rixalex Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Chalerm is doing all right....did he accumulate this money from when he was a policeman?What money? He owes 110 million, according to the report. someone can't read, that's all. Would this person like some help? Walen has a good reputation....Sent from my i-mobile i-STYLE 8.2 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app Who exactly is it that can't read, that you just insulted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebelplatoon Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 How about the Maid. the driver and the gardener...? Remember when Toxin was checked he had put a large sum on a bank account for his private staff..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
recycler Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 If Suthep will manage the country like his own finances....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kikoman Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) The article clearly states what her asset and debt were "before taking office" she will be required by law to report her assets after leaving office! The article did not address the usual corruption wording "of un-usual wealth" Cheers Edited February 5, 2014 by kikoman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonar6ca Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Chalerm is doing all right....did he accumulate this money from when he was a policeman? Where ellse????????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackandjim Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 yingluck has a hot mouth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaidam Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 The article clearly states what her asset and debt were "before taking office" she will be required by law to report her assets after leaving office! Cheers Probably an oversight but the article forgot to mention that Yingluck will gain an extra 1,000 million baht when the Thaksin amnesty bill passes on May the 11th at 1 minute past midnight. That is for her share of the seized assets gained through corrupt practices by her brothers company. In truth it will be way more than 1,000 million baht because compound interest (at 7% p.a.)must be factored in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 The article clearly states what her asset and debt were "before taking office" she will be required by law to report her assets after leaving office! Cheers I think you should actually read the articles. NACC revealed details of asset disclosures by 491 ex-members of Parliament whose terms finished with the dissolution of the House of Representatives in December. The declared assets were in combination with those owned by the spouses. - Caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck had Bt603 million in assets and Bt28 million in liabilities. Her assets increased since taking office by more than Bt50 million. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kikoman Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 The article clearly states what her asset and debt were "before taking office" she will be required by law to report her assets after leaving office! Cheers Probably an oversight but the article forgot to mention that Yingluck will gain an extra 1,000 million baht when the Thaksin amnesty bill passes on May the 11th at 1 minute past midnight. That is for her share of the seized assets gained through corrupt practices by her brothers company. In truth it will be way more than 1,000 million baht because compound interest (at 7% p.a.)must be factored in. Sonny, most people read what was actually said in the article, if you have references that state, or back up your statement with (kindly post them) I will consider that, if you do not, it plain B**S^^^ Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kikoman Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 The article clearly states what her asset and debt were "before taking office" she will be required by law to report her assets after leaving office! Cheers I think you should actually read the articles. NACC revealed details of asset disclosures by 491 ex-members of Parliament whose terms finished with the dissolution of the House of Representatives in December. The declared assets were in combination with those owned by the spouses. - Caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck had Bt603 million in assets and Bt28 million in liabilities. Her assets increased since taking office by more than Bt50 million. . When you actually read the article did it state any thing about Yingluck being ""un-usually wealthy", or that the money could not be accountable due to the increase in value of asset held before taking office! Put on your glasses and read it again! Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 The article clearly states what her asset and debt were "before taking office" she will be required by law to report her assets after leaving office! Cheers I think you should actually read the articles. NACC revealed details of asset disclosures by 491 ex-members of Parliament whose terms finished with the dissolution of the House of Representatives in December. The declared assets were in combination with those owned by the spouses. - Caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck had Bt603 million in assets and Bt28 million in liabilities. Her assets increased since taking office by more than Bt50 million. . When you actually read the article did it state any thing about Yingluck being ""un-usually wealthy", or that the money could not be accountable due to the increase in value of asset held before taking office! Put on your glasses and read it again! Cheers What has "unusually wealthy" got to do with anything? You didn't say anything about that (until after I quoted you) and I didn't say anything about that. You said "The article clearly states what her asset and debt were "before taking office" ". The article clearly states that it was from after she left office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
culicine Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 How can 50 million be amassed in a couple of years on a politicians salary? Can Thai politicians still run businesses or other activities to make money? I would have thought ALL politicians should be investigated for any increase in wealth more than 1 million baht over their term. Would love to know where this money is coming from....or is it all 'gifts' ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HUAHIN62 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Its astounding that the NACC year after year collects this info and do nothing with it. Okay I don't like Suthep but lets look at his assets and debt reports since 2011 as reported by The Nation (from NACC reports). The Nation 29 September 2011: "His deputy Suthep Thaugsuban has Bt140 million in assets but also Bt45 million in liabilities." The Nation 5 October 2012: "Suthep, meanwhile, was seen as the poorest member of the former Cabinet in terms of outstanding debts, which stand at Bt347.578 million compared to assets worth Bt210.95 million. Upon leaving office a year ago, Suthep declared assets worth Bt95.64 million compared to Bt81.607 million he had upon taking office. The former minister said the huge difference was due to the Bt267.33 million loans he had taken, including Bt248.57 million borrowed from the Islamic Bank of Thailand" Firstly in his declaration as reported in September 2011 his assets was B 140, but in the 2012 declaration its said that he only had B 95,64 m? So if the report on B 140 m is correct his assets grew with B 58,33 m (or 71,47%) while in office. Secondly he said that his assets grew from B 95,64 m (B 140 m??) to B 210.95 m because he took out loans of B 267,33 m? So if he had B 95,64 m in assets and got B 267,33 m in loans his assets should be +- B 363 m and not B 210 m as reported ?? If he didn't buy assets with the loans how did he get these loans as these banks surely needs collateral for them. Or did someone stand surety for him, in which case who? Thirdly how did he get the loan from the state owned Islamic bank of Thailand in the year after he left office them he is bankrupt (less assets than debt) ?? And this man leads the anti-corruption crusade? And the NACC never investigates people from a certain side of the political spectrum, why? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HUAHIN62 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Did they also count the money they have parked at their wife/husband/children account? Yes they do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wprime Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Seems normal, if Suthep wants to be rich he'll have to get democratically elected and use his position to enhance his investments - he can't expect Yingluck to do it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AleG Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 If Suthep will manage the country like his own finances....... I for one would wish that Thaksin and his band of crooks would manage the country like their own finances, we'd be up to the eyeballs in cash... of course finding who to steal that money from would be more complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseFrank Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 If Suthep will manage the country like his own finances....... I for one would wish that Thaksin and his band of crooks would manage the country like their own finances, we'd be up to the eyeballs in cash... of course finding who to steal that money from would be more complicated. In fact Thaksin does already that, he considers the money in the state coffers to be his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Yim Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 All politicians of all parties should go and live amongst the poor rice farmers for a couple of months. Maybe, just maybe, they would be humbled. Some how I doubt it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrythepoet Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Suthep is clearly out of his depth and surely needs to sort it out before his impending retirement so this political circus is about clearing his debts, this is business forget the people who get shot or incur any harm. Get Suthep arrested, please God. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tragickingdom Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 But nobody takes a puppet organisation of the elite really serious of course. one only has to look to the home of Abhisit to know that 54 million baht is laughable. And the NACC probably does not count the land grab of Suthep that is in the name of his children. It is not really believable that a man who is 4 million dollar in the red is selling a few million in (stolen) land to fund his criminal organisation that is causing Thailand 240 billion in GDP 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebell Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Chalerm is doing all right....did he accumulate this money from when he was a policeman? What money? He owes 110 million, according to the report. Suthep has 210 million baht asset but has 320 million baht debts. Labour Minister Chalerm Yubamrung has 170 million asset with no deb How do you accumulate 320 million of debt? What's he spending it on? Who's lending it to him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kikoman Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Whybother I think you should actually read the articles. What has "unusually wealthy" got to do with anything? You didn't say anything about that (until after I quoted you) and I didn't say anything about that. You said "The article clearly states what her asset and debt were "before taking office" ". The article clearly states that it was from after she left office. Kikoman Let me explain it again, The yellows on this thread are stating that the money was gained though corruption , historically the courts or (NACC) state that the sum shows the person in this case ( PM Yingluch Shinowatra) as being un-usually wealthy (If corruption was at all suspected) I entered the post and as I read it I left out my rational for the post and edited it (clearly documented on the post it was edited, go back and check it, if it is of any importance to you) as you will note most of my post are edited, because omissions or spelling etc . Again many are stating that the increased assets was due to corruption, and the article states not a thing about corruption. I clearly know what my statement intent was!! I do not intend to enter a childish "he said she said with you", as I wrote the post and know why! Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Whybother I think you should actually read the articles. What has "unusually wealthy" got to do with anything? You didn't say anything about that (until after I quoted you) and I didn't say anything about that. You said "The article clearly states what her asset and debt were "before taking office" ". The article clearly states that it was from after she left office. Kikoman Let me explain it again, The yellows on this thread are stating that the money was gained though corruption , historically the courts or (NACC) state that the sum shows the person in this case ( PM Yingluch Shinowatra) as being un-usually wealthy (If corruption was at all suspected) I entered the post and as I read it I left out my rational for the post and edited it (clearly documented on the post it was edited, go back and check it, if it is of any importance to you) as you will note most of my post are edited, because omissions or spelling etc . Again many are stating that the increased assets was due to corruption, and the article states not a thing about corruption. I clearly know what my statement intent was!! I do not intend to enter a childish "he said she said with you", as I wrote the post and know why! Cheers Yes, I can see that you changed your post to include "unusually wealthy", but that is not my issue and not what I commented on. You said the assets mentioned were from "before taking office" which is clearly wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpduggan Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Suthep has 210 million baht asset but has 320 million baht debts. So that's why he's trying so hard to get into power, for him to be able to skim his way into the black! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bander Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Chalerm is doing all right....did he accumulate this money from when he was a policeman? What money? He owes 110 million, according to the report. And what report would that be? "Labour Minister Chalerm Yubamrung has 170 million asset with no debt as well as Democrat party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva who has 54 million baht asset, and had no debt." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kikoman Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Whybother I think you should actually read the articles. What has "unusually wealthy" got to do with anything? You didn't say anything about that (until after I quoted you) and I didn't say anything about that. You said "The article clearly states what her asset and debt were "before taking office" ". The article clearly states that it was from after she left office. Kikoman Let me explain it again, The yellows on this thread are stating that the money was gained though corruption , historically the courts or (NACC) state that the sum shows the person in this case ( PM Yingluch Shinowatra) as being un-usually wealthy (If corruption was at all suspected) I entered the post and as I read it I left out my rational for the post and edited it (clearly documented on the post it was edited, go back and check it, if it is of any importance to you) as you will note most of my post are edited, because omissions or spelling etc . Again many are stating that the increased assets was due to corruption, and the article states not a thing about corruption. I clearly know what my statement intent was!! I do not intend to enter a childish "he said she said with you", as I wrote the post and know why! Cheers Yes, I can see that you changed your post to include "unusually wealthy", but that is not my issue and not what I commented on. You said the assets mentioned were from "before taking office" which is clearly wrong. Sit down in front of the mirror and argue Your issue then ! good luck! Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whybother Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Yes, I can see that you changed your post to include "unusually wealthy", but that is not my issue and not what I commented on. You said the assets mentioned were from "before taking office" which is clearly wrong. Sit down in front of the mirror and argue Your issue then ! good luck! Cheers I wasn't arguing. I was just pointing out that what you wrote is wrong, as shown in the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGIE Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 The anti corruption law mandates politicians holding political postings to declare assets to the NACC before and after their terms in offices end. We know that there is no honest politicians so we expect them of course not to declare all their assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickirs Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Suthep found that insurrections don't come cheap. He probably spent 100million-150 million baht thus far. But he will surpass Yingluck in the number of arrest warrants, so he has gained some success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbswales Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Do people think this is very different anywhere else in the world. Ask yourselves this question - if you were in a short term job which gave you inside knowledge of forthcoming financial and business developments, and assuming that you already had earned enough money to be able to give up your day job and go into politics - wouldn't you seek to increase your assets or would you do the "honest" thing and pretend you didn't have this inside information when making your investments. A political career can be very short and human nature dictates you will try and exit with enough to live a very comfortable life. Even many left wing politicians manage to combine social policy with personal income generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
(1).thumb.png.bbcb267af4aaf1122a444794828169f7.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now