THURSDAY, March 28, 2024
nationthailand

It’s a tightrope for Thanathorn … and everyone

It’s a tightrope for Thanathorn … and everyone

Attempting to disqualify a fast-rising star from political office for a minor oversight, or through fault-finding or even straightforward persecution, is an outrage. The same star landing in legal trouble because of a falsified document is another matter entirely.

Which is why the evolution of the shares saga involving Future Forward leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit is crucial to him, to his attempts to form a post-election government and to Thailand as a whole. He and his supporters will be hoping for the first scenario, or a lenient ruling by election authorities that will confirm his status as a member of Parliament, and dreading the second one, which would badly complicate matters and downgrade his off-the-chart political rating.
Thanathorn’s fate is finely balanced between two poles. On one side we have a high-profile victim being targeted because of an election landslide, unorthodox political ideology and a position to drive that ideology forward. On the other is a label that makes him “no different from the others”, someone ready to do whatever it takes, even if it’s illegal, to get what he wants.
The controversy is being magnified by media scrutiny, with the spotlight fixed firmly on the character of both Thanathorn and that of his accusers. The latter have been branded nitpickers and worse, but doubts have also grown about a document Thanathorn has cited in his defence.
The Future Forward leader was initially accused of registering for the election while still holding shares in a media company, an action prohibited by the Constitution and penalised with disqualification. In response, he wielded the now-contentious document, which showed that he transferred his shares to his mother weeks before the registration period. That document has been intensely scrutinised, along with the share-holding structure of the V-Luck Media Company and the revolving-door situation of shareholders.
Thanathorn was right in saying that what V-Luck Media did after he had transferred his shares did not concern him. What he himself did, however, was undoubtedly critical. Initially, the focus was on whether the “transfer” took effect on the day the document was signed by him, his mother, and witnesses (January 8) or on the day the authorities were informed. But then more questions emerged, elevating the document’s significance even further.
Was Thanathorn in fact in Buri Ram, as claimed, on the day the document was “signed”? He said he received a cheque from his mother for the transferred shares, so when did he cash or deposit the cheque? He insists that his wife also transferred her shares to his mother, so how did she pay her? Is there evidence of a cheque and where it ended up? Simply put, is the share transfer document genuine?
Those questions and more are still hanging in the air. So far Thanathorn has only responded to the Buri Ram query, though his “That’s your misunderstanding” reply to reporters came without elaboration. He deserves the benefit of the doubt, but that doubt merits further investigation.
The saga takes on added moral and ethical significance when considered from the general public’s viewpoint. To make it more difficult, Thanathorn is facing separate charges stemming from his political beliefs. These legal charges may hide a political motive, so it’s imperative that they are treated separately from the shares controversy, for everyone’s sake.
If Thai history teaches us anything, it is to tread carefully in such matters. One of our darkest days materialised long before the polarising fever brought on by a 24-hour news cycle and the social media. The October 6, 1976 massacre took place when the mainstream media consisted of just a handful of newspapers and TV stations. 
The jury is still out on Thanathorn, so it’s best for everyone to stay put. Are his critics wrong? Or is he? Or are both? Should he fight fire with fire? Can two wrongs make a right? The questions have been made more difficult with his party’s stunning election success, but the poll triumph should not cloud anybody’s judgement here.
Thanathorn was presumably referring to political persecution when he told supporters at the weekend that they were not fighting for him, but against legal injustice as a whole. That assumption had better be right, since the share issue is certainly not political. It’s purely legal. Most important of all, it concerns the man’s character.
Most politicians will try to rally the public to their side when facing serious accusations, but there are times when one needs to fight alone to defend his or her dignity. The public, meanwhile, have the right to fight for justice. But, again, there are times when they should simply wait and see.

RELATED
nationthailand