Prayut pleads ignorance in ‘puppy-gate’

By THE NATION

 

 

ACTIVIST WHO FILED COMPLAINT OFFERS TO BUY DOGS TO RESCUE PRIME MINISTER FROM COMMITTING VIOLATION

SEVERAL PUBLIC figures have shown an interest in purchasing the Bangkaew puppies at the centre of a controversy involving Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha, while the premier has pleaded ignorance of the law concerning his promise to give the dogs to two Cabinet ministers.

 

Prayut bought the three Bangkaew puppies from a local breeder during his Cabinet’s recent retreat in Phitsanulok. He later said he did not mean to commit any wrongdoing and would sell the dogs after a complaint was filed with Thailand’s graft-fighting agency by Srisuwan Janya, secretary-general of the Association for the Protection of the Thai Constitution.

 

The petition to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) sought an investigation to determine whether the prime minister had condoned violations of the anti-corruption regulation that prohibits public officials from accepting gifts valued at more than Bt3,000. The issue became known with some levity as “puppy-gate”. 

 

Prayut and Bangkaew puppies during his field trip in Phitsanulok

 

Prayut previously had said he would give puppies to both Interior Minister Anupong Paochinda and Deputy Prime Minister Chatchai Sarikalya. The prime minister bought three young dogs belonging to the famous Bangkaew breed for Bt25,000, although the market price was Bt6,000 for each puppy.

 

Srisuwan said he would prefer purchasing two of the dogs from the premier to prevent exploitation of the law to benefit the premier’s Cabinet members.

 

Democrat Secretary-General Juti Krairiksh also expressed an interest in purchasing the dogs.

 

During a New Year meeting with reporters at Government House yesterday, Prayut said he just wished to show good will to the dog breeders and had not intended to breach the law.

 

Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said the NACC was considering amending its regulation covering gifts worth up to Bt3,000 to bring them in line with new legislation. 

 

The NACC had the authority to amend the regulation, he said, while adding that if the recipients refused to accept Prayut’s gifts, he would take the dogs himself. He added that he knew how to do so without violating the law.

 

The NACC, meanwhile, said it would have to ensure that it had jurisdiction to review recent controversies involving junta officials.

 

Suthi Boonmee, a director of the investigation and special affairs office, said the NACC would have to check the credibility of the account and then see if it had the authority to scrutinise the issue. Then the NACC would consider whether to consider the case, he said.

 

He added that it should not be too difficult to check the status of the case, given it had been a matter that garnered public interest over the past couple of days.

 

However, he said the agency had to consider whether it was within the NACC’s authority and whether it was a case involving “unusual wealth”. If it turned out to be a normal criminal case, the NACC would not have the authority to consider it, he added.

 

Regarding the possession of luxury watches by Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister General Prawit Wongsuwan, Suthi said Prawit had already sent an explanatory letter to the agency. The agency was examining the letter and other evidence, such as the assets list Prawit declared upon taking office, he said.

 

The NACC will hold a press conference on the progress of cases under investigation, including Prawit’s case, tomorrow.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30335425

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-01-05

PM pleads ignorance, well nothing new there.

6 minutes ago, webfact said:

Suthi Boonmee, a director of the investigation and special affairs office, said the NACC would have to check the credibility of the account and then see if it had the authority to scrutinise the issue. Then the NACC would consider whether to consider the case, he said.

 

"...the NACC would consider whether to consider the case,.."

 

This is the demonstrated level of competence of Thailand's current anti-corruption organization.

 

It speaks volumes...

 

Fire all the current commissioners immediately, reform the place from top to bottom, then try again. Thailand needs a decent anti-corruption agency, the current NACC is NOT it.

 

ignorantia legis neminem excusat

 

Ignorance of law excuses no one.

Oh my this man and puppies, I know which I would stroke and wish I would like to kick into a universe of our not wanting

 

Hey guys Happy New Year glad we are still friends and the roads did not get you

Edited January 5, 20188 yr by wakeupplease

Just say the dogs belong to a third party, settle all...

While I do see many reasons to criticise Prayut, him giving away two puppies to people he works with is making a mountain out of a molehill...or out of a puppy turd anyway.  

How can a Prime Minister even non elected don’t know a simplistic code of ethics law. So everyone can break the law and plead ignorance and get away with it. Political enemies have no such privileges. 

I'm not sure that an "ignorant" PM is the right person to sort out Thailand's problems. 

6 hours ago, webfact said:

prohibits public officials from accepting gifts valued at more than Bt3,000.

 

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said the NACC was considering amending its regulation covering gifts worth up to Bt3,000 to bring them in line with new legislation.

 

So they just change the laws to widen the troughs and prevent the dear pm being labelled a common criminal.  Actually a trivial matter considering he absolved himself of treason.

 

All of a sudden article 44 looks decidedly democratic

It doesn't add up.  "The prime minister bought three young dogs belonging to the famous Bangkaew breed for Bt25,000, although the market price was Bt6,000 for each puppy"                  3x6000 = 18 000.    The breeder diddled the PM by charging 25 000.

This is bogus. It is not unusual for a breeder to provide a promotional cost or "gift" in order to gain publicity. This is all it was.  Concentrate on the bigger issues please.

7 hours ago, BigBadGeordie said:

ignorantia legis neminem excusat

 

Ignorance of law excuses no one.

True, but there must be criminal intent to secure a conviction.

A true story. I went to AMLO the anti money laundering office to file a complaint about a bank manager laundering money. The senior officer at the meeting asked me what did I want them to do. Simple I said sue them under Section 357. What is Section 357 she asked? I looked at her and at the other investigative officers in the room thinking she was joking. They all had that same vacant confused Thai look. I questioned if she was the senior lawyer there? Yes she nodded. I said it's the law regarding receiving stolen goods! Oh she mumbled. I asked how she could possibly not know this section of the law in her position as a qualified lawyer? As I did she was thumbing through a book. She was trying to find Section 357! Ah yes found it she said I understand now. Triumphantly she said I use this book all the time. 

5 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

While I do see many reasons to criticise Prayut, him giving away two puppies to people he works with is making a mountain out of a molehill...or out of a puppy turd anyway.  

So you accept graft? Its the principle of what he said he would do for Thailand when taking the office of Prime Minister. In the position you don't take personal gifts or give them away or profit from your position; he gets paid by the people of Thailand. I didn't think you were that gullible or easy to be manipulated, Bluey.

28 minutes ago, Chris Lawrence said:

So you accept graft? Its the principle of what he said he would do for Thailand when taking the office of Prime Minister. In the position you don't take personal gifts or give them away or profit from your position; he gets paid by the people of Thailand. I didn't think you were that gullible or easy to be manipulated, Bluey.

BS I accept graft.

 

I just don’t see him giving two dogs to colleagues as graft. 

 

He’s done much worse than this and this whole story is just a non event. 

2 hours ago, Nip said:

A true story. I went to AMLO the anti money laundering office to file a complaint about a bank manager laundering money. The senior officer at the meeting asked me what did I want them to do. Simple I said sue them under Section 357. What is Section 357 she asked? I looked at her and at the other investigative officers in the room thinking she was joking. They all had that same vacant confused Thai look. I questioned if she was the senior lawyer there? Yes she nodded. I said it's the law regarding receiving stolen goods! Oh she mumbled. I asked how she could possibly not know this section of the law in her position as a qualified lawyer? As I did she was thumbing through a book. She was trying to find Section 357! Ah yes found it she said I understand now. Triumphantly she said I use this book all the time. 

Can see where you are coming from You might as well went and seen a bar girl and asked her  to enforce section 357  You might of got more satisfaction out of her instead of the lawyer The lawyer probably set up the bank manager and showed  him how to  launder money  That is how corrupt the whole system is You were just wasting your time there 

4 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

True, but there must be criminal intent to secure a conviction.

Not here!

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

BS I accept graft.

 

I just don’t see him giving two dogs to colleagues as graft. 

 

He’s done much worse than this and this whole story is just a non event. 

I would say that Samak’s cooking case that went up to the constitution court was equally trivial. 

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

BS I accept graft.

 

I just don’t see him giving two dogs to colleagues as graft. 

 

He’s done much worse than this and this whole story is just a non event. 

There your words Bluey, not mine. The 'non event' is just part of the political process. Hard to knock nails into the Teflon Don. If the press report on other matters they can be charged? So what do they do, but keep it simple. 

 

Watches, diamonds, or puppies, where do you draw the line? These are the things that are known and out there in the public domain. The deals on subs, military equipment, trains, rail track, taking the gold mine etc etc; are not found in the public domain. So they report on puppies.

Ignorant people don't qualify to lead a country.............but we knew that long time already

11 minutes ago, Chris Lawrence said:

There your words Bluey, not mine. The 'non event' is just part of the political process. Hard to knock nails into the Teflon Don. If the press report on other matters they can be charged? So what do they do, but keep it simple. 

 

Watches, diamonds, or puppies, where do you draw the line? These are the things that are known and out there in the public domain. The deals on subs, military equipment, trains, rail track, taking the gold mine etc etc; are not found in the public domain. So they report on puppies.

Giving two puppies to colleagues is a non event. 

21 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I would say that Samak’s cooking case that went up to the constitution court was equally trivial. 

Completely agree...in truth, I hold both politicians in absolute contempt.

 

(Well held in the case of the dead one). 

 

Though, remind me again...how exactly will Prayut benefit financially from giving away two puppies?

 

 

Edited January 5, 20188 yr by Bluespunk

9 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Completely agree...in truth, I hold both politicians in absolute contempt.

 

(Well held in the case of the dead one). 

 

Though, remind me again...how exactly will Prayut benefit financially from giving away two puppies?

 

 

Probably nothing financially but fact of the matter is it’s a violation of the corruption law and accusation was a valid one. Rest assured puppy gate, watch gate, park gate, Hawaii gate etc will not ruffle his feather and the NACC will find nothing worthy of investigation. 

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

Probably nothing financially but fact of the matter is it’s a violation of the corruption law and accusation was a valid one. Rest assured puppy gate, watch gate, park gate, Hawaii gate etc will not ruffle his feather and the NACC will find nothing worthy of investigation. 

I honestly think that in this case, it’s not worth investigating. 

12 hours ago, webfact said:

Prayut pleads ignorance

what is the issue ?; he Is ignorant

7 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I honestly think that in this case, it’s not worth investigating. 

Good that Srisuwan brought this up knowing this will never get any traction but exposing the abuse of power. 

5 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Good that Srisuwan brought this up knowing this will never get any traction but exposing the abuse of power. 

Not seeing any abuse of power either, but I agree, it’s good the issue can be raised. 

 

I’m just not seeing such a big deal. 

4 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

BS I accept graft.

 

I just don’t see him giving two dogs to colleagues as graft. 

 

He’s done much worse than this and this whole story is just a non event. 

It is, its absolute crap along with the watch carry on with that toad fellow. Absolute crap crap crap.

It's a <deleted> dog for <deleted> sake will some of you people get a <deleted> life.

Who cares about those dogs.. Just work on watches... They are worth more than these dogs and surely are a real issue... 

Get the job done where it really means something... These dogs seems coming there just to forget about those watches