Thaksin: Man City Sale Funded Diamond-mine Purchase

[TAWP]

If he mean what it looks like he is meaning, then we have a clear propaganda-troll on our hands.

Edited September 7, 2009 by TAWP

[brahmburgers]

from the Nation newspaper article:

He claimed that he was willing to step down if he was talked to "nicely". In fact he just clinged to office because he wanted to complete some unfinished tasks before his exit, he said.

(the word is 'clung' not 'clinged,' but anyway) ...I don't understand. T was willing to step down from what - as caretaker PM? ...way back when, right before the coup?

As with nearly every declaration from T, this one stretches credibility to its limit. Everything T did while he was at the helm, was hel_l-bent on solidifying his power position, amassing wealth, and shutting up critics, by lawsuits and other means.

Or perhaps T is alluding to 'stepping down' from his overseas soapbox from which he continually tries to feed the discontent to his thinning group of supporters.

Either way, he apparently wants/wanted to be talked to 'nicely.' ....by whom? probably by other power brokers, is my guess. So, message to those in power: speak nicely to T and he will respond reasonably. Is that it?

[dre1247]

Oh yes! The champion of the poor!

Private jet

Premier league football club

Diamond mine

Private Mediterranean island

Billions in cash and assets (and I don't mean Mickey Mouse currency) hoarded away; some frozen

Thousands of rai of prime land

What have I overlooked?

You overlooked the fact that he is the "mother of all the elite", the so popular description used in many mails to explain the reason the reds are up in arms. The poor suckers did not yet realise this fact. They are so taken by the nose it's unreal......

[somluck]

Oh yes! The champion of the poor!

Private jet

Premier league football club

Diamond mine

Private Mediterranean island

Billions in cash and assets (and I don't mean Mickey Mouse currency) hoarded away; some frozen

Thousands of rai of prime land

What have I overlooked?

Why can't a rich tycoon be a champion of the poor? Thaksin was/is one of the richest man in Thailand but that is still far from being the richest in the world

[henryalleman]

"Diamonds are forever" - easier to move as well - will they soon replace the 100 and 500 notes?

But then ever seen the size of a 5 pointer?

1 ct is 0.2 Gr.

or 100 points

so how many grams are 5 points

a quarter of a ct is 4.1 mm in diameter...

guess the size of 5 points... well...

Interesting would be the location of the new aquisition -

Angola, Nigeria or Liberia?

IMHO the buying of a Diamond mine is just one big hoax. Everybody with a litle bit of knowledge about the diamond trade will confirm it. Maybe he do some business with some doggy African warlord thats all. But than we are talking about blood diamonds, who he can only sell on the black market.

Simply because all the diamond trade is controled by the De Beers in London. Even Russia and Australia sell their diamonds to them.They set the price and decide howmuch karat will be sold on the world market. Nowaday's the Indians are more and more replace the Jews as diamond traders and manufaterers, and for them Thaksin is just a litle boy from kindergarten. Also the Indians are the biggest manufacterers in cutting diamond. And still till today more than 70% of the diamond trade happens in Antwerp. .All this trade is happening in just 2 small soi.

So as long we don't see Thaksin in the soi above of , its just one of his fantasy stories

[henryalleman]

Thaksin didn't really say anything incendiary or encouraging of violence or unrest. As such, the PM's office saying the news story should not have been disseminated speaks to the mentality of the current government.

Chom Phetpradab did his job and reported on what Thaksin said. The information was newsworthy and relevant. Even the detractors of Thaksin have a right to know what he has done with his money frpm the Man U sale. Perhaps the Prime Minsiter and his minions and friends in the military should reconsider that this is not what confidant secure leaders do. Nor is it considered acceptable behaviour unless one is in Syria, Iran, Zimbabwe etc.

I guess those repeated calls by T for a " People's Revolution", were just his way of saying "Lets get together and have a picnic! Come on, it'll be fun!"...

Stay on topic, which in this case is this specific interview. Where did Mr. Thaksin call for a People's Revolution in the interview? If he had been advocating violence, I could understand the need to prevent the dissemination. What we have here is the Prime Minister's office upset and wishing to control the media.

Obviously you dislike Mr. Thaksin. Many others hate him too. However, the public have a human right to hear and read interviews like this. If the military ever removes the PM, I would support his right to a news interview as well.

Where did Mr. Thaksin call for a People's Revolution in the interview? If he had been advocating violence, I could understand the need to prevent the dissemination

Did Mr. Thaksin not that long ago declared that he will walk in front of the crowd when they will march to the capital to take power.

[Artisi]

[

The fact that he actually did improve the lives of millions of Thailand's poor, almost halved the amount of people living beneath the poverty line and did more for the poor of this country than any other government, person or institution before him.

Round my neck of the woods, the poor are just as poor and further in debt because of Thaksin and his easy money used to buy votes etc.

[brahmburgers]

Good 2 c u back HenryAlleman, where you been?

[brahmburgers]

[

The fact that he actually did improve the lives of millions of Thailand's poor, almost halved the amount of people living beneath the poverty line and did more for the poor of this country than any other government, person or institution before him.

Round my neck of the woods, the poor are just as poor and further in debt because of Thaksin and his easy money used to buy votes etc.

agree with Artisi. if Thaksin did improve the lot of some poor folks, it was a relatively small amount and was probably done using lottery proceeds (which T had control over during his reign as PM).

Granted a few roads got improved and many poo yai (in districts which voted strong for T) got influxes of money for themselves. However, Thaksin's basic legacy, in regard to the poor, is his vote-getting promises of forgiving debts, and making everyone rich - both of which proved to be hot air.

The poor thought "he's rich, he surely knows how to make all of us get rich" ...and they still don't see that T was only concerned about making himself filthy rich while consolidating power to the extent that no one could touch him.

[stumonster]

By The Nation

Published on September 8, 2009

At a senatorial meeting in Parliament yesterday, a group of senators criticised the state-funded TV Thai for broadcasting a special report about Thaksin's diamond mining business in Africa.

did this "special report " actually report any specifics - or was it a dream sequence again ?

[Samuian]

"Diamonds are forever" - easier to move as well - will they soon replace the 100 and 500 notes?

But then ever seen the size of a 5 pointer?

1 ct is 0.2 Gr.

or 100 points

so how many grams are 5 points

a quarter of a ct is 4.1 mm in diameter...

guess the size of 5 points... well...

Interesting would be the location of the new aquisition -

Angola, Nigeria or Liberia?

IMHO the buying of a Diamond mine is just one big hoax. Everybody with a litle bit of knowledge about the diamond trade will confirm it. Maybe he do some business with some doggy African warlord thats all. But than we are talking about blood diamonds, who he can only sell on the black market.

Simply because all the diamond trade is controled by the De Beers in London. Even Russia and Australia sell their diamonds to them.They set the price and decide howmuch karat will be sold on the world market. Nowaday's the Indians are more and more replace the Jews as diamond traders and manufaterers, and for them Thaksin is just a litle boy from kindergarten. Also the Indians are the biggest manufacterers in cutting diamond. And still till today more than 70% of the diamond trade happens in Antwerp. .All this trade is happening in just 2 small soi.

So as long we don't see Thaksin in the soi above of , its just one of his fantasy stories

Dead true - if no hoax - he could become a shareholder in the mining company!

However I don't believe anything that comes through his channel...unless I have seen proof of it.

However, I wonder why hardly anyone questions the price he bought ManC for, the price he "sold" it for - to his "mate"

the "Dubai" broker and his various "Investments" public channels report he lost a lot, he says he keeps buying -

is he on a laundry run since?

Just a thought or 2....

In a report by a Chula Lecturer published on the internet Click here: he suposedly managed to stash away about an amount equal to that what has been frozen.

So where all the other dosh came from....?

From the sale of ManC or out of the countless pieces of luggage transferred with 2 aircraft initially to Norway just around the days of the coup?

How much did he and his entourage really cost this country?

[brahmburgers]

How much did he and his entourage really cost this country?

A whole heck of a lot. Particularly if you were related to the dozens of people killed on his watch - in his 'drug war' or in the southern strife-torn regions. The cost of Thaksin's misdeeds will cripple Thailand for years to come.

Perhaps a relatively small item in the big picture of things was addressed by Thaksin in the Nation newspaper interview, "Before the 2006 coup, rumour mongers claimed I took out 30 baggages filled with money. This is not true,"

Well then, if it was 29 bags or 31 bags, then the denial is technically true. Perhaps there were 30 bags, but they were not all filled with money - then again, the denial is intact. There could have been a bunch of other valuables in those many large suitcases.

And then there are the other dozens of large suitcases which the wife and kids took out of Thailand days/weeks after the coup - which were never checked at the gate. The contents of which we'll never know unless some of the family members decide to come clean some day. However, it's no secret that Thaksin and his ilk have never been forthright about anything. You're more likely to find the truth if you take everything that Thaksin declares and reverse it, then if you try taking what he says at face value.

Edited September 9, 2009 by brahmburgers

[ballpoint]

The fact that he actually did improve the lives of millions of Thailand's poor, almost halved the amount of people living beneath the poverty line and did more for the poor of this country than any other government, person or institution before him.

Back to this old chestnut again? If you remember, I asked you to prove this claim a number of months ago. In reply, you posted a few links, one of which was a World Bank report from 2005.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTHAI...full-report.pdf

Let's look at some quotes from this report:

"The Northeast receives fewer public resources than any other region. Regional economic development depends, among

other factors, on how key sectors are funded with public resources. Channeling public resources to disadvantaged regions, if

done well, can be a powerful way of promoting convergence in living standards. The expenditure gap between the

Northeast and other regions has remained fairly constant over the last five years (see Figure 9). The Northeast obtained in

FY 2003 Bt6,400 per capita (1999 Prices; US$160), which was one third less than the Center and 27 percent less than the

North and the South. The spending shortfall compared to these three regions was close to around 30 percent in FY 1999

and FY 2003".

So, before and during Thaksin's rein, the Northeast received around 30% less public resources than the rest of the country, not what I'd call doing "more for the poor than any other government", more like doing exactly the same.

"The decline in consumer confidence has swamped favorable factors like rising real wages and robust farm incomes."

Wait a minute, "the decline in consumer confidence"? But this report came out in 2005, when Thaksin was in charge. A time of unrivalled prosperity for all if we listen to the Thaksinista propaganda on this forum. Why the decline in confidence if things were so rosey?

And, perhaps most telling:

"During the last 35 years, the Northeast was one of the fastest growing economies in the world. The Northeast’s average per

capita growth rate of 3.3 percent since 1970 has rivaled that of Latin America, South Asia or the group of high-income

countries. Its economy is three times as large now than in 1970: GDP per capita in 2004, measured in 1988 prices,

amounted to Bt34,000, compared to only Bt11,000 in 1970. With economic growth came change in the composition of

output. Agriculture accounts for just under one fifth of GDP, compared to close to two fifths in 1970. Industry increased

from the early 1990s onwards and contributes now as much to GDP as agriculture. And the service sector recorded the

largest gains: it provides today over three fifths of GDP, compared to over two fifths three and a half decades ago.

With value-added per person growing three-fold in the Northeast in the last 35 years, household living standards improved

dramatically. The poverty headcount fell from 56 percent in 1988 to 17 percent in 2004, and in spite of population growth,

the number of poor dropped from 9 million to 3.7 million people. Rising living standards are visible in higher income and

consumption as well as more durable goods. For example, over two thirds of Northeast households had refrigerators in

2002, compared to only one seventh in 1988. Almost all families own a television today, relative to only just over one in

three in the late 1980s".

As I've said in numerous posts, Thaksin has simply claimed credit for natural progress in the Northeast. The Isaan region has been growing economically for the past 35 years. I have personally witnessed this over the last 20, and see no difference in the rate of progress pre-, during, and post- Thaksin. He is a manipulator of the first order and a propaganda-ist to rival Goebbels. The lies that you, and the fellow members of the Thaksinateers fanclub, parade on this forum at his behest can only serve to reinforce this view.

[ThNiner]

^

[Thai at Heart]

The fact that he actually did improve the lives of millions of Thailand's poor, almost halved the amount of people living beneath the poverty line and did more for the poor of this country than any other government, person or institution before him.

Back to this old chestnut again? If you remember, I asked you to prove this claim a number of months ago. In reply, you posted a few links, one of which was a World Bank report from 2005.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTHAI...full-report.pdf

Let's look at some quotes from this report:

"The Northeast receives fewer public resources than any other region. Regional economic development depends, among

other factors, on how key sectors are funded with public resources. Channeling public resources to disadvantaged regions, if

done well, can be a powerful way of promoting convergence in living standards. The expenditure gap between the

Northeast and other regions has remained fairly constant over the last five years (see Figure 9). The Northeast obtained in

FY 2003 Bt6,400 per capita (1999 Prices; US$160), which was one third less than the Center and 27 percent less than the

North and the South. The spending shortfall compared to these three regions was close to around 30 percent in FY 1999

and FY 2003".

So, before and during Thaksin's rein, the Northeast received around 30% less public resources than the rest of the country, not what I'd call doing "more for the poor than any other government", more like doing exactly the same.

"The decline in consumer confidence has swamped favorable factors like rising real wages and robust farm incomes."

Wait a minute, "the decline in consumer confidence"? But this report came out in 2005, when Thaksin was in charge. A time of unrivalled prosperity for all if we listen to the Thaksinista propaganda on this forum. Why the decline in confidence if things were so rosey?

And, perhaps most telling:

"During the last 35 years, the Northeast was one of the fastest growing economies in the world. The Northeast’s average per

capita growth rate of 3.3 percent since 1970 has rivaled that of Latin America, South Asia or the group of high-income

countries. Its economy is three times as large now than in 1970: GDP per capita in 2004, measured in 1988 prices,

amounted to Bt34,000, compared to only Bt11,000 in 1970. With economic growth came change in the composition of

output. Agriculture accounts for just under one fifth of GDP, compared to close to two fifths in 1970. Industry increased

from the early 1990s onwards and contributes now as much to GDP as agriculture. And the service sector recorded the

largest gains: it provides today over three fifths of GDP, compared to over two fifths three and a half decades ago.

With value-added per person growing three-fold in the Northeast in the last 35 years, household living standards improved

dramatically. The poverty headcount fell from 56 percent in 1988 to 17 percent in 2004, and in spite of population growth,

the number of poor dropped from 9 million to 3.7 million people. Rising living standards are visible in higher income and

consumption as well as more durable goods. For example, over two thirds of Northeast households had refrigerators in

2002, compared to only one seventh in 1988. Almost all families own a television today, relative to only just over one in

three in the late 1980s".

As I've said in numerous posts, Thaksin has simply claimed credit for natural progress in the Northeast. The Isaan region has been growing economically for the past 35 years. I have personally witnessed this over the last 20, and see no difference in the rate of progress pre-, during, and post- Thaksin. He is a manipulator of the first order and a propaganda-ist to rival Goebbels. The lies that you, and the fellow members of the Thaksinateers fanclub, parade on this forum at his behest can only serve to reinforce this view.

Pick your quotes as you see fit.

The revised poverty line shows that substantial reduction in overall poverty has been accomplished by

Thailand between 2000 and 2004. Based on the new poverty line2, the number of poor fell from 12.7 million in

2000 to 9.5 million in 2000 to 7.1 million in 2004 (see Table 2). The largest decline in the number of poor was seen

in the Northeast, home to the half the poor in Thailand in 2004.

Table 2. Number of Poor and National Poverty Line by Region

Number of poor (Million) 2000 2002 2004

Bangkok 0.10 0.14 0.11

Central 1.45 1.15 0.76

North 2.63 2.11 1.91

Northeast 7.22 4.97 3.65

South 1.36 1.14 0.66

Whole country 12.76 9.54 7.08

New Poverty line (Baht/person/month)

Bangkok 1,736 1,801 1,853

Bangkok vicinity 1,310 1,316 1,387

Central 1,227 1,277 1,339

North 1,019 1,078 1,131

Northeast 993 1,040 1,078

South 1,034 1,096 1,164

Whole country 1,135 1,190 1,242

Source: NESDB

Now maybe people can understand why he has a pretty big following in Isaan. Ironically, the next biggest benefactors appear to be the South where he didn't appear to pay any attention what so ever.

The slower pace of change has held back poverty reduction. With poverty falling faster in other regions, poverty continues to be concentrated in the Northeast – one in two poor persons lived in the Northeast in 1988 and continues to do so today. Poverty is about 60 percent higher in rural areas, where livelihood depends mostly on agriculture, than in urban areas, which offer jobs in industry and services. Northeast rice farmers alone account for over half of Thailand’s poor. Faced with low agricultural yields and absence of off-farm jobs, about one in two Northeast families rely on migration and remittances to boost incomes. Among receiving households, these remittances amounted to around one third of household income, and they help lower poverty from 17 percent to 12 percent. At the same time, almost one in two Northeast villages report many problems with migration.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Thai at Heart

[Oberkommando]

So Thaksin's achievements in the North East are now "natural progress"?

I know it is difficult to give any credit where it is due because of your blind and irrational hatred of the man, but this beggars belief.

I will also state for the record once again I am not a Thaksin supporter.

The only one clearly manipulating the facts is your good self ballpoint.

[Oberkommando]

^^

[ballpoint]

So Thaksin's achievements in the North East are now "natural progress"?

I know it is difficult to give any credit where it is due because of your blind and irrational hatred of the man, but this beggars belief.

I will also state for the record once again I am not a Thaksin supporter.

The only one clearly manipulating the facts is your good self ballpoint.

Hello? I'm not the one coming up with unsubstantiated claptrap about Thaksin the great saviour. I'm just quoting from the very paper you posted to support your claims. If I'm "manipulating the facts" to show the lie to your assertion, then you are clearly manipulating them to try and prove it, which you still haven't succeeded.

Nice try with your "Thaksin's achievements in the North East", when the paper clearly states he spent no more public funds on Isaan than prior governments, and also clearly states the region has been economically improving over the past 35 years. Still blind to the real facts, such as the vast number of improvements to reach our village in Buri Ram - electricity, paved roads, tractors, a water supply, came long before Thaksin was even heard of. Natural progress; technology improves and becomes cheaper so more people have access to it. As an example, the price and size of mobile phones plummeted while he was in charge, more companies competed for users, more towers were built, so it's now practical for just about everyone to own a mobile phone. Nothing to do with Thaksin, more to do with Nokia, Ericsson, Motorolla et al. Yet he would take credit for it. As another example, I'll bet more households own a large flat screen television now than when he was in charge. Again, simply because prices are falling - you can get a 43" LCD at Tesco's for around 25,000 baht now, nothing to do with the government making everybody richer.

[Thai at Heart]

So Thaksin's achievements in the North East are now "natural progress"?

I know it is difficult to give any credit where it is due because of your blind and irrational hatred of the man, but this beggars belief.

I will also state for the record once again I am not a Thaksin supporter.

The only one clearly manipulating the facts is your good self ballpoint.

Hello? I'm not the one coming up with unsubstantiated claptrap about Thaksin the great saviour. I'm just quoting from the very paper you posted to support your claims. If I'm "manipulating the facts" to show the lie to your assertion, then you are clearly manipulating them to try and prove it, which you still haven't succeeded.

Nice try with your "Thaksin's achievements in the North East", when the paper clearly states he spent no more public funds on Isaan than prior governments, and also clearly states the region has been economically improving over the past 35 years. Still blind to the real facts, such as the vast number of improvements to reach our village in Buri Ram - electricity, paved roads, tractors, a water supply, came long before Thaksin was even heard of. Natural progress; technology improves and becomes cheaper so more people have access to it. As an example, the price and size of mobile phones plummeted while he was in charge, more companies competed for users, more towers were built, so it's now practical for just about everyone to own a mobile phone. Nothing to do with Thaksin, more to do with Nokia, Ericsson, Motorolla et al. Yet he would take credit for it. As another example, I'll bet more households own a large flat screen television now than when he was in charge. Again, simply because prices are falling - you can get a 43" LCD at Tesco's for around 25,000 baht now, nothing to do with the government making everybody richer.

Hey, you don't think that he may have been the first politician ever to ride a wave. Overall poverty got halved in Isaan during his time. No mean feat whether he had to build roads or not. The roads were already there, along with the capacity. What they needed was markets. He made his FTA's and got agricultural produce moving out of the country to new places. Some also got hurt with imports, but that didn't largely effect Isaan.

People believed that he found more export markets for their produce and incomes rose. The reality is that exports for products from Isaan generally rose in his time in office. I am not sure whether the government subsidy programs for rice are included in the figures from the World Bank, but like it or not, the reality is that poverty was HALVED in Isaan according to the World Bank.

I have worked in agriculture around Asia for many years, and agricultural real incomes rose in Isaan during his time in office. Pure and simple.

[ballpoint]

Pick your quotes as you see fit.

The revised poverty line shows that substantial reduction in overall poverty has been accomplished by

Thailand between 2000 and 2004. Based on the new poverty line2, the number of poor fell from 12.7 million in

2000 to 9.5 million in 2000 to 7.1 million in 2004 (see Table 2). The largest decline in the number of poor was seen

in the Northeast, home to the half the poor in Thailand in 2004.

Table 2. Number of Poor and National Poverty Line by Region

Number of poor (Million) 2000 2002 2004

Bangkok 0.10 0.14 0.11

Central 1.45 1.15 0.76

North 2.63 2.11 1.91

Northeast 7.22 4.97 3.65

South 1.36 1.14 0.66

Whole country 12.76 9.54 7.08

New Poverty line (Baht/person/month)

Bangkok 1,736 1,801 1,853

Bangkok vicinity 1,310 1,316 1,387

Central 1,227 1,277 1,339

North 1,019 1,078 1,131

Northeast 993 1,040 1,078

South 1,034 1,096 1,164

Whole country 1,135 1,190 1,242

Source: NESDB

Now maybe people can understand why he has a pretty big following in Isaan. Ironically, the next biggest benefactors appear to be the South where he didn't appear to pay any attention what so ever.

The slower pace of change has held back poverty reduction. With poverty falling faster in other regions, poverty continues to be concentrated in the Northeast – one in two poor persons lived in the Northeast in 1988 and continues to do so today. Poverty is about 60 percent higher in rural areas, where livelihood depends mostly on agriculture, than in urban areas, which offer jobs in industry and services. Northeast rice farmers alone account for over half of Thailand's poor. Faced with low agricultural yields and absence of off-farm jobs, about one in two Northeast families rely on migration and remittances to boost incomes. Among receiving households, these remittances amounted to around one third of household income, and they help lower poverty from 17 percent to 12 percent. At the same time, almost one in two Northeast villages report many problems with migration.

Ironic, isn't it, that the second poorest region should have the second greatest drop in poverty figures, despite, as you say, him not appearing to pay any attention to it. Almost as if the poorest region would also drop, even if he didn't pay any attention to it. Almost as if he didn't give the Northeast any particular attention, apart from ensuring he bought off the incumbent MP's. But then, if he never really paid any attention to the Northeast he wouldn't have apportioned so much money on it compared to previous governments. Hang on, he didn't. He spent 30% less on Isaan than on every other region, the same figure as the previous government. You can bandy your selective quote allegations around, but it doesn't change that what I quoted are the facts. And here's another one for you, taken from the World Bank's Thailand Economic Monitor for 2005:

"The gap in per capita public spending between the Northeast and other regions is highest in the transport and agricultural sectors which are sectors important for poverty alleviation".

Strange isn't it, that a man who did so much to alleviate poverty in the Northeast should maintain such a large gap in two of the most important sectors for poverty alleviation?

By the way, the poverty figures you quoted stop at 2000 because that's the time span the report covers. If you look at the last piece I quoted you'll see poverty has been decreasing since 1970, and "the poverty headcount fell from 56 percent in 1988 to 17 percent in 2004. Indeed, since 1970, every year has seen a reduction in those below the poverty line, with the exception of the crisis in 1997, where an increase was seen. The drop during the Thaksin years was simply a continuation of this trend, and a realigning back to the original one during the boom years that he just happened to rule during.

Take it from me, I live in Buri Ram, most of my in-laws are farmers. They know exactly what he did and didn't do for them, and I can tell you, they're not praising him.

As this is all way off topic, that's all I'm going to say here. Unless someone opens another thread on squashing Thaksin's greatest lies.

(Edited to remove excess line spacings)

Edited September 9, 2009 by ballpoint

[SHYTALK]

From the sale of ManC or out of the countless pieces of luggage transferred with 2 aircraft initially to Norway just around the days of the coup?

How much did he and his entourage really cost this country?

Hope he got the air-miles.

"really cost" - only fair courts can decide if anything, but not as much as the PAD and yellow ones have, still are costing, and will cost into the future.

Maybe the question should be," in his time did he add any value" , not just in monetry terms.

[Publicus]

From the sale of ManC or out of the countless pieces of luggage transferred with 2 aircraft initially to Norway just around the days of the coup?

How much did he and his entourage really cost this country?

Hope he got the air-miles.

"really cost" - only fair courts can decide if anything, but not as much as the PAD and yellow ones have, still are costing, and will cost into the future.

Maybe the question should be," in his time did he add any value" , not just in monetry terms.

The question is did Thaksin pay any tax much less a value added one? While prime minister and well before that Thaksin was the prime tax evader in the Kingdom (PTE).

Edited September 9, 2009 by Publicus