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

[doctorproc156]

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.

What an inane question. If you've got wealth you need to manage it. Do you expect her to keep it in her local Siam Commercial Bank branch? It's normal to have a portfolio of assets, including shares. Having said that if she had kept her money in the local bank branch it would have increased by more than the 5%.

His question is not inane; it is even a smart question. U.S. presidents are required by law to put ALL their assets into a blind trust. When a single individual has the power to manipulate a country's economy, it is only just that they should not be able to benefit by manipulation. MS Yingluck's older brother, Thaksin, steered Thai government loans to Myanmar for telecoms development. The loan money was used to buy equipment and services directly from Thaksin's companies and he profited billions from the deal. This, and other deals, allowed Dr. Thaksin to more than double his assets while in office. That is corruption, and abuse of power, in my book. I've followed your posts and you are a Thaksin apologist and you never let morals nor logic get in the way of your defense of all things Thaksin.

US presidents and politicians are not an example for this, remember Cheney and Haliburton as well as the Bush family business interests with the Iraq wars? And anyway Thaksin could have done the exact same thing even if his businesses were put in a blind trust. Although I think what Thaksin did was wrong, it was ultimately Burma's decision and there was a 3% interest return on the loan back to Thai coffers.

[rametindallas]

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.

What an inane question. If you've got wealth you need to manage it. Do you expect her to keep it in her local Siam Commercial Bank branch? It's normal to have a portfolio of assets, including shares. Having said that if she had kept her money in the local bank branch it would have increased by more than the 5%.

His question is not inane; it is even a smart question. U.S. presidents are required by law to put ALL their assets into a blind trust. When a single individual has the power to manipulate a country's economy, it is only just that they should not be able to benefit by manipulation. MS Yingluck's older brother, Thaksin, steered Thai government loans to Myanmar for telecoms development. The loan money was used to buy equipment and services directly from Thaksin's companies and he profited billions from the deal. This, and other deals, allowed Dr. Thaksin to more than double his assets while in office. That is corruption, and abuse of power, in my book. I've followed your posts and you are a Thaksin apologist and you never let morals nor logic get in the way of your defense of all things Thaksin.

US presidents and politicians are not an example for this, remember Cheney and Haliburton as well as the Bush family business interests with the Iraq wars? And anyway Thaksin could have done the exact same thing even if his businesses were put in a blind trust. Although I think what Thaksin did was wrong, it was ultimately Burma's decision and there was a 3% interest return on the loan back to Thai coffers.

it was ultimately Burma's decision

You must be new to Thailand or incredibly naive. That was a 'done deal' before it was made and 3% return barely covers inflation so, essentially, a zero interest loan to benefit one man because he had the power.

BTW, examples of Bush family interests profiting because of the Iraq wars would be most appreciated by the lefty media in the US as they haven't been able to find any. Cheney had cut ties with Haliburton well before becoming VP. Are you still loyal to a company your worked for years ago? Slander and innuendo do not make a very good argument for not putting Executive Office holders' assets into a blind trust. What is your intention to argue against putting assets into a blind trust?

My response to edwardandtubs was motivated by his comment that NongKhaiKid's question was inane. Shall I put you in the same category of blind Thaksinista or are you wanting to keep a veneer of impartiality? You are on my 'suspicious' list with you defensive post.

[Balance]

I think she needs a good financial advisor.

At least she had a positive return with others actually losing money. Not what a lot of people wanted to hear I guess.

And Abhisit with the luxury watch thing, what a pathetic little man.

That said, I am pretty much sure that ALL of the rich politicians, military etc, have more assets than they are declaring. When the THB was at it's peak properties were being purchased in the UK and other places like crazy, no doubt through proxy or holding companies.

You write just like a politician: You are sure that ALL rich politicians have more than they declared. Do you have evidence of this? Then you make another statement as a fact without any citations of where you got the information. If you are stating opinion then say that you are stating opinion or a wish that what you are saying is true. Doing so would serve the case of truth and help Thailand end the endless talking without facts and evidence.

[doctorproc156]

What an inane question. If you've got wealth you need to manage it. Do you expect her to keep it in her local Siam Commercial Bank branch? It's normal to have a portfolio of assets, including shares. Having said that if she had kept her money in the local bank branch it would have increased by more than the 5%.

His question is not inane; it is even a smart question. U.S. presidents are required by law to put ALL their assets into a blind trust. When a single individual has the power to manipulate a country's economy, it is only just that they should not be able to benefit by manipulation. MS Yingluck's older brother, Thaksin, steered Thai government loans to Myanmar for telecoms development. The loan money was used to buy equipment and services directly from Thaksin's companies and he profited billions from the deal. This, and other deals, allowed Dr. Thaksin to more than double his assets while in office. That is corruption, and abuse of power, in my book. I've followed your posts and you are a Thaksin apologist and you never let morals nor logic get in the way of your defense of all things Thaksin.

US presidents and politicians are not an example for this, remember Cheney and Haliburton as well as the Bush family business interests with the Iraq wars? And anyway Thaksin could have done the exact same thing even if his businesses were put in a blind trust. Although I think what Thaksin did was wrong, it was ultimately Burma's decision and there was a 3% interest return on the loan back to Thai coffers.

it was ultimately Burma's decision

You must be new to Thailand or incredibly naive. That was a 'done deal' before it was made and 3% return barely covers inflation so, essentially, a zero interest loan to benefit one man because he had the power.

BTW, examples of Bush family interests profiting because of the Iraq wars would be most appreciated by the lefty media in the US as they haven't been able to find any. Cheney had cut ties with Haliburton well before becoming VP. Are you still loyal to a company your worked for years ago? Slander and innuendo do not make a very good argument for not putting Executive Office holders' assets into a blind trust. What is your intention to argue against putting assets into a blind trust?

My response to edwardandtubs was motivated by his comment that NongKhaiKid's question was inane. Shall I put you in the same category of blind Thaksinista or are you wanting to keep a veneer of impartiality? You are on my 'suspicious' list with you defensive post.

So can you please explain to me again why Burma couldn't refuse the deal? I'm not arguing against putting holdings in a blind trust, but using the US as an example is wrong because no one else was allowed to bid in the 7 billion dollar contract and Cheney received a 36 million dollar severance payment right before he assumed office. A no-bid contract is common knowledge, you must be incredibly naive to think they Cheney had nothing to do with Haliburton after assuming office.

There is also a lack of evidence against Yinglucks corruption but obviously you only choose to cite lack of evidence as an excuse when it doesn't go against your beliefs. As I said it was wrong for Thaksin to do that, but you obviously chose to only target the parts of my post that made your argument stronger. A blind Thaksinsta?? I am totally against his policy corruption, lack of action against human trafficking and extra-judicial killings. But guess what, the yellows/democrats/military have done the exact same things. I am against both sides. It really is impossible for you to comprehend that someone could be neutral, and if they are against the yellows in any way then they must be a red shirt Thaksin drone.

[rametindallas]

His question is not inane; it is even a smart question. U.S. presidents are required by law to put ALL their assets into a blind trust. When a single individual has the power to manipulate a country's economy, it is only just that they should not be able to benefit by manipulation. MS Yingluck's older brother, Thaksin, steered Thai government loans to Myanmar for telecoms development. The loan money was used to buy equipment and services directly from Thaksin's companies and he profited billions from the deal. This, and other deals, allowed Dr. Thaksin to more than double his assets while in office. That is corruption, and abuse of power, in my book. I've followed your posts and you are a Thaksin apologist and you never let morals nor logic get in the way of your defense of all things Thaksin.

US presidents and politicians are not an example for this, remember Cheney and Haliburton as well as the Bush family business interests with the Iraq wars? And anyway Thaksin could have done the exact same thing even if his businesses were put in a blind trust. Although I think what Thaksin did was wrong, it was ultimately Burma's decision and there was a 3% interest return on the loan back to Thai coffers.

it was ultimately Burma's decision

You must be new to Thailand or incredibly naive. That was a 'done deal' before it was made and 3% return barely covers inflation so, essentially, a zero interest loan to benefit one man because he had the power.

BTW, examples of Bush family interests profiting because of the Iraq wars would be most appreciated by the lefty media in the US as they haven't been able to find any. Cheney had cut ties with Haliburton well before becoming VP. Are you still loyal to a company your worked for years ago? Slander and innuendo do not make a very good argument for not putting Executive Office holders' assets into a blind trust. What is your intention to argue against putting assets into a blind trust?

My response to edwardandtubs was motivated by his comment that NongKhaiKid's question was inane. Shall I put you in the same category of blind Thaksinista or are you wanting to keep a veneer of impartiality? You are on my 'suspicious' list with you defensive post.

So can you please explain to me again why Burma couldn't refuse the deal? I'm not arguing against putting holdings in a blind trust, but using the US as an example is wrong because no one else was allowed to bid in the 7 billion dollar contract and Cheney received a 36 million dollar severance payment right before he assumed office. A no-bid contract is common knowledge, you must be incredibly naive to think they Cheney had nothing to do with Haliburton after assuming office.

There is also a lack of evidence against Yinglucks corruption but obviously you only choose to cite lack of evidence as an excuse when it doesn't go against your beliefs. As I said it was wrong for Thaksin to do that, but you obviously chose to only target the parts of my post that made your argument stronger. A blind Thaksinsta?? I am totally against his policy corruption, lack of action against human trafficking and extra-judicial killings. But guess what, the yellows/democrats/military have done the exact same things. I am against both sides. It really is impossible for you to comprehend that someone could be neutral, and if they are against the yellows in any way then they must be a red shirt Thaksin drone.

There is also a lack of evidence against Yinglucks corruption but obviously you only choose to cite lack of evidence as an excuse when it doesn't go against your beliefs. As I said it was wrong for Thaksin to do that, but you obviously chose to only target the parts of my post that made your argument stronger. A blind Thaksinsta?? I am totally against his policy corruption, lack of action against human trafficking and extra-judicial killings. But guess what, the yellows/democrats/military have done the exact same things. I am against both sides. It really is impossible for you to comprehend that someone could be neutral

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much" from the play 'Hamlet' by William Shakespeare

I have never, on this forum, accused former PM Yingluck of being corrupt. If you will read post #19 of this thread, you may see that I take her side. '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'.

If you are so neutral, why are you bringing into the discussion unproven accusations against US politicians to bolster your arguments against blind trusts (?) to counter my statement about Dr. Thaksin using his office to steer business to improve his assets? (I won't discuss that particular politician as it is off topic)

I never said you were a blind Thaksinista. I simply asked you if I should put you in that category.

Since you are so against Thaksin's behavior in office and are so neutral, why are you so defensive?

I'm puzzled as to what our little discussion is really about. I'm certainly not neutral and I don't believe you are neutral, either. In fact, I have yet to see a truly neutral poster on this forum. What's the point of commenting on things you are neutral about?

But guess what, the yellows/democrats/military have done the exact same things.

I sure would like for you to give me some examples of yellows/democrats/military being guilty of 2,500 extra-judicial killings or even policy corruption on a similar scale as Dr. Thaksin's. I don't even ask for citations.

Edited June 29, 2014 by rametindallas

[metisdead]

Off topic posts have been removed.

[Baerboxer]

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.

Read up on her "career" prior to being installed as PM, one of the few in the world to become a PM without one single day's experience.

Now see how you think she amassed her personal fortune.

Hard work and skill or nepotism and being used as a proxy.

You decide for yourself.

[Baerboxer]

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?

Bloke down the pub told me, must be true!

Is your response a euphemism for "I made it up, and actually have no idea"?

Can you cite any references that show Yingluck to have been active and successful in any of the roles she filled in her brother's companies?

Reimbursement based on performance - you must be spending a lot of time down the pub, apparently.

[Alwyn]

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?

Bloke down the pub told me, must be true!

Is your response a euphemism for "I made it up, and actually have no idea"?

Can you cite any references that show Yingluck to have been active and successful in any of the roles she filled in her brother's companies?

Reimbursement based on performance - you must be spending a lot of time down the pub, apparently.

Let me ask you this; Can you provide evidence that she was not successful or active? Or do you just blindly assume that because she worked in her brother's companies she did not work and sat around applying make up all day and giggled coquetishly whilst the big boys did the work? Don't drink so my viewpoint is not alcohol driven and the reason you made that assumption is probably based on your own bar stool escapades.

[siampolee]

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

Meanwhile many rice growing farmers debt mountain rose whilst puppet Yingluck was in office.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQNhkFRhLxAH5C3knteuURFg7KIoDTpeEMYD0QQthtXL-bg2SBU

Edited June 29, 2014 by siampolee

[DrTuner]

That would be the wealth inside Thailand. Even the Shins wouldn't be boneheaded enough to keep it in country.

[Morch]

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?

Bloke down the pub told me, must be true!

Is your response a euphemism for "I made it up, and actually have no idea"?

Can you cite any references that show Yingluck to have been active and successful in any of the roles she filled in her brother's companies?

Reimbursement based on performance - you must be spending a lot of time down the pub, apparently.

Let me ask you this; Can you provide evidence that she was not successful or active? Or do you just blindly assume that because she worked in her brother's companies she did not work and sat around applying make up all day and giggled coquetishly whilst the big boys did the work? Don't drink so my viewpoint is not alcohol driven and the reason you made that assumption is probably based on your own bar stool escapades.

If her performance and conduct during her tenure as PM anything to go by - certainly.

[sawadee1947]

what a stupid head line...implementing that she was cheating....

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

So what? Clever girl with good shares...!

[rametindallas]

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?

Bloke down the pub told me, must be true!

Is your response a euphemism for "I made it up, and actually have no idea"?

Can you cite any references that show Yingluck to have been active and successful in any of the roles she filled in her brother's companies?

Reimbursement based on performance - you must be spending a lot of time down the pub, apparently.

Let me ask you this; Can you provide evidence that she was not successful or active? Or do you just blindly assume that because she worked in her brother's companies she did not work and sat around applying make up all day and giggled coquetishly whilst the big boys did the work? Don't drink so my viewpoint is not alcohol driven and the reason you made that assumption is probably based on your own bar stool escapades.

'Yingluck Shinawatra earned a bachelor's degree fromChiang Mai University and a master's degree from Kentucky State University, both in public administration.^[5] She became an executive in the businesses founded by her elder brother, Thaksin Shinawatra, and later became the president of property developer SC Asset and managing director ofAdvanced Info Service.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yingluck_Shinawatra There is no further reference of her employment other than for her brother. It is clear that you do not care about your own credibility on this forum when you make wild, unprovable accusations and when asked to defend your position, you give 'flip' responses. Some might even call that trollish behavior. When Dr. Thaksin sold his telecoms business to the investment arm of the Singaporean government (Temasek Holdings), the office/position she held under her brother, was deemed 'no longer necessary'. That should demonstrate that she held no real responsibilities at AIS.

[max72]

In fact,she wasn't richer but she was poorer.

With an estimate worth of 2 billions USD the Shinawatra family, $1 million dollar (33 million baht) is just 0.05% more, with an annual return of less than 0.02%, which is HUNDRED times less than the inflation rate in Thailand.

It's not a surprise she got poorer, according to Transparency International her govt. was the second least corrupt in the history of >Thailand, after the one of her brother.

These are facts, numbers, statistics.

Instead, some untouchable guys like Suchinda and in part Abhisit saw an increase of their wealths (and the corruption index in Thailand) of several folds.

So, Gen. Prayuth, has admitted a couple of weeks ago "Thailand had decades of bad managment, graft and corruption" , it's implicit that all military governments, which have been the majority in the past 80 years,are included.

Yet,I still don't see any action against the most corrupt Thais like Suthep, with an history of crimes. I hope to see that coming

Having said that, i admit the rice schem was not a good idea, as a liberal i think it is always a bad idea to drive against the market : you can't win.

Edited June 29, 2014 by max72

[richard peters]

Did anyone notice that the baht suddenly went down by about 15% on the afternoon of Saturday 3rd May just beore the King,s birthday and the court decision against the "Shin mob" and not a word in the media. This sudden dip was probably caused by a huge amount of Baht exiting the Kingdom, so "tell me I am dreaming" or did the Shin's pull their loot out of Thailand, with the expectation of future problems??

[Morch]

In fact,she wasn't richer but she was poorer.

With an estimate worth of 2 billions USD the Shinawatra family, $1 million dollar (33 million baht) is just 0.05% more, with an annual return of less than 0.02%, which is HUNDRED times less than the inflation rate in Thailand.

It's not a surprise she got poorer, according to Transparency International her govt. was the second least corrupt in the history of >Thailand, after the one of her brother.

These are facts, numbers, statistics.

Instead, some untouchable guys like Suchinda and in part Abhisit saw an increase of their wealths (and the corruption index in Thailand) of several folds.

So, Gen. Prayuth, has admitted a couple of weeks ago "Thailand had decades of bad managment, graft and corruption" , it's implicit that all military governments, which have been the majority in the past 80 years,are included.

Yet,I still don't see any action against the most corrupt Thais like Suthep, with an history of crimes. I hope to see that coming

Having said that, i admit the rice schem was not a good idea, as a liberal i think it is always a bad idea to drive against the market : you can't win.

Only she does not, in all probability control all of the Shin family money.

Sort of makes the first part of your post off mark.

[kamahele]

I'm just playing devil's advocate. Investigators must prove that these are ill gotten gains and not legitimate gains. Easy for many politicians who have no other line of work but she does have business holdings of her own. Stop laughing. Could be.

[rijb]

A pittance compared to Suthep's haul.

[Morch]

A pittance compared to Suthep's haul.

If memory serves, Suthep's financial deceleration actually showed he had less money following the demonstrations.

Of course, for both - this is what they report and what's "out in the open". Anyone's guess what they have stashed away.

[philw]

A family of thieves...

The money should be claimed by the NCPO immediately...

Be careful who you might be referring to.........

Exactly which family do you have in mind ?

[Pralaad]

A family of thieves...

The money should be claimed by the NCPO immediately...

Be careful who you might be referring to.........

Exactly which family do you have in mind ?

Considering that the title of the thread is

Yingluck's wealth rose by Bt33m while in office,

I would guess her family?

[Gus5]

A pittance compared to Suthep's haul.

Have any figures and/or proof?

[Gus5]

A family of thieves...

The money should be claimed by the NCPO immediately...

Be careful who you might be referring to.........

Exactly which family do you have in mind ?

Considering that the title of the thread is

Yingluck's wealth rose by Bt33m while in office,

I would guess her family?

It seems some have great difficulty understanding that simplest of premises.

[chubby]

they might need an gift & inheritance tax too, of course, if everyone is a fox, then just the chickens will get eaten,.......somehow I doubt YS is a self-made millionaire, more likely the whole clan is a money laundering scheme ........

Edited July 4, 2014 by chubby