Two complaints against Pheu Thai are” no acceptable.”
Due to lack of knowledge, the Office of the Election Commission, in the eyes of an official, has rejected two of the more than 10 problems seeking the dissolution of some functions and the removal of the excellent minister and some government people.
Since the formation of the new government, the Election Commission’s (EC ) office has received more than 10 complaints, according to Sawaeng Boonmee, its secretary-general.
He declined to provide further information, claiming that he had no memory of the circumstances surrounding those incidents. He claimed that the complaints made to the EC sought the removal of some functions and the resignation of Paetongtarn Shinawatra and other government members.
He claimed that the EC workplace rejected the two problems because they did not meet the requirements for legitimate complaints. He claimed that they only allegedly asked issues of the EC.
He said that anyone who complains to the EC must state the offence( s ) and the sections that have been violated. He claimed that quoting information and phrases from newspapers and posing questions with the EC do not matter.
The company” will examine the rest of the complaints initially without dragging its feet,” he said, and if any complaints lack adequate information or evidence, they will be dismissed at an early stage if they are not presented with enough evidence.”
According to one of the two rejected issues, the ruling Pheu Thai Party allowed itself to continue operating under the influence of ex-prime secretary Thaksin Shinawatra, who is not a participant.
An unidentified applicant contacted the EC office on August 19 to file the issue, citing the Constitutional Court’s decision to remove Srettha Thavisin as prime minister on August 14.
According to the issue, Mr. Srettha had violated social norms by authorizing an ex-lawyer’s employer to demand that Pheu Thai appoint Pichit Chuenban as the country’s prime minister.
The jury allegedly made reference to Thaksin because Pichit represented him in a fraud case.
In addition, the problem claims that primary Pheu Thai members also conducted media interviews in which they allegedly showed respect for and acceptance of Thaksin’s instructions.
It is against the law for a person who is not a part of a group to command, dominate, or direct a party’s actions in a way that causes the group or its members to get directly or indirectly influenced, according to the natural laws governing political parties.
Ruangkrai Leekitwattana, a famous petitioner, questioned Ms. Paetongtarn’s eligibility to keep the office of prime minister on August 28 and the day of her departure from positions in her family’s business empire.
He claimed that Ms. Paetongtarn was chosen as the House of Representatives ‘ prime minister on August 16. He inquired with the committee whether Ms. Paetongtarn had filed for a withdrawal from all of her professional positions within the family’s businesses by August 15 or not, and why it was done on August 19, three days after her election.
According to Mr. Sawaeng, the Bhumjaithai Party, a member of the government partnership, is unlikely to dissolve because Saksayam Chidchob’s allegations against him do not allow for party dissolution.
He claimed that the EC is investigating allegations that the party improperly received gifts from Burijarearn Construction, a construction firm supposedly owned by Mr. Saksayam’s contenders, who were found guilty in a situation involving resource hiding in January.
He claimed that despite the possibility for the problem to be settled in a month or two, the EC’s inquiry team has had more time to gather and create the facts.
He insisted that the case against Mr. Saksayam is not connected to the group in a way that may cause the party to dissolve, citing legal evidence.
He noted that the Constitutional Court’s decision against the now-dissolved Move Forward Party, which was disbanded because it sought to undermine the democratic dynasty, was different.