Anutin posters cause a stir
The Pheu Thai Party yesterday joined a call for the Election Commission (EC) to look into posters erected at many state-run hospitals across the country depicting Public Health Minister Anutin Charnvirakul.
Critics say they may be perceived as a veiled form of election canvassing.
Mr Anutin insisted the posters weren’t intended as election propaganda, saying he is ready to respond to any investigation.
The main opposition Pheu Thai Party joined the Rural Doctor Society (RDS), a club of doctors working in state-run district hospitals nationwide, in urging the EC to investigate whether the posters contravene either the letter or spirit of the election law.
Each poster is estimated to have cost about 2,000 baht to produce and install, and if the 10,000 or so health service centres nationwide produced and displayed them, that would amount to around 20 million
baht, drawn from taxpayers’ money, said the RDS.
The RDS claims 76 provincial public health offices, more than 1,000 provincial and district hospitals and 800 district public health offices nationwide were ordered to produce and erect these posters.
Although the posters contain text informing the public about the Ministry of Public Health’s intention to make 2023 a year of good health for all senior citizens, the image gives the impression that Mr Anutin is the benefactor, argues the RDS.
It is unclear how the posters were actually funded or from which agency’s budget if it is taxpayer funds involved, though the government has still defended them.
Suphachai Jaismut, a Bhumjaithai Party list MP, said the EC had ruled in a similar case that a poster like this was not unlawful as it was primarily a message to the public from the head of a state agency about its operations.
Still, Treechada Srithada, a deputy Pheu Thai spokeswoman, urged the EC to clarify the issue.
Mr Suphachai, she said, had failed to provide details of the case he cited to justify the legality of the poster.
She added that it might also be considered a violation of political ethics as taxpayers’ money was spent for the benefit of a single party.