Singers immediately started working after Pheu Thai kicked out Palang Pracharath from joining the government. “Ruangkrai” submitted a request to the Election Commission to investigate “Paethongtarn” regarding shareholding and resignation from a private company. Is there a reason to leave the position of Prime Minister according to the constitution or not?
Mr. Ruangkrai Leekitwattana, a member of the Palang Pracharath Party, sent a letter via EMS to request the Election Commission (EC) to investigate Ms. Paethongtarn Shinawatra, the Prime Minister, whether she had actually resigned from the board of directors of various companies on August 15, 2024 or not. Why was the directorship registered on August 19, 2024 after being appointed Prime Minister on August 16, 2024? And will this case be considered a reason for the Prime Minister’s ministerial status to end specifically according to the Constitution, Section 170 (5) in conjunction with Section 187 or not? The letter contains the following points:
Article 1.
On August 26, 2024, the Isra News website, under the topic ‘Paethongtarn’ resigns from the board of directors of 21 companies – ‘Alpine’ too, after ‘Settha’ left for only one day, published news with photos, with some of the news content as follows:
“PM ‘Ung Ing – Paethongtarn’ resigns from the board of directors of 21 Shinawatra Group companies, including the Alpine golf course. Found a power of attorney on August 15, 2024, sent subordinates to register the Department of Development on August 19, after the Constitutional Court ruled that ‘Settha Thavisin’ was out of office in the ‘Phichit’ appointment case on August 14, just one day,
Ms. Paethongtarn Shinawatra or ‘Ung Ing’, who was appointed Prime Minister of Thailand on August 18, 2024 (the 31st Prime Minister, the second female Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s House) and leader of the Pheu Thai Party. The youngest daughter of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and wealthy Thai businesswoman Khunying Potjaman Damapong, has a business background a
s a director of 23 registered companies in Thailand. Of these, 2 have ceased operations and 21 are still in operation, with a shareholding value of almost 10 billion baht, as previously reported by Isranews (www.isranews.org). Recently, Isranews has
discovered that the said companies have authorized at least 3 individuals to resign from the 21 directorships of Ms. Paethongtarn. Here are some examples…’ (Example images of documents from the 4 companies are attached)
2. From the sample images of the documents of 4 companies that Isranews Agency attached to the news, it is worth noting that the company registration application (Form BorChor.1) was received on 19 August 2024, but at the end of the form it says, ‘I hereby certify that the applicant for registration has signed in my presence on 15 August 2024. Signed, Associate Member of the Council of Legal Education.’ The application was signed by Ms. Pinthongtha Shinawatra Kunakornwong and Mr. Udomsak Ngowsiri as authorized directors. The company registration
certificate, dated 19 August 2024 (2), states that ‘Ms. Paethongtarn Shinawatra’s resignation letter from the position of director has been issued, dated 15 August 2024, effective from 15 August 2024. The company received it on 15 August 2024. The company’s power of attorney was dated 15 August 2024, but the stamp duty was paid on 19 August 2024.
Article 3. From the Pheu Thai Party’s Facebook page on August 15, 2024 at 5:30 p.m., it states that “The Pheu Thai Party has resolved to nominate Ms. Paethongtarn Shinawatra as the 31st Prime Minister of Thailand because the people’s livelihoods cannot wait. We are ready to continue the policies we have given to the people.”
4. According to the news from Isra News Agency and the Pheu Thai Party Facebook page, there is reason to suspect that Ms. Paethongtarn Shinawatra resigned from the board of directors of various companies on August 15, 2024 or not. And if there was a power of attorney on August 15, 2024, why did she not register on August 16, 2024, which was a F
riday? And why did she register on August 19, 2024, which was another 4 days away? There is reason to suspect. This is compared to the case where Mr. Thaksin Shinawatra, the first defendant, as the Prime Minister, once argued with the NACC board in the Constitutional Court ruling no. 20/2001.
Section 5. According to the Constitutional Court’s ruling No. 20/2544, Mr. Thaksin Shinawatra, the first defendant, as the Prime Minister, objected in Section 3.3 as follows: ‘The petitioner’s resolution that the defendant intentionally submitted the account with false information or concealed facts that should have been disclosed is an unlawful resolution because there was a person who had left the position of NACC member, namely Khunying Priya, who had acted in violation of the Constitution, Section 297, paragraph three, in conjunction with Section 258, paragraph two, and the Organic Act on the Prevention and Suppression of Corruption B.E. 2542, Section 11, paragraph two, in conjunction with Section 11, paragraph one
(3), by holding the position of director of Wong-Amorn Company Limited, director and accounting employee of Kasemwanaram Company Limited, and still holding the position and being an employee on the date of election. And after the date of royal appointment as a member of the NACC until the day of resignation from the NACC, for the position as a member of the Wong-Amorn Company, she just resigned on January 8, 2001, claiming that she forgot to resign. Khunying Priya’s position as a member of the NACC is therefore unconstitutional and the Organic Law. The petitioner knew the reason why Khunying Priya had to leave her position before the petitioner made a resolution in her case on December 26, 2000 because on that day, people submitted a letter to the NACC Chairman informing her of Khunying Priya’s position as a member of the NACC and employee. The result of Khunying Priya being considered to have left her position as a member of the NACC, regardless of whether she was considered to have never been appointed as a
member of the NACC from the beginning or was dismissed from her position later, would make the petitioner’s resolution, in which Khunying Priya attended the meeting or took part in the action or expressed her opinion, invalid. The petitioner’s resolution on December 26, 2000, in which Khunying Priya was the person who reported the investigation results and attended the meeting. As a result, the petitioner resolved that the defendant intentionally submitted the account with false information or concealed facts that should have been disclosed. Therefore, it was an unlawful resolution. The petitioner therefore had no power to file a petition for the Constitutional Court to consider and rule on the defendant’s case.’
Section 6. Therefore, the resignation from the board of directors of various companies by Ms. Paethongtarn Shinawatra on 15 August 2024 but registered on 19 August 2024, there is reason to investigate the actual date of resignation, whether the documents were made retroactively or not. If upon inves
tigation of the facts it is found that the resignation occurred after 16 August 2024, will this result in the termination of the Prime Minister’s status as a minister in accordance with Section 170 (5) of the Constitution in conjunction with Section 187 or not?
Mr. Ruangkrai said that at present, additional evidence is still being collected, waiting for relevant government agencies to send information, which will be examined and sent to the Election Commission for consideration.-
Source: Thai News Agency