There are two “untrue” problems against Pheu Thai.
Due to insufficient information, the Office of the Election Commission reportedly 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, but only two of which have been rejected.
He claimed he did not recall those circumstances, and that he did not recall the detail of those circumstances. He claimed that the complaints made to the EC sought the removal of some events and the resignation of Paetongtarn Shinawatra and other government members.
He claimed that the EC business 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 sufficient evidence.”
According to one of the two rejected problems, 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 political party to command, dominate, or direct a party’s activities in a way that causes the group or its users to be influenced either directly or indirectly.
Ruangkrai Leekitwattana, a famous applicant, 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 to the payment whether Ms. Paetongtarn had filed for resign from all of her professional positions within the family’s businesses by August 15 or not, and why her withdrawal was made on August 19, three times after she was elected.
According to Mr. Sawaeng, the Bhumjaithai Party, a member of the government alliance, 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 nominations, 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 argued in favor of the party’s breakdown by citing legitimate evidence and that the case against Mr. Saksayam is not connected to the party.
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 king, was different.