Pita not worried over EC submitting iTV share case to Charter Court

[MikeandDow]

7 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

Is it not clear that iTV has not been a functioning media company for over 10 years? It matters not whose name these worthless shares they are in. The company is not functioning, and can not function as it does not have a TV spectrum license. It is only in existence because the company is not allowed to dissolve until the court case against them has been concluded. They have no listing on the SET either, because they are not an active company.

 

This is just an excuse that the yellow shirts are using to get rid of him. One of the whiniest little rodents is that chap nicknamed "The Giant Killer" who managed to take down a Prime Minister because he once deigned to appear as a guest on a cooking show. He's now submitted a further petition to the court, because Pita wrote a book or two a while back, and is using this to say he's part of a media empire. Giant Killer? I think he sounds like a ridiculous little boy, throwing his toys out of the pram to get what he wants.

 

Laws in Thailand are not there to protect the people, or even the country. They are used as weapons by the elite to silence voices they do not wish to hear.

 

Personally, I'll be watching the exchange rate with glee if Pita's bid to become the PM fails. Protests, no government and the potential for another coup? The dollar could go through the roof against the Thai Baht. 

very good post,     (Pita wrote a book or two a while back, and is using this to say he's part of a media empire) Books are literature, so Literature itself is media (grey area)??????? thoughts!!!

[eisfeld]

1 minute ago, h90 said:

Depend on how the law can be interpreted...if it says he can not have any shares. Than it is a violation. If it says he can't have any relevant shares than it is not.

The constitution says you can't hold any shares whatsoever.

 

Quote

Section 98. A person under any of the following prohibitions shall be the
person who is prohibited from exercising the right to stand for election in an election of
Members of the House of Representatives:

,,,

(3) being the owner of, or a shareholder in any newspaper or mass media
business;

So by the letter of the law he has a problem because it's not very nuanced. But the spirit of the law intends to prevent people from abusing their power via mass media to influence elections which one can't accuse Pita of violating. So the question will be if the court will apply common sense or punish him on technicalities.

[eisfeld]

5 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

very good post,     (Pita wrote a book or two a while back, and is using this to say he's part of a media empire) Books are literature, so Literature itself is media (grey area)??????? thoughts!!!

It's a completely ridiculous complaint because the law only prohibits owning or being shareholder in a mass media business. Writing a book has nothing to do with that.

[Brickleberry]

9 minutes ago, h90 said:

The company itself is a joke...you are right.

But it is active, it has turnover (minimal one) and it is registered as Media company. So technical it is an active media company. Practical it is nothing. And the value of the shares is also very low.

I don't know how much room the law gives here.

Someone said, it is not the problem that he has the shares, the bigger problem is that he is so stupid and ignorant to not get rid of them long time ago. I kind of agree.

It is not an active media company. This is the key detail. It makes money from data that it sells.

 

https://www.thaipbsworld.com/itv-born-of-bloody-may-trouble-under-thaksin-and-now-pitas-nemesis/

The minutes record that Intouch president and iTV CEO Kim Siritaweechai, responding to an iTV shareholder’s question, confirmed that iTV was still active in the media business. However, a video clip of the meeting then emerged revealing that Kim had actually replied that iTV no longer operated in media.

On Thursday, iTV Plc’s board of directors issued a statement in a bid to clarify the situation.

“The company had no intention of stating that it was still operating as a media business,” iTV said, referring to the minutes of the April 26 meeting.

[h90]

Just now, eisfeld said:

The constitution says you can't hold any shares whatsoever.

 

So by the letter of the law he has a problem because it's not very nuanced. But the spirit of the law intends to prevent people from abusing their power via mass media to influence elections which one can't accuse Pita of violating. So the question will be if the court will apply common sense or punish him on technicalities.

yes to protect against people like Thaksin or Berlusconi....what is clearly not the case. I don't know if the court has room for common sense or if they must follow exactly.

Courts that let common sense (means their opinion) over law is only an advantage if the right people are judges, else it is also a problem.
And if the punishment is removal or if there is lesser punishment possible...let him pay a million and go on.....

[h90]

1 minute ago, Brickleberry said:

It is not an active media company. This is the key detail. It makes money from data that it sells.

 

https://www.thaipbsworld.com/itv-born-of-bloody-may-trouble-under-thaksin-and-now-pitas-nemesis/

The minutes record that Intouch president and iTV CEO Kim Siritaweechai, responding to an iTV shareholder’s question, confirmed that iTV was still active in the media business. However, a video clip of the meeting then emerged revealing that Kim had actually replied that iTV no longer operated in media.

On Thursday, iTV Plc’s board of directors issued a statement in a bid to clarify the situation.

“The company had no intention of stating that it was still operating as a media business,” iTV said, referring to the minutes of the April 26 meeting.

but it is registered as media company.....so they could begin tomorrow again.

[MikeandDow]

6 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

I don't think it's 100% clear if ITV should be seen as being active in media or not. They are raking in dozens of millions of Baht a year so it's doing *something*. But it's beside the point because nowhere in the relevant law does it speak about active vs inactive company. Instead the court should IMHO consider the small size of the shareholding and throw the case out because Pita doesn't hold enough to excert any control which is what the spirit of the law tries to prevent. The other stuff like the company being inactive, him being a nominee for some of the shares, him having transferred them now etc help paint a picture but that's it.

The problem with the above the courts do not rule on Precedent they take it case by case so even if this is done in the past it does not matter

[h90]

3 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

It's a completely ridiculous complaint because the law only prohibits owning or being shareholder in a mass media business. Writing a book has nothing to do with that.

Is a book mass media? I think not.

What is if you make a book every month? or every 2 weeks...at some point it is a magazine/newspaper....would be interesting to know the legal definition.

 

[eisfeld]

4 minutes ago, h90 said:

yes to protect against people like Thaksin or Berlusconi....what is clearly not the case. I don't know if the court has room for common sense or if they must follow exactly.

Courts that let common sense (means their opinion) over law is only an advantage if the right people are judges, else it is also a problem.
And if the punishment is removal or if there is lesser punishment possible...let him pay a million and go on.....

Punishment is being removal from these official positions. For example Section 101.

 

Quote

Section 101. Membership of the House of Representatives terminates upon:
...
(6) being under any prohibition under section 98;

 

[MikeandDow]

6 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

It's a completely ridiculous complaint because the law only prohibits owning or being shareholder in a mass media business. Writing a book has nothing to do with that.

Books are literature and by any definition it media

[MikeandDow]

5 minutes ago, h90 said:

Is a book mass media? I think not.

What is if you make a book every month? or every 2 weeks...at some point it is a magazine/newspaper....would be interesting to know the legal definition.

 

In the late 20th century, mass media could be classified into eight mass media industries: books, the Internet, magazines, movies, newspapers, radio, recordings and television.

[h90]

1 minute ago, eisfeld said:

Punishment is being removal from these official positions. For example Section 101.

 

 

to remove him for these shares would be really strange....

[Brickleberry]

6 minutes ago, h90 said:

but it is registered as media company.....so they could begin tomorrow again.

No, they couldn't, as they do not have a spectrum to begin broadcasting, and there are no spectrum auctions coming up either.

 

Over 15 years since they last operated as a media company. The chairman himself even said they do not operate as a media company. Could it be any clearer?

[h90]

1 minute ago, MikeandDow said:

In the late 20th century, mass media could be classified into eight mass media industries: books, the Internet, magazines, movies, newspapers, radio, recordings and television.

means if some wrote a book about penguins 10 years ago and still sales it, can't be PM of Thailand? Actually it wouldn't surprise me if the law is that sloppy.....

[eisfeld]

5 minutes ago, h90 said:

Is a book mass media? I think not.

What is if you make a book every month? or every 2 weeks...at some point it is a magazine/newspaper....would be interesting to know the legal definition.

 

The key word is business. The common interpretation of business is a commercial activity that is done on a regular basis. There's no exact definition of when something is considered to be done on a regular basis but writing a few books is very far from that. Laws rarely are exhausting in covering all the nuances that exist in the real world and so judges have to apply their own... judgement ????

[MikeandDow]

10 minutes ago, h90 said:

but it is registered as media company.....so they could begin tomorrow again.

it has been de-registers

[eisfeld]

4 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Books are literature and by any definition it media

See my last comment. The constitution speaks of ownership of or shareholding in "mass media business". All these words are important, not just some.

[eisfeld]

Just now, MikeandDow said:

it has been de-registers

This is not true. They have been de-listed from the SET. They are still registered. You could easily look that up in the DBD.

[h90]

2 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

No, they couldn't, as they do not have a spectrum to begin broadcasting, and there are no spectrum auctions coming up either.

 

Over 15 years since they last operated as a media company. The chairman himself even said they do not operate as a media company. Could it be any clearer?

what he says is most probably irrelevant if they are registered as media company and he did not cancel that. Surely they could operate without....like internet radio, internet newspaper. Renting space.... It is not about common sense it is about the law and maybe theoretical possible things.

[MikeandDow]

10 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

See my last comment. The constitution speaks of ownership of or shareholding in "mass media business". All these words are important, not just some.

good point, The EC. Thai election laws, like virtually all Thai laws, always have some vagueness so that they can be "interpreted" (anyone ever visit Thai immigration?). The EC was appointed by the Junta and will always find something to question based on their "interpretation" of the rules.

Edited July 10, 2023 by MikeandDow

[MikeandDow]

5 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

This is not true. They have been de-listed from the SET. They are still registered. You could easily look that up in the DBD.

sorry you are correct

[cleopatra2]

11 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

In the late 20th century, mass media could be classified into eight mass media industries: books, the Internet, magazines, movies, newspapers, radio, recordings and television.

Whilst books are media, the issue is not authoring the book From the complaint lodged it is publishing the books.

From the complaint it looks like the allegation is Pita authored and then published the books himself.

This would then make Pita a publisher of media 

 

[MikeandDow]

15 minutes ago, eisfeld said:

The key word is business. The common interpretation of business is a commercial activity that is done on a regular basis. There's no exact definition of when something is considered to be done on a regular basis but writing a few books is very far from that. Laws rarely are exhausting in covering all the nuances that exist in the real world and so judges have to apply their own... judgement ????

and there you go (and so judges have to apply their own... judgement)  and judges are appointed by !!!!!

[MikeandDow]

5 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Whilst books are media, the issue is not authoring the book From the complaint lodged it is publishing the books.

From the complaint it looks like the allegation is Pita authored and then published the books himself.

This would then make Pita a publisher of media 

 

very good point, i know that most thai's who write a book generally published the book themselve, know from experience. therefore as you said he is a publisher of media,  but i would think a court would have to decide

[h90]

12 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

and there you go (and so judges have to apply their own... judgement)  and judges are appointed by !!!!!

I asked bard (the AI) so it can be wrong....it says the King appoints judges in Thailand.

[MikeandDow]

Just now, h90 said:

I asked bard (the AI) so it can be wrong....it says the King appoints judges in Thailand.

there u go

[cleopatra2]

4 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

very good point, i know that most thai's who write a book generally published the book themselve, know from experience. therefore as you said he is a publisher of media,  but i would think a court would have to decide

Under Thai law to Publish a person /company  needs to register and recieve approval from the authorities.

Consequently to cease being a publisher a formal request to de register is required.

 

Now I have no details of if the books are published or not in Thailand or any registeration by Pita

[eisfeld]

4 minutes ago, h90 said:

I asked bard (the AI) so it can be wrong....it says the King appoints judges in Thailand.

The constitution is actually quite easy to read. Section 190 specifies the appointment of judges. https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/2017-05/CONSTITUTION+OF+THE+KINGDOM+OF+THAILAND+(B.E.+2560+(2017)).pdf

[MikeandDow]

24 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Under Thai law to Publish a person /company  needs to register and recieve approval from the authorities.

Consequently to cease being a publisher a formal request to de register is required.

 

Now I have no details of if the books are published or not in Thailand or any registeration by Pita

ok all that i can say is we did not do that and we have publised a few books

[Brickleberry]

3 hours ago, h90 said:

what he says is most probably irrelevant if they are registered as media company and he did not cancel that. Surely they could operate without....like internet radio, internet newspaper. Renting space.... It is not about common sense it is about the law and maybe theoretical possible things.

How is it irrelevant? They are not allowed to dissolve until the court case has concluded.

 

As they do not have a license, commission or spectrum to operate as a media company, then they clearly can't just suddenly produce content.

 

There's also this little thing called "the spirit of the law" which this 'case' clearly is going against.

 

It's also worth pointing out that this is one of Taksin's companies... no prizes for figuring out who leaked all of this information and has been trying to change the official meeting minutes to cause trouble for MFP....