CHONBURI, THAILAND – A local activist who opened a ballot box in Constituency 1 publicly apologized and rejected any criminal intent, intensifying scrutiny of election security and official handling of critical citizens.
Apology after opening of ballot box
Activist Benjaporn Sukhsawang, a representative of residents in Constituency 1, admitted at a press conference that she had opened a ballot box during the recent parliamentary election at the badminton court of Chonburi’s municipal offices. According to authorities, she entered the ballot box storage area there without authorization and opened one box, prompting election director Prayoon Wattanasiribunjong to file a criminal complaint on 11 February 2026.
Transparency claim and public remorse
Kneeling before supporters and fellow activists, Benjaporn apologized and stated she had neither wanted to damage nor tamper with the box, but only to show that it had not been properly sealed as claimed by the Election Commission.
“My intention was solely to demonstrate that the ballot box was not locked or sealed as claimed; I did not want to break any laws or damage any documents,”
said Benjaporn, activist.
Severe charges and potential penalties
The complaint was based on the Organic Act on the Election of Members of Parliament B.E. 2561 (2018) and included allegations of opening, damaging or rendering unusable ballot boxes or election documents, as well as trespassing. If convicted, she faced between 1 and 10 years in prison, fines ranging from 20,000 to 200,000 baht, and a loss of voting rights for up to 20 years under the cited provisions.
Defense strategy and planned counter-complaint
Despite the serious legal risks, Benjaporn stressed she had no criminal intent and was ready to fully cooperate with investigators and report to the police whenever summoned. Together with supporters and lawyers, she planned to go to Chonburi city police station to submit a written statement on her actions and at the same time file a counter-complaint against involved officials for allegedly making a false report.
Residents’ complaints and criticism of slow probes
The group also pointed to earlier complaints filed by residents against civil servants over alleged breaches of duty related to election tasks, in which they saw only slow progress in investigations. They questioned why complaints from authorities against citizens appeared to be processed faster than those from the public against officials, including under provisions such as Section 157 of the Criminal Code on official misconduct.
Lawyer questions sealing of ballot boxes
Legal advisor Noraset NahNongToom from the Lawyers’ Center for Human Rights stated that, in his assessment, the ballot boxes had not been fully sealed in accordance with regulations, for example regarding the signing of seals. According to his account, such a procedural error shifted responsibility more toward the responsible election bodies, while Benjaporn’s actions had aimed to highlight transparency problems rather than criminal interference with the electoral process.
Political independence and local debate
The case drew additional attention in Constituency 1 amid public criticism of the election process and calls for recounts in certain areas. Benjaporn rejected circulating online rumors that she was close to a particular party or political figure and emphasized that she was acting as a politically independent citizen solely out of interest in a transparent electoral procedure.