Pita Limjaroenrat’s PM bid threatened by iTV share controversy

[webfact]

 

Pita Limjaroenrat, the leader of Thailand’s Move Forward Party (MFP), is facing a legal challenge regarding his ownership of shares in iTV, an independent broadcaster.

 

Although he has transferred these shares to his relatives, legal expert Jade Donavanik has argued that Pita’s eligibility for the role of prime minister still hangs in the balance.

 

The issue revolves around whether iTV is considered a media firm, as the current constitution prevents election candidates from running for office if they own shares in a media company.

 

Donavanik stated that the transfer of shares may not make a significant difference, as Pita Limjaroenrat remains the statutory heir and did not make the change until after the May 14 general election. However, iTV’s status is currently unclear and is being considered by the Supreme Administrative Court.

 

The share-holding rule has been in place for several years, and election candidates are fully aware of share ownership following the case of Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, former leader of the now-dissolved Future Forward Party (FFP), which preceded the MFP.

Pattana Ruanjaidee, a law lecturer at Ramkhamhaeng University, expressed his belief that the media shares would not affect Pita’s political career.

 

He explained that the MFP leader did not see himself as the shareholder but rather as the manager of his late father’s estate, and also did not consider iTV to be a media firm. However, his complainant viewed the matter differently reports Bangkok Post.

 

by Mitch Connor

 

Photo Courtesy of Facebook (Pita Limjaroenrat FC)

 

Full story: https://thethaiger.com/hot-news/politics/pita-limjaroenrats-pm-bid-threatened-by-itv-share-controversy

 

-- © Copyright Thaiger 2023-06-07

 

- Cigna offers a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m. For more information on all expat health insurance plans click here.

 

The most versatile and flexible rental investment and holiday home solution in Thailand - click for more information

[kcpattaya]

There is always a stick to hit the dog...

[hotchilli]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

Pattana Ruanjaidee, a law lecturer at Ramkhamhaeng University, expressed his belief that the media shares would not affect Pita’s political career.

The only view that matters is the one who gets to sit on the deciding panel.

[paul1804]

Typical politics, look for a loop hole to retain the dinosaurs and ignore the peoples wishes! If they are successful I hope the people rise up and demand reform! 

[BadSpottedDog]

I don't know much about the new PM/party, but I do smell a 'hit job' going on here. Much ado about nothing. Commonly known as dirty politics. What are they afraid of?  

[BenStark]

How glad to see that we finally have a thread about Pita owning ITV shares, and that EC opposes that, otherwise we would never have known.

[BusyB]

11 minutes ago, BadSpottedDog said:

I don't know much about the new PM/party, but I do smell a 'hit job' going on here. Much ado about nothing. Commonly known as dirty politics. What are they afraid of?  

Everything.

 

In particular what they've been up to while in office and all the privileges of said office. More broadly, meaningful change which might prevent them doing it again.

[whitfield]

So owning shares in a company that hasn't broadcast or published anything since 2008 is enough to disqualify him.  They really are barrel scraping, bottom feeders.  

[TheFishman1]

They need to get rid of the old politicians they’re all corrupt get rid of moss start fresh likewise for the police department TIT

[Andycoops]

The disenfranchisement of 25 million voters has begun...

[crazykopite]

Everything will be done to stop MFP from becoming a coalition government this is going to go on for months on end 

[h90]

15 minutes ago, Andycoops said:

The disenfranchisement of 25 million voters has begun...

They had 14 Millions not 25

[Freed1948]

2 hours ago, hotchilli said:

The only view that matters is the one who gets to sit on the deciding panel.

And their view is of no consequence.

[apetryxx]

It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out who’s behind this. 

[klauskunkel]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

the MFP leader did not see himself as the shareholder but rather as the manager of his late father’s estate, and also did not consider iTV to be a media firm. However, his complainant viewed the matter differently

Well then, who is the complainant? Any links to the government or military? How did he get this information about share ownership?

[jesimps]

I loathe military rule in any country, but I can't help wondering why Pita didn't bin these shares before the election. Surely he knew that the pro-Prayuth EC and Senate would use this to keep him out of power. The mob must've been rubbing their hands in glee when they discovered this little nugget. Reckon they thought they'd have to be much more devious.

[eisfeld]

37 minutes ago, klauskunkel said:

Well then, who is the complainant? Any links to the government or military? How did he get this information about share ownership?

The share ownership information is public. It doesn't matter who the complainant is because the EC is obliged to investigate complaints like that irregardless of who brought the complaint.

 

It's a very unfortunate messy situation that should have been avoided in the first place. Not sure why they are opening themselves up for getting attacked.

[hotchilli]

1 hour ago, Freed1948 said:

And their view is of no consequence.

It's of utmost consequence considering who hand picked them

[malibukid]

3 hours ago, paul1804 said:

Typical politics, look for a loop hole to retain the dinosaurs and ignore the peoples wishes! If they are successful I hope the people rise up and demand reform! 

nationwide strike. shut it down

Edited June 7, 2023 by malibukid

[malibukid]

3 hours ago, BadSpottedDog said:

I don't know much about the new PM/party, but I do smell a 'hit job' going on here. Much ado about nothing. Commonly known as dirty politics. What are they afraid of?  

at least in America there are consequences

[Reigntax]

1 hour ago, jesimps said:

I loathe military rule in any country, but I can't help wondering why Pita didn't bin these shares before the election. Surely he knew that the pro-Prayuth EC and Senate would use this to keep him out of power. The mob must've been rubbing their hands in glee when they discovered this little nugget. Reckon they thought they'd have to be much more devious.

If he is executor of his late fathers estate he controls all assets until disbursement to beneficiaries. A technical temporary ownership but this junta will do anything to keep power.

[Mickmouse1]

5 hours ago, paul1804 said:

Typical politics, look for a loop hole to retain the dinosaurs and ignore the peoples wishes! If they are successful I hope the people rise up and demand reform! 

And a coup will ensue to quell any such uprising 55

[zzaa09]

1 hour ago, malibukid said:

nationwide strike. shut it down

.....and any such collective general strike needs to be substantial, less the surface novel/fashionable action that is usually practiced. 

[cleopatra2]

26 minutes ago, Reigntax said:

If he is executor of his late fathers estate he controls all assets until disbursement to beneficiaries. A technical temporary ownership but this junta will do anything to keep power.

This raises the question , why was the shares not transferred to their rightful owner earlier.

 

What is still not clear , even as executor , did Pita inherit some of the shares .

[kennw]

4 hours ago, whitfield said:

So owning shares in a company that hasn't broadcast or published anything since 2008 is enough to disqualify him.  They really are barrel scraping, bottom feeders.  

Much as I hope his party can come to power Pita has not shown a great deal of common sense both before (shares) and after, mouthing off instead of  winning friends to get past the numbers hurdle. Listen to Chuwit's advice he has a lot of experience of the type Pita lacks. 

[zzaa09]

3 hours ago, klauskunkel said:

Well then, who is the complainant? Any links to the government or military? How did he get this information about share ownership?

The first rule of secret clubs is not to discuss secret clubs...

[Dr B]

2 hours ago, eisfeld said:

The share ownership information is public. It doesn't matter who the complainant is because the EC is obliged to investigate complaints like that irregardless of who brought the complaint.

 

It's a very unfortunate messy situation that should have been avoided in the first place. Not sure why they are opening themselves up for getting attacked.

I am not sure that "share ownership information is public". That is certainly true for companies listed on the Stock Exchange, but I have read that ITV was delisted by the Stock Exchange some time ago. Many posts on this forum have suggested he should have got rid of the shares earlier, but again I am not sure that that is as simple as it sounds. (1) it has been stated and I cannot verify, that the shares were owned by his late father and part of his estate of which Pita is a trustee, (2) how do you go about selling shares in a non-listed company as there is no valuation (Pita has stated that they had no value as a result). (3) how can people say that ITV is a broadcasting and media company when its broadcasting licence was taken away by the Government in 2007? (4) I have seen reference to the fact that the articles of association include broadcasting but, in my experience, this means nothing. When I had an engineering consultancy business we included trading in the articles of association just in case we needed it at a later date. It costs nothing and means nothing. (5) the recent annual report for ITV showed that its business was advertising and PR. (6) the whole intention of the law preventing would be politicians from owning shares in a media company is to prevent those people from manipulating coverage in their favour. However that would have to be done by the management and/or board of the company. Shareholders can probably be split into two groups. Those who own lots of shares and are also board members/managers, and those who are just investors. Someone with management responsibility as an Executor for 1% of the shares in the company is not going to be able to use an ex-broadcasting company to manipulate an election.

It certainly reads like someone is scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses not to endorse MFP.

[Bim Smith]

6 hours ago, paul1804 said:

Typical politics, look for a loop hole to retain the dinosaurs and ignore the peoples wishes! If they are successful I hope the people rise up and demand reform! 

Rise Up. Then we have a coup and it might not be so bloodless this time round. 

[eisfeld]

2 hours ago, Dr B said:

I am not sure that "share ownership information is public". That is certainly true for companies listed on the Stock Exchange, but I have read that ITV was delisted by the Stock Exchange some time ago. Many posts on this forum have suggested he should have got rid of the shares earlier, but again I am not sure that that is as simple as it sounds. (1) it has been stated and I cannot verify, that the shares were owned by his late father and part of his estate of which Pita is a trustee, (2) how do you go about selling shares in a non-listed company as there is no valuation (Pita has stated that they had no value as a result). (3) how can people say that ITV is a broadcasting and media company when its broadcasting licence was taken away by the Government in 2007? (4) I have seen reference to the fact that the articles of association include broadcasting but, in my experience, this means nothing. When I had an engineering consultancy business we included trading in the articles of association just in case we needed it at a later date. It costs nothing and means nothing. (5) the recent annual report for ITV showed that its business was advertising and PR. (6) the whole intention of the law preventing would be politicians from owning shares in a media company is to prevent those people from manipulating coverage in their favour. However that would have to be done by the management and/or board of the company. Shareholders can probably be split into two groups. Those who own lots of shares and are also board members/managers, and those who are just investors. Someone with management responsibility as an Executor for 1% of the shares in the company is not going to be able to use an ex-broadcasting company to manipulate an election.

It certainly reads like someone is scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses not to endorse MFP.

(1) The share information before delisting can be easily seen. And even after delisting it's still a public company at least it's still called public company and registered as such. It just can't be traded on the SET. That means the usual disclosures etc. Pita was stated to be the trustee but no mention was done on if he is a beneficiary. I can't believe his father entrusted him with taking care of the inheritence without inheriting a chunk to his son.

 

(2) You can sell or transfer them privately. This very article says he transferred them to family members. No valuations needed. The value of the shares anyways is irrelevant because the law just says that you can't own shares in a media company. The intent is to prevent people who have control over media to influence public opinion from running.

 

(3) Unfortunately ITV PLC still has subsidiaries which are active from what I've read. It generated over 23M THB in revenue with more than 10M in net profits after tax in 2021 according to its financial filings. A completely defunct company doesn't do that.

 

(4) Come on, are you really putting into doubt that ITV PLC is a media company? There's even an english wikipedia page about its TV broadcasting channel. It's really not just in their articles of association. Started as part of Thaksins Shin Corp btw. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV_(Thailand)

 

(5) No that is not true, in their latest financial filings they describe themselves as "Motion picture, video and television programme distribution activities"

 

(6) Yes the intent is to prevent people who can use their media companies to sway public opinion during an election. Unfortunately the law doesn't state that the person needs to have controlling interest in the company or something along those lines. If you just go by the letter of the law then Pita is hosed. But if one examines all the facts one could come to a reasonable conclusion that he violated the letter of the law but not its spirit. And that's exactly why it's such a messy situation. The annoying part is that it was completely unnecessary.

[runamok27]

This is messed up politics but is this Pita guy so stupid that he is going to get disqualified for the same thing the last guy was disqualified for? He should have known not to have anything even remotely wrong with anything he is involved in so they couldn't do this to him. What could possibly have been so difficult that he couldn't SELL the shares before the deadline.