Thailand To Seize Thaksin's Assets

[hammered]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I had the impression that it was strongly held in Thailand that communications, like land, was an essential part of the nation's infrastructure , and not for foreign ownership, though not actually nationalised.

That is what I was referring to, as 'the spirit of the law', and which Temasek would have been well aware of. Of all the organisations in the world who might slip up a bit on 'doing their due diligence', I would expect Yemasek to be the least likely.

I would have expected serious debate in Thailand's Parliament, at least, about the implications of this sale to what is the Singaporeans' major pension-savings fundholder.

As I have said before, there is a case for some pooling of economic activities in an ASEAN bloc, but it needs to come about openly and after proper debate and the general populace giving informed consent, if it is to come about.

I am old enough to have lived through this process happening in Europe; first in a federating of some major industries, and then in a common Customs regime, and then to a European Parliament, watching over those aspects of sovereignty pooled by the member nations.

Every step taken (and some not being taken) was debated openly and extensively.

Otherwise it would have been guaranteed to not be successful.

You are right in your first paragraph, and that was why foreign ownership was capped at 25% of communication business until Thaksin controversially changed the law just before he sold.

[Old Man River]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I had the impression that it was strongly held in Thailand that communications, like land, was an essential part of the nation's infrastructure , and not for foreign ownership, though not actually nationalised.

It is possible that Temasek's attorneys opined that the 30 year satellite frequency concession is very similar to a 30 year land lease. You can't own either, but you can lease both. The question then becomes, can you sub lease the concession without getting the approval of the owners of the concession? (i.e. both Thailand and the International Telecommunication Union). This becomes very much a legal issue and one I would imagine attorneys are looking at right now.

If the Temasek deal is going to be voided (which would be a mess), it should be voided because of security issues relating to the above mentioned sale of the leased concession (sub-lease), and not due to the nominee structure. If voided because of the nominee structure, it would catch hundreds of other companies in the net, which would negatively impact the current Thai economy and future foreign direct investment in Thailand (from the west and the east). If a CNS makes a decision to outlaw the nominee structure, then grandfather the existing cases and outlaw it going forward.

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Didn't Tox change the laws to enable the deal to go through ?

[Jai Dee]

Shinawatra siblings may be slapped with Bt5 bn in tax, fines

The Office of Auditor-General (OAG) is expected to conclude the investigation into the tax scandal involving ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's children Panthongtae and Pinthongta this week, according to an informed source.

"We're confident they will be forced to pay personal income tax worth Bt5.8 billion," said the source.

Once the investigation is completed, the result will be forwarded to the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC). The source said that the OAG might ask the NCCC to file a lawsuit against senior tax officials at the Revenue Department who had been criticised for their refusal to tax Panthongtae and Pinthongta.

"Auditor-General Khunying Jaruvan Maintaka will decide whether the OAG recommends the NCCC to launch legal action against the officials," said the source.

The source said the investigative team at the OAG differed with the Revenue Department about whether Panthongtae and Pin-thongta should pay tax.

In January the two netted huge profits from the sale of Shin Corp's shares to Temasek Holdings. They bought the 329.2 million shares of Shin Corp at Bt1 apiece from Ample Rich Investments, their own company registered in the tax-haven British Virgin Islands. Then they resold them at Bt49.25 apiece.

Officials from the Revenue Department explained that they had sold the shares on the stock exchange, where capital-gains tax is waived. This nettled lawyers who said Panthongtae and Pinthongta should be taxed on the price differential. Investigators at the OAG estimate that the two should pay at least Bt5.85 billion and could be fined for failing to pay tax, said the source.

According to the source, five senior officials have been identi-fied for possible legal action. They are Revenue Department director general Sirote Swasdipanich, deputy director general Paitoon Pongke-sorn, director of the bureau of legal affairs Moreerat Boonya-siri, senior tax official Krich Vipulanusarn and Finance Minis-try inspector-general Bengja Louicharoen.

Meanwhile, a source at the Revenue Department said Sirote had apparently changed his stance following the military coup on September 19. Now he is likely to demand tax from the children of Thaksin, if the OAG says so.

If the OAG can wind up the Shin Corp deal matter this week, as the source thinks probable, it is likely to breath fresh life into an effort by the OAG and the Council for Democratic Reform to probe other controversial deals during the Thaksin administration.

Source: The Nation - 2 October 2006

[Old Man River]

Didn't Tox change the laws to enable the deal to go through ?

Yes, but what was sold was the company, with one of its assets being the operating rights are under a 30 year concession. The company did not own lifetime use. At the end of the period, the operating rights would have to be renegotiated. Other issues to be reviewed relate to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and whether it allows the satellite frequency operating rights they granted to Thailand to be subsequently leased to a foreign government. If so, under what terms? There are a number of legal issues at play, none of which have anything to do with the spirit of the law, which can be interpreted in different ways.

[Plus]

But if nominee question is avoided, then there's nothing to argue about at all, as on paper Shin is still majority Thai owned.

[Old Man River]

But if nominee question is avoided, then there's nothing to argue about at all, as on paper Shin is still majority Thai owned.

If someone is looking for a reason to void this sale, it would be due to management control when national security is at risk regardless of whether the company is Thai owned on paper. Personally, I think they should tax him and his family as they should have been taxed and then look closely at corruption and the other issues. I don't see this as a case to be overturned, but people want blood these days so anything is possible.

[Martin]

In post #242, 'Old Man River' said:

"If the Temasek deal is going to be voided (which would be a mess), it should be voided because of security issues relating to the above mentioned sale of the leased concession (sub-lease), and not due to the nominee structure. "

I agree that it might be a mess; though not necessarily so, if approached in a reasonable spirit by both sides.

But, if after thorough debate, it is decided that it was an act of wrong-doing, then steps should be taken to put back the right situation, messy or not.

My gut feeling is that, in selling the lease, Thaksin sold sovereignty that it was not his to sell. However, that should be debated till a consensus can be ascertained, and any decisions taken should be taken from considerations of morality, not mere legality.

Back in the days when my political awarenes was being tended to (and the first Prime Minister I saw elected was Mr Attlee), I soon found that the 'hardware' of Paliament that operated the 'software' of the constitutional monarchy, had been designed to work for the 'orgware' of the mixed democracy-hierarchy that were 'the order of the day'.

One essential piece of that 'orgware' was the rule (albeit unwritten) that never would His Majesty's Government put through legislation that His Majesty's Loyal Opposition had indicated that they would feel morally bound to reverse, if/when they came to power.

Of course, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Winston Churchill) made sure that his followers discussed deeply to decide on which proposals they would say "We would oppose and would reverse", and which pieces they would say "We would oppose, and think you are wrong because...., and if it is passed, we would expect we would, in power, amend it on the lines of..."

That is what politicians are for----deciding the spirit of the laws that they pass, or would wish to pass, in consultation with the electorate.

In this case of Shin, it is "laws that the electorate would wish not to have been passed".

Lawyers should only be on tap (to work in consulting the law books), and not on top.

I think it would be good for Thailand, and Singapore, to talk this thing through very thoroughly, at more fundamental levels than: "Did the parties comply with the letter of their countries' laws?".

[Martin]

There are echos of 1973 about this whole matter of Thaksin's departure from the Thai political scene.

I happen to be reading a book (that is permitted to be advertised on websites allowed into Thailand) by William Stevenson. It has quite a lot of errors, but seems right on general trends and the big things.

On page 187, it says about the military stand-off in October 1973, when much blood of civilians had been shed:

"Army Commander Krit Savara... told the Three Tyrants that all facilities were available for them to go to Don Muang airport and fly from the country.........borrowed from Sun Txu: 'The enemy should never be completely encircled. Always leave one way out, or he will fight like a cornered rat'. Praphas and Narong were flown by US transport planes to Taiwan. Thanon was flown to the United States."

But there is no mention of how many suitcases!!!

[Old Man River]

In post #242, 'Old Man River' said:

"If the Temasek deal is going to be voided (which would be a mess), it should be voided because of security issues relating to the above mentioned sale of the leased concession (sub-lease), and not due to the nominee structure. "

I agree that it might be a mess; though not necessarily so, if approached in a reasonable spirit by both sides.

My concern is as it relates to future foreign direct investment (FDI). If the sale is voided solely due to the legal loophole which on paper gives a foreign company the same rights as a Thai company (since it is viewed on paper as a Thai company), then it would be messy. It would catch in the net hundreds of other large foreign direct investors in Thailand. In a subsequent posting I mentioned that if the SHIN sale is viewed as a one off due to a foreign company having management control over a Thai company where there are potential security issues, then that could be viewed differently by investors.

I realize that the most important thing on the agenda is national reconciliation and the rights of foreign direct investors may well take a back seat for the time being, but as the saying goes, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[ColPyat]

There are echos of 1973 about this whole matter of Thaksin's departure from the Thai political scene.

I happen to be reading a book (that is permitted to be advertised on websites allowed into Thailand) by William Stevenson. It has quite a lot of errors, but seems right on general trends and the big things.

On page 187, it says about the military stand-off in October 1973, when much blood of civilians had been shed:

"Army Commander Krit Savara... told the Three Tyrants that all facilities were available for them to go to Don Muang airport and fly from the country.........borrowed from Sun Txu: 'The enemy should never be completely encircled. Always leave one way out, or he will fight like a cornered rat'. Praphas and Narong were flown by US transport planes to Taiwan. Thanon was flown to the United States."

But there is no mention of how many suitcases!!!

As to the Stevenson book, not getting any deeper into detail, it's a matter of opinion...

And as to allowing Thaksin to leave a way out, this is common sense. Opposing to what many people here mistakingly believe, the Thaksin aera was not a monolithic event of one evil man taking over by corrupting the masses.

Not allowing him to leave, and taking most of his fortune would not just set a dangerous precedent regarding FDI, as Old Man River has so eloquently pointed out. It would also open a can of worms that could not be contained anymore. There were many people and institutions who have taken part and profited from Thaksin's dealings for a long time, and they are not just found now on Thaksin's side, but are under his open and hidden opponents as well. Politics is one thing, but money and business is a completely different matter...

As to the self sufficiency policy: Rethorics is one thing, real politics is another. I have had my experiences with Por Puang. It is a good philosophy, but in practise it has, as with any philosophy, be adapted to human nature, and certain economical conditions.

Selfsufficiency in a microcosm such as my farm was difficult enough, and i had to water it down in order to make it work. On a national ecomomic base it would create a complete mess if this would be pushed through without serious altercations.

Edited October 2, 2006 by ColPyat

[Plus]

HIS fortune won't influence FDI, Temasek's might. Foreign investors know the risks and know the rules - what can be bought and what can't. Generally they don't even ask for satellite/TV concessions. Mobile communications are free for all, on the other hand. Stegve Brekke has been exercising managing rights over DTAC airwaves for many many years and no one said a thing so far.

The issues of Temasek and TV/satellite rights were addressed already, I don't know if the results are going to be reviewed. It't not on the agenda at the moment.

[ColPyat]

HIS fortune won't influence FDI, Temasek's might. Foreign investors know the risks and know the rules - what can be bought and what can't. Generally they don't even ask for satellite/TV concessions. Mobile communications are free for all, on the other hand. Stegve Brekke has been exercising managing rights over DTAC airwaves for many many years and no one said a thing so far.

The issues of Temasek and TV/satellite rights were addressed already, I don't know if the results are going to be reviewed. It't not on the agenda at the moment.

In the article above it was stated that Thaksin's children might be forced to pay 5 billion baht each in taxes. That might very much look like a face saving solution that leaves Thaksin with most his fortune, and which containes the damage.

I might be wrong, but i doubt that more than this is going to happen.

[Martin]

"Selfsufficiency in a microcosm such as my farm was difficult enough, and i had to water it down in order to make it work. On a national ecomomic base it would create a complete mess if this would be pushed through without serious altercations."

I thoroughly agree, 'Colpyat'. It is a pity that the term "self-sufficiency" got into use.

It just is not possible.

Not even the Stone Age cave dweller was self-sufficient. And even the cave as a whole wasn't self-sufficient. The group of caves may have been, until some bright sparks realised that their group of caves had a surplus of something that another group was short of, and a good barter deal could be done.

However, as I understand it, what is being advocated is not "self-sufficiency", but an economy that is more secure because no family has 'all their eggs in one basket'.

One hundred years ago, my mother was born into an extended family in the industrial part of Yorkshire. That family practised a sufficiency economy, with three houses and about two rai of land. If one of the half-dozen workers was out of work, there were always jobs 'waiting to be caught up on' whose doing justified her/his place at the table. In fact, the grandmother liked there to be one out of work---it saved her from having to have anything to do with the pigs or the poultry during the day. And she could order the vegetables that she wanted to be brought in from the garden, without having to fetch them herself.

Thirty five years on, I found that although the extended family was dwindling, as more and more split off into nuclear families, I was still getting a far greater amount of experiential learning than those of my classmates who were in nuclear families.

I firmly believe that if the advocated 'semi-sufficiency economy' concept can catch on, Thailand can weather the disappearance of its manufacturing industries when the orders from the Western world cease to flow in.

[Plus]

As I see it, "self sufficiency" is an extention of "moderation" concept of Thai buddhism. Not living, or aspiring to live, beyond your means. Focusing on today's happiness instead of possible gains tomorrow. Not borrowing against future profits, and so on.

[ColPyat]

I firmly believe that if the advocated 'semi-sufficiency economy' concept can catch on, Thailand can weather the disappearance of its manufacturing industries when the orders from the Western world cease to flow in.

I would prefer if Thailand can finally build up its own manufacturing industry, including setting conditions that factories can be built up in the northern and northeastern provinces, by local and foreign investors. I have serious doubts that even 'semi sufficiency economy' can solve Thailand's dire problems, such as completely inequal land distribution, resulting migration into the urban centres surrounding Bangkok, and an increasing gap between the rich and poor in almost all aspects.

The present policies are still somewhat dominated by ideologies that would/should bind the rural youth to their villages in a somehwat idealized archaic agriculture. No provisions are set for the reality - namely that those young people are not exactly enthusiastic about the idea of toiling the land (which they don't even own in a sufficient measure).

There is a complete lack of national planning towards moving Thailand into new development stages. Neither are the rural poor given a proper land reform in order to revitalise small scale farming, nor is there any infrastructure, such as powersupply, rail connection, etc., in place that in the near future industry could be built up in the provinces.

Just starting with a fuzzy ideology of self-sufficiency, or semi self-sufficiency makes for sycophant speaches of the powerful, but it definately will not be enough to finally develop Thailand.

[sriracha john]

So they fine his kids 5 billion, seize all the rest and return it to the Treasury minus a monthly stipend sent to him and payable at the minimum daily wage of 180 baht/day.

Spares the expense of jailing him for the rest of his natural life.

[Martin]

For 'Colpyat' who said:

"I would prefer if Thailand can finally build up its own manufacturing industry, including setting conditions that factories can be built up in the northern and northeastern provinces, by local and foreign investors."

That would have been great, if it had started twentyfive years ago, and been kept up.

But, sorry to say, it is too late now. The industrial era is drawing to a close.

Don't expect any new factories from here on in. And expect what are running now to close one by one, till there only those who have sufficient in-Thailand market to keep them going.

I am old enough to just remember the 'phony war' period of 1939/41, when the Second Great War had been declared but there was little going on as the protaganists were building up their forces ready for the major set-to.

I am now living through the 'phony depression' period that is preceding the onslaughts of the Second Great Depression.

The first bits of action are happening---the dollar has started its slide and the USA housing market has stalled.

Within the year, we can expect a large number of house-purchasers throughout the West to be in negative equity, and considerable contraction of GDPs setting in.

So there will be a great drying up of export orders, as nobody can afford a new car, or to eat prawns.

They will however be wanting to buy rice, especially as the wheat production on the Prairies falters for inability to purchase fertilisers at the price that they will have gotten to. America's way of producing food of late has been "to eat oil".

But the supply of oil is now contracting, and the Middle East oil producers are on a sellers market all the way from now on.

It won't be easy for Thailand, but nothing like as bad as for the West.

Thailand has the fundamental agricultural potential to still feed, and house, its relatively small population, even though there is a huge drop in the employment available in Bangkok and the surrounding industrialised areas.

I just hope the Government can act accordingly to turn 'potential' into 'actual'. Seizing Thaksin's assets won't be a great topic of concern soon.

[ColPyat]

We are going here rather far off topic

To some extend i do agree with your hypotheses of 'phony depression'. Nevertheless, i think the concept is depending on so many complex factors, that i would hesitate making blanket statements on the impact on different economies. Neither do i think that we will have this within a year.

We would also have to factor in global warming, and it's effects. And there most areas of Thailand would not fare that well.

Many countries in the west have as much agricultural potential and output as Thailand. They just don't grow rice. Not yet, because it's not warm enough.

Going away from the doomsday scenarios that are rather difficult to predict, and that would, even if Thailand by chance might have less problems of civil collapse, which i doubt, i think we should stay what is somewhat predictable, and what can be influenced.

[sriracha john]

ASSETS SCRUTINY

Panel lists 8 graft cases as first priorities

Eight cases of suspected corruption involving the Thaksin Shinawatra government have been listed as the first priorities to be investigated by the assets scrutiny committee, according to a source. The panel, chaired by Nam Yimyaem, said yesterday that it was ready to further examine eight corruption cases which had been investigated by the Office of the Auditor-General, and it expected to make progress within three months. The panel did not identify the eight cases. However, the source said that three projects which were part of the development of Suvarnabhumi airport were among them, including the procurement of 26 CTX bomb scanners, the Airport Rail Link construction project, and the electricity cable construction project. They involved then transport minister Suriya Jungrungreangkit, the source added. Two cases involved then deputy agriculture and cooperatives minister Newin Chidchob, including a project to build a 1.6-billion-baht central lab to control the quality of food products for export and a rubber plant project which caused damages of over one billion baht to the state, the source said. The panel will also look into the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration's 6.7-billion-baht contract to procure fire trucks. The deal was signed by then Bangkok governor Samak Sundaravej and approved by then interior minister Pokin Polakul, then commerce minister Watana Muangsook and then deputy interior minister Pracha Maleenont. The other top-priority case was the 73.3-billion-baht sale of Shin Corp to Singapore's Temasek Holdings with the tax payment exemption, the source said.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/03Oct2006_news02.php

[hammered]

I firmly believe that if the advocated 'semi-sufficiency economy' concept can catch on, Thailand can weather the disappearance of its manufacturing industries when the orders from the Western world cease to flow in.

I would prefer if Thailand can finally build up its own manufacturing industry, including setting conditions that factories can be built up in the northern and northeastern provinces, by local and foreign investors. I have serious doubts that even 'semi sufficiency economy' can solve Thailand's dire problems, such as completely inequal land distribution, resulting migration into the urban centres surrounding Bangkok, and an increasing gap between the rich and poor in almost all aspects.

The present policies are still somewhat dominated by ideologies that would/should bind the rural youth to their villages in a somehwat idealized archaic agriculture. No provisions are set for the reality - namely that those young people are not exactly enthusiastic about the idea of toiling the land (which they don't even own in a sufficient measure).

There is a complete lack of national planning towards moving Thailand into new development stages. Neither are the rural poor given a proper land reform in order to revitalise small scale farming, nor is there any infrastructure, such as powersupply, rail connection, etc., in place that in the near future industry could be built up in the provinces.

Just starting with a fuzzy ideology of self-sufficiency, or semi self-sufficiency makes for sycophant speaches of the powerful, but it definately will not be enough to finally develop Thailand.

This is the reality. The youth of the rural areas do not want to work the farms. Most of their parents also want them to have a "better" life. This basically means leaving the rural areas and picking up urban work. Educational achievement in villages is now a lot higher than it was ten years ago with many young adults from farming families completing technical qualifications and some even degrees, all of which open more doors in the urban workplaces. This mass movement of young labor from rural to urban areas is one of the largest changes currently going on in Thailand but rarely addressed. There are many villages where all of those under 30 without criminal records are off all year round to work elsewhere. At the moment this keeps the yopung adults happy. However, many questions remain. Will this be the creation of an urban working class with different political views from their parents with based in urban communities and no longer tied to the land? What will happen if large numbers of these workers face having to return to the rural areas to work the farms but they dont want to do this? Will the extended family survive? How will agriculture change? Will Thailand continue to be able in theory to feed its population? Lots of questions but few precise answers.

[ColPyat]

However, many questions remain. Will this be the creation of an urban working class with different political views from their parents with based in urban communities and no longer tied to the land? What will happen if large numbers of these workers face having to return to the rural areas to work the farms but they dont want to do this? Will the extended family survive? How will agriculture change? Will Thailand continue to be able in theory to feed its population? Lots of questions but few precise answers.

These young will most definately question the status quo here in Thailand.

In the larger scheme of things i do believe that the Thaksin aera was part of this development. Regardless his corruption, and his abuse of power, he did attack in the eyes of the rural poor and the recent migrants the status quo that bound people to their place in the hirarchy. Other political parties and established powers have either completely neglected them, or followed the old line that those folks should stay happy peasants, content with their lot. Which they obviously weren't/aren't.

If the powers do not find a way very soon to incorporate this reality in their plans and programs, very soon they will have to deal with a very large sector of society that is very unhappy with the state of things and their position in Thai life.

Personally, i am not very hopeful that significant changes will be introduced. Looking at how preoccupied now the powers are with their witch hunt against all remnants of Thaksin and his cronies, with the polemics of fighting Thaksin corruption, though neglecting that corruption here in Thailand has established itself as a way of life already long before Thaksin, and so far adressing the problems of the poor in only very fuzzy ways without any vision other than trying to sell an impractical ideology based on a religion that increasingly moves away from the daily reality of those people.

We are in for a very turbulent time here.

[Martin]

"We are in for a very turbulent time here."

Yes, 'Colpyat', but there are many countries that 'have their coat hung on the peg of' industrialism that would see Thailand's problems as much less than theirs.

Also in another thoughtful contribution, 'hammered' asked:

"What will happen if large numbers of these workers face having to return to the rural areas to work the farms but they dont want to do this? "

I think the answer to that question lies in the fact that people will 'make the best of a bad job' if the alternative is to go hungry. My gut feeling is that we will see the provincial towns and villages get their fair share of 'live wires' and become places that offer a much greater variety of much more attractive lifestyles. They could become more like the UK villages and County Towns of pre-industrial days in the UK.

However, we need a different thread to discuss scenarios of the possible development of post- industrial Thailand.

[ColPyat]

"We are in for a very turbulent time here."

Yes, 'Colpyat', but there are many countries that 'have their coat hung on the peg of' industrialism that would see Thailand's problems as much less than theirs.

Well, that depends very much on available information. Thailand is promoted as the Land of Smile, and all what comes along with it. This is also the selfprojected image to their own society. Facts that don't comply with this view are generally somehwat neglected.

If one just looks at facts, and compares available crime statistics for example, then Thailand's problems are far from "much less" than other countries in a somehat similar situation. More the opposite is true.

And there i do not share your positive view on the revitalisation of provincial towns. They will maybe offer different lifestyles, but i doubt that in the case of an economical collapse this will be anymore attractive, going more with the spirit of rising violence in the industrial centers.

People returning to their farmlands mostly do not have enough farmland anymore to make a living, and the young mostly simply do not anymore have the knowledge and skills necessary to do farming.

Edited October 3, 2006 by ColPyat

[hammered]

"We are in for a very turbulent time here."

Yes, 'Colpyat', but there are many countries that 'have their coat hung on the peg of' industrialism that would see Thailand's problems as much less than theirs.

Also in another thoughtful contribution, 'hammered' asked:

"What will happen if large numbers of these workers face having to return to the rural areas to work the farms but they dont want to do this? "

I think the answer to that question lies in the fact that people will 'make the best of a bad job' if the alternative is to go hungry. My gut feeling is that we will see the provincial towns and villages get their fair share of 'live wires' and become places that offer a much greater variety of much more attractive lifestyles. They could become more like the UK villages and County Towns of pre-industrial days in the UK.

However, we need a different thread to discuss scenarios of the possible development of post- industrial Thailand.

Is it possible to have such a thread. This area of discusion is going to be vital to the longer term development of Thailand, and its political stability and this is a widely ignored subject.

[Plus]

fuzzy ideology of self-sufficiency, or semi self-sufficiency makes for sycophant speaches of the powerful

Are honest opinions on sensitive topics finally allowed?

[sriracha john]

Not sure, but I don't believe so and there hasn't been any change to the pinned notice issued by Admin.

[Martin]

My understanding is that the moderators act to remove anything that might cause "pursed lips, or worse" amongst "the powers that could hurt".

Using euphemisms and allusion, and acting circumspectly, and going away from the 'limelight lit' forums, would appear to be necessary in order to quietly discuss weighty topics.

I have put a topic in the "Jobs, economy......" forum. Hopefully, the title is anodyne enough to cause most readers' eyes to glaze over.

Edited October 4, 2006 by Martin

[Martin]

I have put on a first contribution to that topic now, about the sort of grass-roots actions that speak louder than a sychophant's lip-service, if that is what it turns out to be. (By their deeds shall ye know them.)

Getting the ill-gotten part of his assets from Thaksin would be a windfall.

It would be more than just a gesture if that windfall was earmarked for the pump-priming of partial-sufficiency projects at the level of individual families, rather than going into elitist-organised megastructure projects. By their deeds, ye shall know them.

[chownah]

Getting the ill-gotten part of his assets from Thaksin would be a windfall.

It would be more than just a gesture if that windfall was earmarked for the pump-priming of partial-sufficiency projects at the level of individual families, rather than going into elitist-organised megastructure projects. By their deeds, ye shall know them.

No need to wait for Toxin's money for this. Why doesn't the gov't just start a new kind of project to offer one million baht to every village and let the village administer the money how they see fit with the intent being to invest small amounts in new enterprises? There would be alot of failures but there would be some success too. It would help to prime the local and national economies and it would at least help in sufficiency a bit with the few new enterprises that would develop.....of course the detractors would only focus on the failures but I think its best to not worry about whatever the detractors would say and just do it for the benefit of the country....even if it made the politicians who supported it very unpopular.

Chownah