The Nation, following coverage in The Irrawaddy, is reporting that the influence of a renowned Burmese astrologer has spread beyond the top echelons of the dictatorship. Many of the Burmese Generals, and many of their subjects, are partial to mystical counsel.
According to reports, Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is using the services of a Burmese mystical advisor who goes by the name ET.
Of course, among Thaksin’s rural base, superstitions are a crucial aspect of social life, village gossip and public performance. That a Prime Minister is using the services of a seer at a volatile political moment would be remarkable in many parts of the world. In Thailand it is less surprising. The high-level influence of seers has much precedent throughout the region, and in Thailand itself.
In the current unpredictable political climate, it seems that anybody (even somebody from Burma) credited with the ability to foretell the future will enjoy an eager clientele among the wealthy and powerful.
In this business, ET is a remarkably savvy brand.
11 responses so far ↓
1 New Mandala » Celebrating peripheral power // Nov 13, 2006 at 8:21 pm
[...] So why the mockery of Thaksin’s beliefs? Of course, politicians’ habits are fair game, and visiting Burma to consult with an astrologer called ET certainly warrants critical scrutiny. But I wonder if there is more going on here. Regular New Mandala reader Chris White made an interesting observation in relation to the moral panic about “coyote dancing”: [Definitions of what it is to be] culturally ‘Thai’ stress Siamese (or central Thai or ‘Bangkok’ or what ever you want to call them) cultural values, in terms of very narrow and specified ideas of language, monarchy, religion and state that have been promoted by so called ‘nation’ building ‘leaders’ over the last 100 or so years. And it seems to me that whenever there is a crisis the resultant return to governments of the ‘elite’, ‘strongmen’, ‘dictators’ or ‘Thai democracy’ there is a retreat to, and a renewed promotion of, these very specific ideas of ‘Thainess’. Within this understanding of being ‘Thai’ there is not much room for difference. [...]
2 nganadeeleg // Dec 31, 2006 at 11:15 am
Ruangkrai Leekitwattana has exhibited a form of ‘thainess’ that I doubt even ET would have predicted.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/291206_News/29Dec2006_news03.php
I had previously tried to explain to Patiwat that he was looking at the wrong share transaction when considering whether tax applied – hopefully the tax case in the above article helps you understand.
3 patiwat // Dec 31, 2006 at 5:50 pm
Ruangkrai’s case is fundamentally different from the case being pursued against Thaksin. The court found that Ruangkrai’s profits on the share sale should be considered as part of his taxable income along with salary, bonuses, etc.
The AEC is demanding that Thaksin pay capital gains tax, seperate and distinct from his taxes he has to pay on his taxable income (which should already include profits made from share transactions). See here and here. Of course, nobody in Thailand has ever had to pay any capital gains tax, but that hasn’t deterred the anti-Thaksin critics from making up a new tax statute that would only apply to people related to Thaksin.
4 nganadeeleg // Dec 31, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Patiwat, please take off your blinkers, and forget about capital gains tax.
The shares were transferred to the Thaksin children at below market value, which is the same as happened in the Ruangkrai case.
The children made a profit when they received the shares, such profit being the difference between what they paid and the value of the shares (on the day they received them).
The concept of taxing such profits is quite common (usually it applies to non arms length transactions between associated parties)
I find it amusing that you are obviously a very intelligent person, but seem unable to grasp this point after it has been repeatedly made to you.
5 Vichai N. // Jan 1, 2007 at 12:04 am
Do take off your blinkers Patiwat – - tonight at New Year’s eve, seven bombs exploded in Bangkok with two killed and a number injured. Who profits from such carnage and outrage against the Bangkok people?
My suspicions are that Thakin Shinawatra and his cohorts have now officially declared bloody war against their opponents, predominarly the residents of Bangkok city.
Thaksin and his cohorts needed a distraction from all the investigation into their tax evasion, extrajudicial killings, and corruption crimes. Hence the bombings.
Thaksin and his cohorts were certainly capable of mass murder as evidenced by his extrajjudicial rampage during his anti yaa baa madness. These latest bombings, were planned and obviously well financed, bear the fingerprints of Thaksin and his corrupt thugs.
6 patiwat // Jan 1, 2007 at 4:35 am
Read the articles – the AEC is demanding the payment of an individual capital gains tax, something that has never existed in Thailand.
There’s never been any doubt that the Shinawatras had to pay income taxes on any profits or salary they earned (including profits from the stock market). Don’t forget – income taxes are paid at the end of the tax year (although there are exceptions that allow for payment at 6 months). But the demands for the Shinawatras to pay capital gains taxes have occured since the sale happened earlier this year, well before the tax deadline. Sondhi & Co. weren’t demanding that Thaksin pay income tax – they were demanding that he pay capital gains tax.
As for the bombings, I don’t really want to make any conclusions until some more evidence comes out. The junta itself warned of greater Southern violence during the new year. Some police are blaming Thaksin supporters, and some other police are blaming the Southern insurgents. Some of my friends are blaming the ISOC, and some are blaming the junta itself. Too much disinformation is going around now.
7 nganadeeleg // Jan 1, 2007 at 10:45 am
Patiwat: Fortunately I dont mind banging my head against a brick wall occasionally, so I will try again.
I am not, and never have been, talking about capital gains tax, and it is not mentioned anywhere in the article on the Ruangkrai case.
If, after re-reading my posts #2 & #4 above, you again come back with an irrelevant post about capital gains tax, then I can only conclude that you are a Thaksin lacky who is just posting to muddy the waters in his favour.
8 patiwat // Jan 1, 2007 at 2:44 pm
You’re not demanding that Thaksin pays capital gains taxes, but the AEC is. They have authority on this matter, not you.
I’m not a Thaksin lackey. I’m just a normal Thai who refuses to let the AEC establish a precedent whereby individuals are forced to pay taxes they have no legal obligation to pay.
9 nganadeeleg // Jan 1, 2007 at 8:12 pm
I wonder why such transactions were deemed taxable by the Revenue Department (and also the tax appeal committee), but once Thaksin’s family does a similar deal the Revenue Department decides they are not taxable and takes a most unusual step by issuing a refund.
10 Naphat // Jan 2, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Try reading this article for reference. The AEC is focusing on the capital gains taxes as Patiwat mentioned. I remember initially there was a lot of controversy on whether the sale was ‘outside’ or made through the SET. Thaksin’s children reported to the SET in some form that the sale was made outside the market (therefore taxable for capital gains?) then later changed the form to something else.
I wonder why at the time, Thaksin did not defend the sale by saying that his children would later pay personal income taxes on the profits. Wasn’t the accusation that the Revenue Department made the ruling on the Ruangkrai case create a precedent to later exempt the Shinawatra children from paying income tax?
11 nganadeeleg // Jan 2, 2007 at 7:06 pm
I believe the AEC is wrong to try to make the sale subject to capital gains tax. As Patiwat has righly stated there is no capital gains tax applicable to market traded shares sold by individuals.
If I was the AEC I would be making the children pay income tax on the difference between what the shares were worth on the day they received the shares and what they paid Ample Rich for the shares (just like Ruangkrai had to when he got shares from his father at below market value).
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.