Prev Page 2 of 2 1 2 28 replies to this topic

[dumball]

Do you mean something similar to the boy who called 'Wolf' ? A more up to date title would be 'Inveterate liar ' , but far beit for me to even think of him not being ill , as you said , time alone will be the final PROOF so many desire on this forum , "Inveterate disbelievers"?

[Journalist]

sriracha john, on 2009-01-24 13:11:44, said:

Journalist, on 2009-01-24 10:22:00, said:

sriracha john, on 2009-01-24 07:01:36, said:

While he is certainly entitled to medical privacy if he so desires, untold hundreds of politicians and other public figures have had either a hospital's public relations department or their attending physician make such confirming statements.

What are Samak's public roles at present?

If he still fills any significant public or political roles, then, yes, issuing a statement is apt.

If not; then as a private citizen, there's no necessity at all to do so. None whatsoever.

If this is just some personal way of frustrating a legal process, then his alleged medical condition is a matter between him and the Court. Having a hospital steps' press conference to allay the interests of nosey bystanders is of no merit.

Just as there are untold hundreds of others who have reported conditions in themselves or family members, such as cancer, there are untold dozens of reasons for people to do so other than "allay the interests of nosey bystandsers" and are chock-full of merit. Factors like wanting to increase public awareness of particular conditions or a desire to set the record straight directly no doubt outnumber the aforementioned reason by a wide margin.

Liver cancer is a well documented disease and well within public awareness already.

If Samak is no longer a public official he should feel no more compulsion to offer third party corroboration for any physical or mental debility than you do. It is nobody's business if he is out of public life.

If it is a gambit to court sympathy from a Judge, then the judiicary has the resources to follow it up.

You've made your point though, and so you don't have to keep ramming it home. We get the idea. He may or may not be swinging the lead.

[crocodilexp]

I wonder why U.S. State Department so often issues visas to murderers and thugs, while ordinary Thais have so much trouble visiting. If Samak went to U.S. in a diplomatic capacity, I'd understand, but in private capacity he should have been denied a visa on moral character grounds.

[mrtoad]

crocodilexp, on 2009-01-27 23:32:11, said:

I wonder why U.S. State Department so often issues visas to murderers and thugs, while ordinary Thais have so much trouble visiting. If Samak went to U.S. in a diplomatic capacity, I'd understand, but in private capacity he should have been denied a visa on moral character grounds.

Considering his history, and the fact that he is on bail I agree.

I guess, that he has used his diplomatic passpoprt, which is afforded to ex Thai PM'S.