Pita ordered to suspend doing his duties as an MP

[placnx]

23 hours ago, MrMojoRisin said:

Impossible to be sure about what will occur in the future, the trend certainly indicates that is what will happen.

 

Thailand and democracy have HISTORICALLY not belonged in the same sentence - things change.

S. Korea and Taiwan changed. Why not Thailand?

[placnx]

23 hours ago, connda said:

The voters did not vote Pita into office as a PM, no more than UK voters voted Rishi Sunak in as PM - just as an international comparison. 

Move Forward did get a large number of votes, but nowhere near the amount to make a Parliamentary majority. They have to form a coalition government by joining parties. And it's a parliamentary majority that puts up a candidate for PM under the current Constitutional rules.
As well, there was a clear law on the books about holding media shares prior to the election.  Pita could have divested those shares before running - but he chose not to.

"We don't like the rules so we'll riot if Pita isn't made PM."
Check out how well that worked in the US on Jan 6th 2021.  Riot and the same will happen in Thailand.

This is what happens when you chose not to play by the rules.  Don't like the rules?  Gain power and change them. 

Apparently he did divest himself of the shares, but there was and is no way to record that on the share register. These were his father's shares, so I guess his dad's name was and is still listed as owner. 

[placnx]

12 hours ago, Billybaroo said:

  Technically, on American exchanges you can sell defunct shares of stock as "junk" for tax purposes. Capital loss. Not sure about Thailand

It seems that the complainants are basing ownership listed on the share register of the defunct company. In the US there is a market (pink sheets) for delisted shares. 

[placnx]

7 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Was that the only option open to him though? Usually politicians put their ill gotten in a wife, sibling or other family member's name..... and even a servant's sometimes.

But who's name is on the share register?

[bradiston]

10 minutes ago, placnx said:

But who's name is on the share register?

Exactly. There are so many unanswered questions about the shares. When were they released from probate, also. A half decent lawyer should be able to make mincemeat of the court stooges. Power to Pita!

[connda]

22 hours ago, bamnutsak said:

Abhisit Vejjajiva was born in the U.K., holds British citizenship and graduated from Eton College, Oxford University. He was PM.

 

Quite a few of the early PMs were educated in the U.K.

 

The President of the Senate, Pornpetch Wichitcholchai, is a Harvard grad.

 

Prince Mahidol is a Harvard grad.

 

 

"Trojan Horse"? Seriously? Maybe keep workshopping this conspiracy theory. It's pretty lame.

 

 

 

"Conspiracy Theory" is a pejorative used by individuals who don't have the necessary acumen to form a counter argument worthy of debate.  You fling the term 'conspiracy theory' at another forum member and smugly pat yourself on the back and congratulate yourself for being somehow an intellectual powerhouse.

You took my statement out of context and turned it into an ad-hominid attack, sir.  That sucks.  Attacking someone's character as opposed to the debating the merits of the subject at hand is - well, lazy and disingenuous.

For your edification and to support my contention that you have just disrespected me personally - for no good reason - here is complete paragraph with the key concepts highlighted:

Quote

"The one thing Thailand has going for it is public nationalism and a healthy distrust of foreigners.  That could be brought down by an Ivy League Trojan Horse who covets wealth and decides to work against the best interests of the Thai public.  Just saying in a very general sort of way."

That IS what I actually said.  ????

I never stated that "Pita is a Western asset and a Trojan Horse."  That's a huge difference.  I have a pretty good grip on Thai defamation laws, so I wouldn't make a statement like that.  Thai prison doesn't appeal to me.

I personally consider your statement to be a troll as you misconstrued what I actually stated and then labelled me a 'conspiracy theorist.'  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you did so in the passion of the moment and it was not deliberate.

Here's your chance to atone for the disrespectful comment:
Why don't you come up with a counter argument as to why a Western educated, wealthy Thai would never, ever work in the interests of Western stakeholders at the expense of the Thai public?  In 'a very general sort of way' that is devoid of personal character attacks?  Can you articulate your position in a civil manner?  A debate! 
 

[jacko45k]

1 hour ago, placnx said:

But who's name is on the share register?

Heaven knows......

[bradiston]

52 minutes ago, connda said:

"Conspiracy Theory" is a pejorative used by individuals who don't have the necessary acumen to form a counter argument worthy of debate.  You fling the term 'conspiracy theory' at another forum member and smugly pat yourself on the back and congratulate yourself for being somehow an intellectual powerhouse.

You took my statement out of context and turned it into an ad-hominid attack, sir.  That sucks.  Attacking someone's character as opposed to the debating the merits of the subject at hand is - well, lazy and disingenuous.

For your edification and to support my contention that you have just disrespected me personally - for no good reason - here is complete paragraph with the key concepts highlighted:

That IS what I actually said.  ????

I never stated that "Pita is a Western asset and a Trojan Horse."  That's a huge difference.  I have a pretty good grip on Thai defamation laws, so I wouldn't make a statement like that.  Thai prison doesn't appeal to me.

I personally consider your statement to be a troll as you misconstrued what I actually stated and then labelled me a 'conspiracy theorist.'  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you did so in the passion of the moment and it was not deliberate.

Here's your chance to atone for the disrespectful comment:
Why don't you come up with a counter argument as to why a Western educated, wealthy Thai would never, ever work in the interests of Western stakeholders at the expense of the Thai public?  In 'a very general sort of way' that is devoid of personal character attacks?  Can you articulate your position in a civil manner?  A debate! 
 

Impossible to prove something will never ever happen, and futile.

 

But look at it another way. Why isn't there then a clause in the requirements section of the Thai civil service qualifications requirements sheet that says:

 

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL A WEALTHY THAI CANDIDATE WITH AN OVERSEAS EDUCATION BE CONSIDERED FOR THIS POST. THE REASON BEING, HE CAN'T BE TRUSTED NOT TO SCREW THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS OUT OF THE THAI PUBLIC.

 

APPLICATIONS FROM WEALTHY THAIS EDUCATED SOLELY IN THAILAND ARE WELCOME.

 

Bank details to follow.

 

Yeah, the hell he can!

[Bday Prang]

7 hours ago, DjSilver said:

We should all be there, foreigners and expats unite in getting Thailand to a democracy. 

except those of us who do not agree with you

[bradiston]

3 hours ago, bradiston said:

Impossible to prove something will never ever happen, and futile.

 

But look at it another way. Why isn't there then a clause in the requirements section of the Thai civil service qualifications requirements sheet that says:

 

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL A WEALTHY THAI CANDIDATE WITH AN OVERSEAS EDUCATION BE CONSIDERED FOR THIS POST. THE REASON BEING, HE CAN'T BE TRUSTED NOT TO SCREW THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS OUT OF THE THAI PUBLIC.

 

APPLICATIONS FROM WEALTHY THAIS EDUCATED SOLELY IN THAILAND ARE WELCOME.

 

Bank details to follow.

 

Yeah, the hell he can!

Follow up. You're certainly right in some respects though. Borwornsak Uwanno, a co-drafter of the 2017 Constitution, was educated in part in Paris and Nanterre, and boy, did he come back to shaft the Thai public. But he seems to have had a crisis of conscience and is now one of several Thai constitutional lawyers who are saying the vote against Pita's renomination was unconstitutional. Completely out of order, in other words, and just another glaring example of parliamentary bulldozing/strongarm tactics.

[bradiston]

3 hours ago, bradiston said:

Impossible to prove something will never ever happen, and futile.

 

But look at it another way. Why isn't there then a clause in the requirements section of the Thai civil service qualifications requirements sheet that says:

 

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL A WEALTHY THAI CANDIDATE WITH AN OVERSEAS EDUCATION BE CONSIDERED FOR THIS POST. THE REASON BEING, HE CAN'T BE TRUSTED NOT TO SCREW THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS OUT OF THE THAI PUBLIC.

 

APPLICATIONS FROM WEALTHY THAIS EDUCATED SOLELY IN THAILAND ARE WELCOME.

 

Bank details to follow.

 

Yeah, the hell he can!

Apologies for the capitalization. Not meant as shouting.

[PingRoundTheWorld]

On 7/19/2023 at 5:05 PM, MrMojoRisin said:

Thaksin’s time is over - he is no longer the best chance Thailand has of  becoming a just and more equitable society, that mantle now belongs to FF. Pheu Thai may as well change their shirts from Red to Khaki now.

You're a bit quick to dismiss a party that was only slightly less popular in the election results. MFP is riding on the tails of a military government that did everything in it's power (and is still doing) to subdue them - which only aided their popularity - but once the dust settles and there isn't much change (because there won't be) - I'm not sure how popular MFP will continue to be in the future. Making promises is easy - executing and delivering is what will make or break them in the future.

[PingRoundTheWorld]

On 7/19/2023 at 4:48 PM, bradiston said:

Can't see any guarantee PT would have any more success than MFP. It looks more and more like the old guard are going to come back. Bumjaithai, and 5 other parties can muster 184 MPs between them. 249 Senators and they're home and dry. Be prepared for more bad news. I saw Anutin laughing on his way out of parliament. 

I think even Anutin realizes the streets will explode violently if both large parties who clearly won the election are shoved aside in favor of another, now hugely unpopular, military government. I can see Pheu Thai forming a government with Bhumjaithai, but for Bhumjaithai or any of the other dinosaur parties to form the government without the 2 parties who the majority of the people voted for would be a spit in the face of the Thai people that will not pass quietly.

[JensenZ]

On 7/19/2023 at 12:36 PM, MrMojoRisin said:

The best outcome for Future Forward (and Thailand) is for them to move to the opposition benches and let Pheu Thai reveal their true colours by joining with junta lackeys such as Anutin and the Democrats.

 

FF will utterly destroy all these clowns in the next election and will be able to reform Thailand unhindered.

 

Rome wasn’t built in a day. 

You got that right - they have been working on it for 91 years... and now you're suggesting the best outcome is to wait another 4 years. If they ever get it right, most of us won't be around to see it.

[JensenZ]

7 hours ago, placnx said:

S. Korea and Taiwan changed. Why not Thailand?

The answer is not hard. It's impossible to break the military hold on power - they have the guns. I don't think Pita would have achieved that either.

[daejung]

Who nominated the judges of this "supreme court"?

[Tom H]

On 7/19/2023 at 2:19 PM, greg71 said:

itv has been insolvent for many many yrs , these shares cannot be sold or traded , thus why he could not move them 

Well he moved it after the election. You are wrong!

[MrMojoRisin]

8 hours ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:

You're a bit quick to dismiss a party that was only slightly less popular in the election results. MFP is riding on the tails of a military government that did everything in it's power (and is still doing) to subdue them - which only aided their popularity - but once the dust settles and there isn't much change (because there won't be) - I'm not sure how popular MFP will continue to be in the future. Making promises is easy - executing and delivering is what will make or break them in the future.

Look at the trends.

 

Voters are moving further and further to the left. Pheu Thai’s “a foot in each camp” strategy is no longer viable since the establishment of a bonafide left of centre party in Future Forward. The accepted reasoning for PT’s poor showing in the recent election is that they didn’t separate themselves enough from the junta and allowed rumours of a coalition with Prawit to circulate.

 

Demographic change is intensifying. Footage of yesterday’s Save 112 rally showed participants with an average age of about 137. The younger generations will control the outcomes of all upcoming Thai elections. Guess who the kids vote for?

[MrMojoRisin]

8 hours ago, JensenZ said:

You got that right - they have been working on it for 91 years... and now you're suggesting the best outcome is to wait another 4 years. If they ever get it right, most of us won't be around to see it.

Worst case is certain victory in 4 years.

 

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

On 7/20/2023 at 7:50 AM, jacko45k said:

Was that the only option open to him though? Usually politicians put their ill gotten in a wife, sibling or other family member's name..... and even a servant's sometimes.

He claims that he did that. The shares were already transferred, apparently.

 

It's all bogus anyway. As has been pointed out in a number of articles, on March 7, 2007, the Office of the Permanent Secretary notified ITV of the termination of their broadcasting contract and Ultra High-Frequency (UHF) operating agreement. As a result, ITV lost its status as a mass media company.

 

Its shares were also delisted from the Thai stock exchange in 2014 and could no longer be traded. For many years thereafter, in its financial statements, ITV stated it was "a holding company principally engaged in the non-financial business."

 

Then, for some unknown reason that was changed to “television media” in 2022, in what Pita reckons was part of a deliberate attempt to have him disqualified from politics.

 

I must say it does seem strange that a company that had not been involved in broadcasting since 2007 and with no change in its actual status, would suddenly start describing itself as a television media company in 2022.

Edited July 21, 2023 by GroveHillWanderer

[bannork]

2 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

He claims that he did that. The shares were already transferred, apparently.

 

It's all bogus anyway. As has been pointed out in a number of articles, on March 7, 2007, the Office of the Permanent Secretary notified ITV of the termination of their broadcasting contract and Ultra High-Frequency (UHF) operating agreement. As a result, ITV lost its status as a mass media company.

 

Its shares were also delisted from the Thai stock exchange in 2014 and could no longer be traded. For many years thereafter, in its financial statements, ITV stated it was "a holding company principally engaged in the non-financial business."

 

Then, for some unknown reason that was changed to “television media” in 2022, in what Pita reckons was part of a deliberate attempt to have him disqualified from politics.

 

I must say it does seem strange that a company that had not been involved in broadcasting since 2007 and with no change in its actual status, would suddenly start describing itself as a television media company in 2022.

Apart from that his percentage of ITV shares amounted to something like 0.0135%.

An important factor when you consider the EC dismissed a case against a Democrat MP possessing 200 AIS shares on the grounds the number was too low to affect company policy 

[jacko45k]

1 minute ago, bannork said:

Apart from that his percentage of ITV shares amounted to something like 0.0135%.

Wish I had such a percentage of Microsoft, Apple or Google shares.... Is there a value/percent number on MPs not being allowed to own, or is it zero?

[DjSilver]

16 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

except those of us who do not agree with you

Well, I know there are braindead and brainwashed expats, just as there are braindead and brainwashed Thais ????

[GroveHillWanderer]

7 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Wish I had such a percentage of Microsoft, Apple or Google shares.... Is there a value/percent number on MPs not being allowed to own, or is it zero?

The point is that the amount of shares owned does make a difference. As mentioned above, "the EC dismissed a case against a Democrat MP possessing 200 AIS shares on the grounds the number was too low to affect company policy."

[jacko45k]

1 hour ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

The point is that the amount of shares owned does make a difference. As mentioned above, "the EC dismissed a case against a Democrat MP possessing 200 AIS shares on the grounds the number was too low to affect company policy."

Not the question asked!

In this case the number was somewhat higher anyhow....

Edited July 21, 2023 by jacko45k

[Elmirany]

Thailand still not a Democratic Country! People voices were not counted. Military still has control of the country. Therefore it is not a Democratic Country!

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

The point is that the amount of shares owned does make a difference. As mentioned above, "the EC dismissed a case against a Democrat MP possessing 200 AIS shares on the grounds the number was too low to affect company policy."

Equally there was a MP who was disqualified for owning 1 share .

Nobody can be confident how a court will rule.

With regards the AIS shares the EC initially disqualified the candidate , which was overturned by the Supreme Court.

[Bday Prang]

44 minutes ago, DjSilver said:

Well, I know there are braindead and brainwashed expats, just as there are braindead and brainwashed Thais ????

          Indeed there are some and some actually take my breath away.  

By the way have you had any positive responses yet from your un brainwashed like minded "foreigners and expats" to your call for taking to the streets for a bit of  direct action  ? 

           It actually would not surprise me having read some of the posts and comments on here, 

What is it that causes some  people to get so hysterical about the political manoeuvring's and skullduggery in a foreign country ?  None of us have any say in the matter, 

           I can understand some might like to take an interest particularly in so far as how much any of it may actually affect foreigners but that's as far as any of us can take it, even if one could find somebody of "influence" who would listen,  to complain would be at best pointless

           To actually advocate that a gang of foreign, disgruntled, left leaning ,pompous, woke pensioners "take to the streets to demand things are done their way has to be evidence, if not of brain death then certainly of insanity, and to think there could even be a chance of success

"unite in getting Thailand to a democracy. " is further evidence of the same

           To feel the need to force any   political ideology on a sovereign nation of people , who's language you don't understand, Whos political system you dislike, but also don't understand,  who's culture you will never understand,  has to be evidence of some form of brainwashing, 

             I don't mind people throwing insults at me , it demonstrates how bizarrely passionate they feel about something  and its normal , for some, to react like that when challenged

            But to have taken offence on behalf of an entire nation of people, whether they wanted it or not, and to insult any of them who do not agree as  either brainwashed or braindead" as you put it. almost defies explanation  At least I don't have to ask if you're a leftie

              

           

[GroveHillWanderer]

5 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Not the question asked!

In this case the number was somewhat higher anyhow....

No, and I didn't say it was but the question asked does not go to the heart of the issue which apparently (at least if that previous EC ruling is anything to go by) is not how many shares are owned but whether the amount of shares was enough to affect company policy.

[jacko45k]

10 hours ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

No, and I didn't say it was but the question asked does not go to the heart of the issue which apparently (at least if that previous EC ruling is anything to go by) is not how many shares are owned but whether the amount of shares was enough to affect company policy.

Well apparently not, if the company has ceased operations as stated that would not make his holding of 42000 have impact on policy. Usually in legal matters the numbers would be firm, not left to interpretation on every case, as you claim.