The Election Commission (EC) has warned political parties that falsifying membership registrations using citizens’ names or ID numbers is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment and fines.
The warning was issued on Sunday by EC secretary-general Sawaeng Boonmee following a surge of online complaints from individuals discovering they had been listed as party members without their consent.
“Party membership requires the person’s consent, qualification checks, and confirmation that there are no disqualifications,” Mr Sawaeng said. He stressed that joining a political party must be voluntary and legally verified.
Once registration is complete, the party registrar must review the data before entering it into the EC’s official database, which the public can access to verify their membership status.
Mr Sawaeng said the EC will now review registration processes of parties implicated in the allegations. “If a party registrar knowingly registers false members, that person will face criminal liability and up to three years in prison,” he said, adding that party leaders could also face fines for improper registration.
The EC urged anyone falsely listed as a party member to file a complaint and report the matter to police. Citizens can verify their status online using their 13-digit national ID number.
The controversy erupted after a user on social media platform X, formerly Twitter, posted screenshots showing his name listed as a member of a party he had never joined.
The post quickly went viral, prompting similar reports from others.
Court rejects MoA petitions
In a separate development, the Constitutional Court has unanimously dismissed two petitions alleging that a memorandum of agreement (MoA) between People’s Party leader Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut and Bhumjaithai Party leader Anutin Charnvirakul sought to obtain executive power unlawfully.
The petitions claimed the MoA — which called for People’s Party MPs to support Mr Anutin as prime minister — violated constitutional provisions on political interference and benefit exchange.
The court ruled that the agreement merely expressed a joint political intent, with no evidence of unconstitutional acts or attempts to overthrow the democratic system under the monarchy.