The real issue here is not whether he borrowed the watches or received them as a gift - both is a kind of favour which opens the door for a return favour which easy become a corruptional coctail when you add a high-ranking government official and a business man....

Prawit ‘close to resigning’ amid scandal

 

How close is he today???

2 hours ago, Just Weird said:

What if I was, how would it be any of your business?

Awww, poor thing - did I offend you?

 

Here, let me post my questions yet again:

 

Are you actually telling me he was given 30 days to explain himself but has played coy with the public even though a perfectly innocent and rational explanation exists for his astonishing display of wrist wealth? What did he gain by that except massive and steadily increasing condemnation??

Edited January 23, 20188 yr by Becker

1 hour ago, Just Weird said:

If it was so funny why did you not make a complaint and demand an investigation into him at the time that he last declared his assets.  That would have made more sense than that comment today, years later?

Must have touch a soft spot in you. You seem to be making a big effort to defend the corrupt indefensible man. He now has been caught with his pants down; not years ago and that is good enough for me to see the corrupt pay his dues now. Now go on and defend the corrupt.

 

15 minutes ago, Becker said:

Awww, poor thing - did I offend you?

 

Here, let me post my questions yet again:

 

Are you actually telling me he was given 30 days to explain himself but has played coy with the public even though a perfectly innocent and rational explanation exists for his astonishing display of wrist wealth? What did he gain by that except massive and steadily increasing condemnation??

"Awww, poor thing - did I offend you?"

That'll be the day, don't flatter yourself.

 

"Are you actually telling me he was given 30 days to explain himself but has played coy with the public even though a perfectly innocent and rational explanation exists for his astonishing display of wrist wealth?"

He was given 30 days, yes, and that was to explain to the NACC, not to the public's, or Thaivisa's, Court of Condemnation to whom he has to explain nothing if that's what he chooses.

 

4 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

 

"Awww, poor thing - did I offend you?"

That'll be the day, don't flatter yourself.

 

"Are you actually telling me he was given 30 days to explain himself but has played coy with the public even though a perfectly innocent and rational explanation exists for his astonishing display of wrist wealth?"

He was given 30 days, yes, and that was to explain to the NACC, not to the public's, or Thaivisa's, Court of Condemnation to whom he has to explain nothing if that's what he chooses.

 

Without buying into the spat, i would think it is sufficient to ask, why would you need 30 days to say you borrowed the watches. 

11 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

 

"Awww, poor thing - did I offend you?"

That'll be the day, don't flatter yourself.

 

"Are you actually telling me he was given 30 days to explain himself but has played coy with the public even though a perfectly innocent and rational explanation exists for his astonishing display of wrist wealth?"

He was given 30 days, yes, and that was to explain to the NACC, not to the public's, or Thaivisa's, Court of Condemnation to whom he has to explain nothing if that's what he chooses.

 

If he’s not obliged to defend himself to the public, why do you feel the need to defend him? 

 

And by the way, he is obliged to explain himself to the public. He’s the second biggest ‘public’ figure in the country. If he didn’t want to be ‘condemned’, he should have held a press conference and easily explained this all. 

Edited January 23, 20188 yr by rkidlad

10 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

You seem to be making a big effort to defend the corrupt indefensible man. He now has been caught with his pants down; not years ago and that is good enough for me to see the corrupt pay his dues now. Now go on and defend the corrupt.

It seems that it would be pointless trying to explain anything to you as you have already made up your mind about his guilt (which may well turn out to be correct, but as far as a NACC decision is concerned, isn't right now). 

 

It's also clear that you can't understand the point that I was responding to, which was why were there no cries of indignation when his very substantial assets were revealed when he took office?  That would have been the ideal time for accusations to be made but everyone was silent then.

 

By the way, did I say, anywhere, that he was not corrupt?

20 minutes ago, jayboy said:

Two conceptions of the notion of honour.

 

1.Prawit  - vulgar thug and key member of Junta which seized power illegally.Exposed as corrupt but (as yet) refuses to resign.

 

2...

 

The thing that posters like you keep emphatically, and wrongly, saying is that "he has been exposed as being corrupt" when in fact he hasn't, as yet. 

 

Unless you can point to the published decision that has been made by the NACC as a result of the completed enquiry into the watches all that you have got, so far, is personal insults which say more about you than they do about him

4 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

It seems that it would be pointless trying to explain anything to you as you have already made up your mind about his guilt (which may well turn out to be correct, but as far as a NACC decision is concerned, isn't right now). 

 

It's also clear that you can't understand the point that I was responding to, which was why were there no cries of indignation when his very substantial assets were revealed when he took office?  That would have been the ideal time for accusations to be made but everyone was silent then.

 

By the way, did I say, anywhere, that he was not corrupt?

His guilt may well turn out to be correct?

 

And here you are defending him based on the fact the investigation isn’t complete. Such passion defending this man. Very disturbing. 

12 minutes ago, Artisi said:

Without buying into the spat, i would think it is sufficient to ask, why would you need 30 days to say you borrowed the watches. 

You'd have to ask the NACC who set the time scales; presumably they have a procedure that they have to stick to.

15 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

 

"Awww, poor thing - did I offend you?"

That'll be the day, don't flatter yourself.

 

"Are you actually telling me he was given 30 days to explain himself but has played coy with the public even though a perfectly innocent and rational explanation exists for his astonishing display of wrist wealth?"

He was given 30 days, yes, and that was to explain to the NACC, not to the public's, or Thaivisa's, Court of Condemnation to whom he has to explain nothing if that's what he chooses.

 

He doesn't have to explain anything to anyone as he is a member of a military junta that illegally took power, suspended basic human rights, gave themselves the mother of all amnesties as well as god-like powers through article 44 - that much you got right.

But he would have if he had an explanation that was even remotely plausible. Instead we have gotten one utterly lame story after the other.

 

"....Thaivisa's, Court of Condemnation...."

 

Again; awwwww!

4 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

It seems that it would be pointless trying to explain anything to you as you have already made up your mind about his guilt (which may well turn out to be correct, but as far as a NACC decision is concerned, isn't right now). 

 

It's also clear that you can't understand the point that I was responding to, which was why were there no cries of indignation when his very substantial assets were revealed when he took office?  That would have been the ideal time for accusations to be made but everyone was silent then.

 

By the way, did I say, anywhere, that he was not corrupt?

 

5 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

It seems that it would be pointless trying to explain anything to you as you have already made up your mind about his guilt (which may well turn out to be correct, but as far as a NACC decision is concerned, isn't right now). 

 

It's also clear that you can't understand the point that I was responding to, which was why were there no cries of indignation when his very substantial assets were revealed when he took office?  That would have been the ideal time for accusations to be made but everyone was silent then.

 

By the way, did I say, anywhere, that he was not corrupt?

You don’t seem to understand the issue. He did not declared those expensive watches; period. What has the silence when he declared his initial assets got to do with this discovery of unusual unexplained wealth. If he isn’t guilty, why the prolonged inability to provide proof and transparency to the general public. Why all these hush hush manner by the NACC. It has now been almost a month since the revelation and 2 postponing by the NACC to close the case. 

1 minute ago, Just Weird said:

You'd have to ask the NACC who set the time scales; presumably they have a procedure that they have to stick to.

Of course they do. They can’t make any exceptions because it’s procedure. 

 

No one’s ever bent the rules or broken the law in Thailand. Especially not the rich and powerful. Why would they? To avoid jail? Don’t be silly. 

5 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

You'd have to ask the NACC who set the time scales; presumably they have a procedure that they have to stick to.

Why do you insist on pretending that the junta has to play by certain rules? They're all powerful and can basically do what they want until the day the old elite turn against them or the people have finally had enough.

If you had any idea about what goes on in Thailand you would have realized this.

Edited January 23, 20188 yr by Becker

5 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

The thing that posters like you keep emphatically, and wrongly, saying is that "he has been exposed as being corrupt" when in fact he hasn't, as yet. 

 

Unless you can point to the published decision that has been made by the NACC as a result of the completed enquiry into the watches all that you have got, so far, is personal insults which say more about you than they do about him

At first I wasn't sure whether you were having a laugh.

 

And then I saw your comment "Unless you can point to the published decision that has been made by the NACC as a result of the completed enquiry into the watches" , and then I knew you were for sure.

2 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

His guilt may well turn out to be correct?

 

And here you are defending him based on the fact the investigation isn’t complete. Such passion defending this man. Very disturbing. 

Yes, I've never said that he wasn't guilty, neither have I defended him per se.   I have defended his right to be investigated without being pre-judged. 

 

"And here you are defending him based on the fact the investigation isn’t complete".

What is disturbing to me is that anyone should condemn him on that same basis that the investigation isn't complete.  It does not make rational sense to do that unless you're an advocate of double standards.

8 minutes ago, Becker said:

He doesn't have to explain anything to anyone as he is a member of a military junta that illegally took power, suspended basic human rights, gave themselves the mother of all amnesties as well as god-like powers through article 44 - that much you got right.

But he would have if he had an explanation that was even remotely plausible. Instead we have gotten one utterly lame story after the other.

 

"....Thaivisa's, Court of Condemnation...."

 

Again; awwwww!

"Instead we have gotten one utterly lame story after the other".

It'd be interesting to hear about all those other stories that you claim to have heard about Prawit's watches.

2 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Yes, I've never said that he wasn't guilty, neither have I defended him per se.   I have defended his right to be investigated without being pre-judged. 

 

"And here you are defending him based on the fact the investigation isn’t complete".

What is disturbing to me is that anyone should condemn him on that same basis that the investigation isn't complete.  It does not make rational sense to do that unless you're an advocate of double standards.

Rational sense doesn’t apply here because there are no rules. You’re applying western logic to Thailand. They have 44. Complete power. And having complete power isn’t genuine power. It’s corrupt. 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

 

You don’t seem to understand the issue. He did not declared those expensive watches; period. What has the silence when he declared his initial assets got to do with this discovery of unusual unexplained wealth. If he isn’t guilty, why the prolonged inability to provide proof and transparency to the general public. Why all these hush hush manner by the NACC. It has now been almost a month since the revelation and 2 postponing by the NACC to close the case. 

It's you that can't understand things.  I was responding to another poster's point about his wealth, not his watches. 

 

There is no "discovery or investigation of unusual unexplained wealth"!  There is an investigation of failing to disclose assets.

7 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

Rational sense doesn’t apply here because there are no rules. You’re applying western logic to Thailand. They have 44. Complete power. And having complete power isn’t genuine power. It’s corrupt. 

 

 

I was referring to rational sense being used by those discussing the Prawit case here.

1 minute ago, Just Weird said:

I was referring to rational sense being used by those discussing the Prawit case here.

Yes, they are being rational. Based on what’s happening and how the country is being governed. You may have noticed it’s a junta with complete power. Hardly fair, is it? 

24 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

Yes, they are being rational. Based on what’s happening and how the country is being governed. You may have noticed it’s a junta with complete power. Hardly fair, is it? 

Come on, you know that the rational bit on this thread that I referred to was that being applied to this discussion, not the Junta, that is a different subject.

 

I'm going for a few pints now so I'll look forward to continuing this in the early hours with all my 'fans'!

 

Edit: Before I get jumped on, that last remark was obviously sarcasm, not arrogance.

Edited January 23, 20188 yr by Just Weird

17 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

It's you that can't understand things.  I was responding to another poster's point about his wealth, not his watches. 

 

There is no "discovery or investigation of unusual unexplained wealth"!  There is an investigation of failing to disclose assets.

I am not a native speaking Englishman but ain't you splitting hair to try defend him? Watches are wealth and it is failure to disclose assets is unusual unexplained wealth. There are the same and that's not even semantics. 

6 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I am not a native speaking Englishman but ain't you splitting hair to try defend him? Watches are wealth and it is failure to disclose assets is unusual unexplained wealth. There are the same and that's not even semantics. 

Read what I've posted, I have not defended him, I have defended his right to a completed investigation before he's condemned, though. 

 

As a native English speaker, believe me, undisclosed assets and unusual wealth are not the same but you are right when you say it is not semantics.

Edited January 23, 20188 yr by Just Weird

4 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Read what I've posted, I have not defended him, I have defended his right to a completed investigation before he's condemned, though. 

 

As a native English speaker, believe me, undisclosed assets and unusual wealth are not the same but you are right when you say it is not semantics.

Go and enjoy your pint. Your man will be safe and the NACC will procrastinate and find him not guilty just like the Hawaii trip, the Park scandal and little brother and nephew shenanigans. It is junta time and they call all the shoots. 

17 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Come on, you know that the rational bit on this thread that I referred to was that being applied to this discussion, not the Junta, that is a different subject.

 

I'm going for a few pints now so I'll look forward to continuing this in the early hours with all my 'fans'!

 

Edit: Before I get jumped on, that last remark was obviously sarcasm, not arrogance.

Again, the users you are debating are using rational. This rational is based on the circumstances in Thailand. 

 

 

Read what I've posted, I have not defended him, I have defended his right to a completed investigation before he's condemned, though. 
 
As a native English speaker, believe me, undisclosed assets and unusual wealth are not the same but you are right when you say it is not semantics.

They may not necessarily be the same but in Thailand they almost invariably are.I thought you claimed to be a realist.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

When he resigns does he get a handshake and another gold watch

Do it right for once. 

Ship is moving down.