Yingluck's wealth rose by Bt33m while in office, anti-graft body says

[davidmann]

if your poor rice farmer 33 million is lot money ,in the real world its not ,i am sure any leader of any country has a lot more ,and i am sure she has

[Brian Corrigan]

Any one asked what Suthep's assets were when he left power? You are in for a big surprise.

[GAZZPA]

I expect interest and investments alone accounted for quite a bit.... really 33m is that all on her net wealth ? seems pretty insignificant to me.

I agree, she has 600 million and she only grew it by about 5% over 2 years. Pretty poor by anyones standards,, you can get a better return then that by just sticking it into a decent bank account.

Also, her wealth even at 600 million is hardly "super league" money. Is this really all she got?

It may be a lot to me but I know my boss is wealthier then that,,

[IAMSOBAD]

Genius Chalerm lost almost 50%...was it from his bloated ego or too much alcohol?

It's hard to make money while patting yourself on the back all the time.

Just a thought

[timewilltell]

Yingluck's wealth is mostly from stocks she holds in many firms, including SC Asset Corporation, which rose in value during her tenure.

So if this is the main reason for her gain in wealth, then why is there a slant in the article which implies that her rise in wealth is from corruption? This article does nothing except fuel the propaganda for the PDRC, I think what everyone really wants to see is hard facts proving her misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt.

I need to brush up on my english skills. To me, the article doesn't seem slanted to claiming that she gained in wealth due to corruption. Do you think it's slanted because they don't detail exactly which assets increased and decreased? I just don't see it.

The fact that the main reason her rise in wealth is tucked half way inside the article and is quickly rebutted by a quote by Abhisit on a watch she didn't declare. Abhisit has absolutely no credibility when it comes to speaking against graft as his administrations cabinet members wealth rose by 4.5 billion and he was in office for the same amount of time. The needless inclusion of Abhisit is what slants the article towards the side of the democrats. And the headline is what most people read, not everyone reads the article, saying the information came from an anti-graft body implies that it was the result of graft and is misleading.

Absolute hogwash. The article stated what was reported as assets andI didn't see any slant to the article. I also don't see anything much to raise suspicion of corruption in the figures. The figures however are just a dream and bear no semblance with reality as the poster who pointed out the previous transport ministry facts. The reported figures are just what was chosen to report and no corrupt person is going to show the proceeds of their corruption are they?

The inclusion of Abhisit does nothing to benefit the a Democrats unless childish petulance and pettiness has become a virtue - having said that with many Thai people I gave found every slight to be exaggerated and every benefit you give them discounted to nothing so maybe these traits are a virtue as far as Thainess is concerned.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[IAMSOBAD]

TV needs a del function IMHO

How about a HATE button.

Just a thought

[Alwyn]

Yingluck's wealth is mostly from stocks she holds in many firms, including SC Asset Corporation, which rose in value during her tenure.

So if this is the main reason for her gain in wealth, then why is there a slant in the article which implies that her rise in wealth is from corruption? This article does nothing except fuel the propaganda for the PDRC, I think what everyone really wants to see is hard facts proving her misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt.

Should a sitting PM have involvement in the financial market ?

At least her brother tried to hide his share holdings in the names of domestic staff, security guards and Daisy the family water buffalo.

Why not? She had those holdings before she became PM. But with the exception of that chap in Peru (I think) who doesn't even take a wage can you name one PM or President in the World that doesn't have financial holdings or portfolio?

[Rimbuman]

Yingluck's wealth is mostly from stocks she holds in many firms, including SC Asset Corporation, which rose in value during her tenure.

So if this is the main reason for her gain in wealth, then why is there a slant in the article which implies that her rise in wealth is from corruption? This article does nothing except fuel the propaganda for the PDRC, I think what everyone really wants to see is hard facts proving her misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt.

.........."then why is there a slant in the article which implies that her rise in wealth is from corruption?".......................................

Why ? You do realize we are talking about the Shinawatras here, not the Brady Bunch ?

If you saw a fox with fresh blood and feathers around it's mouth you would have to assume one of your chickens were missing.

Only one ???

[1wazza1]

Yingluck's wealth is mostly from stocks she holds in many firms, including SC Asset Corporation, which rose in value during her tenure.

So if this is the main reason for her gain in wealth, then why is there a slant in the article which implies that her rise in wealth is from corruption? This article does nothing except fuel the propaganda for the PDRC, I think what everyone really wants to see is hard facts proving her misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt.

Should a sitting PM have involvement in the financial market ?

At least her brother tried to hide his share holdings in the names of domestic staff, security guards and Daisy the family water buffalo.

Does anyone know where daisy is now ?

[Alwyn]

Former PM Yingluck's wealth went up a mere 5% which is hardly damning as she did what she did out of loyalty for her brother and not for the money.[/size][/font][/color]

She's loyal to her brother because she owes him. It's thanks to him that she has all the money and privilege that she does. Would she have been loyal to him had he not shared his wealth and success with her? I somehow doubt it.

First thing, do you have evidence or proof that all of her wealth is due to her brother? Do you? Or are you just jumping on that bandwagon that blames everything on Thaksin? And yes, she most likely would remain loyal to Thaksin in any situation as he is her elder brother and in Thai families the respect thing starts with the senior members (parents etc first), and most successful members of the family.

[metisdead]

A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed as well as containing Thai language. This is an English language forum, English is the only acceptable language, except within the Thai language forum, where of course using Thai is allowed.

[Morch]

Would be nice if they bothered checking how candidates and elected/appointed politicians and officials got their money

stashes BEFORE them taking their posts.

Another measure one may dream about is having all of the above place their assets in some sort of closed trust for the

duration of their tenure, plus a bit before and after that.

And of course, check their assets a year or so after they leave office.

The above goes for obvious connections (family, business partners, etc.)

[rixalex]

First thing, do you have evidence or proof that all of her wealth is due to her brother? Do you? Or are you just jumping on that bandwagon that blames everything on Thaksin?

How else would she have "earned" it? Ever since she finished her studies, she has worked in one way or another, for her brother. Now if you wish to believe she got those jobs on merit, and that if her brother wasn't who he is, she would still have raised herself up to the position of having hundreds of millions of baht in the bank as she does, fair enough, that's your delusion.

[Robby nz]

Genius Chalerm lost almost 50%...was it from his bloated ego or too much alcohol?

It's hard to make money while patting yourself on the back all the time.

Just a thought

When he was a police captain he ran away to Denmark to avoid being investigated for unusual wealth.

It would be inconceivable that he didn't take some (or most) of that wealth with him to tide him over in the time he was there.

Very likely he still has bank accounts or other means of secreting money away over there, probably under various names.

Would be very easy for him to transfer money to those accounts.

Then he said the stable of cars don't belong to him so they wont be included.

[Thai at Heart]

Yingluck's wealth is mostly from stocks she holds in many firms, including SC Asset Corporation, which rose in value during her tenure.

So if this is the main reason for her gain in wealth, then why is there a slant in the article which implies that her rise in wealth is from corruption? This article does nothing except fuel the propaganda for the PDRC, I think what everyone really wants to see is hard facts proving her misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt.

Should a sitting PM have involvement in the financial market ?

At least her brother tried to hide his share holdings in the names of domestic staff, security guards and Daisy the family water buffalo.

The law in thailand says its OK. This is a non story

[Thanet]

Crime pays.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Um, but where's the crime?

Capital gains on shares that were already held before she took office is no crime.

So where's the corruption smoking gun then?

[MickGC]

So I see another bias article aimed at yingluck to smear her and her family!

Oh yes the yellows once again will go into overdrive with these headlines.

For a more balanced article please refer to the BP as it gives full disclosure of her and husbands assets during her time as the democratically elected prime minister.

On a side note also please refer to the article in the BP on what the media is trying to establish on what they can report on and what they can't.

Shouldn't worry the nation as it's just a stooge yellow paper with feel good headlines trying to persuade the world that everything is all good.

Pity that the world sees right through these empty articles as nothing but propaganda!

Oh and I see the good general has told sutep to shut up about how he and the general colluded since 2010 to bring this about!

Not my words just check out the BP.

If you are going to take a stand on something Parrot---- for Christ sake post a link, don't make lots of statements then end it...."Go Check it out"

I am not knocking the statements or the stand your taking..... just your laziness in presenting them.

Please refer to post #46

[Alwyn]

First thing, do you have evidence or proof that all of her wealth is due to her brother? Do you? Or are you just jumping on that bandwagon that blames everything on Thaksin?

How else would she have "earned" it? Ever since she finished her studies, she has worked in one way or another, for her brother. Now if you wish to believe she got those jobs on merit, and that if her brother wasn't who he is, she would still have raised herself up to the position of having hundreds of millions of baht in the bank as she does, fair enough, that's your delusion.

Nepotism rules in Thailand as it does in a lot of countries and top jobs will commonly go to family members, of this I am aware. And the nepotism thing carries on as she was also Managing Director of the family property empire. The family was exceedingly wealthy before Thaksin mugged the telecoms industry though. But the fact is she did work for those same telecoms companies and from all accounts was active and successful so reimbursement was based on performance, not just being family (apparently). She would obviously have had the same guidance her brother had when it came to selling stock etc!

[rixalex]

The family was exceedingly wealthy before Thaksin mugged the telecoms industry though. But the fact is she did work for those same telecoms companies and from all accounts was active and successful so reimbursement was based on performance, not just being family (apparently).

So active and successful that when Thaksin sold his business to Singapore, her position as president of the company, was done away with altogether.

When you say "from all accounts", whose accounts are you referring to?

[coma]

Most working adults with no debt would be richer than they were 3 years ago.

[khunken]

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I thought that all government ministers had to give up their shareholdings before taking office. I have vague recollections of ministers being stood down for not giving them up.

Anyone know the legal position on this?

[BestBitterPhuket]

So this is what they declared. I wonder what the real numbers are. How much are in Swiss bank accounts or stashed in Singapore..

[wprime]

Factor in inflation and she actually got poorer by those figures.

[xminator]

33m over 3 years on a 500m fortune does not sound like corruption. Of course she is most likely far to clever to be directly involved in any such activity during those 3 years, fully knowing that the opposition would use any angle possible to hang corruption charges on her.

[penwithcris]

Can't understand all this fuss about the financial circumstances of leading politicians

The only concern should be if they financially benefitted from a corrupt act, that can be proved, while in office

I understand that Yingluck knowingly purchased a fake Rolex from a back street trader in Walking Street.

Maybe Abhisit could make some political capital out of this

[Pundi6446]

So who gives a _hit, good on her, she made some wise investments.

[khunken]

Correct me if I'm wrong - but I thought that all government ministers had to give up their shareholdings before taking office. I have vague recollections of ministers being stood down for not giving them up.

Anyone know the legal position on this?

I've answered my own question.

Government ministers are not allowed to hold more than 5% of shares in a limited company or partnership. Yingluck is not listed in the top shareholders of SC Asset co.

[Alwyn]

The family was exceedingly wealthy before Thaksin mugged the telecoms industry though. But the fact is she did work for those same telecoms companies and from all accounts was active and successful so reimbursement was based on performance, not just being family (apparently).

So active and successful that when Thaksin sold his business to Singapore, her position as president of the company, was done away with altogether.

When you say "from all accounts", whose accounts are you referring to?

I know a lot of Singaporeans but I don't know a single one that would much other than Singaporeans at the top of their companies. If that was a play on words with the "accounts" - nice one!

[rixalex]

The family was exceedingly wealthy before Thaksin mugged the telecoms industry though. But the fact is she did work for those same telecoms companies and from all accounts was active and successful so reimbursement was based on performance, not just being family (apparently).

So active and successful that when Thaksin sold his business to Singapore, her position as president of the company, was done away with altogether.

When you say "from all accounts", whose accounts are you referring to?

I know a lot of Singaporeans but I don't know a single one that would much other than Singaporeans at the top of their companies. If that was a play on words with the "accounts" - nice one!

Of course no matter how good she might have been at her job, the Singaporeans wouldn't have kept her on. That wasn't my point. My point was that the role she played in the company was abolished altogether. Suggests to me that it was likely just a figurehead position.

Still waiting to hear from you about all these accounts of her being active and successful. From who exactly?

[Mentors]

Boring propaganda.