On May 19, 2025, Professor Dr. Siripan Nogsuan Sawasdee, a political science professor at Chulalongkorn University, posted a commentary on Facebook titled: "Is there an attempt to monopolize independent organizations by individuals and political parties?" The content is as follows:
There is a serious risk if independent organizations become "supervised bodies" instead of functioning as truly "independent watchdogs" free from political interference. This would undermine fairness, equality, and accountability in Thai politics—issues that have plagued the system for years.
The Thai Constitution is designed as a cyclical mechanism of checks and balances. Independent agencies must be approved by the Senate, and once appointed, they are empowered to scrutinize the Senate.
Without constitutional amendments, issues concerning the origin of the Senate and independent agencies will likely re-emerge in four years.
During its five-year term, this current Senate has had the authority to approve or reject 33 out of 42 nominees for positions in independent bodies and the Constitutional Court.
In an unbalanced power structure, it becomes the Senate’s duty to hold itself accountable and preserve its institutional integrity. Section 82 of the Constitution allows one-tenth of each house’s members to petition the house speaker to request a Constitutional Court ruling on the validity of any member’s status.
Apart from qualifications investigations and internal elections conducted by the Election Commission and the Department of Special Investigation, the behavior and voting patterns of senators—if observable—may be grounds for petitioning the court to assess whether those members exercised their powers lawfully.
Section 113 of the Constitution stipulates that senators must not be loyal to or under the control of any political party.
Section 114 declares that members of the House of Representatives and the Senate represent all Thai people and must be free from coercion or domination.
Ethical standards set for Constitutional Court judges and independent officeholders also apply to MPs, senators, and cabinet members.
Clause 7: The national interest must come before personal gain.
Clause 8: Duties must be carried out honestly, without seeking improper benefit for oneself or others, or enabling others to exploit one's position.
Key challenges include:
- Whether the Senate President will forward the petition to the Constitutional Court.
- Whether the court will accept the petition.
If the court accepts and finds “reasonable suspicion” that a senator violated constitutional mandates, they may be ordered to fully or partially suspend their duties. A precedent was set in the case of Justice Minister Tavee Sodsong.
In this regard, the Constitutional Court has tended to limit its interpretation of authority to avoid unnecessary political upheaval—a restraint that has rarely been seen.
Section 27 of the Organic Act on the Procedures of the Constitutional Court stipulates the use of inquisitorial systems to uncover the truth.
Many people have “heard with their own ears” about covert operations being orchestrated behind the scenes, though done quietly, their echoes are loud and widespread.
We all share a moral duty to realign political practices with proper standards.
Otherwise, the damage to Thailand may be enduring and irreparable.