If you think the media share-holding allegation against Future Forward Party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit has similarities with the share-concealment charge against Thaksin Shinawatra prior to him becoming premier, think again. They are not comparable.
The allegation against Thaksin, who was later acquitted, involved multibillions of baht worth worth of Shin Corp shares, while the accusation against Mr Thanathorn relates to V-Luck Media Co, a small media company that has been closed down.
In fact, the case against the FFP leader seems like a non-issue, and is aimed at having him disqualified from becoming an MP. Based on weak evidence, the accusation is an attempt to prove that he made a technical error in the sale of his shares.
However, intense "investigation" by the Isara News Agency and a quick probe by the Election Commission (EC) could have misled the public and "activists" into thinking that this is the big "conflict of interest" case of our time. Activist Srisuwan Janya earlier filed a complaint with the EC. This week, the agency accused Mr Thanathorn of breaking the 2017 constitution and the new election law.
The laws forbid poll candidates from holding shares in media firms in order to prevent the use of media platforms for election campaign purposes. Mr Thanathorn said he cleared himself prior to standing in the election by selling his shares to his mother on Jan 8. He has shared a copy of the share transfer certificate with the public. It is the document required by the Civil and Commercial Code for companies to make their share sales legal.
But the news agency used V-Luck Media's "register of shareholders", the document it submitted to the Department of Business Development (DBD) on March 21, as the basis for claiming that Mr Thanathorn's share sale took place on that date, after he had entered the poll race.
In fact, financial experts pointed out that the register of shareholders is not the document that certifies any particular share transfer. It is the annual report of a company's shareholders over the past year that all companies have to submit to the DBD once a year. The law does not require companies to report every share transaction individually to the DBD every time one occurs.
The news agency later went as far as trying to prove Mr Thanathorn's whereabouts on Jan 8, the date of his share transfer that it earlier cast doubt upon.
Both Mr Srisuwan and the EC have not shown whether they have evidence, apart from their own insinuations and assumptions, similar to the news agency's investigation. It is disappointing that the EC did not try to seek an explanation and evidence from the FFP prior to publicly announcing that the case has grounds and giving Mr Thanathorn seven days to submit his explanation and evidence.
The FFP, which has adopted a firm stance against the regime, increasingly looks to have become the target of political sabotage, especially since it has appeared to have won about 80 House seats in the poll. A number of election-related or criminal complaints and charges have been laid against Mr Thanathorn and other party executives, even though many are not credible.
The media shareholding allegation is the same. It is seen as being politically motivated.
The EC must verify whether the Jan 8 share transfer certificate is a legitimate transaction as claimed by Mr Thanathorn, and ditch all the assumptions. Without such proof, it has to accept that it does not have a case and drop it.