Nine NLA members opposed to asset disclosure worth more than Bt200m

[rubl]

What point?

can you not read? As i say, too much time on your hands.

Anyway, regarding the topic it seems the nine NLA members are unexpectedly getting help from a former Pheu Thai MP.

"Amnuay Klangpha, a former Pheu Thai MP, said the disclosure of NLA members' assets was not necessary due to 2007 Constitution being defunct."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/765802-pheu-thai-to-seek-court-ruling-on-impeachments/?p=8488219

[tullynagardy]

What point?

can you not read? As i say, too much time on your hands.

Anyway, regarding the topic it seems the nine NLA members are unexpectedly getting help from a former Pheu Thai MP.

"Amnuay Klangpha, a former Pheu Thai MP, said the disclosure of NLA members' assets was not necessary due to 2007 Constitution being defunct."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/765802-pheu-thai-to-seek-court-ruling-on-impeachments/?p=8488219

Ill take that as "you`ve proven my point wrong so Ill change the subject back to my favourite thing."

[rubl]

What point?

can you not read? As i say, too much time on your hands.

Anyway, regarding the topic it seems the nine NLA members are unexpectedly getting help from a former Pheu Thai MP.

"Amnuay Klangpha, a former Pheu Thai MP, said the disclosure of NLA members' assets was not necessary due to 2007 Constitution being defunct."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/765802-pheu-thai-to-seek-court-ruling-on-impeachments/?p=8488219

Ill take that as "you`ve proven my point wrong so Ill change the subject back to my favourite thing."

You may take it as you like, my dear Tully. I will even refrain from making suggestions as to where you may take it. Do as you please.

Here we discuss not the junta nor the NCPO but nine NLA members only. That is, at least some of us do.

Edited October 5, 2014 by rubl

[Anthony5]

You may take it as you like, my dear Tully. I will even refrain from making suggestions as to where you may take it. Do as you please.

Here we discuss not the junta nor the NCPO but nine NLA members only. That is, at least some of us do.

Actually we discuss 9 people who were handpicked by the junta as being the right persons to fight corruption.

[rubl]

You may take it as you like, my dear Tully. I will even refrain from making suggestions as to where you may take it. Do as you please.

Here we discuss not the junta nor the NCPO but nine NLA members only. That is, at least some of us do.

Actually we discuss 9 people who were handpicked by the junta as being the right persons to fight corruption.

Actually nine members of the NLA, the government representing both parliament and Senate. They don't have corruption as special attention point as Ms. Yingluck who really let her cabinet and Pheu Thai MPs take care of that. Laws preventing corruptions is part of the job only.

None of this has anything to do with the topic though.The nine have petitioned the Administrative Court to prevent disclosure of reported assets, the Court rejected their petiotion and the NACC disclosed the filed asset declaration. One of the nine had been Senator before, which suggests he already declared his assets at least two time before.

None of that is interesting though it would seem.

[rubl]

duplicate post, blanked on purpose

Edited October 5, 2014 by rubl

[heybruce]

This is Baht remember, I guess 200 million isn't all that much for a lifetime of work if they have been prudent and invested wisely, these aren't young men and there is also the likelihood their wives brought something to the pot .

If they started with a fair inheritance then even more reasonable.

Would you think it wise to have someone who is broke in their later years running the country, someone who has lost or spent everything they ever had ?

I respect H90's previous post.He is someone with whom I frequently disagree and I presume is a supporter of Suthep and possibly the military intervention.Yet he has the integrity to make clear his disgust at these scumbags.

Some are the precise opposite, contemptible lickspittles - seeking to defend the indefensible.

"Some are the precise opposite, contemptible lickspittles - seeking to defend the indefensible."

Ah yes, like some used to try to defend the lies, "ethical" lies, little white lies and fairy stories the previous Thaksin controlled government used to regularly issue. Some even liked to pretend Yingluck was really in control and made decisions and that the Shins actually wanted democracy. Yes, I know, just too ridiculous for words. They even used to resort to insulting the intelligence of any who wouldn't kow tow to their messiah and accept a Shin dynasty. Unbelievably, but there you are,

It would be interesting if all rich elite hiso families in Thailand, including the more shall we say noveau rich, had to really declare their assets, and show the wealth had been acquired. Some interesting new wealthy who seemed to accumulate very quickly. Of course will never happen. Large off shore amounts will never be included, and regardless of who you support, it's like a club. Once you've joined, you're in and a part of it. Sadly seems to work like this in many many countries. The price of entry may be different, but once in, different "rules" apply.

What on earth are you talking about? The subject is not the errors and misdemeanours of Thaksin or administrations under his influence.The subject is the disgusting hypocrisy of those who grabbed power with a claim to end corruption and yet had managed to accumulate huge wealth on the basis of very modest public service salaries.Equally hypocritical are those whose moral conscience - so active in the past - suddenly terminates when their political prejudices find its application inconvenient.Strangely the one person who comes out of this sorry affair with some credit is Prayuth who as fas I can see has insisted throughout on full declaration of assets.Now the ball's in his court to follow up on the awkward questions that have emerged.

Has Prayuth declared his assets? Not to my knowledge. The fact that Generals appointed to the NLA resisted declaring their assets indicates that high ranking military officers in Thailand have no obligation to do so, even though they are in a position to influence how the military budget is spent. Obviously the PM can influence how government money is spent.

In the US all military and civil service employees who are in a position to influence how government money is spent must declare assets and investments on an annual basis. Not just the high ranking ones, all who can influence spending at any level. If their financial situation changes in a manner between assets declarations the would represent a conflict of interest they must get rid of the financial interests that represent a conflict or find a new job. This is the law, and the penalties for violating it are severe. This doesn't eliminate corruption but it does help keep it at levels much lower than Thailand. Somehow I don't think reform and the fight against corruption in Thailand will result in these sort of rules.

[rubl]

What on earth are you talking about? The subject is not the errors and misdemeanours of Thaksin or administrations under his influence.The subject is the disgusting hypocrisy of those who grabbed power with a claim to end corruption and yet had managed to accumulate huge wealth on the basis of very modest public service salaries.Equally hypocritical are those whose moral conscience - so active in the past - suddenly terminates when their political prejudices find its application inconvenient.Strangely the one person who comes out of this sorry affair with some credit is Prayuth who as fas I can see has insisted throughout on full declaration of assets.Now the ball's in his court to follow up on the awkward questions that have emerged.

Has Prayuth declared his assets? Not to my knowledge. The fact that Generals appointed to the NLA resisted declaring their assets indicates that high ranking military officers in Thailand have no obligation to do so, even though they are in a position to influence how the military budget is spent. Obviously the PM can influence how government money is spent.

In the US all military and civil service employees who are in a position to influence how government money is spent must declare assets and investments on an annual basis. Not just the high ranking ones, all who can influence spending at any level. If their financial situation changes in a manner between assets declarations the would represent a conflict of interest they must get rid of the financial interests that represent a conflict or find a new job. This is the law, and the penalties for violating it are severe. This doesn't eliminate corruption but it does help keep it at levels much lower than Thailand. Somehow I don't think reform and the fight against corruption in Thailand will result in these sort of rules.

Actually the subject is nine NLA members who had petitioned the Administrive Court to prevent the NACC from publishing their asset declaration. The Court turned them down.

Interestingly one of the nine was a Senator before so must have declared assets at least two times before already and have the NACC publish them.

[heybruce]

What on earth are you talking about? The subject is not the errors and misdemeanours of Thaksin or administrations under his influence.The subject is the disgusting hypocrisy of those who grabbed power with a claim to end corruption and yet had managed to accumulate huge wealth on the basis of very modest public service salaries.Equally hypocritical are those whose moral conscience - so active in the past - suddenly terminates when their political prejudices find its application inconvenient.Strangely the one person who comes out of this sorry affair with some credit is Prayuth who as fas I can see has insisted throughout on full declaration of assets.Now the ball's in his court to follow up on the awkward questions that have emerged.

Has Prayuth declared his assets? Not to my knowledge. The fact that Generals appointed to the NLA resisted declaring their assets indicates that high ranking military officers in Thailand have no obligation to do so, even though they are in a position to influence how the military budget is spent. Obviously the PM can influence how government money is spent.

In the US all military and civil service employees who are in a position to influence how government money is spent must declare assets and investments on an annual basis. Not just the high ranking ones, all who can influence spending at any level. If their financial situation changes in a manner between assets declarations the would represent a conflict of interest they must get rid of the financial interests that represent a conflict or find a new job. This is the law, and the penalties for violating it are severe. This doesn't eliminate corruption but it does help keep it at levels much lower than Thailand. Somehow I don't think reform and the fight against corruption in Thailand will result in these sort of rules.

Actually the subject is nine NLA members who had petitioned the Administrive Court to prevent the NACC from publishing their asset declaration. The Court turned them down.

Interestingly one of the nine was a Senator before so must have declared assets at least two times before already and have the NACC publish them.

Actually 28 members petitioned the Administrative Court to prevent asset declaration, nine of whom had assets of over 200 million baht. These nine include three generals, a former AF Chief Marshall, a colonel, and a police lieutenant general. The bulk of the story summarizes what kind of wealth eight of the nine have. I don't know why only eight are mentioned by name.

I assume that these high ranking military men never had to declare assets while serving in the military. Clearly they object to doing so now. As I pointed out above, in the US any person in government who is in a position to influence the spending of government money must declare assets and business interests and divest himself/herself of any interests that could present a conflict of interest with their job responsibilities. It's either 'no conflicts of interests or find a new job'.

Asset declaration in the NLA is an important step, but it is only one step in one part of government when leaps and bounds are needed all over government. I think the US approach of asset and interest declarations by all responsible for taxpayer money, and laws with harsh penalties for those who don't declare and divest conflicts of interest, is what Thailand needs. The PM could lead by example by declaring all assets himself, and requiring all who work for him to do the same. That should do until they have laws in place mandating it.

[rubl]

What on earth are you talking about? The subject is not the errors and misdemeanours of Thaksin or administrations under his influence.The subject is the disgusting hypocrisy of those who grabbed power with a claim to end corruption and yet had managed to accumulate huge wealth on the basis of very modest public service salaries.Equally hypocritical are those whose moral conscience - so active in the past - suddenly terminates when their political prejudices find its application inconvenient.Strangely the one person who comes out of this sorry affair with some credit is Prayuth who as fas I can see has insisted throughout on full declaration of assets.Now the ball's in his court to follow up on the awkward questions that have emerged.

Has Prayuth declared his assets? Not to my knowledge. The fact that Generals appointed to the NLA resisted declaring their assets indicates that high ranking military officers in Thailand have no obligation to do so, even though they are in a position to influence how the military budget is spent. Obviously the PM can influence how government money is spent.

In the US all military and civil service employees who are in a position to influence how government money is spent must declare assets and investments on an annual basis. Not just the high ranking ones, all who can influence spending at any level. If their financial situation changes in a manner between assets declarations the would represent a conflict of interest they must get rid of the financial interests that represent a conflict or find a new job. This is the law, and the penalties for violating it are severe. This doesn't eliminate corruption but it does help keep it at levels much lower than Thailand. Somehow I don't think reform and the fight against corruption in Thailand will result in these sort of rules.

Actually the subject is nine NLA members who had petitioned the Administrive Court to prevent the NACC from publishing their asset declaration. The Court turned them down.

Interestingly one of the nine was a Senator before so must have declared assets at least two times before already and have the NACC publish them.

Actually 28 members petitioned the Administrative Court to prevent asset declaration, nine of whom had assets of over 200 million baht. These nine include three generals, a former AF Chief Marshall, a colonel, and a police lieutenant general. The bulk of the story summarizes what kind of wealth eight of the nine have. I don't know why only eight are mentioned by name.

I assume that these high ranking military men never had to declare assets while serving in the military. Clearly they object to doing so now. As I pointed out above, in the US any person in government who is in a position to influence the spending of government money must declare assets and business interests and divest himself/herself of any interests that could present a conflict of interest with their job responsibilities. It's either 'no conflicts of interests or find a new job'.

Asset declaration in the NLA is an important step, but it is only one step in one part of government when leaps and bounds are needed all over government. I think the US approach of asset and interest declarations by all responsible for taxpayer money, and laws with harsh penalties for those who don't declare and divest conflicts of interest, is what Thailand needs. The PM could lead by example by declaring all assets himself, and requiring all who work for him to do the same. That should do until they have laws in place mandating it.

Well, actually it seems the group of 28 did declare their assets as well as petition the Administrative Court to prevent disclosure of their declaration by the NACC. Some references seem to indicate they petitioned the A.C. whether or not it was legal the NACC demanded their declaration. The A.C. clarified that the NACC could demand and could publish.

[fab4]

Actually the subject is nine NLA members who had petitioned the Administrive Court to prevent the NACC from publishing their asset declaration. The Court turned them down.

Interestingly one of the nine was a Senator before so must have declared assets at least two times before already and have the NACC publish them.

Actually 28 members petitioned the Administrative Court to prevent asset declaration, nine of whom had assets of over 200 million baht. These nine include three generals, a former AF Chief Marshall, a colonel, and a police lieutenant general. The bulk of the story summarizes what kind of wealth eight of the nine have. I don't know why only eight are mentioned by name.

I assume that these high ranking military men never had to declare assets while serving in the military. Clearly they object to doing so now. As I pointed out above, in the US any person in government who is in a position to influence the spending of government money must declare assets and business interests and divest himself/herself of any interests that could present a conflict of interest with their job responsibilities. It's either 'no conflicts of interests or find a new job'.

Asset declaration in the NLA is an important step, but it is only one step in one part of government when leaps and bounds are needed all over government. I think the US approach of asset and interest declarations by all responsible for taxpayer money, and laws with harsh penalties for those who don't declare and divest conflicts of interest, is what Thailand needs. The PM could lead by example by declaring all assets himself, and requiring all who work for him to do the same. That should do until they have laws in place mandating it.

Well, actually it seems the group of 28 did declare their assets as well as petition the Administrative Court to prevent disclosure of their declaration by the NACC. Some references seem to indicate they petitioned the A.C. whether or not it was legal the NACC demanded their declaration. The A.C. clarified that the NACC could demand and could publish.

Nothing to say but keeps on doing so.

Anything rather than discuss the hypocrisy of handpicked (by the junta) members of the NLA being richer than Croseus and frantically trying to avoid that being made public, having being supposedly put in that position as paragons of virtue to replace the ever so wicked agents of Lord Voldemort na Dubai.

[rubl]

Well, actually it seems the group of 28 did declare their assets as well as petition the Administrative Court to prevent disclosure of their declaration by the NACC. Some references seem to indicate they petitioned the A.C. whether or not it was legal the NACC demanded their declaration. The A.C. clarified that the NACC could demand and could publish.

Nothing to say but keeps on doing so.

Anything rather than discuss the hypocrisy of handpicked (by the junta) members of the NLA being richer than Croseus and frantically trying to avoid that being made public, having being supposedly put in that position as paragons of virtue to replace the ever so wicked agents of Lord Voldemort na Dubai.

I did notice you didn't bring up anything new, but your usual stuff aimed at disrupting proper discussions. What's next, you telling us that only poor people should have been appointed? This is not a 'workers paradise' as we had in former communist countries. Also we would like the NLA representing both parliament and senate to have at least some understanding of procedures, law, education, etc. This is not to say poor people don't have, but their situation tends to make then less focussed on long(er) term.

BTW did you search for the previous asset declarations of former Senator Chatchawan Apibhansri ?

PS if I've got the name of "Sutham Phanthusak" right he's a colourful figure and well known in Pattaya.

[heybruce]

Has Prayuth declared his assets? Not to my knowledge. The fact that Generals appointed to the NLA resisted declaring their assets indicates that high ranking military officers in Thailand have no obligation to do so, even though they are in a position to influence how the military budget is spent. Obviously the PM can influence how government money is spent.

In the US all military and civil service employees who are in a position to influence how government money is spent must declare assets and investments on an annual basis. Not just the high ranking ones, all who can influence spending at any level. If their financial situation changes in a manner between assets declarations the would represent a conflict of interest they must get rid of the financial interests that represent a conflict or find a new job. This is the law, and the penalties for violating it are severe. This doesn't eliminate corruption but it does help keep it at levels much lower than Thailand. Somehow I don't think reform and the fight against corruption in Thailand will result in these sort of rules.

Actually the subject is nine NLA members who had petitioned the Administrive Court to prevent the NACC from publishing their asset declaration. The Court turned them down.

Interestingly one of the nine was a Senator before so must have declared assets at least two times before already and have the NACC publish them.

Actually 28 members petitioned the Administrative Court to prevent asset declaration, nine of whom had assets of over 200 million baht. These nine include three generals, a former AF Chief Marshall, a colonel, and a police lieutenant general. The bulk of the story summarizes what kind of wealth eight of the nine have. I don't know why only eight are mentioned by name.

I assume that these high ranking military men never had to declare assets while serving in the military. Clearly they object to doing so now. As I pointed out above, in the US any person in government who is in a position to influence the spending of government money must declare assets and business interests and divest himself/herself of any interests that could present a conflict of interest with their job responsibilities. It's either 'no conflicts of interests or find a new job'.

Asset declaration in the NLA is an important step, but it is only one step in one part of government when leaps and bounds are needed all over government. I think the US approach of asset and interest declarations by all responsible for taxpayer money, and laws with harsh penalties for those who don't declare and divest conflicts of interest, is what Thailand needs. The PM could lead by example by declaring all assets himself, and requiring all who work for him to do the same. That should do until they have laws in place mandating it.

Well, actually it seems the group of 28 did declare their assets as well as petition the Administrative Court to prevent disclosure of their declaration by the NACC. Some references seem to indicate they petitioned the A.C. whether or not it was legal the NACC demanded their declaration. The A.C. clarified that the NACC could demand and could publish.

You are desperately trying to distract attention from the fact that asset declaration should be routine for government employees with any influence on spending, and it should start at the top with PM Prayuth.

[rubl]

Actually 28 members petitioned the Administrative Court to prevent asset declaration, nine of whom had assets of over 200 million baht. These nine include three generals, a former AF Chief Marshall, a colonel, and a police lieutenant general. The bulk of the story summarizes what kind of wealth eight of the nine have. I don't know why only eight are mentioned by name.

I assume that these high ranking military men never had to declare assets while serving in the military. Clearly they object to doing so now. As I pointed out above, in the US any person in government who is in a position to influence the spending of government money must declare assets and business interests and divest himself/herself of any interests that could present a conflict of interest with their job responsibilities. It's either 'no conflicts of interests or find a new job'.

Asset declaration in the NLA is an important step, but it is only one step in one part of government when leaps and bounds are needed all over government. I think the US approach of asset and interest declarations by all responsible for taxpayer money, and laws with harsh penalties for those who don't declare and divest conflicts of interest, is what Thailand needs. The PM could lead by example by declaring all assets himself, and requiring all who work for him to do the same. That should do until they have laws in place mandating it.

Well, actually it seems the group of 28 did declare their assets as well as petition the Administrative Court to prevent disclosure of their declaration by the NACC. Some references seem to indicate they petitioned the A.C. whether or not it was legal the NACC demanded their declaration. The A.C. clarified that the NACC could demand and could publish.

You are desperately trying to distract attention from the fact that asset declaration should be routine for government employees with any influence on spending, and it should start at the top with PM Prayuth.

Desperately trying to distract from something which you tell us should be?

The topic is on the asset declarations done and the disclosure by the NACC. Not on what other countries do, not on what you think should be done, but on what is happening in Thailand.

Even the petition of 28 NLA members while still declaring their assets was valid, same like the Pheu Thai petition to the C.C. on whether or not impeachment falls under the duties of the NLA.

[Bob12345]

(...) asset declaration should be routine for government employees with any influence on spending, and it should start at the top with PM Prayuth.

Exactly, and that is the reason why I am still skeptical about his intentions (and probably many people around me).

If he is serious about getting rid of corruption and improving the country he should start closer to home as he has inside knowledge of how things work there. First declare and explain your own assets, then fix problems within the military, and when that is all done and finished successfully then you can start improving the country and getting rid of corruption there.

Any excuse to do it in a different sequence is just that, an excuse.

[heybruce]

Actually 28 members petitioned the Administrative Court to prevent asset declaration, nine of whom had assets of over 200 million baht. These nine include three generals, a former AF Chief Marshall, a colonel, and a police lieutenant general. The bulk of the story summarizes what kind of wealth eight of the nine have. I don't know why only eight are mentioned by name.

I assume that these high ranking military men never had to declare assets while serving in the military. Clearly they object to doing so now. As I pointed out above, in the US any person in government who is in a position to influence the spending of government money must declare assets and business interests and divest himself/herself of any interests that could present a conflict of interest with their job responsibilities. It's either 'no conflicts of interests or find a new job'.

Asset declaration in the NLA is an important step, but it is only one step in one part of government when leaps and bounds are needed all over government. I think the US approach of asset and interest declarations by all responsible for taxpayer money, and laws with harsh penalties for those who don't declare and divest conflicts of interest, is what Thailand needs. The PM could lead by example by declaring all assets himself, and requiring all who work for him to do the same. That should do until they have laws in place mandating it.

Well, actually it seems the group of 28 did declare their assets as well as petition the Administrative Court to prevent disclosure of their declaration by the NACC. Some references seem to indicate they petitioned the A.C. whether or not it was legal the NACC demanded their declaration. The A.C. clarified that the NACC could demand and could publish.

You are desperately trying to distract attention from the fact that asset declaration should be routine for government employees with any influence on spending, and it should start at the top with PM Prayuth.

Desperately trying to distract from something which you tell us should be?

The topic is on the asset declarations done and the disclosure by the NACC. Not on what other countries do, not on what you think should be done, but on what is happening in Thailand.

Even the petition of 28 NLA members while still declaring their assets was valid, same like the Pheu Thai petition to the C.C. on whether or not impeachment falls under the duties of the NLA.

On a thread titled "Lessons in democracy to be taught shortly" you wrote about the moon disappearing from the sky, here you want to stay narrowly on topic. Your hypocrisy is hilarious.

The topic is asset declaration of the NRC and the resistance of some inexplicably wealthy members to comply. I pointed out the desirability of making this kind of transparency mandatory for all government employees who can influence government spending. I'm expanding on the topic, but that is a well established practice on the TV Forum. I related it to my experience in government in the US and noted that transparency was an important tool in keeping corruption far lower than in Thailand. I also pointed out the wisdom of the PM leading by example and publicly declaring his assets and requiring the same of all who work for him.

If you supported clean government in Thailand you would either support this, or give reasons why you think it is impractical. Instead you make no comment on the utility of broad based transparency, you simply criticize a post that suggest Prayuth apply the same transparency rules to himself as is required of the NRA. Why is this? Don't bother replyng that you're a stickler for staying on topic, 'Missing Moon' ruble.

[rubl]

On a thread titled "Lessons in democracy to be taught shortly" you wrote about the moon disappearing from the sky, here you want to stay narrowly on topic. Your hypocrisy is hilarious.

The topic is asset declaration of the NRC and the resistance of some inexplicably wealthy members to comply. I pointed out the desirability of making this kind of transparency mandatory for all government employees who can influence government spending. I'm expanding on the topic, but that is a well established practice on the TV Forum. I related it to my experience in government in the US and noted that transparency was an important tool in keeping corruption far lower than in Thailand. I also pointed out the wisdom of the PM leading by example and publicly declaring his assets and requiring the same of all who work for him.

If you supported clean government in Thailand you would either support this, or give reasons why you think it is impractical. Instead you make no comment on the utility of broad based transparency, you simply criticize a post that suggest Prayuth apply the same transparency rules to himself as is required of the NRA. Why is this? Don't bother replyng that you're a stickler for staying on topic, 'Missing Moon' ruble.

In the other topic I'm almost hunted (or haunted?) with leading questions including naming a military dictatorship which succeeded in setting up a democracy while at the same time stating there wasn't such and it becoming obvious there wasn't even one with that as goal which makes it clear I was asked tediously for something which doesn't exist and which question I therefore didn't answer.

Here the topic is on some NLA members who didn't like their declaration to be published. That has nothing at all to do with the USA.

PS I predict the moon will disappear on October 8th, between 5 and 6PM. Don't believe me, go to Ubon and hope there are no clouds.

Edited October 7, 2014 by rubl

[heybruce]

On a thread titled "Lessons in democracy to be taught shortly" you wrote about the moon disappearing from the sky, here you want to stay narrowly on topic. Your hypocrisy is hilarious.

The topic is asset declaration of the NRC and the resistance of some inexplicably wealthy members to comply. I pointed out the desirability of making this kind of transparency mandatory for all government employees who can influence government spending. I'm expanding on the topic, but that is a well established practice on the TV Forum. I related it to my experience in government in the US and noted that transparency was an important tool in keeping corruption far lower than in Thailand. I also pointed out the wisdom of the PM leading by example and publicly declaring his assets and requiring the same of all who work for him.

If you supported clean government in Thailand you would either support this, or give reasons why you think it is impractical. Instead you make no comment on the utility of broad based transparency, you simply criticize a post that suggest Prayuth apply the same transparency rules to himself as is required of the NRA. Why is this? Don't bother replyng that you're a stickler for staying on topic, 'Missing Moon' ruble.

In the other topic I'm almost hunted (or haunted?) with leading questions including naming a military dictatorship which succeeded in setting up a democracy while at the same time stating there wasn't such and it becoming obvious there wasn't even one with that as goal which makes it clear I was asked tediously for something which doesn't exist and which question I therefore didn't answer.

Here the topic is on some NLA members who didn't like their declaration to be published. That has nothing at all to do with the USA.

PS I predict the moon will disappear on October 8th, between 5 and 6PM. Don't believe me, go to Ubon and hope there are no clouds.

Oh good, you're no longer implying I'm off-topic. Care to reply to the rest of my post? Any thoughts on transparency in the form of asset declarations starting with the PM and working down? After all, why just the NLA?

[harada]

Looks like it's back to the future.

[tbthailand]

(...) asset declaration should be routine for government employees with any influence on spending, and it should start at the top with PM Prayuth.

Exactly, and that is the reason why I am still skeptical about his intentions (and probably many people around me).

If he is serious about getting rid of corruption and improving the country he should start closer to home as he has inside knowledge of how things work there. First declare and explain your own assets, then fix problems within the military, and when that is all done and finished successfully then you can start improving the country and getting rid of corruption there.

Any excuse to do it in a different sequence is just that, an excuse.

Bob, you already understand that it is not about corruption. The corruption campaign is the 'hey! look over there!' distraction technique.

[rubl]

(...) asset declaration should be routine for government employees with any influence on spending, and it should start at the top with PM Prayuth.

Exactly, and that is the reason why I am still skeptical about his intentions (and probably many people around me).

If he is serious about getting rid of corruption and improving the country he should start closer to home as he has inside knowledge of how things work there. First declare and explain your own assets, then fix problems within the military, and when that is all done and finished successfully then you can start improving the country and getting rid of corruption there.

Any excuse to do it in a different sequence is just that, an excuse.

Bob, you already understand that it is not about corruption. The corruption campaign is the 'hey! look over there!' distraction technique.

... and to some its the "why do you look at me" distraction technique.

Mind you, the special shows Ms. Yingluck hosted yearly to be able to get a nice photo-ops with the opportunity to explain the special care her government took about corruption, were real of course.

[heybruce]

(...) asset declaration should be routine for government employees with any influence on spending, and it should start at the top with PM Prayuth.

Exactly, and that is the reason why I am still skeptical about his intentions (and probably many people around me).

If he is serious about getting rid of corruption and improving the country he should start closer to home as he has inside knowledge of how things work there. First declare and explain your own assets, then fix problems within the military, and when that is all done and finished successfully then you can start improving the country and getting rid of corruption there.

Any excuse to do it in a different sequence is just that, an excuse.

Bob, you already understand that it is not about corruption. The corruption campaign is the 'hey! look over there!' distraction technique.

... and to some its the "why do you look at me" distraction technique.

Mind you, the special shows Ms. Yingluck hosted yearly to be able to get a nice photo-ops with the opportunity to explain the special care her government took about corruption, were real of course.

rubl applies the "look over there" distraction again.

This topic is about the present, and very wealthy NLA members who don't want to admit about their wealth. Others who care about Thailand's future are extending the topic to other government/junta members who haven't disclosed their wealth, and probably won't.

[rubl]

... and to some its the "why do you look at me" distraction technique.

Mind you, the special shows Ms. Yingluck hosted yearly to be able to get a nice photo-ops with the opportunity to explain the special care her government took about corruption, were real of course.

rubl applies the "look over there" distraction again.

This topic is about the present, and very wealthy NLA members who don't want to admit about their wealth. Others who care about Thailand's future are extending the topic to other government/junta members who haven't disclosed their wealth, and probably won't.

Ah, so 'extending the topic' is allowed? Probably as long as it fits your ideas.

Anyway other members of the government haven't been asked to declare their assets, not even the government bureaucrats who have been present for decades sometimes. No one seemed to have been bothered by that when we still had 'democratic' governments, but now all of a sudden foreign posters start complaining about everything which was wrong and the junta hasn't corrected yet, not even forcefully.

Anyway, these nine declared their assets and that seems to not satisfy some. A lot of suggestions on 'inexplicable' wealth, but no real facts. Innuendo, close to slander, but 'facts'?

[heybruce]

... and to some its the "why do you look at me" distraction technique.

Mind you, the special shows Ms. Yingluck hosted yearly to be able to get a nice photo-ops with the opportunity to explain the special care her government took about corruption, were real of course.

rubl applies the "look over there" distraction again.

This topic is about the present, and very wealthy NLA members who don't want to admit about their wealth. Others who care about Thailand's future are extending the topic to other government/junta members who haven't disclosed their wealth, and probably won't.

Ah, so 'extending the topic' is allowed? Probably as long as it fits your ideas.

Anyway other members of the government haven't been asked to declare their assets, not even the government bureaucrats who have been present for decades sometimes. No one seemed to have been bothered by that when we still had 'democratic' governments, but now all of a sudden foreign posters start complaining about everything which was wrong and the junta hasn't corrected yet, not even forcefully.

Anyway, these nine declared their assets and that seems to not satisfy some. A lot of suggestions on 'inexplicable' wealth, but no real facts. Innuendo, close to slander, but 'facts'?

Yes, extending or expanding on a topic is a common practice in this forum, so long as it is an extension of the topic, such as asset declaration, and not a complete change of topic, like your favorite subject of the amnesty bill.

We know that the vast majority of the people in government have not been asked to declare there assets. My point from the beginning has been that if they are in a position to influence government spending they should. I believed that when there was a democratic government, but I was willing to let the voters express their priorities on government policies through there votes. Now there is a military junta that denies people the right to choose their government, and that claims it wants to reform government and eliminate corruption. I'll believe that when I see asset declaration routinely required, laws against conflicts of interest, transparency in government spending, laws protecting whistle-blowers, and a lot of other changes that don't seem to be discussed much by this reform minded junta.

By the way:

inexplicable, adjective 1. not explicable; incapable of being accounted for or explained.

Until the wealth of these people is accounted for the adjective 'inexplicable' applies.

[rubl]

... and to some its the "why do you look at me" distraction technique.

Mind you, the special shows Ms. Yingluck hosted yearly to be able to get a nice photo-ops with the opportunity to explain the special care her government took about corruption, were real of course.

rubl applies the "look over there" distraction again.

This topic is about the present, and very wealthy NLA members who don't want to admit about their wealth. Others who care about Thailand's future are extending the topic to other government/junta members who haven't disclosed their wealth, and probably won't.

Ah, so 'extending the topic' is allowed? Probably as long as it fits your ideas.

Anyway other members of the government haven't been asked to declare their assets, not even the government bureaucrats who have been present for decades sometimes. No one seemed to have been bothered by that when we still had 'democratic' governments, but now all of a sudden foreign posters start complaining about everything which was wrong and the junta hasn't corrected yet, not even forcefully.

Anyway, these nine declared their assets and that seems to not satisfy some. A lot of suggestions on 'inexplicable' wealth, but no real facts. Innuendo, close to slander, but 'facts'?

Yes, extending or expanding on a topic is a common practice in this forum, so long as it is an extension of the topic, such as asset declaration, and not a complete change of topic, like your favorite subject of the amnesty bill.

We know that the vast majority of the people in government have not been asked to declare there assets. My point from the beginning has been that if they are in a position to influence government spending they should. I believed that when there was a democratic government, but I was willing to let the voters express their priorities on government policies through there votes. Now there is a military junta that denies people the right to choose their government, and that claims it wants to reform government and eliminate corruption. I'll believe that when I see asset declaration routinely required, laws against conflicts of interest, transparency in government spending, laws protecting whistle-blowers, and a lot of other changes that don't seem to be discussed much by this reform minded junta.

By the way:

inexplicable, adjective 1. not explicable; incapable of being accounted for or explained.

Until the wealth of these people is accounted for the adjective 'inexplicable' applies.

You mean expanding in the 'right' direction, one you want to expand to, but not the direction other may want to expand to. Even to the point of really annoyingly reminding us of how much you dislike the dropped or dead blanket amnesty bill.

We know that never has the vast majority of people in government been asked to declare assets. Now having a undemocratic government seems to some the 'right' moment to do so. Even tax declarations have always been off limit here.

Furthermore the fact that you cannot explain only means you are incapable of explaining. no one is forced to explain their wealth because you feel a need to know.

[jayboy]

You mean expanding in the 'right' direction, one you want to expand to, but not the direction other may want to expand to. Even to the point of really annoyingly reminding us of how much you dislike the dropped or dead blanket amnesty bill.

We know that never has the vast majority of people in government been asked to declare assets. Now having a undemocratic government seems to some the 'right' moment to do so. Even tax declarations have always been off limit here.

Furthermore the fact that you cannot explain only means you are incapable of explaining. no one is forced to explain their wealth because you feel a need to know.

Your credulity defies belief.You are so keen to avoid criticising the current Junta that your position is beyond distorted.It's ludicrous.

The main point about the declaration of assets is that one of this administration's raison d'etres is to stamp out corruption.

Therefore the sight of co-opted generals and cronies anxious not to decare their huge wealth after a lifetime of low civil service type salaries inspires disgust and loathing.

It's not that this lot are worse than their predecessors.It's the hypocrisy that marks them out.

[rubl]

You mean expanding in the 'right' direction, one you want to expand to, but not the direction other may want to expand to. Even to the point of really annoyingly reminding us of how much you dislike the dropped or dead blanket amnesty bill.

We know that never has the vast majority of people in government been asked to declare assets. Now having a undemocratic government seems to some the 'right' moment to do so. Even tax declarations have always been off limit here.

Furthermore the fact that you cannot explain only means you are incapable of explaining. no one is forced to explain their wealth because you feel a need to know.

Your credulity defies belief.You are so keen to avoid criticising the current Junta that your position is beyond distorted.It's ludicrous.

The main point about the declaration of assets is that one of this administration's raison d'etres is to stamp out corruption.

Therefore the sight of co-opted generals and cronies anxious not to decare their huge wealth after a lifetime of low civil service type salaries inspires disgust and loathing.

It's not that this lot are worse than their predecessors.It's the hypocrisy that marks them out.

Oh come on, jayboy, we can disagree without the need to retort to insults.

Till now Thailand has known the requirement by law for parliament, senate and cabinet members to declare their assets. Even this 'appointed' lot has done so and till now we only have 'inexplicable wealth' suggested by a few members here of TVF.

The only point I grant you is on the PM not having declared assets, but probably by law the lack of need as NCPO member would overrule the need as cabinet member.

[heybruce]

rubl applies the "look over there" distraction again.

This topic is about the present, and very wealthy NLA members who don't want to admit about their wealth. Others who care about Thailand's future are extending the topic to other government/junta members who haven't disclosed their wealth, and probably won't.

Ah, so 'extending the topic' is allowed? Probably as long as it fits your ideas.

Anyway other members of the government haven't been asked to declare their assets, not even the government bureaucrats who have been present for decades sometimes. No one seemed to have been bothered by that when we still had 'democratic' governments, but now all of a sudden foreign posters start complaining about everything which was wrong and the junta hasn't corrected yet, not even forcefully.

Anyway, these nine declared their assets and that seems to not satisfy some. A lot of suggestions on 'inexplicable' wealth, but no real facts. Innuendo, close to slander, but 'facts'?

Yes, extending or expanding on a topic is a common practice in this forum, so long as it is an extension of the topic, such as asset declaration, and not a complete change of topic, like your favorite subject of the amnesty bill.

We know that the vast majority of the people in government have not been asked to declare there assets. My point from the beginning has been that if they are in a position to influence government spending they should. I believed that when there was a democratic government, but I was willing to let the voters express their priorities on government policies through there votes. Now there is a military junta that denies people the right to choose their government, and that claims it wants to reform government and eliminate corruption. I'll believe that when I see asset declaration routinely required, laws against conflicts of interest, transparency in government spending, laws protecting whistle-blowers, and a lot of other changes that don't seem to be discussed much by this reform minded junta.

By the way:

inexplicable, adjective 1. not explicable; incapable of being accounted for or explained.

Until the wealth of these people is accounted for the adjective 'inexplicable' applies.

You mean expanding in the 'right' direction, one you want to expand to, but not the direction other may want to expand to. Even to the point of really annoyingly reminding us of how much you dislike the dropped or dead blanket amnesty bill.

We know that never has the vast majority of people in government been asked to declare assets. Now having a undemocratic government seems to some the 'right' moment to do so. Even tax declarations have always been off limit here.

Furthermore the fact that you cannot explain only means you are incapable of explaining. no one is forced to explain their wealth because you feel a need to know.

I mean expanding the topic in a legitimate direction; for example expanding on the topic of asset declaration, which is in the title of the OP and is the subject. The amnesty bill is not mentioned or implied in the OP, so it is not a legitimate area to expand to in this topic.

We know that the majority of people in government have never been asked to declare assets. As I've repeated stated all those in government who can influence government spending, and therefore profit at the taxpayer's expense, should declare their assets on a regular basis. This, along with other laws prohibiting conflicts or interest, requiring transparent competitive bidding on government contracts, protecting whistle-blowers, etc. are needed to fight corruption.

The junta and its allies have done a good job of scapegoating politicians and presenting them as the cause of all of Thailand's problems. While politicians are certainly part of the corruption problem, they aren't the entire story. If the junta is truly interested in reforms that fight corruption they will expand the requirement to declare assets to the civil service, military, judiciary, and all other government positions where people can influence spending. This of course would include the PM, and the PM has an excellent opportunity to lead by example by declaring his assets now instead of waiting for it to maybe become law. I've explained this many times, and you've ignored it many times.

"Now having a undemocratic government seems to some the 'right' moment to do so."

You bet! This undemocratic government is insisting the country can't be returned to democracy until reforms are implemented, and requiring transparency to fight corruption is definitely among the reforms that should be implemented. If you disagree please explain why.

"Furthermore the fact that you cannot explain only means you are incapable of explaining. no one is forced to explain their wealth because you feel a need to know."

What have I failed to explain? What don't you understand? If these generals are rich due to inheritance or marrying well they can easily explain their wealth, and since they are in a position of public trust they should. If they somehow became rich while working full time as modestly paid officers they also should explain their wealth for the same 'position of public trust' reason, even though the explanation may be a difficult one.

[ikke]

Generals seem to be unusually rich when you compare to Generals from other countries.

Military Generals, Police Generals in fact all sorts of officials have assets that don't exactly square with their salaries.

You don't progress in the military ( And many other occupations) in Thailand without utilising assets.

Probably inherited wealth in the case of the elite.

If it are yellows, it is inherited, if red's you would call it corruption......

[ikke]

Generals seem to be unusually rich when you compare to Generals from other countries.

And the fact that Thailand has the most Generals of the world.......quite wealthy club.