“Ruangkrai” urged the ECT to investigate “Pita” after the news of the sale of ITV shares, pointing out that he was not acquitted. pretending to be the leader of the party but does not disclose information

Ruangkrai Leekitwatana, member of Palang Pracharat Party Came to provide information to the Election Commission (ECT) for the seventh time in the case of Mr. Phitha Limcharoenrat Kao Klai Party’s prime ministerial candidate holds ITV shares By revealing that now there are opinions about this matter in various directions, some are true, some are not, some deviate from the law. which is an opinion that he does not say anything But I think that it will not go into the rhetoric of the Election Commission very much. But from following up, it was found that there was talk that ITV was completely out of business or not. In this regard, ITV has a 30-year contract with the Office of the Permanent Secretary (PMO) from July. 1995, it was later terminated in 2007, so ITV filed a lawsuit for arbitration. In the first tier, ITV lost.

Then petitioned for the second time and the arbitrator ruled that the termination of the contract of TCEB is unlawful Causing the TCEB to file a lawsuit with the Administrative Court to terminate the arbitral award. Because the TCEB considers that the arbitration receiving a double indictment with the first case that has already been judged therefore requesting to revoke The Administrative Court ruled that the arbitrator The 2nd arbitration is legal. And the Administrative Court has no power to revoke at the request of the TCEB. However, when the court dismissed such judgment Subsequently, the TCEB appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. and is under consideration He therefore brought the information to the Election Commission of Thailand for consideration.

“Mr. Phitha gave an interview to the media at the Pride month event where he was asked whether the shares had been sold or not. But Mr. Phitha did not answer the question. Therefore, it is necessary to add a request to the Election Commission to investigate this issue whether Mr. Phitha has sold his shares or not. In addition, Mr. Phitha gave an interview on one program that In the worst case, it may be out of the MP. But the prime minister’s account remains. Including on June 5, Mr. Phitha told the media that the secretary of the party had given information. which I think should not answer like that It should clearly state whether it is sold or not yet sold. Because the right to sell shares When Mr. Phitha has been a shareholder of ITV for 16 years, the evidence clearly shows that it cannot be changed. and held it for sure beyond the date of application for election Because the list of shareholders appeared on April 16, 2023, but the application date for district MPs and party-list MPs is April 3-7, ”said Ruangkrai.

Mr. Ruangkrai said he asked the Election Commission to investigate the transfer of shares that occurred afterwards. which he did not know the purpose because it would not damage the application for membership of the House of Representatives or acceptance as the prime minister’s account because once filed there are prohibited characteristics If the court decides that Mr. Phitha holds media shares Mr. Phitha will also lose the right to be a member of parliament and a member of the Prime Minister’s account as well. This is in accordance with Section 14 of the Organic Act on Elections, which states that if there are prohibited characteristics or there is no letter of consent, it shall be deemed that there is no nomination. Therefore, it is the duty of the Election Commission of Thailand to inquire about Mr. Phitha’s sale of shares. If trading, a copy of the transfer of shares must be sent. According to the Public Limited Companies Act 1992, Chapter 5 on Shareholders, it is clear that the transfer of shares must be notified within 7-14 days. If not notified, it will be considered that the shares are not transferred. Therefore, it is assumed that it should have been transferred. and should be transferred after he sang from May 10 in the past and gave a statement to the Election Commission on May 29

“Probably sold during this period. While the company must notify whether it is a transfer by instrument stock certificate endorsed or request for the issuance of new share certificates write it all therefore requesting Mr. Phitha Request information to be disclosed to the press If you haven’t transferred yet, answer that you haven’t transferred yet. If you transfer, ask to show evidence that it has been transferred. and notified to ITV Company I say this because the Progressive Party website always emphasizes on your word of open data that I have called for. as the leader of the party But why not reveal your personal information? Why would the Election Commission accept my petition and ask? Then what is the intention of selling it? I wouldn’t be late But if you think that it will be transferred back to the prime minister’s account as I like, I think it probably isn’t. Because it is in accordance with the law, ”said Mr. Ruangkrai.

Reporters reported that while Mr. Ruangkrai Giving an interview, it appears that Mr. Pattarapong Supaksorn or Attorney Un Buriram also stood and listened to the interview. Causing Mr. Ruangkrai to give an interview with a worried expression and be cautious of himself. before the end of the interview quickly without allowing the media to ask questions As the lawyer hurriedly tried to approach Mr. Ruangkrai and shouted, “Have you read the judgment of the Supreme Court? Are you from Buriram?” But Mr. Ruangkrai did not face the grass. and went to submit a letter to the Election Commission of Thailand

Then Mr. Pattarapong and Mr. Weerawit Rungruang Siripol or Uncle Sak Filed a letter with the Election Commission of Thailand opposing Mr. Ruangkrai’s petition. Including other people who submitted a request to the Election Commission to examine Mr. Phitha’s ITV shareholding. seeing that this matter is nothing complicated It is related to the Constitution, Section 98 (3) and the Election Act, Section 42 (3), only whether to sell or not to sell shares, no problem. The intent of the law to prohibit candidates from holding media shares Because they don’t want to see candidates using their own media to advertise. create advantages and disadvantages against competitors

Both sections are laws that limit the rights and liberties. We have to look at social norms. which has just received a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mr. Chanchai Freelance Senarak Democrat Party MP candidate Nakhon Nayok, whose facts are more likely to be wrong than Mr. Phitha because the media business in which Mr. Chanchai holds shares is still operating But ITV has stopped broadcasting since 2008 and the proportion of ITV shares held by Mr. Phitha is small. compared to the total number of ITV shares available. which made him unable to give any command to the media to help campaign for him and ITV has ceased operations.

The fact that Mr. Rueangkrai or anyone who came to sing Most of them are the same faces which the society has already labeled themselves as nonsense singers. And he knows how society sees itself. But there is a motive for singing and speaking because it is a game of political power that wants to obstruct It is hoped that the Election Commission will reject the petition of Mr. Ruangkrai and others who have filed a complaint about Phitha’s shareholding. Like the petition rejected by Mr. Srisuwan Janya, president of the Association for the Protection of the Thai Constitution, when requesting the Pheu Thai Party’s 10,000-baht digital wallet campaign policy. Who came to submit an objection to the petition of Mr. Srisuwan and the Election Commission of Thailand was rejected as filed.-Thai News Agency

Source: Thai News Agency