webfact Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 Prayut remains silent on calls to suspend Prawit By The Nation Gen Prawit Wongsuwan Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha has refused to respond to growing calls on suspension of his deputy, General Prawit Wongsuwan, over allegations that he possessed luxury watches without reporting them to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). The NACC has also rejected the call for it to consider suspending Prawit over what has become known as the “watchgate” affair, citing that it is not its duty to do so. Netizens have tracked down photos of Prawit wearing many different watches from what seems to be an extravagant and extensive collection. Each of the watches appears to be worth hundreds of thousands of baht, and one of them probably cost more than Bt1 million. The scandal arose after Prawit was seen wearing a very expensive Richard Mille watch during a photo session with the new Cabinet. Facebook page CSI LA has reviewed media photos of Prawit and, as of Tuesday, it estimates that he has worn 23 luxury watches. The total price, based on market value, stands at more than Bt30 million – far higher than Prawit’s estimated income during his past three years in the office. Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/breakingnews/30336372 -- © Copyright The Nation 2018-01-16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGareth2 Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 their remit is to clear up other's corruption not their own Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeneeds Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 what did you expect, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Weird Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 Surely he should be found guilty of not declaring them, if they needed to be decalred (isn't the investigation ongoing?), before being considered for suspension from office? If that's the case then why should Prayut respond at this stage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robblok Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 14 minutes ago, Just Weird said: Surely he should be found guilty of not declaring them, if they needed to be decalred (isn't the investigation ongoing?), before being considered for suspension from office? If that's the case then why should Prayut respond at this stage? Yes he should be declared guilty before sending him off. But the proof is quite strong against him and stepping down himself would show a lot. I would not mind if the investigation was without bias.. but the head of the NACC has close ties to Prawit. I just don't have much fate in it. I do understand what your saying about letting the investigation take place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkidlad Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 Maybe Prayut will come out and say it’s not up to him to suspend him either. The big tough guys in power here love to do that. Act all tough with the easy and trivial matters, and then shun responsibility when there’s a difficult decision to be made. Typical bullies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PattayaAngel Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 Tik Tok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PattayaAngel Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 27 minutes ago, Just Weird said: Surely he should be found guilty of not declaring them, if they needed to be decalred (isn't the investigation ongoing?), before being considered for suspension from office? If that's the case then why should Prayut respond at this stage? Any company that suspected an employee of deception would suspend that employee PENDING investigation. Such a suspension does not signify guilt but is deemed ethical, professional and fair and Thailand recognizes none of these three premises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pieeyed Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 Quote A month ago Prayut said he would spit the dummy if the public did not back off of Prawit. So where is this headed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatOngo Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 7 minutes ago, pieeyed said: A month ago Prayut said he would spit the dummy if the public did not back off of Prawit. So where is this headed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Lawrence Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 Benny needs to send a cardboard cut out, like the General', along to answer the charges. That's all they will get. OR An outburst that the media is stalking the good work done by the self installed Government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark131v Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 Appalling really but absolutely as expected, all the people who have made excuses for them or justified their crimes should have a word with themselves... The people in control of the trough at the moment are a really glaring example of all that is wrong with Thailand, they are an absolute disgrace and totally lacking in morals or any redeeming features as they prove time and time again.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misterwhisper Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 In the below post Prayuth offered his definition of "Thai-style democracy" as being "...about how to make Thai people have a good understanding about democracy, and how to make Thai people do good things for good results for the country". Why isn't Mr. PM for once actually heeding his own words and doing something good for the country, namely by firing and then prosecuting to the full extent of the law that leech, Prawit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petermik Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 In this case silence speaks volumes..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Smiles Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 Quote Facebook page CSI LA If a red shirt online troll group said it, then it must be true! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Becker Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 34 minutes ago, Air Smiles said: If a red shirt online troll group said it, then it must be true! Yes, that's why # 2 toad isn't running for the hills - it's just red propaganda!! What an insightful post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Smiles Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 11 minutes ago, Becker said: Yes, that's why # 2 toad isn't running for the hills - it's just red propaganda!! What an insightful post... My post never mentioned Prawit, running or otherwise, please read my post again. I simply quoted from the article where is states the source of the accusations: Quote Facebook page CSI LA has reviewed media photos of Prawit.... That Facebook group is a notorious red shirt propaganda group, however if you want to believe everything you read on Facebook because it fits your view of the world then go right ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannork Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 1 hour ago, Air Smiles said: If a red shirt online troll group said it, then it must be true! is Air Smiles stephen 100 in disguise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baboon Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 1 hour ago, Air Smiles said: If a red shirt online troll group said it, then it must be true! Is it your view that he (Prawit) is entirely clean on this issue? I shall take silence as a 'no'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickenslegs Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 3 hours ago, Just Weird said: Surely he should be found guilty of not declaring them, if they needed to be decalred (isn't the investigation ongoing?), before being considered for suspension from office? If that's the case then why should Prayut respond at this stage? I can't think of a single valid reason why Prawit would need 30 days (or more) to explain his innocent possession of these watches, their cost, and where/when he acquired them. IMHO the PM should be insisting that his Deputy explain himself without delay, or do the decent thing and resign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Smiles Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 It stands to reason 1 minute ago, bannork said: is Air Smiles stephen 100 in disguise? Personal attacks are the usual response of those who don't have the wherewithal to contend posts they don't agree with. Why not address the point being made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Smiles Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 4 minutes ago, baboon said: Is it your view that he (Prawit) is entirely clean on this issue? I shall take silence as a 'no'... I don't have enough reliable information to say he is dirty. Do you not believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty or do you think Facebook posts are real evidence? I shall take silence as a 'no'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baboon Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 1 minute ago, Air Smiles said: I don't have enough reliable information to say he is dirty. Do you not believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty or do you think Facebook posts are real evidence? I shall take silence as a 'no'... I do indeed believe in the presumption of innocence. What I don't believe in is being (and remaining) the boss of the body who is supposedly investigating you. He might as well save them the bother and simply investigate himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannork Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 7 minutes ago, Air Smiles said: It stands to reason Personal attacks are the usual response of those who don't have the wherewithal to contend posts they don't agree with. Why not address the point being made? Why not answer my question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Becker Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 23 minutes ago, Air Smiles said: My post never mentioned Prawit, running or otherwise, please read my post again. I simply quoted from the article where is states the source of the accusations: That Facebook group is a notorious red shirt propaganda group, however if you want to believe everything you read on Facebook because it fits your view of the world then go right ahead. This group has posted photos of extremely expensive watched worn by # 2 toad and he is now under "investigation" due to this. That's not the same as "believing everything you read on Facebook", agreed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkidlad Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Air Smiles said: If a red shirt online troll group said it, then it must be true! There are at least 22 photos of him wearing different watches. Not once has the Deputy PM denied wearing these watches. Might the pics have been photoshopped? Is that what you’re getting at? Oh, in a story from a paper we cannot mention, he’s said he borrowed them all. Thailand doesn’t normally offer the courtesy of ‘innocent before proven guilty’ with many of its citizens, but Prawit gets it. I believe in innocent until proven guilty. That doesn’t mean the evidence isn’t damning. You’d have to be a complete rube to deny that the evidence so far is damning. Edited January 16, 2018 by rkidlad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkcanuck8 Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 18 minutes ago, chickenslegs said: I can't think of a single valid reason why Prawit would need 30 days (or more) to explain his innocent possession of these watches, their cost, and where/when he acquired them. IMHO the PM should be insisting that his Deputy explain himself without delay, or do the decent thing and resign. Exactly, when investigating criminal activity (and potential corruption is criminal) you want to get that person on record as soon as possible. He should have had to come in and make a statement immediately -- and if he avoided it fired. He would then have a week or two to get together documentary evidence. You always want them on record as soon as possible to lock people in as soon as possible. The only reason for a delay would be to let him manufacture some evidence or to try and bury it. If it were a political adversary -- they would have hauled him in immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Dude Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 Prayut just thinks that if he stonewalls it long enough it will just go away as the media eventually loses interest and moves on. Could be right or could be wrong. He and his cohorts are obviously above the law and doing a good job of proving it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Weird Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 2 hours ago, chickenslegs said: I can't think of a single valid reason why Prawit would need 30 days (or more) to explain his innocent possession of these watches, their cost, and where/when he acquired them. IMHO the PM should be insisting that his Deputy explain himself without delay, or do the decent thing and resign. He doesn't need that long because he has already submitted his explanation to the NACC in less than that time. He was given that time by the NACC. The ongoing investigation is now involving third parties who have been asked to provide information to the NACC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickenslegs Posted January 16, 2018 Share Posted January 16, 2018 7 minutes ago, Just Weird said: He doesn't need that long because he has already submitted his explanation to the NACC in less than that time. He was given that time by the NACC. The ongoing investigation is now involving third parties who have been asked to provide information to the NACC. Why would he be given (or need) any more than a few hours to provide an initial explanation? (rhetorical question). And, why did it take 3 weeks for him to submit his explanation? (also rhetorical) The explanation he gave relates only to the first of the series of watches which he has been seen wearing. Last I read, he was to be given more time to explain the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now