Senate candidates can apply under category other than actual job

The Election Commission says the Supreme Court has set a precedent by stating that candidates for the Senate who apply under a different professional category than their actual occupation are not violating the rules. 

This is because such applications align with the candidates' intentions, which is different from falsely claiming an occupation. 

Violations occur if candidates knowingly lack the eligibility to apply but do so anyway. 

Additionally, if they are hired to apply, it constitutes a separate offence. An expedited review of the qualifications of 40,000 candidates is under way to identify any violations.

Saweang Boonmee, secretary general of the Election Commission of Thailand, on Saturday posted on his personal Facebook page: "In an interesting case concerning the categorisation of applicants for election, the Supreme Court has ruled in Case No 185/2567 that the acceptance of an application by the district election director for a candidate who works as a salt farmer was in accordance with the candidate's intention to run in Category 5 (occupations related to rice farming, cultivating annual crops, or other similar activities). 

“The director announced the candidate list separated by groups, which was an act done in accordance with the candidate’s wish and within the director’s duty. Therefore, there is no basis for the complainant (the candidate who filed the complaint to the Supreme Court) to file the case, and thus the complaint was dismissed."

This is in line with the intent of the Constitution of Thailand, Section 107, which states that: “To ensure that all citizens with the required qualifications have the right to apply for election as per Section 107, Paragraph 1, it has been stipulated that ‘… group divisions must be made in a way that allows all eligible citizens to be part of one group or another’.”

Additionally, the term “knowledge” in Paragraph 1 of this section does not refer to knowledge measured by certificates or degrees but to actual knowledge in various fields, such as farming, fishing, or livestock-rearing.

Upon review, it can be inferred that the right to apply is separate from submitting false documents or submitting a false application form (S.V.3). For instance, if the S.V.3 form states that the applicant is a salt farmer but in reality, they are not, this constitutes providing false information.
 

In cases where false information is provided in the application documents, the Election Commission must review all 40,000+ applicants. If it is found that any candidates applied with false information, they may be in violation of Section 74, which covers knowingly applying without eligibility.

“Moreover, in cases of applying on behalf of someone else, even if the application documents are complete and accurate, it still constitutes a separate offence if the candidate is hired to apply,” Saweang posted.