Ex-ministers and senators disclose assets and debts

[Lite Beer]

Ex-ministers and senators disclose assets and debts
Natthapat Phromkaew
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Ministers from the previous government, plus senators and former senators have formally revealed their assets and liabilities, as required by law, which aims to detect any unusual change in a politician's wealth derived from their time in public office.

Information from some members of Cabinet who were involved in the rice pledging scheme, such as the former minister and deputy ministers of commerce, drew attention.

Based on the information released, the assets of some former Cabinet members may have dropped after they became part of the government. For instance, former deputy PM and ex-commerce minister Niwattumrong Boonsongpaisan's assets dropped from Bt137 million to Bt122 million after debt, while the assets of Nuttawut Saikuar, former deputy commerce minister, also fell by Bt1.6 million to Bt16.2 million.

However, the assets of Yanyong Phuangrach, also former deputy commerce minister, rose from Bt16.3 million to Bt17.3 million. His savings rose by Bt2 million, while his spouse's bank account showed an increase of Bt1.2 million. They have no debts.

The former minister with most assets is former deputy PM Phongthep Thepkanjana with Bt2.9 billion, but that was a Bt163 million decrease from when he took office on June 30 last year.

Former deputy interior minister Pracha Prasopdee, a red shirt leader, reported Bt211 million, a Bt28 million decrease from when he took office.

Former interior minister Charupong Ruangsuwan reported Bt15 million in assets while former transport minister Chadchart Sittipunt reported wealth of about Bt15 million.

An investigation into former senators' assets shows that they are significantly wealthier than former Cabinet members, with five of them having total assets worth up to Bt1 billion.

The wealthy senators are Willada Inchat, Pairoch Thungthong, Chusuk Sriraja, Somwang Apichairak and Sunan Singsomboon.

The assets of some senators also appeared to have risen by a modest amount.

Former deputy Senate speaker Surachai Liengboonlertchai announced his assets at Bt175 million after debt.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Ex-ministers-and-senators-disclose-assets-and-debt-30238920.html

-- The Nation 2014-07-19

[Big BUCKS Bunny]

yes that may work in the west, but here there needs to be full declaration for all officers above a certain rank in both the military and the police, elsewise its just a big joke.

separation of military and police from private enterprise altogether would be another step worth considering.

[Chris Lawrence]

What about the permanent secretaries of the various ministries? Wouldn't they have also had some insight/opportunity into corruption? plus the lads from the other side of the house, the Democrat's? Reports like these lack balance and therefore do not represent a background to what is happening with graft and corruption at a government level. This is what I assume the NCPO is trying to show the people of Thailand?

[noitom]

This is preposterous Thai show and tell. No substance. Only show.

[Thaddeus]

"I have nothing to declare except my genius"

Said Dr.Pol.Col.Gen.Sgt.Maj Somchai Prakhonwittayakornsrinaayutaya Phd.

[ezzra]

A whole lot of good that will do... what isn't disclosed is the bulk/vast amounts of cash, gold, and

propertied held by relatives, subordinates and stashed in overseas accounts.. good luck to you

putting your hands on those riches...

[Pimay1]

Interesting to see the assets declining for some of these folks. I suppose once money is transfered offshore it is not declared.

[bobmac10]

yes that may work in the west, but here there needs to be full declaration for all officers above a certain rank in both the military and the police, elsewise its just a big joke.

separation of military and police from private enterprise altogether would be another step worth considering.

Absolutely agree!

Here, getting a senior rank has always been a licence to print money.

The natural resources of Thailand have been plundered by the senior military men for the past 50 years.

Everyone knows it.

Getting into the senior ranks has always been a certainty if you came from the right family.

Look at the number of generals who sit on the boards of major companies.

On the issue of the politicians declarations, the amounts mentioned not huge by any means.

A million baht is 18K quid, gee these guys haven't exactly been raking it in.

Unless the senior military and police also declare their wealth, this is just another whitewash.

[belg]

after debt ? what does that mean? they bought houses & cars for themselves, their wifes & mia nois ?

and why not an external audit firm to check ???

do you still believe those lying and cheating politicians?

[tomacht8]

The assets and debts explanations are there.
Now it must be carried out a review by a strong independent tax control organization,

They must check all cash and gold positions, car certificates, bank statements, land ownership certificates and corporate Company investments,
including all family members.
In some cases i would be surprised if all this would be consistent with the declaration.

Furthermore, a review of the sources of income would be useful.
It's surprising how public servants with a relatively low income, can afford the big cars, fine watches, palaces and big land plots.

Edited July 19, 2014 by tomacht8

[Tatsujin]

OK, so they've "declared" their assets/debts . . . but does anyone look any deeper than that into things? Or is it all taken at face value? Are family, friends, drivers, gardeners, maids, etc included?

[Emster23]

Yes, yes, yes.... looks like they are doing something, but isn't this "water under the bridge"? "previous government, plus senators and former senators have formally revealed their assets and liabilities,I am much more interested in NOW: Show us how their bread gets buttered, give us a baseline from which we may examine any unusual increase due to political leverage and advantage. That was then, this is now.

[oldsailor35]

It would be helpful if with the list we can see which party these people belong. Also do Monks have to disclose their assets.

[nong38]

In the west the media would be on the case to shame these people, but things are different here and until they change they will never be seen as full members of the club ( as deemed so by honest hard working, whiter than white "top men/women" wherever they come from). All about connections and the "way the world works" wherever you are, thats how they got rich and why would they want it to change, it would affect the amount of money they could give to charity.

I think one day I might like to be a General, I will pop down to Big C and see if I can find a uniform, cant wait to get control of the budget! I also like a good march so every sunday morning then we will have a parade and afterwards go round with a collection bucket or 2, for charity you understand.

[heybruce]

In the US, and I assume other western first-world nations, any government employee with contract responsibilities (the ones who determine how taxpayer money can be spent) can not own any assets that present a conflict of interest, must divest himself/herself of any assets that represent a conflict of interest before taking a job with spending responsibilities, and must declare all assets annually. This applies to the military as well as the civil service. What are the chances of having rules like this in Thailand?

Of course in the west the press is allowed and eager to report on anyone working for the government who appears to enjoy a life-style far more extravagant than their government pay can support. As we know, this doesn't happen in Thailand.

Edited July 19, 2014 by heybruce

[FangFerang]

Why even get bothered by this? What everyone knows and what everyone doesn't acknowledge amount to the same non-thing.

However -- I do not believe a politician in Thailand had their assets shrink while in office. That is not Thainess...

But, like they say, 'If you're going to lie, lie BIG'

[surangw]

how do they find out about the hidden assets ?

[Nickymaster]

Assets held by their maids, gardeners and drivers should also be declared.

[northernjohn]

What about the permanent secretaries of the various ministries? Wouldn't they have also had some insight/opportunity into corruption? plus the lads from the other side of the house, the Democrat's? Reports like these lack balance and therefore do not represent a background to what is happening with graft and corruption at a government level. This is what I assume the NCPO is trying to show the people of Thailand?

Well I agree with you that the permanent secretaries should also be included.

How ever your post is just the thing that the NCPO is against you are implying that the Democrat's did not have to make a statement.

The fault lies with the Nation for only giving a partial report where the gullible are ready to misinterpret it if it serves their purpose.

The whole thing is a sham when you come down to it as there is no way of tracking their offshore accounts.

[northernjohn]

after debt ? what does that mean? they bought houses & cars for themselves, their wifes & mia nois ?

and why not an external audit firm to check ???

do you still believe those lying and cheating politicians?

I believe their total assets includes those items.

As for lying and cheating politicians I don't believe them at all.

I would dearly love to see an accounting of their offshore accounts.

But never going to happen. That is not the fault of Thailand it is the foreign countries that allow them selves to be used for money laundering.

[northernjohn]

It would be helpful if with the list we can see which party these people belong. Also do Monks have to disclose their assets.

Ran out of likes.

I don't believe a monk has to report their money in this case. Maybe to the tax people. Don't know.

Yes it would be interesting to see the whole list not just the few picked by some one who for all we know has ulterior motives and wants every one to think the Democrats didn't have to report .

Some one asked on another thread what is poor media. If they are on this thread read the article.

[northernjohn]

In the US, and I assume other western first-world nations, any government employee with contract responsibilities (the ones who determine how taxpayer money can be spent) can not own any assets that present a conflict of interest, must divest himself/herself of any assets that represent a conflict of interest before taking a job with spending responsibilities, and must declare all assets annually. This applies to the military as well as the civil service. What are the chances of having rules like this in Thailand?

Of course in the west the press is allowed and eager to report on anyone working for the government who appears to enjoy a life-style far more extravagant than their government pay can support. As we know, this doesn't happen in Thailand.

Like Chaney the vice president largely responsible for the war in Iraq. He was the CEO at Halliburton and was handing out contracts to them worth billions with out bidding. When asked he said we don't have time to go through the bidding process.

I believe they can own all kinds of assets. They just have to put them in trust for some one else to manage them. Don't know about other countries and I suspect you don't either.

[heybruce]

In the US, and I assume other western first-world nations, any government employee with contract responsibilities (the ones who determine how taxpayer money can be spent) can not own any assets that present a conflict of interest, must divest himself/herself of any assets that represent a conflict of interest before taking a job with spending responsibilities, and must declare all assets annually. This applies to the military as well as the civil service. What are the chances of having rules like this in Thailand?

Of course in the west the press is allowed and eager to report on anyone working for the government who appears to enjoy a life-style far more extravagant than their government pay can support. As we know, this doesn't happen in Thailand.

Like Chaney the vice president largely responsible for the war in Iraq. He was the CEO at Halliburton and was handing out contracts to them worth billions with out bidding. When asked he said we don't have time to go through the bidding process.

I believe they can own all kinds of assets. They just have to put them in trust for some one else to manage them. Don't know about other countries and I suspect you don't either.

I didn't mention politicians, they have different rules. Cheney was not CEO when he was vice president and the vice president doesn't have contract award responsibilities.

I'm not as familiar with the rules for elected officials and their staff, but the high level members of the executive branch of government, and probably any who can influence how taxpayer money is spent, put their assets in a blind trust while they serve. There are laws regarding conflict of interest for congress and the judiciary, but I don't know how they work. A free press that loves to embarrass politicians is also effective in keeping them reasonably clean and discreet, though there are occasionally some elected officials who let greed and ego get ahead of their judgment. The press loves catching them.

People in the US military and the civil service follow the rules I described and many others. I don't know the rules of other countries but I still assume countries that have corruption at levels where it isn't a major drain on the economy have effective rules and enforcement that make conflict of interests illegal. Thailand isn't one of those countries, and I'll be much surprised if the junta moves significantly in that direction.

[rubl]

People in the US military and the civil service follow the rules I described and many others. I don't know the rules of other countries but I still assume countries that have corruption at levels where it isn't a major drain on the economy have effective rules and enforcement that make conflict of interests illegal. Thailand isn't one of those countries, and I'll be much surprised if the junta moves significantly in that direction.

Even countries which have corruption at levels where it is a major drain on the economy may have effective rules and enforcement that make 'conflict of interest' illegal.

Without going into an (off topic) discussion on where Thailand may be on the 'drain' scale, Thailand at least has effective rules to make 'conflict of interest' illegal. There's even a recent example of this.

Anyway, Ministers from the previous government, plus senators and former senators have formally revealed their assets and liabilities. In the OP no details to explain minor differences in before/after, but at first glance no real surprises.

Edited July 20, 2014 by rubl

[heybruce]

People in the US military and the civil service follow the rules I described and many others. I don't know the rules of other countries but I still assume countries that have corruption at levels where it isn't a major drain on the economy have effective rules and enforcement that make conflict of interests illegal. Thailand isn't one of those countries, and I'll be much surprised if the junta moves significantly in that direction.

Even countries which have corruption at levels where it is a major drain on the economy may have effective rules and enforcement that make 'conflict of interest' illegal.

Without going into an (off topic) discussion on where Thailand may be on the 'drain' scale, Thailand at least has effective rules to make 'conflict of interest' illegal. There's even a recent example of this.

Anyway, Ministers from the previous government, plus senators and former senators have formally revealed their assets and liabilities. In the OP no details to explain minor differences in before/after, but at first glance no real surprises.

In your first statement, can you give some examples of such countries?

In your second statement, what conflict of interest rules are you referring to, and how are they enforced? Do Thais in the civil service and military declare assets and business interests?

[rubl]

People in the US military and the civil service follow the rules I described and many others. I don't know the rules of other countries but I still assume countries that have corruption at levels where it isn't a major drain on the economy have effective rules and enforcement that make conflict of interests illegal. Thailand isn't one of those countries, and I'll be much surprised if the junta moves significantly in that direction.

Even countries which have corruption at levels where it is a major drain on the economy may have effective rules and enforcement that make 'conflict of interest' illegal.

Without going into an (off topic) discussion on where Thailand may be on the 'drain' scale, Thailand at least has effective rules to make 'conflict of interest' illegal. There's even a recent example of this.

Anyway, Ministers from the previous government, plus senators and former senators have formally revealed their assets and liabilities. In the OP no details to explain minor differences in before/after, but at first glance no real surprises.

In your first statement, can you give some examples of such countries?

In your second statement, what conflict of interest rules are you referring to, and how are they enforced? Do Thais in the civil service and military declare assets and business interests?

Why ask questions you know are off topic ? May be only so you can complain I ignore them ?

[smutcakes]

People in the US military and the civil service follow the rules I described and many others. I don't know the rules of other countries but I still assume countries that have corruption at levels where it isn't a major drain on the economy have effective rules and enforcement that make conflict of interests illegal. Thailand isn't one of those countries, and I'll be much surprised if the junta moves significantly in that direction.

Even countries which have corruption at levels where it is a major drain on the economy may have effective rules and enforcement that make 'conflict of interest' illegal.

Without going into an (off topic) discussion on where Thailand may be on the 'drain' scale, Thailand at least has effective rules to make 'conflict of interest' illegal. There's even a recent example of this.

Anyway, Ministers from the previous government, plus senators and former senators have formally revealed their assets and liabilities. In the OP no details to explain minor differences in before/after, but at first glance no real surprises.

In your first statement, can you give some examples of such countries?

In your second statement, what conflict of interest rules are you referring to, and how are they enforced? Do Thais in the civil service and military declare assets and business interests?

Why ask questions you know are off topic ? May be only so you can complain I ignore them ?

You make a point, he asks you to provide an example and then you whinge when he asks you to clarify..... If you have not got an example, just admit you were talking crap, its much easier.

[rubl]

In your first statement, can you give some examples of such countries?

In your second statement, what conflict of interest rules are you referring to, and how are they enforced? Do Thais in the civil service and military declare assets and business interests?

Why ask questions you know are off topic ? May be only so you can complain I ignore them ?

You make a point, he asks you to provide an example and then you whinge when he asks you to clarify..... If you have not got an example, just admit you were talking crap, its much easier.

My dear cakes, with hey bruce's

"but I still assume countries that have corruption at levels where it isn't a major drain on the economy have effective rules and enforcement that make conflict of interests illegal. Thailand isn't one of those countries, and I'll be much surprised if the junta moves significantly in that direction."

I would be arguing on what he states based on what he assumes. I merely pointed out that

- Even countries which have corruption at levels where it is a major drain on the economy may have effective rules and enforcement that make 'conflict of interest' illegal.

- Without going into an (off topic) discussion on where Thailand may be on the 'drain' scale, Thailand at least has effective rules to make 'conflict of interest' illegal. There's even a recent example of this.

after which I turned back to the topic,

Do you have data on what those ex-ministers and senators declared at the start of their term?

[smutcakes]

after which I turned back to the topic,

Do you have data on what those ex-ministers and senators declared at the start of their term?

Unfortunately not, but I am sure if there was any evidence or suspicious numbers of the PTP asset declaration, they would be shouting it from the roof tops.

[heybruce]

In your first statement, can you give some examples of such countries?

In your second statement, what conflict of interest rules are you referring to, and how are they enforced? Do Thais in the civil service and military declare assets and business interests?

Why ask questions you know are off topic ? May be only so you can complain I ignore them ?

You make a point, he asks you to provide an example and then you whinge when he asks you to clarify..... If you have not got an example, just admit you were talking crap, its much easier.

My dear cakes, with hey bruce's

"but I still assume countries that have corruption at levels where it isn't a major drain on the economy have effective rules and enforcement that make conflict of interests illegal. Thailand isn't one of those countries, and I'll be much surprised if the junta moves significantly in that direction."

I would be arguing on what he states based on what he assumes. I merely pointed out that

- Even countries which have corruption at levels where it is a major drain on the economy may have effective rules and enforcement that make 'conflict of interest' illegal.

- Without going into an (off topic) discussion on where Thailand may be on the 'drain' scale, Thailand at least has effective rules to make 'conflict of interest' illegal. There's even a recent example of this.

after which I turned back to the topic,

Do you have data on what those ex-ministers and senators declared at the start of their term?

In summary, after making claims you can not substantiate, you backpedaled.