It is not quite as simple as the conclusion to which we western-centrics are prone to jump.
Our mistake is to look at Thailand and see the same 'hardware and software' as in Western long-industrialised nations, and assume that the 'orgware' is/must be/should be the same.
But it isn't. There are fundamental differences in how we have been brought up to believe that society should be organised, and the beliefs to which Thais are brought up.
Fifteen years ago, major surveys were done to ascertain the views of people about 'backhanders' and 'dipping in the till'.
In one part, they were asked: "When a businessman gives a commission fee to government department or high government officials lookin after a project, how do you call it?
16.1% answered: "Gift of good will (sin nam jai)".
9.2% answered: "Part of the cost of the project".
44.9% answered: "Bribery".
18.3% answered: "The official is dishonest in his work".
34.4% answered: "Corruption (karrapchan)".
3.5% answered: "Not corruption (mae karrapchan)".
6.8% answered: "Not sure".
7.9% gave other answers, or none at all.
(It adds up to more than 100% because respondents could give two answers if they wished.)
That is taken from "Corruption and Democracy in Thailand" by Pasuk Phongpaichit and Sungsidh Piriyaranangsan.
I wonder what would be the result of the same survey being done on members of thaivisa.com?
However, all these discussions are like trying to knit treacle, with the long-standing requirement to treat a matter of major impact as taboo, and this week's additional requirement of self-censorship.
0
Thailand To Seize Thaksin's Assets
Started by george, 2006-09-23 00:53
#27
Advanced Member Posted 2006-09-23 07:09:15
Let's slow down folks.
If they were just head hunting Thaksin the assets would already be seized. They will seize the assets only if prosecution is probable or imminent. Try to not underestimate the powers behind this coup. There is no vindictiveness. Already, the coup leaders are setting things in place for proper legal channels to proceed. If it is deemed Thaksin's assets are largely illegally gained, they will be seized, or more likely simply frozen until an investigation can be undertaken. Edited by The Snark, 2006-09-23 07:10:43. #28
Platinum Member Posted 2006-09-23 07:15:33
It’s probably a good thing that Thaksin assets have been seized. I have no doubt that he was making money from his political position. I suspect that has been true for a long time, he’s not the first politician to do this, I suspect most of his forbearers have done the same. I don’t think it’s bad that a military junta has taken control as long as the power they have will be used to give the Thai people what they deserve and need. I am a farang but I also lived in Thailand when ‘Fat Boy’ ruled the roust. [snip - Admin2].  They have got to start somwhere and Thaksin, his family, and all his cronies is a very good place to start. If they cannot succeed against Thaksin and his mob they may as well forget about the rest. #29
Senior Member Posted 2006-09-23 07:20:57
It’s probably a good thing that Thaksin assets have been seized. I have no doubt that he was making money from his political position. I suspect that has been true for a long time, he’s not the first politician to do this, I suspect most of his forbearers have done the same. I don’t think it’s bad that a military junta has taken control as long as the power they have will be used to give the Thai people what they deserve and need. I am a farang but I also lived in Thailand when ‘Fat Boy’ ruled the roust. [snip - Admin2]. They have got to start somwhere and Thaksin, his family, and all his cronies is a very good place to start. If they cannot succeed against Thaksin and his mob they may as well forget about the rest. #30
Newbie Posted 2006-09-23 07:36:43
Take away this mans position---OK Take away his money--now he will fight. I would. #31
Advanced Member Posted 2006-09-23 07:39:58
I look forward to a new constitution.
I look forward to a democratically elected government where the majority rule. I look forward to evidence that will stand up in the courts of the country, instead of allegations and innuendo. I believe the Thai people deserve this after 15 years of democracy. #32
Senior Member Posted 2006-09-23 07:52:59
Maybe it will humble us a little though and that couldn't hurt. Then again maybe the Thais now have a better shot at being properly governed than us. Its pretty tough to be hard on em when this sure looks better than what we have had for a while. We need more than 2 parties cause there are sure more than two ways to do things. Maybe we can watch the Thais for a while and learn something.
#33
Hypnotic member Posted 2006-09-23 08:11:21
I had suggested this before that some key laws would require the King’s approval before they could be changed. If they set up a good solid constitution they can make this happen. This essentially a bit of a leash that may be required to avoid another cycle of this mess. I think they have this now in the form of a royal decrees. I was thinking more along the lines of expanding that to protect laws that could make corruption easier. Thaksin just changed them as they got in his way. Someone said “Thaksin has found and highlighted all the problems with the constitution”, I agree with that assessment.
#34
Newbie Posted 2006-09-23 08:17:35
Seems to me Taksin improved and developed Thailand greatly on the world stage and internally during his rule.
He introduced significant improvements to peoples lives with the hospital and the one product one tambon schemes. I am told that his attacks on the drug trade while too violent has reduced the growth of this industry and annoyed many Thai gangsters. Its these people that ordinary Thais should get rid of! Compared to previous Thai leaders I think he was superior in action and benefits to Thailand. And, much of the complaint against him appears to be jealousy. I think he will accept whatever is thrown at him provided its handled by the legal system and not simply a political witchhunt by an elite minority that could not achieve enough votes to topple him constitutionally. #35
Super Member Posted 2006-09-23 08:23:09
In post #37, 'pap' said:
"We need more than 2 parties cause there are sure more than two ways to do things. " Personally, I agree. And, having lived in England during most of Margaret thatcher's 'reign', I would add that a strong third party that can present itself as a credible alternative government would have kept her from her wilder excesses when she realised she didn't have to fear de-election, as the second party were making themselves unelectable. But most people don't agree. They want things simple. And three strong parties means the likelihood of no one party getting a majority, and so the complications of forming a coalition arise. Hence they go along with constituencies electing just one member, which means that the tendency will be for a two-party situation to develop. (The political scientists call it the "M+1 Rule". If there is only one seat to vote for, two strong parties will emerge. If there are two seats to vote for, three parties will develop strongly, etc.) Personally, I prefer complicated effectiveness to simple inadequacy; but I always was mildly eccentric! A good, hard thinking about how to work out how much of Thaksin's assetts were ill-gotten and should be returned to the Ministry of Finance will, hopefully, do the development of political thinking in Thailand a power of good. Providence works in most mysterious ways, and it may be that History will see Thaksin's first term as Prime Minister to have been a masterful restoration of the Thailand economy, and his second term to have been so disastrous (for him, though not for the economy) that it was a blessing in disguise. Who knows? We might, at the end of it all, see Thailand get some political parties with some coherent views of how Thailand's society should develop. But I always was an optimist. #36
Newbie Posted 2006-09-23 08:26:03
Crook? I don't know about Paul McCartney but Clinton sure as hel_l is a crook!
Thailand to target deposed PM's assets Forbes magazine in July said Thaksin is Thailand's fourth richest businessman with a fortune worth R2,2-billion. Who are the three? The ones richer than him? Would be interesting to know. ....and what is R2,2-billion? Is that Rand, Ruppees, Baht even, or Dollars or Pounds? I'm a multi milllionaire in Vietnam and Italy, really!!! You will find details about the other three, all wealthier than Thaksin, at the following site: [link removed by Admin2] They are, according to Forbes ranking: 214. Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi, Thailand, 61, $3.2, alcohol 292. Chaleo Yoovidhya, Thailand, 74, $2.5, Red Bull 317. Dhanin Chearavanont and family, Thailand, 66, $2.4, agriculture Thaksin was clearly a wealthy man before taking office and was taken to court over the stated value of his assets some months after taking office. He was cleared by the courts. Why do we assume that, because he's rich, that he's a crook? Paul McCartney's a billionaire, is he also corrupted? Bill Clinton was on the verge of bankruptcy but is now a multi-millionaire. So many critics, I wonder where all of you get your facts. #37
Senior Member Posted 2006-09-23 08:39:01
The old system of Thai corruption pre 1997 was to take five percent off all government projects and put it into the hands of the politicians and this worked reasonably well (esp compared to many African countries where they took 95 percent of the money...) for a long time.
No-one really knows what has been going down in DR T's rule at the moment and how much loot was taken from the mega-projects and how much is actually left in the governments hands. Given that Thaksin was an almost invisible politician in the background during the 1997 plundering of the Thai treasury, the art of which was never fully explained, it will be interesting to see if we are in for a repeat of that time - Thaksin may actually then say the country fell apart without his rule, etc. Be interesting to see how the Thais will blame foreigners this time around (IMF last time), maybe they will have a go at the Chinese for a change... #38
Advanced Member Posted 2006-09-23 08:39:21
Bill Clinton makes money from his book 'My Life' and from speaking engagements. He's also allowed to make investments that he was unable to do as a president. In addition he defended himself from persecution by the neo con right wing factions at great personal cost which is why he was bankrupt as a president. The incumbent has lived his pampered low IQ life from oil profits and has declared the U.S. is addicted to oil
Paul McCartney hasn't run for office. Thaksin never said the nation is addicted to mobiles. His maid and chauffeur are unusually rich. You might benefit from reading a little more in depth before the self actualisation of being brain washed by the media dawns on you. Good luck. You need it.
Crook? I don't know about Paul McCartney but Clinton sure as hel_l is a crook!
Thailand to target deposed PM's assets Forbes magazine in July said Thaksin is Thailand's fourth richest businessman with a fortune worth R2,2-billion. Who are the three? The ones richer than him? Would be interesting to know. ....and what is R2,2-billion? Is that Rand, Ruppees, Baht even, or Dollars or Pounds? I'm a multi milllionaire in Vietnam and Italy, really!!! You will find details about the other three, all wealthier than Thaksin, at the following site: [link removed by Admin2] They are, according to Forbes ranking: 214. Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi, Thailand, 61, $3.2, alcohol 292. Chaleo Yoovidhya, Thailand, 74, $2.5, Red Bull 317. Dhanin Chearavanont and family, Thailand, 66, $2.4, agriculture Thaksin was clearly a wealthy man before taking office and was taken to court over the stated value of his assets some months after taking office. He was cleared by the courts. Why do we assume that, because he's rich, that he's a crook? Paul McCartney's a billionaire, is he also corrupted? Bill Clinton was on the verge of bankruptcy but is now a multi-millionaire. So many critics, I wonder where all of you get your facts. #39
Senior Member Posted 2006-09-23 08:49:47
Let's slow down folks. If they were just head hunting Thaksin the assets would already be seized. They will seize the assets only if prosecution is probable or imminent. Try to not underestimate the powers behind this coup. There is no vindictiveness. Already, the coup leaders are setting things in place for proper legal channels to proceed. If it is deemed Thaksin's assets are largely illegally gained, they will be seized, or more likely simply frozen until an investigation can be undertaken. If they started to do it now before there has been a proper investigation then it would only do more harm to the image that they are doing it for the people and not just to get back at Thaksin. I get more confident everyday in what is happening. #40
Advanced Member Posted 2006-09-23 08:49:53
Two points to be made:
1-Thaksin got out of Thailand with most of his assets, hence the 60 suitcases of gold, jewelry, cash and other valuables that were taken out by him and his family. Wouldn't be surprised if most of his real property (land, buildings) were already sold or otherwise disposed of. Offshore accounts, investment accounts, etc are going to be so buried that they probably never will be traced back Thaksin, assuming they can be found in the first place. Whatever can be seized at this point is a fraction of the total and will be for show, only. 2-As another poster pointed out, these conversations are severly crippled because we can only express one sided opinions as to the current situation. Don't get me wrong, I am completely supportive of the coup, but I would love to be able to debate and constructively discuss both pros and cons. That is what I have come to really appreciate about this forum...lively, well argued, constructive arguments about the happenings in Thailand. It will be nice when we can have that again. #41
Member Posted 2006-09-23 08:51:43
Well i Believe its too late the horse has bolted and the accounts will now be concealed and furthermore it should be done to everyone that is a politician
#42
Senior Member Posted 2006-09-23 08:55:26
This is a good thing as there is alleged corruption. I know that in this forum people like to compare Thailand visa regs with farang countries and I think this is wrong. However I do believe the US should have done exactly this, freeze assets of the Bill Clinton administration when they bilked US taxpayers out of billions. No they did not have the balls that the Thais are showing in this great move. I applaud
#43
Advanced Member Posted 2006-09-23 08:57:26
This country may be in a for long haul... examples of other countries with these kind of problems, never show to be very successful "for the people, of the people, and by the people".
I'm sure there will be a lot of Mr Corruptive Skeletons will coming out for both sides of these conflicts. #44
Super Member Posted 2006-09-23 09:02:11
'gregchambers' said in post #42:
"Be interesting to see how the Thais will blame foreigners this time around (IMF last time), maybe they will have a go at the Chinese for a change...". In all fairness, even the IMF would now agree that their approach to Thailand's problems in 1997 was entirely counter-productive. They wanted 'the Mexico solution' applied to what wasn't 'the Mexico problem'. I wondered why Thaksin had chosen to go to London, when a Chinese-Thai might have been expected to look to going to China. But he will have thought it through. So maybe he decided it was better to embarass 'has beens' with his presence, rather than 'the up-and-coming'. #45
danish pastry member Posted 2006-09-23 09:03:15
By not freezing his bank accounts immediatly after the coup took effect, the Bank of Thailand prez left the barn door open. No one should be surprised to find that he and his operatives siphoned billions of baht out of Thailand in those ensuing days. Of course, he had already spirited away most of his wealth even before the coup. He's always been a step or two ahead of the 'keystone cops' back home.
#46
Aged Folk-Rocking Member Posted 2006-09-23 09:05:07
Quote Thaksin was clearly a wealthy man before taking office and was taken to court over the stated value of his assets some months after taking office. He was cleared by the courts. On a split-vote, due only to having just won an election, an early sign of undue-influence to come. Why do we assume that, because he's rich, that he's a crook? Paul McCartney's a billionaire, is he also corrupted? Bill Clinton was on the verge of bankruptcy but is now a multi-millionaire. So many critics, I wonder where all of you get your facts. Where did you get that from? Most of us lived under his rule since 2000. He`s a crook. Don`t give a dog`s bollock whether he is wealthy or not. But he is a crook. Absolutely !  There seem to be a lot of very innocent posts, no doubt well-meant, from Newbies who aren't necessarily living here, who seem not to have seen what was happening here in Thailand. Seizing a few of his assets, while the case is made out, will not affect the majority of his assets in the B.V.I., Singapore, London or Switzerland or other dodgy tax-havens where dirty money is laundered. He knew this was coming. That's why he shipped out personal-property by the plane-load. IMHO the military have saved the country, waiting until the very last minute to do so, from another Marcos, and are to be congratulated.  That there were no military-coups for 15 years, shows how far democracy has advanced here, and also how necessary it had become, that this now took place. Well Done Sonthi ! You saved the country from a blood-bath. Now let's wait a few weeks, to give the CDRM a chance, and then start to judge them by their actions. It is way premature to criticise now. And see what evidence comes out, regarding the major corruption, which I believe most expats here would agree, has been rampant over the past 5 years. Long Live the King ! 
#47
Member Posted 2006-09-23 09:05:12
I once read a story about a land free from corruption, the idea went something like this...
Anyone who wanted to be in Governent had all their assets and thier families assests siezed by the country. If after their term in office the country had flourished and all the services which were needed had been supplied to the agreed level, schools, books, hospitals, roads etc. Then after the term in office the person in question would get their assests back plus a percentage equal to the growth of the countries economy. If the country had not flourished or the services met to the agreed standard then they would only recieve a portion of that money back. Sounded like a nice Idea to me. In my opinion, people who wish to govern should not be able to have personal business dealings which would benefit from thier position of power. It is open to too much abuse and we see it time and time again. Belesconi in Italy is another prime example of this, (sorry if I spelt your name wrong Mr Belesconi.) Tax free deals, property near multi million dollar airports which will sky rocket in price is not governing a country, when their are schools without enough funding or another hundred problems which should be addressed, it is simply lining your own pockets and is an abuse of power. I do not understand why mankind allows itself to elect corrupt, greedy, self serving men and women to places of privilage and service. You would imagine that somewhere down the line we would have come to the realisation that if there is no accountability for these people then we are doing both them and ourselves a huge disservice. The Thaksin's and Belesconi's of this world will continue to behave in ways unfitting for a leader until we cease to give them the ability to do so. Politics aside, what ever happened to good character, morals, honesty and accountability? #48
Senior Member Posted 2006-09-23 09:07:03
How about Taksin's assets in the British Virgin Islands? Can the Military
Junta seize those assets? What is his total asset value in Thailand? #49
Super Member Posted 2006-09-23 09:10:05
Thailand to target deposed PM's assets Forbes magazine in July said Thaksin is Thailand's fourth richest businessman with a fortune worth R2,2-billion. Who are the three? The ones richer than him? Would be interesting to know. ....and what is R2,2-billion? Is that Rand, Ruppees, Baht even, or Dollars or Pounds? I'm a multi milllionaire in Vietnam and Italy, really!!! You will find details about the other three, all wealthier than Thaksin, at the following site: [link removed by Admin2] They are, according to Forbes ranking: 214. Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi, Thailand, 61, $3.2, alcohol 292. Chaleo Yoovidhya, Thailand, 74, $2.5, Red Bull 317. Dhanin Chearavanont and family, Thailand, 66, $2.4, agriculture Thaksin was clearly a wealthy man before taking office and was taken to court over the stated value of his assets some months after taking office. He was cleared by the courts. Why do we assume that, because he's rich, that he's a crook? Paul McCartney's a billionaire, is he also corrupted? Bill Clinton was on the verge of bankruptcy but is now a multi-millionaire. So many critics, I wonder where all of you get your facts. Because he had a monopoly on the mobile phone system from the early 90s, granted to him following the Suchinda Coup. Coup leaders providing monopolies is a corrupt action. His government gave Burma(Myanmar) or gauranteed the loan to buy $40 million in technology equipment from HIS company. His son's company has the MONOPOLY to sell advertising space in the subway system. His daughter/sister/wife, one of those with a P as the first letter in their name (they are all similar) with a small amount of money opened a company, and then immediately partnered with a large international techonology company to bid on and receive a giant government contract. What goes around, comes around. Som Nam Na!! |
Sponsored by ... |
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
