Discrepancies in iTV shareholder meeting records blow Pita shareholding case wide open

[mommysboy]

Who knows? Whatever the decision is it won't be right or wrong- toin coss anyone?

 

I don't expect the population to be so sanguine over the matter. Right now the winners can't assume power- there is in effect a 'power vacuum'- we all know who loves that.

 

 

[sabaiguy]

On 6/12/2023 at 4:00 PM, Dr B said:

It seems to me that there is a very dangerous legal precedent that I think has already been set by the Constitutional Court, and I also believe that there is no appeal against a Constitutional Court ruling. The dangerous precedent is considering what might be done. I think it is a fundamental principle of law internationally that you can only be charged and found guilty based on what you have done, not on what you might do. Any of us might commit a crime next week, and it impossible to prove that we would not. Even conspiracy, or intent to commit a crime, requires evidence that planning was taking place, not just thinking about it.

I believe that, in one of the Thanaporn cases, he was found guilty because of what he, or the company, might have done in the future. As I have mentioned before, I am aware that a business cannot operate in areas not covered by its articles of incorporation, but it does not need to operate in all areas covered by its articles. It is therefore normal practice to include things that might be useful in the future. Similarly one may have TV Broadcasting in ones articles, but if your licence is revoked you may not operate. Surely it would be normal to continue to operate in other areas, such as advertising, if covered by the articles? To say that iTV could still become a media company again is ignoring the requirement for a licence, which I think is also required for publishing a newspaper. Any shareholders for whom that is a problem would need to divest the shares before those new operations commenced.

I was about to bring up the US conspiracy laws but think you killed it.  Unless you're Trump who can declassify documents by thinking about it.

[Dan O]

On 6/13/2023 at 8:20 AM, jaywalker2 said:

These arguments are mostly beside the point. The original purpose of the law was to ensure an MP candidate couldn't unduly influence an election due to his control of media holdings.  Even if Pita owned the ITV shares they wouldn't endow him with any influence over the media.

 

The law has just become another way for conservative elite to undermine valid elections.

 

 

The intent of the law and the way the language is written for the law are 2 different issues. I believe the written version says you can not own shares of a media company. The question will most likely come down to did he actually own the shares. The company was delisted but is still "operating" so to speak only due to a lawsuit against the govt which they can not close. Pita originally stated that the shares were not owned by him but rather in a trust when his father died and he was just the executor of the trust. That fact now seems to have gotten very blurry.

[jaywalker2]

1 hour ago, Dan O said:

The intent of the law and the way the language is written for the law are 2 different issues. I believe the written version says you can not own shares of a media company. The question will most likely come down to did he actually own the shares. The company was delisted but is still "operating" so to speak only due to a lawsuit against the govt which they can not close. Pita originally stated that the shares were not owned by him but rather in a trust when his father died and he was just the executor of the trust. That fact now seems to have gotten very blurry.

Yet when it was revealed that a Palang Pracharat MP owned 200 shares of AIS, the Constitutional Court ruled that he did not violate the law because such a small number of shares would not give him any influence. In other words, the Court recognized that it wasn't the act of owning shares but the influence that those shares gave you that mattered.

[Eric Loh]

13 minutes ago, jaywalker2 said:

Yet when it was revealed that a Palang Pracharat MP owned 200 shares of AIS, the Constitutional Court ruled that he did not violate the law because such a small number of shares would not give him any influence. In other words, the Court recognized that it wasn't the act of owning shares but the influence that those shares gave you that mattered.

There were 41 MPs of which 27 from the PPRP and rest from the coalition parties that owned media shares which the House opposition seek the Court to disqualify them in 2019. I think the court rejected the cases due to technicality. The Court see fit to interpret the law in their own idiosyncratic way. 

 

Problem is that it is a requirement for company registration to fill up a standard form with a wide scope of businesses and one of the listed businesses is media. Assuming you register a restaurant business, you likely to have media as one of your businesses. 

[Dan O]

41 minutes ago, jaywalker2 said:

Yet when it was revealed that a Palang Pracharat MP owned 200 shares of AIS, the Constitutional Court ruled that he did not violate the law because such a small number of shares would not give him any influence. In other words, the Court recognized that it wasn't the act of owning shares but the influence that those shares gave you that mattered.

Thats because the courts here are ambiguous and pick and choose who, how and when to enforce the laws. 

[h90]

21 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

So unbelievably sad. Change and progress can never happen with that level of passivity and defeatist attitude. And there are an infinite number of ways to resist and shame, without violence. 

non violent shaming children in school....I guess no need for violence

[bannork]

The people had no choice.

Criticism of the proposed constitution was illegal. 

If it wasn't passed, elections would be delayed indefinitely whilst a new one was written,  or it was implied one of the old constitutions would be adopted instead 

 

[billd766]

On 6/12/2023 at 1:29 PM, RandolphGB said:

Good. This should finally dispel any fanciful ideas of democracy in Thailand.

 

Back to the status quo of military and 'establishment' rule like it has been for the last 100+ years.

And what a disaster for Thailand that has been.

[billd766]

On 6/13/2023 at 9:05 AM, h90 said:

I prefer the old dinosaurs over people who advocate for violence.

It is nothing to do with who you prefer.

 

It has everything to do with who the Thai electorate prefer.

[bannork]

They had no  genuine choice- accept this constitution or wait indefinitely for another one to be written, or an old constitution that suited the army would be adopted.

In addition no public criticism was allowed of the proposed constitution.

Only an obtuse person could regard that as a choice 

[Pink Mist]

Disruptive, inflammatory posts have been reported and removed.

 

The OP:

Discrepancies in iTV shareholder meeting records blow Pita shareholding case wide open

[jaywalker2]

11 hours ago, Dan O said:

The intent of the law and the way the language is written for the law are 2 different issues. I believe the written version says you can not own shares of a media company. The question will most likely come down to did he actually own the shares. The company was delisted but is still "operating" so to speak only due to a lawsuit against the govt which they can not close. Pita originally stated that the shares were not owned by him but rather in a trust when his father died and he was just the executor of the trust. That fact now seems to have gotten very blurry.

Yes, but these are all technical issues. My point is that laws like these, vaguely worded, open to subjective interpretation by biases courts, exist not for their stated purpose but to provide a legal tool to undermine political opposition. The definition of "media company" is so broad that it encompasses companies that could not possibly influence elections in any way. Thanatorn was driven out by this law. Now they're trying to do the same thing to Pita. In neither case had they violated the intent of the law.

[Dan O]

10 hours ago, jaywalker2 said:

Yes, but these are all technical issues. My point is that laws like these, vaguely worded, open to subjective interpretation by biases courts, exist not for their stated purpose but to provide a legal tool to undermine political opposition. The definition of "media company" is so broad that it encompasses companies that could not possibly influence elections in any way. Thanatorn was driven out by this law. Now they're trying to do the same thing to Pita. In neither case had they violated the intent of the law.

Yes that's what I said in my post 

[RandolphGB]

23 hours ago, billd766 said:

And what a disaster for Thailand that has been.

By disaster, perhaps you mean the country's wealth being plundered by one family protected by law while 95% of the populace live in ignorance. 

 

Though is it so bad when you look at the state of Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia and Vietnam?

[billd766]

59 minutes ago, RandolphGB said:

By disaster, perhaps you mean the country's wealth being plundered by one family protected by law while 95% of the populace live in ignorance. 

 

Though is it so bad when you look at the state of Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia and Vietnam?

That would be the military family I suspect.

 

They have been running Thailand unelected since the 2014 military coup.

[RandolphGB]

5 minutes ago, billd766 said:

That would be the military family I suspect.

 

They have been running Thailand unelected since the 2014 military coup.

The military have been running things in one shape or other for the last century. There have been platitudes about 'moving towards democracy' since the 1970s. So this idea of elections is a sham, a face-saving exercise. Power here is highly centralized around a handful of families who use the military to maintain the social order. 

 

 

[Eric Loh]

2 hours ago, RandolphGB said:

The military have been running things in one shape or other for the last century. There have been platitudes about 'moving towards democracy' since the 1970s. So this idea of elections is a sham, a face-saving exercise. Power here is highly centralized around a handful of families who use the military to maintain the social order. 

 

 

Correct depiction of the politics here. Thailand should not abandon striving towards democracy and try to attain a parlimentary constitutional monarchy like Japan. The military has taken advantage of the fading years of the regime to become powerful and became a sort of quasi government. Majority of Thais hate but fear the military. The next civilian government must work hard to implement laws and confine the military to the rule of law and civilian control. There are new dynamics in play that may perhaps allow the impossible to be possible. I certainly hope so. 

[anchadian]

(1/2) Junta-appointed senators Somchai Sawaengkarn warns Thurs the EC should petition the Constitutional Court to adjudicate whether Move Forward PM candidate Pita Limjaroenrat lacks qualifications to be PM if they have any doubt due to his holding of ITV shares.

(2/2) Failing to do so, warns Somchai, could lead the EC to face a possible criminal charge for dereliction of duty.

 

https://twitter.com/KhaosodEnglish/status/1669270908719222784

[anchadian]

BREAKING: ITV has issued a statement Thurs saying the company is not currently active as a mass media. It adds that the alleged discrepancies between the video clip of the annual shareholder's meeting & written report was due to the summary nature of the written report

 

https://twitter.com/KhaosodEnglish/status/1669302716466884609

 

[billd766]

5 hours ago, RandolphGB said:

By disaster, perhaps you mean the country's wealth being plundered by one family protected by law while 95% of the populace live in ignorance. 

 

Though is it so bad when you look at the state of Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia and Vietnam?

Neither I, my Thai wife and son nor any of her family and extended family live in the state of Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia and Vietnam.

 

So, yes I mean the country being plundered by the police, the military and the civil service, and NOT by any one family.

 

If you are alluding to Thaksin Shinawatra, please say so and remember that NONE of that family have been in power since the illegal military coup against the Yingluck government in 2014 aided by the democrats, the yellow shirts and the rabid royalists.

 

IMHO they should ALL have been jailed for life with no remission.

[RandolphGB]

13 hours ago, billd766 said:

Neither I, my Thai wife and son nor any of her family and extended family live in the state of Laos, Myanmar, Cambodia and Vietnam.

 

So, yes I mean the country being plundered by the police, the military and the civil service, and NOT by any one family.

 

If you are alluding to Thaksin Shinawatra, please say so and remember that NONE of that family have been in power since the illegal military coup against the Yingluck government in 2014 aided by the democrats, the yellow shirts and the rabid royalists.

 

IMHO they should ALL have been jailed for life with no remission.

Corruption is endemic, part of the Thai cultural DNA. They worship it, literally. 

 

 

[RandolphGB]

16 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Correct depiction of the politics here. Thailand should not abandon striving towards democracy and try to attain a parlimentary constitutional monarchy like Japan. The military has taken advantage of the fading years of the regime to become powerful and became a sort of quasi government. Majority of Thais hate but fear the military. The next civilian government must work hard to implement laws and confine the military to the rule of law and civilian control. There are new dynamics in play that may perhaps allow the impossible to be possible. I certainly hope so. 

You are correct that the next civilian government must go to extremes to confine the military without themselves becoming authoritarian. 

 

I believe the traditional elite have another 20 or 30 years of power left to run.  

 

Hope is what they want people to have. Hope is inaction, like hoping to win the lottery or dreaming of living in a palace. Nothing comes true through hope alone.

 

Visceral anger and co-ordinated action, on the other hand, are what the establishment families here will be terrified of.