New Mandala

14 responses so far ↓

• 1 Andrew Walker // Aug 22, 2008 at 11:46 am

  Oh yes Nich, but you really must remember that sufficiency economy is about the principles of Reasonableness, Moderation and Immunity. Don’t let the odd 35 billion distract you from the principles!

• 2 nganadeeleg // Aug 22, 2008 at 2:03 pm

  Impressive – Perhaps we need to add Self Discipline to Reasonableness, Moderation and Immunity.

  However, I personally could never be paid enough to be a royal and would not want to be a king, no matter what wealth came with the position.

• 3 Fisherman // Aug 22, 2008 at 2:31 pm

  Yes, definitely don’t let that distract you. The message is not wrong just because the doctor does not take his/her own advice. The principles of Reasonableness, Moderation and Immunity are good ones to live by. A good plan might be useful too, however.

  Of more concern to me is: “Certain populist policies lured the voters with easy money.” And in the larger article … “if the funds earmarked for villages are not properly supervised, they can instead encourage rural people to borrow more to serve their material needs.”
  -On the first, the message seems to be “the voters got it wrong” smudged under “the policy was bad” message. On the second, the message is perhaps patronising in tone that some can serve their material desires, but rural people can not be trusted to do this. Rural folk are perfectly capable of making mistakes or acting wisely as they wish, thankyee!

• 4 khon ngai ngai // Aug 22, 2008 at 8:10 pm

  If I were Thai and I want to ‘tham boon’ by donating to royal causes, does the revelation of the tremendous assets of HM mean that my donation will no longer be credited a boon in the celestial accounting because HM’ wealth is already overflowing?

  If HM’s wealth is the greatest shouldn’t royal projects be multiplied a thousand thousand times?

• 5 matty // Aug 22, 2008 at 11:13 pm

  I’m surprised that Thailand’s King Bhumibhol wealth suddenly jumped 7-fold because some 3,000 acres (about 9,000 rais) of Bangkok prime real estate was included in the count . . . thus earning the Thai monarch Rank No. 1 in the Royal Richest roster.

  We are talking of real estate gentlemen! Shouldn’t those Arab kings with black gold beneath their properties be priced more? Many times more . . . I would think. Sumtingwong, huh?

  But I won’t quibble . . . because many NM readers are quick to accept Forbes accounting as exact science. But the Thai monarch was not a profligate and I could argue too of ‘moderation’ in his conduct and demeanor , as befit Thailand’s most revered king.

• 6 Dog Lover // Aug 22, 2008 at 11:20 pm

  And we should not neglect to add in the 6 billion baht (and that’s not the grand total for it excludes the seemingly secret amount for royal projects) that the Thai taxpayer forks over to the royals in 2008.

• 7 nganadeeleg // Aug 23, 2008 at 11:19 am

  How to handle royal assets would present quite a dilemma for HMK and his advisers, and I can understand his reluctance to simply hand things over to politicians. The electoral cycle tends to make them somewhat short sighted, let alone the fact that many have clearly demonstrated they in politics for reasons other than helping people (apart from a select few)
  

  IMO it is obvious that the various royal projects are done with good intentions as a way of trying to help people in need (although some are possibly misguided).

  I seem to recall that Handley in TKNS mentions HMK’s concern that handouts do not work (presumably because he has seen how the money often gets wasted on various vices).

  Given that mindset, I would be interested to hear of ways in which the the assets could be used to benefit those most in need.

  At present I understand much of the property is not let at commercial rates – is that the best use, or would it be better to maximize potential income, and then use the funds to help in other ways?

  Dog Lover raised a good point about taxpayer contributions to royal coffers, but the accounting for that could get messy – for instance, who should bear the cost of all the pageantry, pomp & ceremony?

  Aside from how many planes and overseas trips etc they need, another contentious point is their tax exempt status – perhaps if everything was put on a commercial basis, the tax exempt status could be removed – it might also limit some of the snide innuendo!

  At the risk of sounding like Da Torpedo, I think it’s about time all these matters were made transparent. (Lucky I’m not in Thailand or I might be in jail with no bail!)

• 8 manning sawwinner // Aug 23, 2008 at 11:24 am

  As long as someone wealthy is not Thaksin, then all is well.

• 9 matty // Aug 23, 2008 at 3:21 pm

  Manning Sawwinner’s (#8) eyes, clouded by tears because of Thaksin’s downfall, are not seeing things too clearly. So some correction to his cross-eyed comment below:

  “As long as someone did not expand his wealth exponentially while in power, the Thais do not mind and all is well. But ill-gotten wealth while sitting as Thailand’s Prime Minister, and evading taxes too to add insult to injury, is definitely NOT well.”

• 10 Land of Snarls // Aug 23, 2008 at 3:51 pm

  Bangkok Post has 2 articles + comments on this. Those with an interest in Lese Majeste would be well-advised to go to http://www.bangkokpost.com/topstories/topstories.phpid=129855
  immediately, to see the comments from readers…A ‘first,’ I’d think.

• 11 karmablues // Aug 23, 2008 at 5:51 pm

  http://www.forbes.com/magazines/global/2008/0901/032.html

  What I think are important:

  1. Deeper knowledge of the royal’s wealth is a result of decision of CPB to be more transparent and allowing access to its information by researchers. This should be seen as a good step forward.

  2. There are other assets which are still not included into the Forbes estimate, such as CPB’s land holdings located outside Bangkok (CPB estimates this at 12,500 acres) and personal holdings. However, I share matty’s point that the assets of the royalties of other countries may have also been left out of Forbes’ calculations which Forbes anyways admitted its calculations were “a blend of art and science”.

  3. Pornphant estimates that in 2005 total income of CPB is $280 million (at current exchange rate), with $200 million from company dividends. So income from the real estate totaled around $80 million. This fits with what was reported in Bangkokpost that the CPB leases most of its land at low prices to state agencies, NGOs, for community housing and shophouses. Only about 7% of its land is leased at commercial prices . Porphant’s other research also found that many tracts of land were in old areas of the city with long-standing tenants, including several slum communities, and the CPB made no effort to re-develop such sites to reflect their rising commercial value. Other tracts were leased to government departments or state enterprises, often at “peppercorn rents”. For example, the large plot of prime land used as police headquarters across from Siam Paragon is leased at 1000 baht ($30) a year. Paul Handley also says that the CPB “still has a below-market-rent mentality for long-term stability goals,” and that the CPB has “no rate-of-return goals on some of their real estate, limited goals on others and nearly commercial on others.”

  4. It is not known how much of the income goes to charity because how the income is spent is not disclosed. My own guess is that a good share goes to charity.

  5. The goal of CPB is not strictly to earn the highest income but to aid the country’s development by investing in key industries and providing below-market-rate housing for low-income citizens. I think how far this goal has been achieved would be worthy of debate.

  6. CPB is basically a “giant landlord”. Almost all the 600 CPB staff is engaged in property management, with fewer than 10 staffers managing the financial assets. Thus CPB is a long-term investor which isn’t concerned with short-term profits or losses. I think the long-term investment strategy should be good for the stability of the economy.

  7. The law specifies that the use of CPB’s assets and income “depends totally on the royal inclination” and that the government cannot seize or transfer them, or tax them. The bureau doesn’t issue an annual report, except to the king. Especially after the succession, I think Thailand needs to revisit these provisions of the law and push for more transparency. P. Handley shares the concern: “I think Chirayu [director-general of CPB] is pretty shrewd,” he says. “The finance ministry and business community have always trusted Chirayu’s judgment, but now they must signal to the prince [that he must handle the fortune responsibly]” . If he doesn’t, Handley says, “Thailand’s economy could be irreversibly damaged.”

  matty: But the Thai monarch was not a profligate and I could argue too of ‘moderation’ in his conduct and demeanor, as befit Thailand’s most revered king.

  P. Handley argues the same in TKNS, eg.

  - “His prestige has survived unscathed, by virtue of his sheer longevity and his personality – earnest, hardworking, gentle, and with an impeccably simple lifestyle.”

  - “To be sure for more than five decades, Bhumibol has been genuinely dedicated to good works. He has tried to bring into Thai society the poor and marginalized. He quietly intervenes on behalf of those abused by Thai officialdom, and he has been a constant reminder against destructive greed. And all the time he – though not his family – has shown little interest in the luxurious trappings that a bejeweled crown could bring.”

• 12 tum|bler // Aug 24, 2008 at 1:37 am

  I don’t want (and see no need to) defend the PM-turned-fugitive Thaksin, but i couldn’t resist the urge to respond to matty’s comment #9. Was Thaksin the only one who expanded his wealth exponentially while in power? IMO this is also true for ‘the other person’, whose wealth we’re discussing here..

  I absolutely agree with the second part of your observation, though.

• 13 Mariner // Aug 25, 2008 at 1:37 am

  Well I guess with all that money floating around the CPB will be able to settle the asbestos claims arising from all that chrysotile dust floating around.

  Just wait. The asbestos issue is going to explode over here sooner or later. If you were an investigative journalist you could write a book on this one.

• 14 Sufficiency economy gurus // Oct 28, 2008 at 2:14 pm

  [...] economy for a while (at least not since its principle architect was identified by Forbes as the world’s wealthiest royal) so I was very pleased yesterday when a colleague passed me information about a scheme to take [...]

Leave a Comment