Jump to content

Corruption watchdog to appeal order to publish reports on Prawit’s wristwatch scandal


snoop1130

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Andycoops said:

No doubt anyththing published from the grossly incompetent and corrupt NACC would expose just how bad they are at their jobs by protecting the guilty.

How can they even possibly over rule a Supreme court decision...

The elite can ignore court decisions unless the verdict is in their favour. Court decisions can be fought by their lawyers until everyone has died of old age. In this case I dare say there has been a brown envelope of understanding which over rules any legal argument.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tomacht8 said:

It's unbelievable how stupid they think the population is.

It's not about the population being stupid, it's about them being Thai.

 

This thing happens all the time to allow people to save face or get away with corruption. Generally people know not to say anything publicly about it and just go along with the story. After all, they will probably want people to ignore their corruption at some point, so it's kind of reciprocal.

 

It gets a little awkward when people suddenly demand to know what actually happened. Generally this only occurs when the corruption is seen as being too high so people complain, or it's too public so someone needs to do something about it so they don't lose face.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Denim said:

Shoulden't be a problem.  

 

Since the facts of the case are not to be revealed then proof of innocence or guilt has not been established.

 

Therefore , until the facts are disclosed Prawit should be banned from political office until such time as he is positevely proven innocent. Until then , it must be presumed that he might be guilty and not allowed to take any political position. 

 

 

Sir....Laws are only for the little people...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For you to think for 1 second why you supposedly feel the details cannot be released is a reflection of your intelligence and the level of your integrity. Even the uneducated in Thailand know exactly why you made this statement!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Edwin Cameron said:

Shades of 'Joey Biden and Hunter' here. Thailand,your much better than this,come clean with all the evidence against him,do something about it NOW or it will keep on festering.

You're not a Trump supporter by any chance!????

  • Sad 1
  • Love It 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2023 at 4:07 PM, snoop1130 said:

 

NACC secretary-general Niwatchai Kasemmongkol said that they cannot reveal publish all the investigative reports about the case to protect the safety of the witnesses otherwise, in the future, witnesses would not dare to come forward to the NACC to testify.

 

No problem. Just redact the reports to show Witness A and Witness B.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Gandtee said:

Perhaps the NACC should be investigated for corruption.  

no need , they are squeaky clean - just ask them, I'm sure they would be more than willing to release the report they did on themselves.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dogmatix said:

It wasn't B42,000 worth of shares.  It was 42,000 shares that are worthless because the company is delisted and has no operations. It is a subsidiary of AIS that they have to keep going because it is in an interminable lawsuit with the government for terminating its TV broadcasting licence abruptly due to its association with Thaksin. That was also the reason for the clause in the constitution prohibiting ownership of media shares - i.e. Thaksin acquired the TV station that was intended to be an independent station and used it to gain an unfair advantage in the 2005 election.  Thaksin is at the root of most problems in Thai politics,

He is the problem.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, sambum said:

Splitting hairs a bit?

Hardly.  Just being accurate.

 

One is the case of a politician not declaring their assets, the other is of a politician holding shares that he is not allowed to, having declared them.  Completely different.

Edited by BangkokReady
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

hardly.  Just being accurate.

 

One is the case of a politician not declaring their assets, the other is of a politician holding shares that he is not allowed to, having declared them.  Completely different.

Did he declare the shares? I was under the impression that he didn't - was that not the reason for him being barred from being an MP? But I did hear that he signed them over to his father, so didn't feel the need to declare them. All a bit academic really - the point I was making was that one politician had undeclared assets of millions of baht, which were not declared (belonging to a friend) and the other had virtually worthless shares (which apparently belonged to/were transferred to his father.) Not too different - except the value of course?

Edited by sambum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.








×
×
  • Create New...