42 minutes ago, bangrak said:

Could anyone, please, let me know which month is written in Thai on the shares' transfer document between 8 (the day) and 2562 (the year) (sorry, I don't read Thai)?

Could anyone, please, let me know what that constitutional law stipulates about the length of time before the election, or the candidacy, or the ...(?), by which he, like all others(!), would not have been allowed to hold participation(s) in media business(es)?

Thank you! When I would have a clear answer on both my questions, I think it would be easy to know for sure whether he is at risk, indeed, ...or not at all, when considering the shares' transfer document to be genuine.  

January . January 8th this year.

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Do you have any evidence to support your "statement" that this law was recently invented? Or is it in fact an old law that was enacted through the correct process?

 

It's not persecution if someone breaks a law, intentionally or remembers to respect it after a deadline is past.

Not like forgetting to declare watches loaned by dead friends. 

7 hours ago, boonrawdcnx said:

 

 

 

Interesting, he's signed using Latin letters. Is he a Thai at all? Shouldn't Thai be the standard world language by now?

36 minutes ago, bannork said:

January . January 8th this year.

Thank you 'bannork', now I hope someone will be able to answer my question about what is written in the constitutional law about the holding of assets in media coorporation(s) to know whether less than 3 months ago for him andhis wife to have transfered their shares, to his mother, can have him disqualified, or not. ...And then, possibly, no more biased comments about the facts?

8 hours ago, scorecard said:

Is that really true? There are existing laws, been in place a long time (not created yesterday by the current government), about candidates owning shares in any company.

 

 

I doubt it would be candidates. more likely to be actual MPs or ministers

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

You may be right. But do you know him personally then? 

Benefit of the doubt in the absence of any other facts and gut instinct. 

Media company's no Rolex and bling company's yes and far easier to transfer to anyone dead????

On 3/24/2019 at 9:03 AM, scorecard said:

Is that really true? There are existing laws, been in place a long time (not created yesterday by the current government), about candidates owning shares in any company.

 

 

Not only that but they can't host cooking sows on the telly either!

1 hour ago, NanLaew said:

Not only that but they can't host cooking sows on the telly either!

True, and should be true. a PM should be 100% focused on managing / developing the country. 

Just now, scorecard said:

True, and should be true. a PM should be 100% focused on managing / developing the country. 

Even if he's a far better cook than a politician?

On 3/24/2019 at 3:03 AM, scorecard said:

Is that really true? There are existing laws, been in place a long time (not created yesterday by the current government), about candidates owning shares in any company.

 

 

As if Prayuth doesn't own any shares right ? Did you remember how the law applied to a piece of land that was owned by Prayuth's father (alledgely) and transferred to some offshore firm. He literally said "do not ask questions or else". The law, is only there for the junta's alleged opponents. They themselves are above the law. 

3 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Even if he's a far better cook than a politician?

555 Samak's cooking show. Another fine example of how the law is abused to get rid of politicians of a certain camp. The rest of the world watched and laughed and shook their heads. In the rest of the world, appearing in a cooking show on television would never raise any questions about "conflict of interest", only in Thailand, where as I said above, the law is abused to get rid of political enemies.