Thanathorn share controversy is a tempest in a teacup
I don’t see what the fuss is over Future Forward Party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit’s ownership of shares in a media company. The law clearly forbids such ownership by a candidate seeking to be a member of Parliament, so the question is, was he an owner when he applied or not?
How does the law determine ownership: from the time the documents were received by the authorities, or from the time that the transfer documents were signed in the presence of witnesses, if required? If the former, then the date and time can be clearly verified. But if the latter, we must remember that the burden of proof is on the accuser – not the accused. So, can the accuser prove that when Thanathorn submitted his application, he hadn’t legally transferred the shares in question? If so, let him submit his proof for consideration by the Election Commission. Thanathorn has no legal obligation to prove that the documents were signed within the time limit – though his willingness to let his cellphone records be examined speaks volumes about his confidence that he’s within the law.
Either way, the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
Burin Kantabutra
