Thailand's Election Commission Probes Pitha's ITV Shares

[Eloquent pilgrim]

3 hours ago, h90 said:

Not in Austria, Germany, Italy etc.....the strongest can try first if they fail the second tries and that is not law....For example in Austria the president said if the ultra right get the most votes he'll ask the second strongest party to form a government (without them). Not nice but normal. I recall some years back the third party had the Prime Minister. Other countries also took complete outsider.
The majority in parliament decide normally (without appointed Senators)

Italy eh ? …… The Italian elections last year were won by a coalition of four parties; the party of Georgia Meloni “Fratelli d’Italia” won more than 25% of those votes, and so as leader of that party, she was elected as Prime Minister ….. how on earth is that being elected by Parliament.

 

Please stop making things up that are totally incorrect.

[cleopatra2]

3 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

K Pita is the eldest son in the family and upon his dad’s demise, he was entrusted as a trustee and manage the assets for the benefit of the trust’s beneficiaries It is a very normal legal arrangement. You making a conclusion of Pita’s behavior 

based on the allegation from a former member of the military party. 

As the eldest son , under Thai inheritance law would the shares or part of automatically be passed down to Pita.

If a will does exist it seems inconceivable that Pita would be excluded from any beneficiary of the shares.  

like most people here I do not know the facts. It would appear that Pita is depending upon a technicality of being executor and not yet official owner.  

[bradiston]

17 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

As the eldest son , under Thai inheritance law would the shares or part of automatically be passed down to Pita.

If a will does exist it seems inconceivable that Pita would be excluded from any beneficiary of the shares.  

like most people here I do not know the facts. It would appear that Pita is depending upon a technicality of being executor and not yet official owner.  

https://www.nationthailand.com/thailand-election/general-election-2023/40027456

 

This links to a Thai judge's opinion on the legalities of the alleged shareholding. But in the circumstances, I think the EC will have to take in a number of perhaps overriding factors, eg Pita's popularity. They might find an expedient compromise is in everybody's interests. What shape that might take who can predict? Let's just hope for some common sense, and not get so technical as to back the Thai political system into a corner from which its practitioners might find it impossible to emerge with any sort of credible, functioning democratic credentials.

Edited May 29, 2023 by bradiston

[cleopatra2]

34 minutes ago, bradiston said:

https://www.nationthailand.com/thailand-election/general-election-2023/40027456

 

This links to a Thai judge's opinion on the legalities of the alleged shareholding. But in the circumstances, I think the EC will have to take in a number of perhaps overriding factors, eg Pita's popularity. They might find an expedient compromise is in everybody's interests. What shape that might take who can predict? Let's just hope for some common sense, and not get so technical as to back the Thai political system into a corner from which its practitioners might find it impossible to emerge with any sort of credible, functioning democratic credentials.

From the article Pita owns the shares. Normally an heritage manager would not be a beneficiary. Pita as owner has to be a beneficiary and thus the true owner.

 

If this proves to be the case . The EC has only one option but to ask the CC to disqualify . Any other outcome would be a form of corruption where a candidate receives favourable treatment due to popularity.

Edited May 29, 2023 by cleopatra2

[bradiston]

1 hour ago, cleopatra2 said:

From the article Pita owns the shares. Normally an heritage manager would not be a beneficiary. Pita as owner has to be a beneficiary and thus the true owner.

 

If this proves to be the case . The EC has only one option but to ask the CC to disqualify . Any other outcome would be a form of corruption where a candidate receives favourable treatment due to popularity.

Are you really qualified to pass judgment? Sounds like gobbledygook to me. You say "from the article". Is that your source? The basis of your bar room barrister take?

[cleopatra2]

12 minutes ago, bradiston said:

Are you really qualified to pass judgment? Sounds like gobbledygook to me. You say "from the article". Is that your source? The basis of your bar room barrister take?

I have never claimed to know the facts.

The article states that the shares were left to Pita thus he is the owner. The judge quotes heritage manager , not heritage owner. 

Whilst Pita has claimed that the shares belong to his family and acting as executor. This statement is somewhat ambiguous , is Pita claiming that he has no ownership or beneficiary from any of the shares.

If Pita is the true owner of any  shares then that would be a violation of the constitution .

[cleopatra2]

32 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

I have never claimed to know the facts.

The article states that the shares were left to Pita thus he is the owner. The judge quotes heritage manager , not heritage owner. 

Whilst Pita has claimed that the shares belong to his family and acting as executor. This statement is somewhat ambiguous , is Pita claiming that he has no ownership or beneficiary from any of the shares.

If Pita is the true owner of any  shares then that would be a violation of the constitution .

To me the possibility that due to the ongoing court case the legal ownership of the shares have not been transferred yet. Thus the estate is the legal owner .

[candide]

Is it worth discussing the legal technicalities of the case? The decision will be political and the EC will do what it's told to do, as before.

 

However, it is not so obvious what the political decision will be, considering that the establishment has lost most of its popular support. The "good people" of Bangkok have voted  MF.

 

This is the first time in the recent history of Thailand. When it was about Thaksin, the establishment could always rely on the support from the Bangkok middle-class, and from bureaucrats (in particular against red Issan buffaloes). They supported the 2006 coup, the 2010 repression, as well as the 2014 coup. Now It's over! There's nearly no one to follow someone like Suthep in the streets of Bangkok, no one to greet tanks with flowers and smiles.

 

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

From the article Pita owns the shares. Normally an heritage manager would not be a beneficiary. Pita as owner has to be a beneficiary and thus the true owner.

 

If this proves to be the case . The EC has only one option but to ask the CC to disqualify . Any other outcome would be a form of corruption where a candidate receives favourable treatment due to popularity.

 

3 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

I have never claimed to know the facts.

The article states that the shares were left to Pita thus he is the owner. The judge quotes heritage manager , not heritage owner. 

Whilst Pita has claimed that the shares belong to his family and acting as executor. This statement is somewhat ambiguous , is Pita claiming that he has no ownership or beneficiary from any of the shares.

If Pita is the true owner of any  shares then that would be a violation of the constitution .

That's not what the article says.  It says:

 

"The judge said a heritage manager is not considered a holder of shares and only has the power to vote for directors during ordinary shareholder meetings."

"“However, Pita’s name in ITV’s shareholders’ list was missing the phrase ‘in the capacity of heritage manager’ so it could be construed that he was a shareholder and not a heritage manager,” said the judge."

"The judge added that the missing phrase can however be seen as an error in printing."

[heybruce]

15 hours ago, h90 said:

right and common in many countries....

How many of those countries also ban candidates from owning shares in media companies?

[heybruce]

11 hours ago, h90 said:

yes and? people confirmed it in a referendum, but that is not the point here...Prayuth can't have a media company, the same as Pita.

A referendum that was a choice between a military written constitution and the promise of elections or continued military rule without elections.  And a constitution that was modified immediately after it was "confirmed" at the request of you know who.

[heybruce]

11 hours ago, bradiston said:

I had the same reaction when I first read about it. Is it really possible he could have overlooked such a possibly damning holding? How? With all those surrounding him, and as you say the precedent of what happened to Thanatorn, remaining silent?

As has been pointed out, the shares are part of his father's estate and he is the executor.  Does an executor to an estate own that estate and all that is in it?  Can an executor dispose of shares in the estate?  Is it legally possibly and culturally acceptable for a son to transfer executor responsibilities to another person?  Was there another person who could have acted as executor who was sufficiently distant from Pita so as not to result in claims that the transfer wasn't really a transfer?

 

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I suspect the answer to "Does an executor to an estate own that estate and all that is in it?" is "No."

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Apparently the people's choice, doesn't know how to 'read instruction'.   Not sure that qualifies one to lead a govt?

Being executor of an estate is not the same as ownership, and his status as executor was reported as required.

 

Examples of democracies that have elected unqualified leaders are plentiful, but that's off-topic.

[fondue zoo]

17 hours ago, bradiston said:

But that's what I mean. He's leaving his political career in the hands of an establishment leaning, if not controlled, body. Why? Why take that chance? And why possibly betray/remove the wishes and dreams of millions of Thais in the process? If they rule him out, he's only himself to blame.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

[h90]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

A referendum that was a choice between a military written constitution and the promise of elections or continued military rule without elections.  And a constitution that was modified immediately after it was "confirmed" at the request of you know who.

A referendum with the promise that if it get rejected that they fall back to the previous constitution...I heard Prayuth promise that on TV. Some claim he said in fact fall back to one of the many previous constitutions, not necessarily the last one.
But even that all was doggy...I admit that. Still it was voted for so any new one need a referendum as well. If you replace a constitution that was voted for with a constitution without vote that suits the new government, than the new government is worse than Prayuth. And a new constitution will immediately get the royalists on the street.
But I do agree that the current constitution is bad. To replace it should be a slow process with a lot discussion with as little involvement of the government as possible

[Eric Loh]

13 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

As the eldest son , under Thai inheritance law would the shares or part of automatically be passed down to Pita.

If a will does exist it seems inconceivable that Pita would be excluded from any beneficiary of the shares.  

like most people here I do not know the facts. It would appear that Pita is depending upon a technicality of being executor and not yet official owner.  

I think the case will depend on how the EC will intepret the Political Party Act. This is unprecendented and not like the Thanthorn case which itself was a dodgy verdict. K Pita as the eldest son of the 3 children was the inheritance manager of his father's shares. K Pongsat Limcharoenrat, father of K Pita died in 2006 had 3 heirs who were entitled to inherit his assets. K Pita was the administrator of the estate and according to Thai law is entitled to inherit the shares in equal proportion in their names. He has been cautious and fully comprehend the case of K Thanathorn and have seek his party legal advise and cooperated with the NACC. Ultimately it's down to legal interpretation by EC and that is always a grey area. 

[JohnHans]

HERE WE GO AGAIN !
I thought it was all too good to be true, back to the old guard soon.
Thai politics... a very sad story.

[realfunster]

22 hours ago, h90 said:

http://www.itv.co.th/

Than click on the financial highlights....they are active and registered as media company. Someone told they just rent out equipment

Thanks for the link.

Checked the financials, the 2 companies in the group are both inactive.

The revenue line clearly states revenues are from investments and interest. So no operating activities. 

 

The financials also include a top 10 shareholders list :

Number 10 is Khun Virat K with 5 million shares being 0.41% of shares

Not mentioned is Khun Pita with a whopping 42,000 shares (per OP) being 0.003% of shares.

 

Clearly a farcical investigation which is a waste of taxpayers time and money.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, h90 said:

A referendum with the promise that if it get rejected that they fall back to the previous constitution...I heard Prayuth promise that on TV. Some claim he said in fact fall back to one of the many previous constitutions, not necessarily the last one.
But even that all was doggy...I admit that. Still it was voted for so any new one need a referendum as well. If you replace a constitution that was voted for with a constitution without vote that suits the new government, than the new government is worse than Prayuth. And a new constitution will immediately get the royalists on the street.
But I do agree that the current constitution is bad. To replace it should be a slow process with a lot discussion with as little involvement of the government as possible

The man who promised there would be no coup promised to go back to the constitution he dissolved after he staged a coup.  Not really a credible promise, especially since no one put it in writing.

[h90]

12 minutes ago, realfunster said:

Thanks for the link.

Checked the financials, the 2 companies in the group are both inactive.

The revenue line clearly states revenues are from investments and interest. So no operating activities. 

 

The financials also include a top 10 shareholders list :

Number 10 is Khun Virat K with 5 million shares being 0.41% of shares

Not mentioned is Khun Pita with a whopping 42,000 shares (per OP) being 0.003% of shares.

 

Clearly a farcical investigation which is a waste of taxpayers time and money.

Thank you for the information

[NanLaew]

On 5/29/2023 at 9:12 AM, webfact said:

Srisuwan Janya, the Secretary-General of the Thai Constitution Protection Association

The Secretary General of the what now?

 

How about the Administrator of the Pajero Thailand Drivers Club or the older lady that locks up the kitchen at Sisaket Wittatalai School at the end of the day.

 

Or the lady that drops by our soi every evening to feed the dogs she doesn't own?

[NanLaew]

14 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

Any other outcome would be a form of corruption where a candidate receives favourable treatment due to popularity.

Ah yes, the curse of being overwhelmingly popular. Also known as the Thaksin Corollary to the Thai Law of Politics.

[bradiston]

It's looking worse by the minute. I wouldn't trust PT an inch. The mooted alliance that excludes MFP but includes all the worst elements of Thai politics looks increasingly like a done deal. It ticks all the royal/military/establishment boxes and exposes the PT to be the stooges they really are. 

[moogradod]

27 minutes ago, bradiston said:

It's looking worse by the minute. I wouldn't trust PT an inch. The mooted alliance that excludes MFP but includes all the worst elements of Thai politics looks increasingly like a done deal. It ticks all the royal/military/establishment boxes and exposes the PT to be the stooges they really are. 

Seems indeed possible. Amazing. But even more amazing is the fact that procedures make it possible to fully overturn a valid election in a legal or at least acceptable way - just because the results do not fit someones agenda.

 

And the extremely most posssible amazing thing will be that this could happen without any consequence thereafter. Some notes in some newspaper (even less likely given what I read on a daily base) or on social media (a lot of uproar and noise without real significance) and at the most some insignificant smaller demonstrations.

 

And the big players know it. Is it not hopeless to introduce any positive change now and even in the future when any election result (=the will of the people) will be always ignored or straightened out as long as it does not "fit" the powers that be ?

Edited May 30, 2023 by moogradod

[redwood1]

8 minutes ago, moogradod said:

Seems indeed possible. Amazing. But even more amazing is the fact that procedures make it possible to fully overturn a valid election in a legal or at least acceptable way - just because the results do not fit someones agenda.

 

And the extremely most posssible amazing thing will be that this could happen without any consequence thereafter. Some notes in some newspaper (even less likely given what I read on a daily base) or on social media (a lot of uproar and noise without real significance) and at the most some insignificant smaller demonstrations.

 

And the big players know it. Is it not hopeless to introduce any positive change now and even in the future when any election result (=the will of the people) will be always ignored or straightened out as long as it does not "fit" the powers that be ?

And any of the public that puts up a fuss must be mentally unstable and in sore need of a re-education....lol

[tomacht8]

A law that bans or restricts ownership of media companies for politicians makes sense.

The purpose is to rule out party-political influence on public opinion and broadcaster policy.

 

In the current case, the question arises as to whether such an influence has actually taken place or whether it would be possible. Both are obviously to be denied here.

 

The iTV channel has been inactive for a long time. Media influence on public opinion is therefore technically impossible. Even the share of 0.003% on a closed media company does not suggest that it would be possible to influence broadcaster policy here.

 

Any other neutral electoral commission or any other independent constitutional court in the world would not even accept such a case for consideration.

Unfortunately, the necessary neutrality of the Thai EC is not given. They are the same people who were put in place by Prayut after the coup.

[billd766]

On 5/29/2023 at 9:46 AM, h90 said:

iTV is not defunct, they are still active and posting their revenue if you google it for 2021 and 2022.
Yes Army and Government runs TV+Radio station. Many of not most government run radio and TV stations. Also some military...nothing wrong with it and not banned in the constitution.

Holding shares in trust and owning the same shares is completely different.

[zzaa09]

5 hours ago, moogradod said:

Seems indeed possible. Amazing. But even more amazing is the fact that procedures make it possible to fully overturn a valid election in a legal or at least acceptable way - just because the results do not fit someones agenda.

 

And the extremely most posssible amazing thing will be that this could happen without any consequence thereafter. Some notes in some newspaper (even less likely given what I read on a daily base) or on social media (a lot of uproar and noise without real significance) and at the most some insignificant smaller demonstrations.

 

And the big players know it. Is it not hopeless to introduce any positive change now and even in the future when any election result (=the will of the people) will be always ignored or straightened out as long as it does not "fit" the powers that be ?

And so it goes. 

This reality of how things work here is clearly not understood by a substantial circle. 

The traditional dominion. 

The crux.

[Flory]

A lot of victim blaming going on in this thread. It doesn't matter what you have or haven't done, the courts and generals will decide who gets disqualified and who doesn't (and when).

It should be almost impossible for anyone who's been following Thai politics for long enough to not get this. Hard to believe that some of these accounts aren't trolls and/or psy-ops, especially the ones that post nonstop in politics threads with barely readable English.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Flory

[Sydebolle]

It's throwing siht at random again; the dinosaurs will use every possible, legal or not, common sense or not, to stay in power. 

If Pitha Limcharoenrat gets disqualified, then there is a fair chance of a civil war. Last time round the boys in uniform just nullified 6+ million votes, this time it is more than double that; Bangkok alone had ONE candidate elected in who was NOT MFP. 

The army plays with very flammable, explosive issues this time round ...... and all this has absolutely nothing to do with going forward with Thailand, which is in the doldrums of political, touristic, monetary and economic crisis ???? The writing is on the wall in big red capital letters ........