Thailand’s Election Commission (EC) has moved to clarify controversy surrounding QR codes and barcodes printed on ballot papers, insisting the markings are designed solely to prevent fraud and cannot be used to identify how individuals voted. The statement follows concerns raised on Friday, February 13, 2026, by the Pheu Thai Party that such codes could compromise the constitutional principle of secret ballots. The issue has sparked public debate and prompted questions about the integrity of the February 8 poll.

Get today's headlines by email

At a press conference on February 13 at 17:25, EC officials including Korrasit Charoen-in, Deputy Secretary-General, Sub Lt Pasakorn Siripakayaporn, Deputy Secretary-General, Kittipol Payakkhadejaphan, Director of the Information Technology Bureau, and Worapong Ananchareonkit, Director of the Election Support Bureau, addressed the matter. Worapong said the inclusion of barcodes and QR codes complies with EC Regulation No. 129, which authorises the Commission to add codes, symbols or text to ballot papers in special cases without prior notice to prevent forgery.

He explained that the primary purpose of the codes is to prevent counterfeit ballots and so-called “ballot inflation”. Additional undisclosed safeguards are also in place. The codes are used during printing to record data and track the number of ballots produced, ensuring there is no overprinting and to manage binding and packaging, with each booklet containing 20 ballots that can be checked for completeness.

The system also tracks distribution to responsible officials, such as polling station committees and district election officers. If a ballot is found outside the authorised process, the code can indicate which district it was assigned to, assisting investigations into suspected irregularities or the use of ballots from other constituencies. However, Worapong stressed that the codes do not link to voter identities and cannot reveal which candidate or party an individual selected.

He acknowledged that images of ballot stubs had circulated on social media and said barcodes can be scanned to identify the polling station. Because such ballots were still attached to their booklets, they remained under official responsibility and would be investigated. Nevertheless, he reiterated that even if a ballot image is published, it cannot be used to prove how any particular person voted.

Sub Lt Pasakorn said ballot stubs, marked ballots and voter lists are stored separately under strict security. He emphasised that ballots cast on February 8 cannot be traced to any individual voter. Counting is conducted publicly, with observers and party representatives present, and ballots are sorted into valid, invalid and “no vote” categories before secure storage.

Responding to questions about whether scanning a barcode that generates a unique number could allow cross-referencing with ballot stubs, Worapong said that while scanning may show a ballot number, it is practically impossible to determine an individual’s vote due to layered safeguards from voting through to final storage. Unauthorised opening of ballot boxes is a criminal offence.

Officials also clarified that three types of ballots were used in this election and referendum, requiring three printing houses due to time constraints. Security measures vary according to each printer’s technology. Although referendum ballots do not display QR codes or barcodes, Worapong said they have their own tracking systems, the details of which cannot be disclosed.

The EC noted that QR codes were also used in the 2023 constituency election. Ballots shared online fall into two categories: those still attached to booklets at polling stations and those photographed during counting. In either case, the voter is not responsible for publication and secrecy remains intact.

Anarin reported that the clarification comes after Pheu Thai warned that if barcodes could link ballots to signed stubs, it would breach constitutional guarantees of secret voting and could form grounds for legal action. The party has set up a task force to gather evidence and has indicated that any petition to nullify the election would need to proceed via the Ombudsman to the Constitutional Court.

Pictures courtesy of Amarin

Key Takeaways

• The EC says QR codes and barcodes are anti-fraud tools and cannot identify voters’ choices.

• Pheu Thai has questioned whether the system could undermine constitutional voting secrecy.

• Ballots, stubs and voter lists are stored separately under strict security procedures.

Join the discussion?

Already a member?

Adapted by ASEAN Now Amarin 14 Feb 2026

View full record

And still they can't count correctly.....

Having to defend the use of QR codes on ballot papers is not unique to Thailand!

Australia, the US, India, Switzerland, and the Philippines also use QR codes or barcodes on ballots. Their election authorities have had to argue the same case that these codes are nothing more than administrative tools to prevent fraud, track ballots, and make counting more efficient.

And just like Thailand, critics in those countries raise doubts about transparency and secrecy. But despite those concerns, their systems continue to operate, and the codes are generally accepted as part of modern election management.

I think the key point all countries (including Thailand) make is that QR codes don’t record how anyone votes. Instead, they are safeguards to ensure ballots are genuine and properly processed, thereby reducing the risk of counterfeit ballots or administrative errors.

So while skepticism is natural, the controversy is unwarranted. The EC has not done anything unusual or sinister. It’s simply followed a practice that’s already in use elsewhere, and it's defending it just as other democracies have done.

Just get rid of the QR & Bar codes - you're already registered at that polling station - on the day - name after ID ticked off on the polling station list

You walk into booth, tick - choose whoever you want fold in half & walk out & put it in the ballot box

So simple but Thailand likes to complicate things - what does a ballot paper look like in Thailand - can't vote but curious

Should be whatever party & which candidate

UPDATE

Court Accepts Lawsuit Over QR-Coded Ballots

Picture courtesy of TNR

The Central Administrative Court has accepted a lawsuit seeking to stop the Election Commission from verifying and declaring the official results of last Sunday’s nationwide election, in which voting ballots carried barcodes and QR codes. The legal action calls for the court to order the polling agency not to certify the results and to declare the election null and void. It also requests that a new election be held without the use of barcodes or QR codes on ballot papers.

Get today's headlines by email

The lawsuit was urgently filed by lawyer Thanu Rungrotreungchai. The court accepted the case for consideration, including the possibility of ordering the Election Commission to halt verification of the results and to organise a fresh poll. The petition further asks that all ballots bearing barcodes and QR codes be destroyed on the grounds that they compromised voter secrecy.

Ballots used in the party-list system were found to contain barcodes, while those used in the constituency-based system carried QR codes. According to the complaint, these codes could be electronically and individually scanned to identify the electoral numbers of both the candidate and the party selected by each voter. The lawsuit argues that this feature undermined the confidentiality of the ballot.

A similar petition may also be submitted to the Office of the Ombudsman, which could refer the matter to the Constitutional Court for a final ruling. Such a referral could result in the nationwide parliamentary election being declared invalid, prompting a new vote.

The Election Commission has announced that 94% of votes have been counted but has not specified when the remaining votes will be tallied or when the official results will be declared. Bhumjaithai, the core of the caretaker government and the largest elected party, reportedly secured 193 seats, including 174 constituency MPs and 19 party-list MPs. The party is moving to form a post-election coalition government, with Caretaker Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul expected to retain his position.

Meanwhile, the People’s group plans to file a lawsuit with the Central Criminal Court for Corruption & Misconduct against all seven election commissioners and the Election Commission’s secretary-general, Sawaeng Boonmee. The charges relate to alleged negligence of duty and misconduct over the presence of barcodes and QR codes on ballot papers.

The Central Administrative Court’s consideration of the case may affect the timing and legitimacy of the official election results. Further legal proceedings could determine whether the election outcome stands or a new vote is required.

Key Takeaways

• The Central Administrative Court has accepted a lawsuit challenging the validity of ballots bearing barcodes and QR codes.

• The petition seeks to halt certification of results and potentially nullify Sunday’s nationwide election.

• Bhumjaithai reportedly won 193 seats as legal challenges against the Election Commission intensify.

Join the discussion?

  Adapted by ASEAN Now Thainewsroom 15 Feb 2026

Here we go again!

This isn’t the first time Thanu the Lawyer has taken issue with barcodes and QR codes on ballot papers.

Back in 2016/2017 he mounted a similar argument that machine-readable codes could, in theory, undermine ballot secrecy.

At the time, the claim was that such markings might allow ballots to be traced, even if only administratively.

That challenge ultimately went nowhere, with the Courts maintaining that the codes were for logistics and internal control, not voter identification.

Now, nearly a decade later he's at it again, this time asking the Central Administrative Court to halt certification of results by the Election Commission.

One is tempted to say if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again!

55 minutes ago, Jim Waldron said:

Here we go again!

This isn’t the first time Thanu the Lawyer has taken issue with barcodes and QR codes on ballot papers.

Back in 2016/2017 he mounted a similar argument that machine-readable codes could, in theory, undermine ballot secrecy.

At the time, the claim was that such markings might allow ballots to be traced, even if only administratively.

That challenge ultimately went nowhere, with the Courts maintaining that the codes were for logistics and internal control, not voter identification.

Now, nearly a decade later he's at it again, this time asking the Central Administrative Court to halt certification of results by the Election Commission.

One is tempted to say if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again!

Indeed never give up.....he is right and the EC must be getting aware that they can't do as they want in every election... They seem to be untouchable but are incompetent, corrupt an totally unable to organize simple elections

Starting to get personal now!

It appears that Sudarat Keyuraphan, the leader of the Thai Sang Thai Party is expected to lodge a criminal complaint against the Election Commission and its secretary-general.

Sudarat will allege that the EC’s actions surrounding barcodes and QR codes on ballots constitute misconduct or negligent performance of official duties under Section 157 of the Criminal Code.

Section 157:

Whoever, being an official, wrongfully exercises or does not exercise any of his functions to the injury of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of one to ten years, or fined from two thousand to twenty thousand baht, or both.

So how are these barcodes etc different - in principle - from the electronic voting procedures (press a button, pull a handle) used in some 'Western' countries?

If it's not farcical it's not Thailand

23 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

So how are these barcodes etc different - in principle - from the electronic voting procedures (press a button, pull a handle) used in some 'Western' countries?

The codes are connected to each voter's code, but in the Western countries this isn't done.

The EC argues their approach is secure because matching the voter to the ballot is illegal, and also "hard". Many people have doubts that either of those things is enough.

This is complete nonsense. It allows the vote counting to be done much faster using machine scanners. The bar code or QR code would be used to check that the voting paper had been legitimately issued, then the X could be counted against the Candidate number. One would have thought that that was much faster and more reliable than the current manual reading and recording. If you have the record of the Voter ID against each voting paper and code, then you could possibly identify the voter, but that is no different to what can be identifoed from the voting paper. The vote counting software does not need to know who the voter is, only that the paper was properly issued.

The EC is a completely corrupt organization and cannot be trusted on any level, there's no question that elections are being manipulated here.

2 hours ago, Dr B said:

This is complete nonsense. It allows the vote counting to be done much faster using machine scanners. The bar code or QR code would be used to check that the voting paper had been legitimately issued, then the X could be counted against the Candidate number. One would have thought that that was much faster and more reliable than the current manual reading and recording. If you have the record of the Voter ID against each voting paper and code, then you could possibly identify the voter, but that is no different to what can be identifoed from the voting paper. The vote counting software does not need to know who the voter is, only that the paper was properly issued.

But is there a tally between the number of individual ballot papers issued to electors; the number of ballot papers deposited in ballot boxes; and the aggregate of votes cast for candidates ? Those numbers should all be equal. That is the single most important issue.

I am confused.

In order to match a ballot to a voter, every ballot would need a unique bar/qr code.

Is that the case here? I doubt it.

Sooo! Another couple of weekends of closed bars looming on the horizon!

P.S. I personally always have a couple of bottles of wine in the house for "emergencies" - I guess repeat elections comes under that banner, but the bars and restaurants will suffer again due to the archaic laws.

EVEN MORE AMAZING THAILAND! TAT must be crying in their tea cups!

On 2/15/2026 at 9:33 AM, Georgealbert said:

identify the electoral numbers of both the candidate and the party selected by each voter.

In other words ballots are tabulated electronically that can be matched with a physical count. Isn't counting votes for candidate and party called election voting?

The EC performing its Constitutional duties had no issue but the court has decided based on a supposition that identifying electoral numbers the EC was incorrect.

2 hours ago, timendres said:

In order to match a ballot to a voter, every ballot would need a unique bar/qr code.

Is that the case here? I doubt it.

Yes, that is the case here. The EC argues it's ok because it would be illegal to match the barcodes with the voter, and they keep the voter lists separate from the ballots, but they acknowledge it's possible if someone had access. From the Bangkok Post:

"When reporters on Friday pressed EC officials on whether barcodes on ballots could be matched with counterfoils to identify how an individual voted, they were told it would be “highly impracticable”.

However, when asked if “highly impracticable” meant impossible, an EC spokesman said a person would have to go to extraordinary lengths and commit several illegal acts."

7 hours ago, Dr B said:

This is complete nonsense. It allows the vote counting to be done much faster using machine scanners. The bar code or QR code would be used to check that the voting paper had been legitimately issued, then the X could be counted against the Candidate number. One would have thought that that was much faster and more reliable than the current manual reading and recording. If you have the record of the Voter ID against each voting paper and code, then you could possibly identify the voter, but that is no different to what can be identifoed from the voting paper. The vote counting software does not need to know who the voter is, only that the paper was properly issued.

You can identify the voter with the QR code. 🙈 That is the problem. It leaves the voter open to threats and intimidation. Voting is supposed to be secret and private.

3 hours ago, Reddavy said:

You can identify the voter with the QR code. 🙈 That is the problem. It leaves the voter open to threats and intimidation. Voting is supposed to be secret and private.

Not sure I quite understand the big deal here. Once the vote has been cast, what’s the point of going to the trouble to identify the voter and threaten him? He already voted.

I get the purest argument that voting is secret, anonymous etc etc, but matching QR codes to voter ballots doesn’t sound like an easy thing to do and as I said above, what’s the point if the guy already voted?

Happy to be educated as to what the big fuss is about. No need for snarkasm, genuinely interested

4 minutes ago, wensiensheng said:

Not sure I quite understand the big deal here. Once the vote has been cast, what’s the point of going to the trouble to identify the voter and threaten him? He already voted.

I get the purest argument that voting is secret, anonymous etc etc, but matching QR codes to voter ballots doesn’t sound like an easy thing to do and as I said above, what’s the point if the guy already voted?

Happy to be educated as to what the big fuss is about. No need for snarkasm, genuinely interested

As far as I can tell, almost everyone in my village was paid about 500b to vote for a particular candidate.

Personally, I do not think that the QR code can identify where an individual placed their mark(s), but it would certainly be of interest to those who paid the bribe.

2 minutes ago, chickenslegs said:

As far as I can tell, almost everyone in my village was paid about 500b to vote for a particular candidate.

Personally, I do not think that the QR code can identify where an individual placed their mark(s), but it would certainly be of interest to those who paid the bribe.

Ok, I get that. But it’s still too late to have any effect on the election result because the vote has already been cast.

And I don’t think the system should be expected to protect those who sell their vote. I guess there may be an issue for those who pledge their vote to a candidate (not accept payment, just promise) but then vote for someone else.

It all just seems somewhat theoretical in terms of practicality given there must be some safeguards.

Now vote buying, THERE’S something that’s rampant and should be stopped.

10 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

The EC is a completely corrupt organization and cannot be trusted on any level, there's no question that elections are being manipulated here.

I dont think Thailand has had a fair election in Decades if ever! When I first moved to Thailand my Thai friends would tell me they get paid to vote (back then 200-300thb)

Several year later got married and my wife came back from voting showing 500Thb. She still voted for her guy but took the 500thb. Every election since then 500thb.

On 2/14/2026 at 6:53 AM, ikke1959 said:

And still they can't count correctly.....

You better not tell Donald

UPDATE

Ombudsman Orders EC to Explain Ballot Barcodes

Picture courtesy of Khaosod

The Office of the Ombudsman has ordered the Election Commission (EC) to clarify within seven days complaints concerning the printing of barcodes and QR codes on ballot papers. The directive follows petitions claiming the codes could allow votes to be traced back to individual voters. The move places the EC under immediate scrutiny following the election.

A total of twelve complaints were filed in relation to the February poll, with three petitions specifically requesting that the matter be referred to the Constitutional Court. Petitioners argue that the presence of barcodes and QR codes may violate Section 85 of the Constitution and Section 96 of the Organic Act on the Election of MPs. They contend that if votes can be traced, this could undermine the principle of ballot secrecy.

The Ombudsman’s Office will review the EC’s explanation once it is submitted. Based on that response, the Ombudsmen will determine whether there are sufficient grounds to forward the case to the Constitutional Court or to dismiss the complaints. At present, two Ombudsmen are serving in office, with one position vacant.

The issue centres on concerns that technological features printed on ballot papers could compromise voter anonymity. While no ruling has yet been made on the validity of these claims, the requirement for clarification indicates that the Ombudsman considers the complaints substantive enough to warrant formal review. The matter has drawn attention in the aftermath of the election, raising legal questions about compliance with constitutional and electoral law provisions.

Should the Ombudsmen decide to refer the case, the Constitutional Court would examine whether the EC’s actions are consistent with the Constitution and relevant organic legislation. Alternatively, the complaints could be dismissed if the explanation provided by the EC is deemed satisfactory.

Khoasod reported that the EC must now respond within the seven-day timeframe set by the Ombudsman. The decision on whether to escalate the matter to the Constitutional Court will follow after that review, potentially shaping the legal and administrative response to the election.

Key Takeaways

• The Ombudsman has given the EC seven days to explain the use of barcodes and QR codes on ballot papers.

• Twelve complaints were filed, with three requesting referral to the Constitutional Court.

• A decision on whether to refer or dismiss the case will follow the EC’s explanation.

Join the discussion?

Adapted by ASEAN Now Khaosod 17 Feb 2026

On 2/15/2026 at 12:58 PM, ikke1959 said:

Indeed never give up.....he is right and the EC must be getting aware that they can't do as they want in every election... They seem to be untouchable but are incompetent, corrupt an totally unable to organize simple elections

Usually polls are very close to the mark, showing the people party leading b4 the election it never predicted a landslide to Anutin, so something changed drastically

22 hours ago, wensiensheng said:

Not sure I quite understand the big deal here. Once the vote has been cast, what’s the point of going to the trouble to identify the voter and threaten him? He already voted.

I get the purest argument that voting is secret, anonymous etc etc, but matching QR codes to voter ballots doesn’t sound like an easy thing to do and as I said above, what’s the point if the guy already voted?

Happy to be educated as to what the big fuss is about. No need for snarkasm, genuinely interested

The whole point is nobody should know how you voted. And do you think people with vested interests will forget the next time an election comes around 🤷🏼 I don’t think so.

56 minutes ago, Reddavy said:

The whole point is nobody should know how you voted. And do you think people with vested interests will forget the next time an election comes around 🤷🏼 I don’t think so.

Yes, I get the core principle of secrecy when it comes to voting.

Just trying to figure out the practicality of someone bypassing all the safe guards to match millions of ballots to millions of QR codes and then saving that information up for a few years for when the next general election comes around.

But given the suspicions around voting integrity then maybe it’s better to remove even the possibility of identifying who voted for who, among the millions of votes cast. 🤷‍♂️

Now if they would just do something about the darn vote buying…. Heck I’d even settle for them recognizing it as THE major issue, even if they don’t do anything about it. ATM it just seems to be swept under the rug.

On 2/16/2026 at 9:04 PM, wensiensheng said:

Ok, I get that. But it’s still too late to have any effect on the election result because the vote has already been cast.

And I don’t think the system should be expected to protect those who sell their vote. I guess there may be an issue for those who pledge their vote to a candidate (not accept payment, just promise) but then vote for someone else.

It all just seems somewhat theoretical in terms of practicality given there must be some safeguards.

Now vote buying, THERE’S something that’s rampant and should be stopped.

Have you thought that by identifying the voter with a QR CODE they can tell who that person voted for and those that paid the 500 will know if he or she was paid 500 bhat and voted for someone else. That could potentially cause trouble and expose voter fraud. Thus nullifying the election.

5 hours ago, kiwikeith said:

Have you thought that by identifying the voter with a QR CODE they can tell who that person voted for and those that paid the 500 will know if he or she was paid 500 bhat and voted for someone else. That could potentially cause trouble and expose voter fraud. Thus nullifying the election.

Yep thought of that. Just seems a tedious exercise to trawl through millions of votes. But what do I know 🤷‍♂️ not my election.