“Ruangkrai” requests a repeat of the investigation into “Paethongtarn’s” resignation from the board of directors of 20 companies.

“Ruangkrai” filed a repeat complaint to investigate the issue of “Paethongtarn” resigning from the board of 20 companies, violating the law, clearly comparing the case of “Sabida” signing documents, calling an extraordinary shareholders’ meeting, making it clear which is right and which is wrong.

Mr. Ruangkrai Leekijwattana submitted a letter to the chairman of the EC to investigate the resignation of Ms. Paethongtarn Shinawatra, the Prime Minister, from the board of 20 companies, comparable to the resignation of Ms. Sabida Thaiset, the Deputy Minister of Interior. Mr. Ruangkrai said that according to Section 187 of the Constitution, it is prohibited for ministers, including the Prime Minister, to hold more than 5 percent of shares or be an employee of any person. The condition for holding 5 percent of shares is that it must comply with the Act on the Management of Shares and Ministerial Shares B.E. 2543. This means that if it exceeds 5 percent and you want to hold it, you must notify the National Anti-Corruption Commission and find a financial and securities company to manage it. The NACC website has details on many cases, such as the case of Mr. Anutin Charnvirakul.

But in this case, it can be seen that the resignation from the director and shareholder of Nong Mamong Sand Port Company Limited of Ms. Sabida, it can be seen that there was a written request and signed documents by Ms. Sabida and Mr. Paphon Chobsri to submit a registration request, Form Bor Chor 1, but if compared to the case of Ms. Paetongtarn, who did not sign anything, so what is right, what is wrong, we have to look at the website of the Department of Business Development, which concludes that in the case of a director resigning, a notification must be made, while the director can submit a resignation letter according to the law that Mr. Thaksin Shinawatra had amended in 2006, with the registration process being done in 2 ways: when a director resigns, the company must hold 2 meetings, type 1, call a meeting of the board of directors, type 2, call an extraordinary shareholders’ meeting, in which Ms. Sabida called an extraordinary shareholders’ meeting on September 2, 2024, and then on September 3, 2024,
she came to register and sign almost every page of the document, which is in accordance with the Department of Business Development, summarized from the Civil and Commercial Code, section on directors, which has about 20 sections.

Mr. Ruangkrai said that therefore he came to reiterate his request for the EC to re-examine the case of Ms. Paethongtarn to see whether the resignation from the board of directors was registered in accordance with the law and the procedures specified by the Department of Business Development. At the end of the document, Section 1 clearly states and warns that anyone who gives false information to an official is guilty under Sections 137, 267, and 268 of the Criminal Code. Section 2 The registrar may revoke the registration if it is found that the essential information provided by the registrant is incorrect or false.

‘That means if Ms. Sabida’s registration request is correct, compared to Ms. Paethongtarn’s, is it correct or not? The EC must ask the registrar of partnerships. If it is not correct, it must be revoked. And if it is revoked, is the status of a director still valid today? If the status of a director of all 20 companies is still valid, they will be sold as employees according to Section 187 of the Constitution. Therefore, it is up to the EC to quickly investigate and take action or not. According to the law, the judicial process has a time limit. Today, I think the information should be sufficient for you to quickly conclude. You can set up a subcommittee or an investigation committee or whatever. But one thing that must be done is to ask the Department of Business Development, according to the copy that I sent earlier, more than a hundred pages, and Ms. Sabida’s to confirm. I think mine is complete. Whether to edit out false information or not, you have to confirm that and continue to investigate,’ said Mr. R
uangkrai.

When asked about the amendment after that, Mr. Ruangkrai said that the amendment after the news, that means from the day he became the prime minister on August 16, 2024 until the day of the amendment, he was considered a director. What can be done? Even if it is only one day, it is wrong. In the past, was there a shareholder meeting or a board meeting? The Pheu Thai Party’s legal team is very good. There are hundreds of MPs, many of whom graduated in law. In addition to praising each other in the parliament, go read the law. I am only talking about the board section. If the process of registering on August 15 and then registering on August 19 is not in accordance with the legal process, they wrote below that the registrar should revoke it. If it is checked, it means that from August 16 to September 23, he was a director of 20 companies. Then, he will be exempt from Section 187 of the constitution. It cannot be said that it is an additional submission because an additional submission means that there is a defi
ciency, such as the case of Ms. Sabida signing a document with Mr. Paphan but signing in another box. This is considered a mistake. It is not important and does not need to be amended. But if there is no invitation letter for the meeting There was no board meeting and no documents were signed. In 20 companies, there was no signature of Ms. Paethongtarn, but Ms. Sabida signed every page. This is where you have to ask what is right and what is wrong. Go fix it.

Mr. Ruangkrai continued that he filed a complaint according to his rights in Section 41 and Section 50 of the Constitution. He did not file a complaint because of the quantity. He did not file a complaint every day. He did not file a complaint about small or trivial matters. He filed a complaint according to his rights and duties as provided by the Constitution. No matter whether it was right or wrong, he would respect the opinions of independent organizations, the Election Commission, the National Anti-Corruption Commission, and the court. He would not take into account the opinions of each person who asked him to file a complaint about this or that matter because if those people were angry, they would file a complaint themselves according to their rights. He was not hired, he was not a subordinate who would tell him to file a complaint. If he did, it would be like he lost his freedom. He was hired to file a complaint. Therefore, those who like to talk should be aware that they are exercising their own right
s. They are exercising their own rights and do not violate the rights of others.

Source: Thai News Agency