Phalang Pracharat seeks injunction on suspension of MPs over media shares 

By THE NATION

 

File photo : Future Forward leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit

 

PHALANG Pracharat Party yesterday asked the Constitutional Court for an injunction on the possible suspension of its 27 MPs for holding shares in media companies, arguing that these cases were different from the one faced by Future Forward Party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit.

 

The 2017 Constitution prohibits MPs from holding shares in media firms, and violators face disqualification, imprisonment, fine and a ban on voting rights. 

 

However, Pheu Thai spokesperson Laddawan Wongsriwong said that granting an injunction for these MPs would be unfair as Thanathorn faces a similar allegation. She said that since the Future Forward leader had been suspended from his parliamentary duties, the 41 MPs from the pro-junta bloc should get the same treatment. 

 

House Speaker Chuan Leekpai forwarded the cases against the 41 MPs to the Constitutional Court last week.

 

However, Phalang Pracharat deputy spokesperson Thanakorn Wangboon-kongchana rejected Laddawan’s insinuation that Thanathorn was being treated unfairly, saying the court had the jurisdiction to issue an injunction. He also cited a similar case during the Samak Sundaravej administration in 2008. 

 

Thanakorn said the involvement of the 27 Phalang Prachart MPs in media companies was different compared to Thanathorn, adding the firm the Future Forward leader had invested in published magazines, while the 27 MPs were investors in companies that had nothing to do with media. 

 

He explained that official documents for these companies covered a wide range of operations, and “media” was one of them. But, he said, the actual operations were very different from what is listed in the companies’ official documents. 

 

The politician went on to say that he was confident the court would be fair to the MPs. 

 

The MPs facing media shareholding accusations include ministerial candidates Nattapol Teepsuwan, Tewan Liptapanlop and Jatumongkol Sonakul.

 

While the threat of disqualification is imminent, Thanakorn said he believes PM General Prayut Chan-o-cha – who is considering the Cabinet line-up – will look at each candidate’s qualification carefully. 

 

Meanwhile, Thanathorn’s legal representatives yesterday sought another 15-day adjournment from the Constitutional Court.

 

Prior to yesterday’s request, Thanathorn had sought a 30-day adjournment in addition to the 15 days he was given by the court to prepare his defence. The lawyers said they were seeking more time so the accuracy of documents could be verified.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/breakingnews/30371503

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2019-06-21

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

Further proof, undeniable and factual.

Corruption only exists on the other side. 

Why?  Because we say so. 

 

10 minutes ago, webfact said:

Thanakorn said he believes PM General Prayut Chan-o-cha – who is considering the Cabinet line-up – will look at each candidate’s qualification carefully. 

 

I think Thanakorn also believes in the tooth fairy and Father Christmas !

gotta love thai version of democracy. hilarious.

Thanathon's case is different, he is accused of not informing in time. These 41 cases, however, are the same as the cases of 2 MPs already banned, one was an FFP member from Salon Nakhon. Banned for holding shares in a company bv where media was listed as one of its businesses. The precedent has been set.

 

2 hours ago, webfact said:

Thanakorn said the involvement of the 27 Phalang Prachart MPs in media companies was different

of course the law doesn't apply to them, just ask em

3 hours ago, webfact said:

arguing that these cases were different from the one faced by Future Forward Party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit.

True, because Thanathorn's company actually didn't operate any media business anymore (It stopped printing the magazines years ago)

I read elsewhere that a lawyer for the junta party asked for the case to be dropped. He said the case against them that was sent to the court was in the form of a letter - not a petition. Therefore, it wasn’t done properly and should be dropped. 

 

 

Weasel weasel weasel, worse than Wind in the Willows. 

I don’t care about the money thing
All i know is that my Wife likes this guy - so i will follow her judgement.
I have just found out i can only stay here for 90 days now instead of 9 months !
Starting to want to knock someone out
Be warned !


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

6 hours ago, webfact said:

 

The politician went on to say that he was confident the court would be fair to the MPs. 

Fair is immunity?

3 hours ago, bannork said:

Thanathon's case is different, he is accused of not informing in time. These 41 cases, however, are the same as the cases of 2 MPs already banned, one was an FFP member from Salon Nakhon. Banned for holding shares in a company bv where media was listed as one of its businesses. The precedent has been set.

 

Yup they are clearly trying to obsfucate the issue. But everyone knows so its going to be difficult to try and use Thanathorn. I expect they will suddenly rule that the othwr two MP's are not guilty and it was not the intention of the form etc.....

Ah, now I understand the term: "same same but different".

"My ox has been gored!"

7 hours ago, Thaiwrath said:

I think Thanakorn also believes in the tooth fairy and Father Christmas !

You forgot the Easter Bunny

It's all in the PM's operation manual- animal farm

18 hours ago, webfact said:

However, Phalang Pracharat deputy spokesperson Thanakorn Wangboon-kongchana rejected Laddawan’s insinuation that Thanathorn was being treated unfairly, saying the court had the jurisdiction to issue an injunction. He also cited a similar case during the Samak Sundaravej administration in 2008. 

 

Thanakorn said the involvement of the 27 Phalang Prachart MPs in media companies was different compared to Thanathorn, adding the firm the Future Forward leader had invested in published magazines, while the 27 MPs were investors in companies that had nothing to do with media. 

Of course it is the courts jurisdiction, but no matter what the relationship is if the law says no involvement then they all should be facing the same penalties or they all, from both parties, should face no penalties. In the end the entire issue centers around the Phalang Pracharat wanting Thanathorn out of politics.