On a bright day in December 2017, as the sun blazed down, one couldn’t help but notice Gen Prawit or ‘the man with multiple luxury watches’ as he came to be known. Underneath the government house portico, Prawit Wongsuwon, then serving as the deputy prime minister, stood shoulder-to-shoulder for a photo op with his fellow cabinet colleagues, a picture that soon made headlines due to a glaring accessory: a luxury watch.
Perched on his wrist, the platinum Richard Mille RM 029, a watch of unparalleled grandeur and opulence, estimated to be worth about a whopping 2.5 million baht, caught the public eye. To add to this spectacle, a glistening diamond ring sat proudly on his finger during the same high-profile event. While some found this display of opulence fascinating, others questioned, resentment marring their curiosity, the conspicuous absence of 22 such luxury wrist adornments, including this one, from his declared list of assets.
The story unfolded further on a Friday of twists and turns, when the Supreme Administrative Court, maintaining its earlier stance, chose to dismiss the call by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) for an in-depth review of the allegations on Gen Prawit. This outcry for justice from the anti-corruption watchdog was triggered by the wristwatch controversy and was supported by political activist Veera Somkhwamkid.
Back in December 2018, the NACC, convening a meeting regarding this ‘watchgate’, had concluded with a majority vote of 5:3, holding that there were no valid grounds to corroborate the allegation that Gen Prawit had falsely reported his wealth. Gen Prawit, on his part, dismissed the hullabaloo over his timepieces, stating that these were all ‘borrowed beauties’, belonging to his friends and that he had duly returned them.
However, the story was far from over. In a turn of events, Veera, not satisfied with the dismissal of the case, approached the Supreme Administrative Court with a petition demanding the disclosure of investigation details. A battle won, as the court accorded permission. Following this decision, the NACC was mandated to share three types of information: their initial findings, the subjective opinions held by the officials overseeing the case, and, lastly, the details stemming out of their internal meetings discussing this case.
Nonetheless, a part of this required disclosure remained withheld. As it turned out, the NACC provided only two sets of the demanded information to Veera, choosing not to share the perspectives held by the anti-graft officials responsible for the case. Defending this decision, Niwatchai Kasemmongkol, the NACC secretary-general, conveyed during an interview in August, that to maintain their professional integrity and protect witness identities, the NACC had redacted the names of the witnesses in the documents handed out to Veera.
Thus, amidst this whirlwind of developments, the tale of Gen Prawit and his world of luxurious watches continues to unravel, creating ripples in the political and public sphere.
Be First to Comment