BANGKOK, THAILAND – The Royal Thai Police imposed a nationwide ban on the sale and distribution of alcohol to safeguard an orderly parliamentary election.
24-hour nationwide alcohol ban
The Royal Thai Police fully prohibited the sale and provision of alcohol from 18:00 on 7 February until 18:00 on 8 February. Violations of the time-limited alcohol ban could be punished with fines and imprisonment under election law.
Police deployed to secure voting process
According to Pol. Lt-Gen. Chaitphon Suwanrak, deputy spokesperson of the Royal Thai Police and head of the Personnel Office, forces across the country were prepared to ensure safety and order throughout the entire voting process. Officers were instructed to remain politically neutral, strictly enforce applicable regulations, and protect voters and polling stations until voting and vote counting were completed.
Measure targets voter influence and illegal incentives
The ban covered the sale, distribution, and provision of all alcoholic beverages during the specified period, police said. The measure was intended to prevent alcohol from being used for unlawful influence on voters or for other illegal incentives related to the ballot.
Heavy penalties for violations
Anyone who violated the ban faced a fine of up to 10,000 baht under election law. In addition, a prison sentence of up to six months was possible, and courts and authorities could impose both penalties at the same time.
Information via police app
The public was encouraged by the police to download the “Police Care” app in order to access clear information on election laws and prohibited behaviour. However, the application might not have been available for mobile phones registered abroad and used by foreigners living in the country, which could limit access to this information for some users.
Debate over scope of state control
Authorities warned that fines and imprisonment awaited all who breached the sales ban, stressing that the aim was a calm and fair vote without interference. The measure prompted public debate over whether such intervention was necessary to guarantee order or whether the state was going too far.
“Is such an intervention necessary to guarantee order – or is the state going too far?”
said KhaoSod English, posing the question to readers in its coverage.