Junta Gets Fat-cat Allowances

[Bottlerocket]

The highest salary there is equivalent to approximately $3,200 a month and puts them at roughly $38k a year. That's hardly a fat cat salary. It's certainly more than my teaching salary here in the LOS, but I'm not representing this country on a diplomatic level, which requires the ability to present one's self as holding a position a little higher up than a rice picker. One thing about Thais: they've said to me that as a teacher I'm paid too much, but I always tell them, "No , you're paid too little. Instead of blaming me, why don't you (teachers) organize and demand better pay?" But you know how they are, "can't challenge authority."

[younghusband]

Sometimes one just wants to laugh when the level of debate is so inept.Leaving aside questions of whether the junta has a moral entitlement to payment at all, the proposed salaries are perfectly reasonable and in line with past precedents.One could make the case for the levels being rather higher.

But that's not the point.In the past a very significant number of public servants -poiticians, civil servants, senior military officers have acquired assets of millions of dollars.For example when Thaksin was just a young sprig flogging main frames to the Police Department, Thai government ministers for example with no source of income other than their office were multi millionaires.No one really questioned it since the prevailing culture accepted the eighteenth century practice of spoils of office.

Obviously there were exceptions -Chamlong etc- but not that many.At least Thaksin may reflect as he pops into the corner shop in Knightsbridge for a packet of Rothmans that he made his loot in legitimate business (OK having manipulated the rules but that's another story).

Perhaps I'm being too cynical.No doubt the junta will very shortly declare the value of their assets and whence the wealth was deived, followed by independent annual audits thereafter.Dream on.

[johnnyk]

Samesame other countries.

The payoff is not in the salary.

Ex-politicians always seem to have homes and assets far beyond what their salaries would have bought.

Example: Reagan lived in a $20 million Bel-Air home.

No matter how you slice it, he couldn't have bought it on his salary as either Governor or President ($200K a year).

A group of his friends bought it and leased it to him for $1 a year in perpetuity.

OP also noted the Thai stipends are 6X the 1991 levels.

Well, 1991 was 15 years ago.

[younghusband]

Samesame other countries.

The payoff is not in the salary.

Ex-politicians always seem to have homes and assets far beyond what their salaries would have bought.

Example: Reagan lived in a $20 million Bel-Air home.

No matter how you slice it, he couldn't have bought it on his salary as either Governor or President ($200K a year).

A group of his friends bought it and leased it to him for $1 a year in perpetuity.

OP also noted the Thai stipends are 6X the 1991 levels.

Well, 1991 was 15 years ago.

No sorry you can't just say it happens everywhere.It happens certainly in some countries and at some times.The problem is that in Thailand it almost always happens, and its worse by an almost incalculable factor.

I never though I would be an apologist for Ronald Reagan, but you have picked a poor example.Certainly friends supported him as friends supported Winston Churchill, but I challenge you to produce evidence in either case of cash for favours.Also unlike Churchill, Reagan was a successful businessman after his acting career with equity stakes in production companies.Moreover in the UK and US there is a level of scrutiny of officials' assets that simply doesn't exist in most parts of Asia.

[ZZZ]

They should be paid top dollars. If they are paid peanuts they have to get into corruption.

Singapore are paying their government top dollars, comparable to top executive salaries. They also have the lowest rate of corruption.

I lived and worked in Singapore for over 15 years, I have also worked in most of the other Asian countries. Thats how I know

Also, all independent surveys says so.

[dave111223]

I think this decision is pretty stupid. Obviously it's not a lot, but many Thai people will see it as huge and will think that generals did not do it for the sake of the country as they claim, but for the money.

After all, nobody asked them to make the coup...

Members of the CNS should have kept their salaries as generals, and not getting more for becoming coup leaders.

Concerning members of the NLA and other bodies, their salaries seem pretty standard.

Agreed.

It doesnt make sense to me that a military general can take control and then collect a check as both a general and a coupe maker.

If the military want to get government admin paychecks then they should quit the military and join the administration.

[pete_r]

I think this decision is pretty stupid. Obviously it's not a lot, but many Thai people will see it as huge and will think that generals did not do it for the sake of the country as they claim, but for the money.

After all, nobody asked them to make the coup...

Members of the CNS should have kept their salaries as generals, and not getting more for becoming coup leaders.

Concerning members of the NLA and other bodies, their salaries seem pretty standard.

Agreed.

It doesnt make sense to me that a military general can take control and then collect a check as both a general and a coupe maker.

If the military want to get government admin paychecks then they should quit the military and join the administration.

Aww... I see a comparison here, but it's probably not appropriate to spell it out under the current restrictions. Mai pen rai.

[Plus]

Who really thinks they should work for free now? They didn't get the bonus for the coup itself, that part was voluntarily

Considering the position and the level of responcibility, 120k is not a salary, it's pocket money allowance. Purely symbolical.

Thaksin's children, for example, can afford to spend more than the combined salaries of the whole new government together with new legislative assembly for the rest of their lives.

[pete_r]

Who really thinks they should work for free now? They didn't get the bonus for the coup itself, that part was voluntarily

If someone walked into my company unasked for, [edited by self]. That is the question.

Edited November 9, 2006 by pete_r

[Laulen]

I hope that the salaries paid to these leaders do not require them to pay for private secretaries out of this amount, like British MPs have to.

The amounts published (and congratulations to the Government for being open about this) are paltry compared to other similar developing economies.

Let us hope that this reduces the temptation for any illicit or corrupt activities on the part of these people, and that they can show an exemplary example to others in positions of power and responsibility.

[Plus]

If someone walked into my company unasked for...

It's been their company all along. It's just the management started getting funny ideas.

[billd766]

I hope that the salaries paid to these leaders do not require them to pay for private secretaries out of this amount, like British MPs have to.

The amounts published (and congratulations to the Government for being open about this) are paltry compared to other similar developing economies.

Let us hope that this reduces the temptation for any illicit or corrupt activities on the part of these people, and that they can show an exemplary example to others in positions of power and responsibility.

As far as I remember British MPs don't have to pay their private secretaries from their salary. They get an allowance for this, also free postage, free first class rail travel, an incredibly high mileage allowance for their cars, they are allowed to buy a second house in their constituency if they don't actuall live there. entertainment allowance and o whole raft of freebies as well.

On the other hand their job has a finite period unless they get re-elected. They are also permitted to sit on the boards of companies and rake in the extra allowances there.

I personally think that the junta allowances (assuming they quit when they say) are extremely low for the position of running a country.

[johnnyk]

Samesame other countries.

The payoff is not in the salary.

Ex-politicians always seem to have homes and assets far beyond what their salaries would have bought.

Example: Reagan lived in a $20 million Bel-Air home.

No matter how you slice it, he couldn't have bought it on his salary as either Governor or President ($200K a year).

A group of his friends bought it and leased it to him for $1 a year in perpetuity.

OP also noted the Thai stipends are 6X the 1991 levels.

Well, 1991 was 15 years ago.

No sorry you can't just say it happens everywhere.It happens certainly in some countries and at some times.The problem is that in Thailand it almost always happens, and its worse by an almost incalculable factor.

I never though I would be an apologist for Ronald Reagan, but you have picked a poor example.Certainly friends supported him as friends supported Winston Churchill, but I challenge you to produce evidence in either case of cash for favours.Also unlike Churchill, Reagan was a successful businessman after his acting career with equity stakes in production companies.Moreover in the UK and US there is a level of scrutiny of officials' assets that simply doesn't exist in most parts of Asia.

You have misunderstood what I said and extrapolated things that aren't in the post.

[younghusband]

If someone walked into my company unasked for...

It's been their company all along. It's just the management started getting funny ideas.

To continue the corporate analogy, and let's assume the management messed up.The shareholders clearly need to take action.But who are the shareholders or owners of the company? Clearly the owners are the people of Thailand. In this instance a small and unrepresentative group decided that they would impose their will by force, ignore the majority of the shareholders, ignore the procedures in place for voting management out and make any dissent illegal.

If you think it looks bad now wait another 12 months.

[bkkandrew]

Samesame other countries.

The payoff is not in the salary.

Ex-politicians always seem to have homes and assets far beyond what their salaries would have bought.

Example: Reagan lived in a $20 million Bel-Air home.

No matter how you slice it, he couldn't have bought it on his salary as either Governor or President ($200K a year).

A group of his friends bought it and leased it to him for $1 a year in perpetuity.

OP also noted the Thai stipends are 6X the 1991 levels.

Well, 1991 was 15 years ago.

Hmmm, wish I could apply for a job that had a 6-fold increase in salary over 15-years..

Then again, they didn't apply for their position...

[Creeper]

I wouldn't get out of bed for that Salary, let alone run a country.

[bkkandrew]

I wouldn't get out of bed for that Salary, let alone run a country.

Don't organise a couter-coup to take control then...

[otherstuff1957]

Most of us earned more, in many cases a good deal more, than these salaries back home. For a top government official, these salaries are not excessive.

[Plus]

Clearly the owners are the people of Thailand.

They don't get to sit on directors board. Generals do.

[younghusband]

Clearly the owners are the people of Thailand.

They don't get to sit on directors board. Generals do.

You don't seem to know much about company law.Shareholders elect directors to the board at an annual general meeting.Directors don't seize control and in any case are accountable to the shareholders, the owners of the company.

You can spin the situation any way you like but the stench won't go away.Try reading Orwell's Animal Farm for a fairly apt comparison.