Jump to content

Thai PM Faces Legal Scrutiny Over Delayed Divestment of Golf Club Shares


webfact

Recommended Posts


Paetongtarn’s anti-graft lawsuit over 30% stake rocks government
by Puntid Tantivangphaisal

 

Screenshot-2024-10-02-094037-1.webp
Photo courtesy of The Nation


In a fresh scandal targeting Thailand Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, political firebrand Ruangkrai Leekitwattana has filed a complaint with the Election Commission (EC), accusing her of violating anti-graft laws by holding a significant company stake post-election.

 

Ruangkrai claimed that Paetongtarn retained a 30% stake in Alpine Golf and Sports Club after being appointed PM in August.

 

According to Ruangkrai, the premier transferred the shares to her mother, Khunying Pojaman Damapong, on September 3 but only registered the transfer a day later. He argues this is a direct breach of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) Act, which prohibits Cabinet members from holding more than 5% of shares in any company.

Despite suggestions of a 15-day grace period, Ruangkrai was adamant.


“The law is clear. No allowances are made for a transitional period.”

 

The complaint also digs deeper, linking Paetongtarn’s involvement with Alpine Golf and Sports Club to an earlier controversy. The Supreme Administrative Court previously ruled that the temple land on which the club is built was unlawfully sold to the company. This, according to Ruangkrai, adds to the ethical concerns surrounding the premier’s conduct.

 

Ruangkrai, a Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP) member, has become known for his high-profile petitions and legal manoeuvres. While critics see his actions as part of a proxy war between PPRP leader Prawit Wongsuwan and the ruling Pheu Thai Party, the accusations have sparked widespread political debate.

 

Adding fuel to the fire, Ruangkrai had earlier filed another complaint, claiming the 38 year old Thai premier violated the Constitution by making a mini heart gesture while wearing her government uniform, reported The Nation.


ORIGINAL STORY: Activist questions Paetongtarn’s resignation from family firms

 

Political activist Ruangkrai Leekitwattana has pressed the Election Commission (EC) to investigate whether Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra properly resigned from executive positions in 20 family-owned companies before her election.

 

Ruangkrai questioned if Paetongtarn adhered to the Department of Business Development’s procedures when stepping down from roles in firms associated with her family.

 

Failure to resign appropriately would violate Section 187 of the constitution, which prohibits ministers from holding over 5% of shares in a commercial firm or being employed by a private company.

 

Ruangkrai also examined Deputy Interior Minister Sabida Thaised’s resignation from her executive post and shareholdings in a private firm following her appointment. He noted that Sabida, daughter of former Deputy Interior Minister Chada Thaised, appeared to have complied with the stipulated procedures, raising further questions about Paetongtarn’s case.

 

Ruangkrai emphasised he was merely exercising his rights under Sections 41 and 50 of the constitution and respected the decisions made by independent public agencies.

 

Last month, Ruangkrai petitioned the poll agency to investigate the prime minister’s status, questioning the date of the 38 year old PM’s resignation from the family companies.

 

Paetongtarn was elected prime minister by the House of Representatives on August 16, succeeding Srettha Thavisin, who was dismissed from office by the Constitutional Court.


In his petition, Ruangkrai asked the EC whether Paetongtarn had resigned from all executive roles in the family’s companies by August 15, and why those resignations were registered on August 19, three days post-election.

 

Ruangkrai claimed Paetongtarn authorised a close aide to handle the resignation documents on August 15, just a day after the Constitutional Court dismissed Srettha from office. The documents were submitted to the Department of Business Development on August 19, reported Bangkok Post.

 

“Paetongtarn gave her aide the authority to do this just one day after the Constitutional Court ruled to dismiss Srettha from office.”

 

Source: The Thaiger 

-- 2024-10-02

 

news-footer-2.png

 

image.png

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, khaowong1 said:

Ruangkrai Leekitwattana, does this guy have nothing better to do?  If I was the PM, I would probably have him whacked.  Just saying.  

 

 

 

I think it’s likely he is just a front man.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, khaowong1 said:

Ruangkrai Leekitwattana, does this guy have nothing better to do?  If I was the PM, I would probably have him whacked.  Just saying.  

 

He's trying to keep them honest. Ultimately A worthy activity. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/2/2024 at 7:49 AM, Gottfrid said:

The guy is totally sucked in and hooked on Paetongtarn. I believe she did what she should, and a couple of days should not need to be talked about.

 

Even a few hours late, because he was stuck in traffic, got Thanathorn banned. So why should this Thaksin puppet be let off the hook>

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

Even a few hours late, because he was stuck in traffic, got Thanathorn banned. So why should this Thaksin puppet be let off the hook>

No, of course nobody should be let off the hook. But this man is a serial petitioner. That Thanatorn was banned, is also something that shouldn´t have been happening. To continue with this nit picking witch hunt is very silly, though. What they need is to look on the big picture. I am pretty sure they can find something more relevant to focus on that can be used to remove unwanted persons.

What is needed is to let a couple of days or a week late be, and let the ones in charge now, do their thing, see the result and let the voters choice remain to form government next time, without any other parties trying to derail the democratic order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

No, of course nobody should be let off the hook. But this man is a serial petitioner. That Thanatorn was banned, is also something that shouldn´t have been happening. To continue with this nit picking witch hunt is very silly, though. What they need is to look on the big picture. I am pretty sure they can find something more relevant to focus on that can be used to remove unwanted persons.

What is needed is to let a couple of days or a week late be, and let the ones in charge now, do their thing, see the result and let the voters choice remain to form government next time, without any other parties trying to derail the democratic order.

Yeah, make it a rule that a couple of weeks late is OK, then after 12 months add another '2 weeks late after the first 2 weeks late is OK (total 4 weeks).

 

But if that happens there's thousands of items with deadline dates, they should all get a 2 weeks late is OK allowance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, scorecard said:

Yeah, make it a rule that a couple of weeks late is OK, then after 12 months add another '2 weeks late after the first 2 weeks late is OK (total 4 weeks).

 

But if that happens there's thousands of items with deadline dates, they should all get a 2 weeks late is OK allowance. 

No, maybe not, but the circus has to stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   1 member









×
×
  • Create New...