PM's Office minister defends Yinluck's travel expenses

[northernjohn]

"BANGKOK: -- PM's Office Minister Varathep Ratanakorn Thursday said all spending of funds from the government's central budget in cases of emergency and for other necessities such as the prime minister's official trips required the approval not only of the prime minister, but of the Cabinet as a whole.

The Cabinet did not always grant such spending requests, he added."

Well I see he conveniently omitted any thing they had denied her. At a guess probably a helicopter equipped for night flying.

Also who in their right mind would expect the PMs office to say some of the expenses were not justified.

[OzMick]

While the cost of the PM's trips seems exorbitant, remember that they must be off-set by the fuel savings from her limo not taking her to parliament.

Cute.

Do you think that the PM of a large Asian country with a robust economy should take the bus?

I don't. Why would you expect the PM to do that? Are you going to guarantee the PM's security?

Thank you for the compliment, but I don't see how you read in my post any reference to alternate (cheaper) means of transport or her security. The point, lightly put, was that the expense is high, justified by ephemeral claims to increased tourism and trade, combined with a reminder that a PM's main occupation is parliament which she attends far too little. Other PMs, whether of prosperous Asian countries or not, realise this and confine their travel mostly to parliamentary breaks. In fact, I doubt there is any current PM with a lower attendance record - something not to be proud of.

OTOH as an inexperienced faux-PM, her parliamentary performance is less than outstanding, actually less than average, with the minimal ability to read from a prepared sheet before departing rapidly. A little experience could improve that, but I very much doubt it, as she seems to lack the co-ordination to walk while chewing gum, and standing while thinking and expressing those thoughts coherently is way beyond her.

[northernjohn]

Why is Thailand going bankrupt, where did the money go???? Look at where our Prime Minister travels, and you know the answer...

On what basis do you make the statement Thailand is going bankrupt?

Apparently, you think it is funny to make a false and misleading statement like that. I do not. Get back to me once you have read the Thai national budget and national "balance sheet". I hope you have the ability to read a financial statement and to understand "big numbers".

Thailand is approximately 50% of GDP in debt and growing.

Expenditure is greater than income and growing.

Imports now exceed exports and growing.

Given the above, a 2.2 trillion loan over 50 years and a wavering Moody's rating which would vastly increase interest payments I'd say he was about right.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The Moody's adjustment in Thailand's rating was essentially a technical one applying a changed methodology in assessing local currency risk.

https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-adjusts-country-ceilings-for-Thailand-Oman-and-Mongolia--PR_277902

Money quote:

"The adjusted local currency ceilings are consistent with the methodological framework which positions the ceiling against Thailand's Sovereign Bond rating of Baa1 and Sovereign Bond Methodology factor scores, three of which are the key drivers of the ceiling. In Thailand's case, these consist of a 'moderate' assessment of Economic Strength, a 'moderate' assessment of Institutional Strength and a 'low shaded to moderate' assessment of susceptibility to political, economic or institutional event risks.

The adjustment in the short-term FC bond ceiling stems from Moody's assessment of low transfer and convertibility risks given the country's ability and willingness to service both its public and private cross-border debt obligations. This view is supported by Thailand's healthy external liquidity position, characterized by low external debt and ample foreign exchange reserves."

The overall Moody's conclusion on Thailand was therefore very positive as the release above demonstrates.Needless to say it was ignored/censored in the political coverage by the English language press (The Nation and Bangkok Post) though it was mentioned in the business pages.There is I suppose an excuse for the usual suspects on the forum who don't really understand the issues and lack the capacity to be analytical.I'm not sure there's an excuse for the English language press (that is the reactionary editorial side not the occasional guest columnist who talks good sense)

Well it certainly sounds good but I don't understand it.

All I know is that since Moody's announcement my Canadian and American money has risen about a baht and a half. Hope to see more good news like that coming from them.

edit spelling

Edited August 16, 2013 by northernjohn

[GAZZPA]

Why is Thailand going bankrupt, where did the money go???? Look at where our Prime Minister travels, and you know the answer...

On what basis do you make the statement Thailand is going bankrupt?

Apparently, you think it is funny to make a false and misleading statement like that. I do not. Get back to me once you have read the Thai national budget and national "balance sheet". I hope you have the ability to read a financial statement and to understand "big numbers".

Thailand is absolutely heading for a very big problem once the effect of the rice pledging scheme finally comes to light. There is plenty of documented evidence out there to show you what is happening. This concern is supported by the fact that Moodys are stating (and it is becoming more likely) that they will downgrade Thailands credit rating in light of the uncertainty of the outcome. This is, in my opinion (and many others) is a terrible lack of financial management from the government and an almost unbelievably stupid policy in the first place. So, with this going on it is inevitable that Government spending will be scrutinized in the press. I can see from your posts that you believe it is all rosey, well I guess we will all see in the not too distant future, i hope you're right but I can honestly only see misery on the horizon. In the meantime it would be sensible for the government to be setting an example on careful cost control and the fact that a monthly 220k usd travel expenditure has been published doesn't seem like the PM is trying very hard,,

[Bluespunk]

The Cabinet did not always grant such spending requests, he added.

Name just one request that was denied.

Chalerm's return fare from the south?

I think what Pimay1 meant was name one request that should have been denied?

Yes, just being facetious.

[Thai at Heart]

Why is Thailand going bankrupt, where did the money go???? Look at where our Prime Minister travels, and you know the answer...

On what basis do you make the statement Thailand is going bankrupt?

Apparently, you think it is funny to make a false and misleading statement like that. I do not. Get back to me once you have read the Thai national budget and national "balance sheet". I hope you have the ability to read a financial statement and to understand "big numbers".

Thailand is absolutely heading for a very big problem once the effect of the rice pledging scheme finally comes to light. There is plenty of documented evidence out there to show you what is happening. This concern is supported by the fact that Moodys are stating (and it is becoming more likely) that they will downgrade Thailands credit rating in light of the uncertainty of the outcome. This is, in my opinion (and many others) is a terrible lack of financial management from the government and an almost unbelievably stupid policy in the first place. So, with this going on it is inevitable that Government spending will be scrutinized in the press. I can see from your posts that you believe it is all rosey, well I guess we will all see in the not too distant future, i hope you're right but I can honestly only see misery on the horizon. In the meantime it would be sensible for the government to be setting an example on careful cost control and the fact that a monthly 220k usd travel expenditure has been published doesn't seem like the PM is trying very hard,,

Buggar the rice, I am worried they won't be able to shift the unsold stock of condos and houses and that they will borrow the money for the railway lines, but it ends up as a Hopewell...

[Pimay1]

The Cabinet did not always grant such spending requests, he added.

Name just one request that was denied.

Chalerm's return fare from the south?

I think what Pimay1 meant was name one request that should have been denied?

BANGKOK: -- PM's Office Minister Varathep Ratanakorn Thursday said all spending of funds from the government's central budget in cases of emergency and for other necessities such as the prime minister's official trips required the approval not only of the prime minister, but of the Cabinet as a whole.

The Cabinet did not always grant such spending requests, he added.

I'll clarify what I meant guys. As you can see in the OP it is referring to Yingluck's official trips. I would like to know which official trip or trips were not approved.

[SOTIRIOS]

That is 220 k USD PER MONTH.

Please, how many people does she take with her. This really is taking the p**s.

I can;'t believe that the CEO of GE, or Microsoft costs a remotely similar figure.

......you are forgetting ........shopping........I mean 'official expense' account.......

.....(who is going to stop them ???).....

[tonneke breda]

And still the Red people of Thailand think they can trust the government to take care of them???

[jabek]

This is amazing, 24 posts and NO like this buttons pressed, is it because the subject is the P.M. ??? So the fear is there, bad times must be ahead.

When the fear like this is present then it's got to be time to get off the air, I am sorry it is moving in that direction.

Maybe the mods can have a more definite line to draw, posters are fearing, because we do not know what is safe to do or not to do. Maybe we can not express like before and be silent objectors like the Thai population. FEAR.

I'd like your post, if there was anything worth liking about it. What on earth has your fearmongering about an unrelated matter concerning supposed censorship of internet posts that has since been discounted as the musings of a Police official and never was considered by the Government in any way shape or form got to do with the OP?

[Saan]

Some people would whinge if she took a bus to meet Obama in Washington. Too extravagant, she should of walked.

[ginjag]

This is amazing, 24 posts and NO like this buttons pressed, is it because the subject is the P.M. ??? So the fear is there, bad times must be ahead.

When the fear like this is present then it's got to be time to get off the air, I am sorry it is moving in that direction.

Maybe the mods can have a more definite line to draw, posters are fearing, because we do not know what is safe to do or not to do. Maybe we can not express like before and be silent objectors like the Thai population. FEAR.

I'd like your post, if there was anything worth liking about it. What on earth has your fearmongering about an unrelated matter concerning supposed censorship of internet posts that has since been discounted as the musings of a Police official and never was considered by the Government in any way shape or form got to do with the OP?

If you 100% believe what was said -Discounted, then sorry I am not convinced as I do not believe. Over 3,500 posts I do think fairly clear, and I have too much invested to now do anything that may upset the applecart.

Fear mongering - NO being sensible Yes.

The whole story about the police official-then denied by government is not it all by a long way, I being here 32 years have lived all over Thailand and have seen the slow backward steps, and yes over the last 2 years this dictatorial shift is worrying. I am extremely happy here but now more careful.

I think much the same as 90% of posters in general but feel wary to post now too strong. Up to you my friend, better safe than sorry.

[Stradavarius37]

Would that all this significant intellectual weight be used to make all if your local communities better, Thailand would have no problems at all. The TV barstool warriors waste so much energy trying to prove whose mental dick is bigger than the others. All sound and fury - signifying nothing.

[metisdead]

Posts using derogatory nicknames or intentional misspelling of people’s names have been removed.. If you don’t want your post to be deleted, spell people’s names correctly.

[Jimi007]

Some people would whinge if she took a bus to meet Obama in Washington. Too extravagant, she should of walked.

Really?? I would say that buying four aircraft that wouldn't even make the trip without refueling several times to get to Washington DC wouldn't be the brightest move... But it's not my money!

[ginjag]

Some people would whinge if she took a bus to meet Obama in Washington. Too extravagant, she should of walked.

Really?? I would say that buying four aircraft that wouldn't even make the trip without refueling several times to get to Washington DC wouldn't be the brightest move... But it's not my money!

Thai Airways A340s stood doing nothing -if bought at a snip could make the trip to USA no probs.

[geriatrickid]

GK, since you seem to be in "defend the dear leader" mode,

what say you about the 75,000 bt per clock expense?

Would you at least admit that was dumb?

No. She didn't purchase the clocks. Nor does she sign off on every procurement decision.

Does the PM of UK sign off on the purchase of paper clips for civil service workers stationed in bustling enviable Luton? How about the finance minister in Australia checking the photocopier purchases. Those gizmos can come in at 300,000 baht or more.

[geriatrickid]

Some people would whinge if she took a bus to meet Obama in Washington. Too extravagant, she should of walked.

Really?? I would say that buying four aircraft that wouldn't even make the trip without refueling several times to get to Washington DC wouldn't be the brightest move... But it's not my money!

Thai Airways A340s stood doing nothing -if bought at a snip could make the trip to USA no probs.

Why would the PM need to purchase an airplane that is 3X the size required and that eats fuel at an even higher rate than a new B737? Your advice is akin to telling someone who would be better off with a 2013 Subaru station wagon, to go and purchase a 2000 minibus, because the minibus initial cost would be cheaper.

What you missed was maintenance costs and fuel costs. Older planes require retrofits, and changes to major components.

If you manage your own personal finances using your logic, it would suggest that you may need the assistance of a competent financial planner.

Edited August 16, 2013 by geriatrickid

[OzMick]

Thai Airways A340s stood doing nothing -if bought at a snip could make the trip to USA no probs.

Why would the PM need to purchase an airplane that is 3X the size required and that eats fuel at an even higher rate than a new B737? Your advice is akin to telling someone who would be better off with a 2013 Subaru station wagon, to go and purchase a 2000 minibus, because the minibus initial cost would be cheaper.

What you missed was maintenance costs and fuel costs. Older planes require retrofits, and changes to major components.

If you manage your own personal finances using your logic, it would suggest that you may need the assistance of a competent financial planner.

What you missed was the obvious solution - less travel equals less cost, and then buying a plane has no justification at all.

[Calimotty]

What portion is for airfare and what portion is placed in their pocket written off as 'travel fare'?

I'll say zero. Do you have information to show otherwise, or is this just a malicious intimation motivated by jealousy?

You both don't know. and never will.

Illusions of grandeur usually prompt a supercilious superior attitude.

[ginjag]

Some people would whinge if she took a bus to meet Obama in Washington. Too extravagant, she should of walked.

Really?? I would say that buying four aircraft that wouldn't even make the trip without refueling several times to get to Washington DC wouldn't be the brightest move... But it's not my money!

Thai Airways A340s stood doing nothing -if bought at a snip could make the trip to USA no probs.

Why would the PM need to purchase an airplane that is 3X the size required and that eats fuel at an even higher rate than a new B737? Your advice is akin to telling someone who would be better off with a 2013 Subaru station wagon, to go and purchase a 2000 minibus, because the minibus initial cost would be cheaper.

What you missed was maintenance costs and fuel costs. Older planes require retrofits, and changes to major components.

If you manage your own personal finances using your logic, it would suggest that you may need the assistance of a competent financial planner.

New B737-800 how much x4 fitted to requirements, about 190 seats ok more fuel efficient, but range Kilometers ??? with the seats out to have office -bar rest rooms, and she sometimes has up to 100 vip with her.

Second hand from Thai Airways-little used at a bargain price x 2 enough for her needs, normally 250 passengers, seats out to fit as above, fitted would have enough private rooms and seating for 150.

Not that much maintenance costs more. and used 1 time a month. Also you have the long range without re-fuel, and save airport landing charges.

Your logic is buy 4 x B737s at new price, to use seldom, you need an adviser.

Not forgetting the A340s are Thai Airways ( government ) % owned/controlled.

rent them then off Thai as an alternative when needed.

[Stradavarius37]

Love these TV threads - Reminds me of this photo.

[hellodolly]

What portion is for airfare and what portion is placed in their pocket written off as 'travel fare'?

I'll say zero. Do you have information to show otherwise, or is this just a malicious intimation motivated by jealousy?

You both don't know. and never will.

Illusions of grandeur usually prompt a supercilious superior attitude.

That is some thing that will always make these threads interesting. You wonder how can some one think that way?

Then later they answer the question for you. In the process they describe the clone running this country.

[hellodolly]

Really?? I would say that buying four aircraft that wouldn't even make the trip without refueling several times to get to Washington DC wouldn't be the brightest move... But it's not my money!

Thai Airways A340s stood doing nothing -if bought at a snip could make the trip to USA no probs.

Why would the PM need to purchase an airplane that is 3X the size required and that eats fuel at an even higher rate than a new B737? Your advice is akin to telling someone who would be better off with a 2013 Subaru station wagon, to go and purchase a 2000 minibus, because the minibus initial cost would be cheaper.

What you missed was maintenance costs and fuel costs. Older planes require retrofits, and changes to major components.

If you manage your own personal finances using your logic, it would suggest that you may need the assistance of a competent financial planner.

New B737-800 how much x4 fitted to requirements, about 190 seats ok more fuel efficient, but range Kilometers ??? with the seats out to have office -bar rest rooms, and she sometimes has up to 100 vip with her.

Second hand from Thai Airways-little used at a bargain price x 2 enough for her needs, normally 250 passengers, seats out to fit as above, fitted would have enough private rooms and seating for 150.

Not that much maintenance costs more. and used 1 time a month. Also you have the long range without re-fuel, and save airport landing charges.

Your logic is buy 4 x B737s at new price, to use seldom, you need an adviser.

Not forgetting the A340s are Thai Airways ( government ) % owned/controlled.

rent them then off Thai as an alternative when needed.

In defense of GK I think he was worried about the ability to maintain an older plane.

[Baerboxer]

That is 220 k USD PER MONTH.

Please, how many people does she take with her. This really is taking the p**s.

I can;'t believe that the CEO of GE, or Microsoft costs a remotely similar figure.

Not a valid comparison.The comparison is with the Prime Ministers/Presidents of economically similar sized countries in the region - say Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia.By that correct comparison the budget looks very reasonable particularly as Khun Yingluck has significantly improved Thailand's overseas image after the incompetence and stupidity of the Abhisit/Kasit regime's efforts overseas.

I agree with your logic on benchmark comparison. However, can you provide links and/or details of the evidence that you have researched that shows that Yingluck has significantly improved Thailand's overseas image? Or are you referring to the fantastic effect she's had on the rice exporting business and perceived market opinion of Thai rice?

[OzMick]

Why would the PM need to purchase an airplane that is 3X the size required and that eats fuel at an even higher rate than a new B737? Your advice is akin to telling someone who would be better off with a 2013 Subaru station wagon, to go and purchase a 2000 minibus, because the minibus initial cost would be cheaper.

What you missed was maintenance costs and fuel costs. Older planes require retrofits, and changes to major components.

If you manage your own personal finances using your logic, it would suggest that you may need the assistance of a competent financial planner.

New B737-800 how much x4 fitted to requirements, about 190 seats ok more fuel efficient, but range Kilometers ??? with the seats out to have office -bar rest rooms, and she sometimes has up to 100 vip with her.

Second hand from Thai Airways-little used at a bargain price x 2 enough for her needs, normally 250 passengers, seats out to fit as above, fitted would have enough private rooms and seating for 150.

Not that much maintenance costs more. and used 1 time a month. Also you have the long range without re-fuel, and save airport landing charges.

Your logic is buy 4 x B737s at new price, to use seldom, you need an adviser.

Not forgetting the A340s are Thai Airways ( government ) % owned/controlled.

rent them then off Thai as an alternative when needed.

Yingluk and GK should take some advice from Rolls Royce - If you have to ask how much fuel it uses, you can't afford it. (their explanation for not publishing fuel economy figures for rollers)

Edited August 17, 2013 by OzMick