Thanathorn found guilty of violating electoral law
KARNT THASSANAPHAK / Shutterstock.com
Party leader Thanathorn of the Future Forward party was found guilty of violating the electoral law by the Constitutional Court yesterday. He must now give up his parliamentary seat. The conviction stems from the fact that when he registered as a member of parliament, he still owned shares in a media company, which is prohibited.
Thanathorn himself says that he had transferred the shares to his mother before that time, but that defense did not convince the Court. The share transfer was registered too late with the Business Development Department and was therefore in violation.
Thanathorn himself remains combative and informs his constituents that the court's verdict will not lead to the dissolution of the party.
Thanathorn's conviction will be celebrated as a victory for the conservative forces in Thailand. The FFP is a new party that managed to win over 5,3 million voters, especially young Thais. The party takes on the elite and dares to stick its neck out by, for example, putting forward proposals to cut back on defense. This angers the current rulers who see the FFP as a threat.
Source: Bangkok Post
Thanathorn has said he would prefer no demonstrations for support. He wants to run politics in parliament.
Incidentally, there are 25 other charges against Thanathorn and the Future Forward Party. He has now lost his parliamentary seat to be taken by another member of the party, but he or his party may still face further convictions. This can range from a party ban to imprisonment.
Social media is full of outrage at this statement.
Thanthorn has not been able to prove that he transferred the shares. However, it has not been proven that he was too late... guilty because innocence has not been proven?
“The court ruled 7-2 that Thanathorn had failed to prove he'd signed over his shares in V Luck before he registered to run in the March election, contrary to the law. ”
Source: https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30378561
Registering share changes only needs to be done once a year (but more often is also allowed, so yes, not so handy that he didn't do that with a target on his back, but legally speaking he was not wrong).
Maarja Thanathorn is therefore a man who is not loved by the junta. The actions of the Electoral Council and the court are dubious.
Which junta are you talking about? I live in Thailand and there is no junta (more) in 2019.
Okay then, the 'former junta' with the same old generals and similar figures in power after having held a dubious referendum on the constitution, hand-selected Electoral Council and a non-independent judiciary. Not very democratic in my view. The run-up to and the elections themselves did not proceed according to international standards. And there is a lot wrong with Thai justice. Maybe you think differently.
You forget all those new rulers who were all members of the Pheu Thai, Thaksin's party, not so long ago. Open your eyes and don't see (old) army uniforms everywhere.
This is what Thanathorn can expect:
Section 151 stipulates that those who apply to be MPs despite realizing that they fail to qualify under the law could face a jail term of up to 10 years, a fine of between 20,000 and 200,000 baht, and also may have their voting rights suspended for 20 years.
Electoral Council Secretary General Jarungvith Phumma
His defense that he had transferred the shares to his mother in time did not convince the Court - nor that the company produced innocent business magazines and had since been dissolved. The only thing that mattered was that the share transfer was only later (too late) registered with the Business Development Department. The registration of the transfer of shares takes place much later than the transfer itself. The Court followed the letter but not the spirit of the law. That is common in Thailand.
The most common hashtags now are:
#RIPThailand and #StandWithThanathorn
Thanathorn is today campaigning in Bangkok for the proposal to abolish conscription.
In short, power will always remain in the hands of those who think they have leased it for now and the future.
If someone is going to become too popular so that power threatens to shift, a possibility of cooling down is immediately sought.
To ensure that someone is really deprived of power in the future, help, flee abroad, or in the latter case an almost certain 20-year ban from further political functions.
Why democracy and fair justice?
With his claim that he clearly wanted to save on defense costs, and preferably also wanted to abolish conscription, he was of course a thorn in the side of the conservative power in Thailand.
It is almost obvious that people will look for and find something in such a person.
I therefore suspect that it is not only about the person Thanathorn, but about his entire party.
Nothing but the start of a procedure to suppress this political direction in the near future.
Ideas cannot be suppressed if they are supported by more than 5 million voters. That's only temporary (and stupid).
What stupid things can they do there in Thailand? Terrible. Time and time again, don't think, just act first. Thanathorn should have foreseen that he would get into trouble because of his share ownership. He should have gotten rid of it much earlier, because when he deployed his party to participate in the elections, wasn't his intention to win and take a seat in parliament? Doesn't a party like his have legal advisors among its ranks? Have they been sleeping? This whole affair is just as stupid as when the princess in question was put forward, or the continued reliance on exiles. Anyway, let's hope that “people” in Thailand learn from this. But I have a hard time about that. It's all really a shame. Many missed opportunities for innovation and modernization/democratization.
And meanwhile, the investigations into dozens of other MPs, who are accused of similar "alleged negligence", are not progressing at all.
“People” expect the judiciary to administer justice and bend over backwards to target citizens selectively.
It's a bit different. These PPRP MPs are accused of holding shares in companies which, given the description of their possible activities, could also publish media. Those companies do not do that, but the description of their possible activities is very broad, just as is very common in the articles of association of Dutch BVs. The question now is whether they violate the Electoral Act.
Yes Chris, according to the Electoral Council that is a violation. Phubet Henlot (Future Forward) has been removed for exactly that reason: shares in a company that did something technical, but on paper as 1 out of about 50 (I say from memory) could also do 'something with media'.
All nice and nice commotion to the letter of the law Chris, but the fact remains that the investigations into alleged facts of FFPers are going like a train and those into MPs of other parties are getting nowhere.
That in itself is already crooked, regardless of any substantive consideration.
The Thanatorn case was the first in a row. The others, which represent the interests of the PPRP MPs, are still pending as they were also later brought before the FFP after Thanatorn was indicted. So you speak out of turn.
@ Chris: Do you really believe that the military rulers, disguised or not in civilian suits, will allow one judge to convict an MP from the ruling parties and thus weaken the government's fragile parliamentary base?
Judges may only take actions that weaken the opposition.
Logic TiT
Yeah, I don't think so but I'm sure.
And I have good reasons for that.
Correction: "NOT warped".
I have read a few comments (in English) about this lawsuit. Not so much all the outrage (and possible consequences) but stories about the judgment of the judges.
If I understood it all correctly:
– Thanatorn has previously sold shares in his company and always reported this sale by email the next day, with the exception of the last time;
– he cashed the checks of all these sales within 30 days. He waited more than 3 months for the last sale (he says his wife does the finances and was late because she had just had a baby);
– his BV has not been dissolved (as he reported) which there is no record of a shareholders' meeting in which this has been decided. Ergo: the BV is dormant and can be reactivated any day.
I am an admirer of Thanatorn and the ideas of the FFP (before commenters wrongly accuse me of collaborating with the ultra-nationalists), but it seems that this time he is – in the words of Maxima – a was a bit stupid. And he must also know that you will be followed with suspicion in this country if you stick your head above the parapet. Whether your name is Thanatorn, Thaksin or Prawit.
'..a little dumb….'
Thanathorn owned stock in a small media company that produced magazines for other companies. That company was already closed in November 2018, see the English-language The Nation
V Luck Media is not a media, as the company had shut operations since November 26, 2018, well before the March general election. The company had no income, except unpaid dues, which was not for the company's product or service.The only income V Luck Media earned in 2019 was from selling properties to close the business. In conclusion, V Luck Media did not qualify as a media company as it was no longer in operation, had no employee, product, or service.
https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30378410
The judges ruled according to the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. Everything indicates that Thanathorn no longer had any influence in any media company, and that is the spirit of the law. Barbertje had to hang.
in short: the company was not liquidated (approved by the shareholders' meeting) but retired. The company even had revenue in 2019.
Not so interesting in this case what the Nation thinks, but the judge.
Just keep an eye on this, chris. Transfer of media shares 6 months after the elections by a member of parliament of the governing party.
FWP (Future Forward Party) asks EC (Election Commission) to probe PPRP (Phalang Pracharat Party, ruling party) MP, applying the same standard as with Thanathorn. Wathanya submitted media share transfer papers 6 mos after election.
Note: Wathanya is common law wife of exec of Nation Group which has been heavily attacking Thanathorn & co.
case 1.
A woman who has been abused by her husband for 20 years puts poison in his daily beer for several months. The man falls ill and dies. Although she has told others about her actions, the woman insists in court that she is innocent. However, the evidence against her is compelling. She receives the maximum prison sentence of 20 years. (the letter of the law)
case 2
A woman who has been abused by her husband for 20 years puts poison in his daily beer for several months. The man falls ill and dies. She told her actions to others and also makes no secret in court that she put poison in his beer. She is guilty, she says, but asks the judge to understand her situation of domestic violence. This is also confirmed by witnesses. The judge sentences her, given the circumstances, to 2 years in prison. (the spirit of the law).
Is the woman in case 1 now the barber that has to hang?
I agree with both judges, that's how I would do it. The judiciary in the Netherlands is independent.
In the case of Thanathorn (and other charges), there is political influence at all levels, from the Electoral Council to the Court.
Have you read about the oath the ministers took before the king? That oath is clearly defined in the Constitution 1 Loyalty to the King and fulfillment of duties 2 Respect and follow the Constitution. The ministers dropped number two, and the Constitutional Court exonerated them: not our cup of tea, they said.
In this country, a prime minister once had to resign because he fried an egg on TV. Thanathorn should have known better and strictly followed the rules.
Thanathorn has adhered to the rules, for example, official reporting of trade transactions is not mandatory. Once an annual official report is sufficient and he has done that. However, he cannot officially prove that he transferred the shares in time despite various unofficial evidence (transfer papers, some witnesses, etc.). Because his innocence is not 100% proven, he is guilty…
Future Forward has now asked the Electoral Council to investigate Phalang Pracharat MP Watanya. Her husband is the owner of Nation Multimedia (readers here are familiar with the newspaper). She is said to have relinquished her shares in this media company in a timely manner, but the registration was only officially registered in September of this year, months after the elections. If this registration serves as the benchmark and not the date on which the shares were actually transferred, then the Phalang Pracharat MP is also in violation exactly like Thanathorn.
The Nation has also issued a statement that they will file a lawsuit against Future Forwards MP Pannika.
Although it must be said, The Nation also has a nice piece in another piece about Asean lawmakers who strongly reject the decision regarding Thanathorn by the Constitutional Court as unjust.
- https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/politics/1800009/future-forward-takes-aim-at-watanyas-media-shareholding
- https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30378485?utm_source=category&utm_medium=internal_referral
- https://www.nationthailand.com/news/30378587?utm_source=category&utm_medium=internal_referral
I think that the Future Forward Party should not do this kind of thing itself. The PPRP does not do that either (mar gratefully uses a so-called activist) to stay out of the wind. I cannot imagine that the FFP cannot interest a dozen law students at a Thai university to continuously monitor political opponents and, if necessary, to file a complaint with the appropriate authorities.