This is the fifth of a series of videos on “Thailand in crisis” that we are producing in conjunction with the Australian National University’s Youtube channel. This episode includes interviews with Professor Peter Warr who discusses the role of economics in the current political crisis, and Professor Andrew Leigh who talks about development economics. There is also a discussion with Andrew Walker focused on agricultural credit and the importance of economics for anthropologists. The podcast of this episode is available here. Previous episodes in this vodcast and podcast series can be found in our archives.
Thailand in Crisis – Episode 5
– 25 June 2010Posted in: Economics, Thailand, Thailand in Crisis
Best so far and well balanced in viewpoints too.
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
The first 2 interviews here IMO were very interesting.
Andrew,
I still find this hard to digest for a number of reasons.
1) Agricultural GDP in Thailand has dropped to below 12% of Thai GDP According to the IMF. Which means that those in Agriculture industries really only have that much influence, as the other graphs also show the dropping of employment in this area, just to back that up.
2) In your last video you showed charts of how much Thaksin contributed to agriculture and it was flat with a slight peak at the end. You said that the agri sector was moving to the private sector so there was less support from the government. If the farmers were so concerned about politics why did they choose Thaksin when he really did nothing for them?
3) In this video, you actually show that the credit dropped off substantially in his era. Abhisit introduced cheap loans and farming stimulus, maybe even spending more than Thaksin on the rural poor in the NE and North.
4) what about the farmers and fishermen in the South? What is so different about the poor in the North and the poor in the south? Why do they choose democrat? I dont think you have really nailed this one, in fact, I think the 4th and 5th videos are actually contradicting each other.
It may be easy for me to take apart your video, so I look forward to you filling in the gaps for me.
Quality comment or not?
3 
1
I want to raise a point about the non-violence cause discussed by Professor Peter Warr. One is that it took very long time for non-violent cause to gain traction in India, Ghandi first introduced that in mid 1900s protest and turn out wasn’t very successful, not until after World War II that the non-violence concept became more prominent for many popular struggle.
Using non-violence concept is not easy since you cannot simply control every people in the protest, one mishap can cause the whole non-violence claim to collapse. Furthermore the political opposition to the non-violence protest also knew this weakness so it is very easy for the political opposition to stage a set-up to show that the protest was violence. One point to keep in mind that Indian was fighting the British to get their independent while in Thailand it was Thais against Thais, its not very easy to tell who is who like in India case.
Quality comment or not?
6 
0
Colin, yes I think there are some interesting differences between the picture in relation to the government’s agricultural spending and the picture in relation to credit provision. Economics is complex. And so is politics. Simple explanations are usually inadequate. That’s why I talk about the need for nuance, and awareness of long-term processes, in the videos. Your comments here highlight the complexity of rural people’s electoral decision making.
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
At first, Warr’s argument seems well-constructed and the graph certainly supports the conclusion that economics was the underlying force behind the Red Shirts’ political phenomenon. However, the argument is weakened by serious flaws. First, the conclusion does not follow logically from the premise. The argument that the richest 20% quintile group has risen at the expense of the rest does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it’s an economic issue because the richest 20% quintile group in other countries generates what economists call “the trickle down effect” in the distribution of wealth. This didn’t happen in Thailand due to the political issue of the network of monarchic cronyism and monopoly in the use of force.
I am skeptical about Warr’s argument that economic reasons are responsible for the Red Shirts’ crisis. The increase of income inequality, and the national income skew in favor of skilled, capital, and land: all these factors are happening in most market economy countries.
Secondly, the argument shows a possible causal fallacy in assuming that without weapons there would have no violent response to the protesters. The empirical evidence has shown that the monarchy and the military had used force in response to unarmed protests in 1973, 1976, and 1992. In fact, it was an arms struggle and somewhat equal power between the Communist Party of Thailand and the military that led to a peaceful agreement. The Philippines, Burma, and India have different internal contexts so to say that the situations are the same is too generalized.
Finally, the cited study may be based on an inappropriate sample by focusing on the pro-Aphisit and anti-Thaksin analysis. Aphisit moved the level and growth rate of real quarterly GDP from +5% during Thaksin to –7.5%. With the same global financial crisis, other countries in the region did not perform poorly as Aphisit.
The argument would have been compelling if Warr also showed evidence of how the Crown Property and the King became the largest land-owner and the richest family in the world. Ignoring the study of the richest man among the richest 20% quintile group has made Warr’s argument fall into the selection-bias category with the implication of other motives.
Quality comment or not?
7 
3
Andrew,
Correct me if I am wrong, but I took this video to be trying to highlight the complexity of the farmers/agricultural voting preferences? Didn’t you say that in your video?
Quality comment or not?
0 
2
Suzie,
You seem to be trying very hard to discredit anti-Thaksin commentary.
Some say its an economic issue, some say it isn’t. Please, red shirt supporters, make up your mind???
Quality comment or not?
1 
4
>The argument that the richest 20% quintile group has risen at the expense of the rest does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it’s an economic issue because the richest 20% quintile group in other countries generates what economists call “the trickle down effect” in the distribution of wealth.
The graphs on wealth distribution include all sources including the trickle down effect already.
>I am skeptical about Warr’s argument that economic reasons are responsible for the Red Shirts’ crisis.
Wealth disparities have a long history of generating discontent and conflict. Why would Thailand be any different ?
But there are other reasons too. The poor are excluded not just economically but culturally in Thailand. This is not only the bigotry against them you see everywhere but the way they are represented in the media, and the sustained attempts the wealthy are making to isolate themselves from the poor in every aspect of their lives – from entertainment to education.
Peaceful protest should be preferred on a purely practical basis because violence tends to generate large amounts of resentment and make the other side entrench but it is not a magic solution. It works particularly well in situations when just the very top elite needs to be deposed and the rest of the elite can be co-opted.
Such was the case in India and the Philippines and not in Burma and Thailand.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
The first thing which needs saying is that NM should not be ending these excellent podcasts –
Thailand’s crisis is far. far from over.
Professor Warr – frankly you provided the best, most objective analysis I’ve seen anywhere.
(And I follow Thai events a LOT !!).
Andrew – you’re second best :
I would n’t worry about those questioning you’re economist credentials – ultimately it is going to be the human, anthropologist
and political dimension which plays out in this very fundamental crisis.
If anything – there may be one or two too many graphs creeping in on these podcasts, which are somewhat surreal to the what is ultimately going to decide the issues : namely raw political power.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Tarrin // Jun 25, 2010 at 5:04 pm — 3
Yes, it is incredibly hard to stick to non-violence. As you say, M.K. Gandhi’s life is a good illustration of this. But I think you are selling short Gandhi’s actual message of non-violence (ahimsa) and his significance .
One of Gandhi’s contemporary biographers (Olivier Lacombe) called non-violence, the “force of the soul” or “strength of the soul” (take your pick, Lacombe was French!). But he echoed Gandhi and argued that the soul is, in the end, stronger than the rest of the things at our disposal. Gandhi always dissociated himself from anyone resorting to violence. His methods were hard. His methods were robust. Sometimes he publicly and openly fasted until his (previous) associates gave up a violent aspect of their political action. He would win. People listened. That’s one hell of a power and one hell of compassion.
Gandhi suffered for what he believed in. That is what ahimsa (non-violence) was to him. It was the willingness to suffer, not blame, not lash out, not condemn, not parade, not attack, not harm, not rise above those he fought for, which caused people to stop and look. They did stop. They did look. Even those who were on “his side” in aim, but not in method. It is not true that “one mishap” causes the whole non-violent claim to fall into a heap. This is not a natural, necessary, automatic result. Gandhi himself had to deal with people claiming to be on his side, but using violence. Gandhi himself responded to people who disagreed with his methods. If the obvious, clear, and insistent will to put an end to all violence is there — by yourself suffering for violence perpetrated in your name — the non-violent case does not automatically collapse.
To say it again: M.K. Gandhi conquered attempts at and accusations of non-violence by himself suffering more than those he was fighting for. No “mishaps” could counter this. No one else’s violence was strong enough to question his non-violence.
In the case of the UDD/Red Shirts, the leadership is obviously, at the least, divided as to the application and acceptance of non-violence. This inexplicitness or division is not hard to find. We need only remember Khattiya or the unencouraging words, “Red Shirt people are easily scared…”
This is a real compromise. To take up the words of Professor Peter Warr, the UDD is not “explicitly non-violent”. Whatever the banners say, Pattaya and Rajprasong and whatever else were not explicitly ahimsa. A lack of explicit non-violence in a “peaceful” movement is really a compromise. That is what ultimately kills the non-violence case. Not “one mishap”.
We are not all saints. We can’t all suffer as much as Gandhi. But it’s no good pretending that there is no or little hope for applying non-violence. You are selling Gandhi’s message short. “One mishap” does not cause a collapse of the case. An inexplicitness in method does.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
By the way: another wonderful episode in a wonderful video series — thank you! Always can think about the information presented in this series.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
Ben – 9
I understand your point, I have read about Ghandi himself that’s why I said that. However, like I did not sell Ghandi short, I simply trying to say that the course of non-violence took time to achieve and it can be easily tainted. I’m not trying to say that there’s little hope to non-violence, I’m just said its a tough road and in practice when you dont have media on your side and your opponent is slimy like a fox. Like I said earlier, its was the fight between Indian and British, this is Thai against Thai how do you know who is with who?
Quality comment or not?
3 
2
Tarrin // Jun 27, 2010 at 10:47 am — 11
If you mean that the course of non-violence took time to be achieved amongst a very large number of people, then perhaps yes, you’d be right. Mass agreement to non-violence is not instantaneous. Unfortunately, it is very very very very far from it. But if you’re arguing that, you’re altering the frame of reference of the effectiveness of “non-violence” (ahimsa) itself.
Non-violence (ahimsa) is not first and foremost a “mass movement”. It’s first and foremost “the strength of the soul”. That was Gandhi’s message. He was clear on it. If you disagree, then you can say so; not everyone believes like Gandhi in the soul, and not everyone who believes in the soul believes in it like Gandhi. But M.K. Gandhi said what he said, did what he did, and saw effects. That doesn’t change if we disagree with him.
You speak as if non-violence develops with time. If it can develop and spread with time, it does not develop if the (perceived) leadership compromises. That was Gandhi’s constant message. Time and again, that’s what he said. That’s why he fasted for the “sins” of his associates. He talked the talk. And he walked the walk. Non-violence is the strength of the soul. Start with one person saying a categorical no to violence. That’s the only way non-violence is “in charge”.
Again, that’s what Gandhi said. Given the historical results, I’m not in a position to argue with him.
Mass movement was not Gandhi’s focus from the beginning. As soon as Gandhi had figured out his methods, he did not compromise and he thus progressively got people not to compromise around him. I think you are wrong: the case of non-violence cannot be easily tainted for someone like Gandhi. It never was. If non-violence is “easily” tainted or “easily” perceived as tainted, where is the historical evidence in the case of M.K. Gandhi? He was persistent. He did not give up on suffering for his associates’ violence. It changed the people around him. No one ignores this.
You are selling Gandhi short. I’m sorry, but you are. I love Gandhi to bits. I am not like him. I am not like a saint. Sadly, I’m not. But I do know you aren’t focusing on the amazing thing about Gandhi. You’re selling his real significance short.
Like I said earlier, its was the fight between Indian and British, this is Thai against Thai how do you know who is with who?
Under these circumstances, maybe a real Gandhi would be suffering for “all” the wrongs, not sure which ones he has had some small part in, and thus making people turn a head. If the “sides” are less clear, then the suffering is probably deeper. Sadly.
What would have happened if Natthawut and Arisman spent days hard-headedly fasting and begging outside the PM’s house instead of encouraging people to pour human blood? We’ll never know for sure. Maybe the response could eventually have been one of equal shock. But we don’t know. Because they let themselves be compromised.
The point is, even legally innocent comments like “Red shirted people are easily scared…” are a genuine compromise. Instead of being horrified and suffering for potential violence, (segments of) the UDD leadership speak about potential violence with a loudspeaker. It’s a compromise. UDD is thus open to being seen as “not non-violent” (whatever that will mean in the ears of the listeners). It’s not “one mishap” that’s the problem. It’s inexplicitness in method.
None of this discredits anything the Red Shirts have asked, are asking, and will ask for. The legitimate grievances cannot be discredited. This just points out that any claims to unequivocal non-violence are ultimately shot down by their own compromises in method. Not by “one mishap” or by a media war.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
Listening to privileged middle-aged men pontificate in TV studios about the virtues of non-violence makes for a deeply uncomfortable experience. It’s very easy for the economist – whose name I’ve forgotten – to criticize the reds for their occasional lapse into violence – though as usual, the case for non-violence is taken as completely self-evident – but when confronted by the full deployment of state repression, what exactly does he expect to happen? And why, in his 20 minutes, if he’s going to stray from the topic of economics, does he pick out the reds for criticism and ignore government assassination? That, coupled with his peculiar claims along the lines of ‘it’s easy to make people think that they’re being ripped off by the rich’ (if they’re not being ripped off, then say it and say why) hardly support his – presumed – claim to academic impartiality. He then goes on to criticize Thaksin for his monopolistic business practices and says that was an example of Thaksin exploiting his fellow countrymen. Well, Thaksin is a capitalist. Of course he exploited his fellow countrymen, that’s how they get their money, but because this guy is beholden to his own – undeclared – ideological interests, he makes the unstated claim that some kinds of exploitation are fine, but that pursued by Thaksin is in some mysterious way exceptionally egregious. Poor. And it put me off watching the second interviewee.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Ben – 12
I’m so not going to talk about spiritual aspect of Ghandi since the red doesn’t have that “spiritual leader” like that of Ghandi, Mao, Lenin, or Ho. Furthermore, there are so many interpretation to his action and no one can be sure of what the man is actually thinking. We can never know whether he develop the “non-corporation” over time or he think of that initially.
I think you are wrong: the case of non-violence cannot be easily tainted for someone like Gandhi.
I beg you read what happened in Kheda.
Anyhow, let me say again that I’m not selling Ghandi short, I respected his non-violence/non-corporation cause, but Thailand is more similar to France in 1789 than India in 1946. One main reason being that, in case of Thailand, it is a crash of the conservative and the progressive, no matter how much the red trying to spread their voice, they will never get all of the population to support them.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Yet again the pod casts are very insightful and have broadened my knowledge.
I am interested in the historical evolution of the oligarch families that have such a strong influence not only in Thai economics and governance but also their influence in social sterotyping of the lower classes through the media.
I have read extensively on the socio/political problems in Thailand but fail to come across actual information on true reasons for the evolution of disparity and equality.
From my own research I understand in the early part of last century the Chinese disporas which make up much of the present elite class where given full citizen rights in the kingdom and from that time forward have become the wealthiest most influential group inThailand.
Why is there very little discourse on the nature and effects of Chinese disporas throughout South East Asia, especially in Thailand.?
Chinese disporas have seen civil unrest in various South East Asian countries due to their mistreatment of indigenous populations as well as their collusion with indigenous elites in terms of corruption. E.G INdonesia and the Solomons.
It has been said that without the Chinese influence on the Thai economy Thailand would not be as strong as it would be today. Many within the Chinese/Thai community proclaim that indigenous Thai are ignorant and lazy. This kind of racial sterotyping I feel has suited them well in creating a social environment where they alone assume the right to rule and influence social culture in their image.
There needs to be some sort of balance in the way power is held in the kingdom. At present Elite Sino/Thai hold all the power while the indigenous rural communities are left in some sort of feudal back water. For them moving forward is thwarted by the social conditioning placed upon them by cultural influences that in my own opinion are not moral or ethical but purely racial.
Quality comment or not?
1 
1
Tarrin // Jun 28, 2010 at 2:34 am — 13
I’m so not going to talk about spiritual aspect of Ghandi since the red doesn’t have that “spiritual leader” like that of Ghandi
Since Gandhi made it abundantly clear that the “spiritual aspect” was the core & why he kept going & the practical basis of his ahimsa philosophy, then I don’t get why you’d bring up Gandhi’s “non-violence concepts” at all. Peter Warr said the Red Shirts are “not explicitly non-violent” like Gandhi was explicitly non-violent. Like you say, the Red Shirts do not have a specific spiritual non-violent force. So, they don’t have any group-level, leadership-agreed intention to “use non-violence concept” as Gandhi intended. I’m not sure what part of this you disagree with. But you seem to disagree somewhere.
If an organization does not espouse non-violence and then its members commit violent deeds or are “not unencouraged” to do so, the responsibility for being “not non-violent” lies with the organization and its leadership. The lies, exaggerations, propaganda, rumours, and whatever, which go beyond this, are someone else’s fault. But the fact of being “not non-violent” is the responsibility of, in this case, UDD. Victims of exaggeration and/or propaganda, yup, can be; but they have no one else to blame for being “not non-violent”.
If you want to be perceived as non-violent, be hard-headedly non-violent. There are a lot of complicated things in the Thailand situation. This isn’t one of them.
I beg you read what happened in Kheda.
And because of Gandhi’s hard-headed concepts, we focus not on the violence, but on the lifelong cries for ahimsa. “One mishap” doesn’t ruin our overall perception in this case.
in case of Thailand … they will never get all of the population to support them.
Yup. Like I said, if you’re really all-out non-violent, you’re going to have to suffer more if the “sides” are less clear.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
While i think these podcasts are great; sometimes there can be a bit of ‘economic’ license’. When looking at income distribution as a share of output overtime its also necessary to look at the composition of the output. Output is not static and in Thailand, the shift from an agrarian economy to a manufacturing one skews the results away from the bottom quintiles as their share would go down even though there income may have risen simply because the growth rate in manufacturing activities was higher. I’m in now way trying to hide from the fact that Thailand has inequality issues; but a more accurate measure should be used. (what i don’t know). The structure of national income in Thailand has changed dramatically as one would expect in a developing country and that makes the use of traditional macro tools that much harder. That agriculture has not kept up is a big problem; but the issues are perhaps less worrisome than the data would portray. One interesting series is the comes from the the human needs survey and that points to a developing trend of wage growth in provincial Thailand; wages as opposed to a ‘sufficiency’ seasonal income purely from the land. How that gets analyzed would be an interesting next podcast.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
Ben – 15
Well before we discuss about India and Thailand in regard to non-violence principle, I want to ask you some fundamental questions.
First is, what is the different between governing system in Thailand now and India then?
Second is, What is the goal of Indian then and Thailand?
Third is, who is the power holder in India and Thailand?
I hope you give some thought about my questions.
Peter Warr said the Red Shirts are “not explicitly non-violent” like Gandhi was explicitly non-violent
You have to admit that the protest was peaceful until the authority attempt to crash the protesters, much like April last year. There was no bus burning until the day the military attempt to crash the protest.
Same goes for this year, there were not a single attempt in burning down the department store until the military start cracking down the protest.
People wouldn’t just wait to be kill indefinitely, I bet you already saw those clips showing soldiers with high-power rifles and weapon of war, firing indiscriminately. History has teach us again and again that it just not going to be non-violence without international pressure and the willingness of the power holder.
Now if we just talk about one point of the whole aspect then its very hard to grasp why non-violence might not work with Thailand, we have to discuss about the structural aspect, then it will be clearer.
Quality comment or not?
0 
1
Thank you for this video. I enjoyed it. I have some comments on this episode 5.
1. The people in agricultural sector do not live solely on agricultural income. Most of them have around a third of their income from non-agricultural sources e.g. handicrafts, services, petty trade, non-wage employment. Many for example would find some income from dry season occupations in cities, e.g selling lotteries, unskilled construction work, selling food in Bangkok or Chiang Mai. So, the gap between agricultural and non-agricultural sector is not equivalent to the gap of the rural vs. urban people.
2. While I like Prof. Peter Warr’s analysis in general, I think his analysis is “too economic”. He puts things in economic terms including Thaksin and his political involvement. Thaksin, according to Prof. Peter Warr, entered politics because of profit motives and implying the process “ripping” off the poor by winning their votes while pursuing his profit motives. I think this is too simplistic analysis. Surely, an economist or businessman can think like for a business enterprise but to judge Thaksin in that light is denying any political ideology that he and his party has, or has had. Without political ideology or public service minded, I don’t think Thaksin is coming this far. His supporters are not naive or easily fooled if he is purely profiteering. Many of the corruption charges against him were also very politically motivated. Many academic analyses on him are mostly speculative and value loaded. While I don’t want to defend him but I think one should be fair to him. I feel that democracy movement in Thailand cannot be without him, despite some weaknesses he has. His major weakness, compared to other great leaders, is his wealth. With his political influence, he is a great threat to the current establishment. All efforts are therefore out there to bring him and his supporters down. The red shirt movement is not all for Thaksin but for democracy but “they” don’t differentiate it.
3. To Andrew, I enjoy your economic analysis and I think it enriched village data work but care must be exercised when interpreting these data.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Suzie Wong #5 :
“the Crown Property and the King became the largest land-owner and the richest family in the world.”
According to Forbes magazine, Thailand’s King is the world’s richest monarch.
Quite surprising really given the immense wealth
of the Saudi Royal Family, and others. Where does all this Royal Thai wealth go ?.
But Bumipol is NOT the world’s largest land-owner :
England’s Queen Elizabeth owns more land, and so do many other very rich people, not all of them royals.
Also – what is meant by “largest land-owner” ?
Eg. Does this mean size of the land, or wealth of the land ?
The Sultan of Brunei owns large slices of the most expensive real estate in London. By the VALUE of the land he owns, the Sultan of Brunei could be considered to own more land than Bumiphol.
Quality comment or not?
1 
1
Tarrin // Jul 1, 2010 at 3:45 pm — 19
You have to admit that the protest was peaceful until the authority attempt to crash the protesters
I have to admit that during that period there was not much, if any, violence — that I am aware of, of course. But obviously, that does not mean the leadership explicitly advocated non-violence. Which is what Peter Warr said.
I have said what I said. Peter Warr said what he said. If you disagree with what was explicitly said, say so krup. If not, admit you’re quite conveniently changing the topic krup. (I’m not qualified to discuss the new topic & will move on.)
Red Shirt protest was not explicitly non-violent. Elements seemingly tolerated violence. Simple as that. That’s what Peter Warr said (see also his latest blog at East Asia Forum). That’s what I defended him for saying. I don’t see why this truth bothers anyone to the point it must be whitewashed.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Ben – 22
After some hard consideration about Peter Warr’s statement and yours in particular, I have to say that those that still talk about non-violence now is a utopian who believe that peace can solve anything.
Btw, my question is not to change topic, but rather to point out that fighting for independent in India and fighting among ideology and classes can’t exactly follow the same route. Non-violence in not a cure all medicine.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Chris Beale: your comments are not helpful in clarifying royal wealth. As I understand it, Forbes rankings are based on them having data. So you can assert away, but it doesn’t change much. Forbes bases its calculations on the original research conducted by Porphant Ouyyanont and published in the Journal of Contemporary Asia in its first issue in 2008. It was after that data became available that the Mahidol family jumped up the Forbes list to head it ever since. By the way, that research is, as far as I am aware, the only published piece on the topic that included research in the Crown Property Bureau. So this is the place to begin discussions.
But even that research is not complete on the wealth of the royal family because it only examined CPB holdings. That is, it excluded all property and wealth not held by the CPB but held by the royals. No one has any idea of the size of that wealth, but it would include property, jewelry, art, artifacts, cash at banks and so on.
The CPB is arguably the largest landowner in Thailand in terms of value because of the very large holdings in Bangkok’s CBD. It may also be the largest in terms of area but the Land department refuses to release data on land ownership. And Forbes continues to rank the Thai royal family as the wealthiest in the world with (CPB) assets of US$30 billion at the last count.
An aside: One might consider this another Chinese rags-to-riches story from Thailand for when the present king came to the throne there were claims that they were broke and the CPB in exceptionally poor shape.
Quality comment or not?
4 
0
Ralph #25 :
It was Suzie Wong, not me, who wrote -
“the Crown Property and the King became the largest land-owner and the richest family in the world.”
I merely replied to her inaccuracy.
The CPB and the King is NOT the largest land-owner ….in the world”
In fact Forbes, makes no such claim.
Ralph you have n’t told me anything I don’t already know on this topic, so it is you who is not being helpful.
Quality comment or not?
0 
2
Chris: I was simply saying that there are facts available, so why not use them. Adding to the pot of grand allegations. e.g. “England’s Queen Elizabeth owns more land, and so do many other very rich people, not all of them royals” is a claim we cannot verify because we simply don’t know the total holdings of the Thai monarch, family and associated companies, foundations and so on. Likewise, we your claim that the
“Sultan of Brunei owns large slices of the most expensive real estate in London. By the VALUE of the land he owns, the Sultan of Brunei could be considered to own more land than Bumiphol” also can’t be verified for the same reason. We also have no knowledge (at least I haven’t seen it) of the Thai royals overseas holdings.
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
Ralph thanks for your feedback, which I always appreciate, though not always agreeing with.
1) “Adding to the pot of grand allegations” – the Queen of England’s approximate wealth is not an allegation. It is well-publicised.
But like all Royals, it is difficult to separate what belongs to the nation from what belongs to the Royal family privately. That’s the nature of Royalty !
2) “England’s Queen Elizabeth owns more land, and so do many other very rich people, not all of them royals” is a claim we cannot verify because we simply don’t know the total holdings of the Thai monarch, family and associated companies, foundations and so on.”
Of course we can not verify it absolutely (duh) – see comment #1 – but it is unlikely to be more than the Queen of England’s for various reasons – not least being that Thailand has never had an overseas empire, eg. members of the British Royal Family have vast land-holdings in Australia, Canada, etc.
The Forbes report – and the Thai academic study on which it was based plus Handley’s comments largely centre on the Thai Royal family’s landholdings principally in Bangkok, but elsewhere in Thailand also. This is land valuation, which goes up and down – hence Forbes re-estimation. Very likely the land-value has dropped significantly due to the Ratchaprasong conflict, etc.
Indeed Handley notes that the Royal family is hamstrung by not being able to charge profitable rent, at true market value, for much of the land they own.
3)’Likewise, we your claim that the “Sultan of Brunei owns large slices of the most expensive real estate in London. By the VALUE of the land he owns, the Sultan of Brunei could be considered to own more land than Bumiphol” also can’t be verified for the same reason.
Well Ralph – put your thinking cap on : is owning rice-land more profitable than owning oil ?
I find it hard to believe the Thai Royals are more wealthy than the Saudi Royals. Forbes itself says it is only estimating – and in Thailand’s case on a single report !!
4) ‘We also have no knowledge (at least I haven’t seen it) of the Thai royals overseas holdings’.
I agree – unfortunately this is the case, and in the modern world the Thai Royals should be as transparent as other Royals.
A lot could have been salted away overseas, over many years, at the previous far lower Forbes valuation without creating the very noticeable blip on financial markets that moving anything like US$35 billion would cause.
There are numerous questions we can ask, with some hope of gaining evidence : eg -
1) The Forbes estimate of a staggering US$35 billion is a huge upward re-valuation from their previous one. How much larger than that is total Thai GDP ?
2)Which raises questions re. Baker and Pongpaichit’s assertion that Thai capital in the modern sectors was largely wiped out by the ’97 crash – except for Thaksin’s capital (therein perhaps lies much of the current conflict) :
how has Royal wealth recovered so much, so quickly – and is it still essentially ersatz, or rentier capitalism (in contrast to Thaksin’s which was hi-tech) ?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0