It doesn't really matter! An oath by a man who has neither ethics nor honor is worthless anyway.

1 hour ago, klauskunkel said:

An incomplete oath of office given to the King without apology, explanation, or doctor's note looks to me like contempt and therefore lese majeste.

He only left out supporting the constitution line. I think there is a slow but certain move towards pre 1932 now that the popular man of the people has passed on.

13 minutes ago, newatthis said:

He only left out supporting the constitution line. I think there is a slow but certain move towards pre 1932 now that the popular man of the people has passed on.

Any ceremony involving the King is choreographed to perfection and every detail has to be just so. I think that in a ceremony that is titled "Oath Taking" Prayut has given deliberately an incomplete oath to the King and then continued to ignore the fact. That is I believe contemptuous.

Yep, just pointed the proverbial finger up to the parliament. He doesn't give one iota about anyone or thing...himself excluded of course. No code of ethics and he'll do just what he wants when he wants...no one tried to stop him before and no one will do so now. He really is causing the parliament to lose face in showing them just how ineffective they are.

Shirley you jest; and stop calling me Shirley. (Jack Shirley)

Incomplete oath from complete oaf.

7 hours ago, PatOngo said:

Comforting to know he is a religious man! No doubt he made merit and his sins were absolved at the ceremony!

There are no sins to be absolved!

The Buddha Dharma Education Association also expressly states "The idea of sin or original sin has no place in Buddhism." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_views_on_sin

21 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

There are no sins to be absolved!

The Buddha Dharma Education Association also expressly states "The idea of sin or original sin has no place in Buddhism." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_views_on_sin

 Thanks for enlightening me!.....I'm off to sit under my Bodhi tree!

Edited September 19, 20196 yr by PatOngo

 

2 hours ago, TKDfella said:

Yep, just pointed the proverbial finger up to the parliament. He doesn't give one iota about anyone or thing...himself excluded of course. No code of ethics and he'll do just what he wants when he wants...no one tried to stop him before and no one will do so now. He really is causing the parliament to lose face in showing them just how ineffective they are.

Agreed, but he is fully protected by who we all know.

 

There is no democracy and anyone continuing to criticise and push this issue in parliament is likely to end up with a lese majeste charge.

 

The other poster who alluded to Thailand returning to a pre 1932 phase is pretty much spot on as to where this place is heading IMO. 

As previously alluded to or stated in prior posts, these omitted words were quite likely deliberately omitted. And for that reason, there will be no corrective effort made. To state these words, with no intentions of honouring them, he would be placing himself in a perilous position going forward.

The effort remains "stay the course" charted in 2014.

4 hours ago, Caldera said:

It doesn't really matter! An oath by a man who has neither ethics nor honor is worthless anyway.

He took the military oath to protect the constitution to break it subsequently. Yes he has neither ethics nor honor. 

 

1 hour ago, Oziex1 said:

Incomplete oath from complete oaf.

I loathe the oaf does me outta me loaf. 

9 hours ago, BuckBee said:

what a scumbag ...

Please do not insult the scum bags of the world. The have higher ethical standards I am told.

5 hours ago, klauskunkel said:

An incomplete oath of office given to the King without apology, explanation, or doctor's note looks to me like contempt and therefore lese majeste.

There is an alternative story, but it's an even more ugly one, alas, and the more probable one... 'Nothing ever is what it seems to be in Thailand'... 

1 hour ago, BobbyL said:

 

Agreed, but he is fully protected by who we all know.

 

There is no democracy and anyone continuing to criticise and push this issue in parliament is likely to end up with a lese majeste charge.

 

The other poster who alluded to Thailand returning to a pre 1932 phase is pretty much spot on as to where this place is heading IMO. 

Are you that sure about who is protecting who...?

As for pre 1932, I don't see at all what was wrong with H.M. King Rama VII.

I would rather see more 'analogies' (outside of the intellectual capacities of the dictator) with the Phibun era, which (with an, erm, 'time-out') lasted well into the reign of H.M. King Rama IX, but as History (with capital 'H') is a dangerous matter here...

4 hours ago, klauskunkel said:

Any ceremony involving the King is choreographed to perfection and every detail has to be just so. I think that in a ceremony that is titled "Oath Taking" Prayut has given deliberately an incomplete oath to the King and then continued to ignore the fact. That is I believe contemptuous.

It is quite likely that he did not make this decision by himself.

12 hours ago, webfact said:

PM refuses to clarify the incomplete oath issue

Overlooked is that Prayut led his Cabinet in the oath taking.

Thus, each Cabinet member also made an incomplete (I would say "false") oath!

So the entirety of the Executive Branch of government has violated the Constitution.

Each Cabinet member should be put on notice to repeat the oath correctly or leave, regardless of Prayut's refusal.

This is an issue of credibility for the nation. While sovereignty of the Thai electorate may mean little to Prayut (as demonstrated repeatedly from May 2014- March 2019), surely the Thai electorate is entitled now to a Cabinet that supports their sovereignty and their designated constitution.

15 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Overlooked is that Prayut led his Cabinet in the oath taking.

Thus, each Cabinet member also made an incomplete (I would say "false") oath!

So the entirety of the Executive Branch of government has violated the Constitution.

Each Cabinet member should be put on notice to repeat the oath correctly or leave, regardless of Prayut's refusal.

This is an issue of credibility for the nation. While sovereignty of the Thai electorate may mean little to Prayut (as demonstrated repeatedly from May 2014- March 2019), surely the Thai electorate is entitled now to a Cabinet that supports their sovereignty and their designated constitution.

Yes, Srikcir: I have been wondering for weeks why nobody mentions the fact that it was not only Prayut, but the entire Cabinet who delivered an invalid 'oath'.

It seems to me (although I am no lawyer) that logically this failure must mean that the 'government' is totally and utterly illegitimate and that nothing it says, decides or enacts has any validity or binding obligatoriness whatsoever. There is de facto and de jure no legal government in Thailand at the present time (nor has there been for nearly 6 years).

 

But then, I am thinking in terms of countries which follow law, order and logic. Silly me!

 

Nicholas Cage needs to re-do an updated version of Bangkok Dangerous, this time where he takes out the target