated 'To entice the three eligible voters to vote for the mayor of Kanchanaburi Provincial Administrative Organization for Mr. Surapong Piyachote, who is the candidate for mayor of Kanchanaburi Provincial Administrative Organization, No. 3…' If we take into account the Constitutional Court's ruling No. 21/2567 in th e part that ruled that '…the consideration of whether a person is clearly honest according to Section 160 (4) of the Constitution… is at the discretion of the Prime Minister who must consider as the responsible person…', in this case, it is the responsibility of the Prime Minister to examine the facts according to the verdict as well. Therefore, it is a reasonable reason to ask the EC to examine whether the Prime Minister will have a specific cause to end his discretion in nominating Mr. Surapong Piyachote as Deputy Minister of Transport or not. 4. Ethical Standard No. 8 states that 'must perform duties with honesty and integrity, not seek improper benefits for oneself or others, or have behavior that allows others to know or consent to the use of one's position to seek improper benefits.' Therefore, as a result of the Constitutional Court's ruling No. 21/2567, there will be many more ethical investigations to follow. Source: Thai News Agency