Jump to content

Good Commentary Coming Out Now...


Gadfly

Recommended Posts

Maybe it is a good time to review the facts of the past 10 years or so of Thai politics. I’m afraid it is very long. [...]

TH

Yeah it was long, but I seriously appreciate the effort you and Hardy have taken to share your point of view. :bow: It was littered with very interesting facts I wasn't aware of. It hasn't changed my overall perspective on things, mind you, but at least it changed the quality of the discussion for the better.

 

Cheers! :beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply
...

The Capital gains exemption applies to transactions carried out on the stock market. The issue with the Shin Corp transactions is the sale of the Shin Corp stock by Ample Rich to the Shinawatra kids at 1 baht which they sold 3 days later to Temasek at 49 baht. This transaction was not carried on the stock market so should have been subject to capital gains tax.

 

If you listen to half truths, without carrying out your own research to verify them, very soon they become the whole truth.

TH

 

Could you please post The Capital gains exemption law/regulation? I have a feeling it doesn't say anything about the Stock Exchange.

 

Has any other person or corporation been subject to this tax law interpretation? Remember corporate takeovers aren't done through the Stock Exchange. :devil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A while back (years?) didn't one of the Bangkok English language newspapers print a list of the people working in Thailand and the tax they paid...and there were few to none Thais on the list! Last time the newspaper even did it. Complaints from the Thais!

Looked for a link to this but couldn't find it, maybe just folklore playing tricks on me??? but I think it is true :dunno:

 

If true, point is that Mr. T isn't/wasn't the only Thai not paying taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

The Capital gains exemption applies to transactions carried out on the stock market. The issue with the Shin Corp transactions is the sale of the Shin Corp stock by Ample Rich to the Shinawatra kids at 1 baht which they sold 3 days later to Temasek at 49 baht. This transaction was not carried on the stock market so should have been subject to capital gains tax.

 

If you listen to half truths' date=' without carrying out your own research to verify them, very soon they become the whole truth.

TH

[/quote']

 

Could you please post The Capital gains exemption law/regulation? I have a feeling it doesn't say anything about the Stock Exchange.

 

Has any other person or corporation been subject to this tax law interpretation? Remember corporate takeovers aren't done through the Stock Exchange. :devil:

 

Yes the tax code specifically mentions "income from sale of securities on the Stock Exchange of Thailand" as being exempt from tax. Here is a link from Tilleke and Gibbins that explains the tax code. The expemption I quoted is on page 13.

Link

 

Most takeovers do happen with shares traded on a stock exchange as the buyer sets an ask price and people sell their shares.

 

The problem with the Ample Rich sale to the kids is it was not done through the SET. If you understand how a stock exchange works, you can imagine the carnage that would ensue when an ask price of 1 baht of shares of a major company selling at 30-40 baht at that time was recorded and then 3 days later the ask price is 49.

TH

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TH - Yes - and how about that ASTV - totally illegal, another station that tried the same format was banned in a few months, yet ASTV . . . . .

 

And as I have sad often, the law which makes ASTV illegal is silly, but hang on, you guys just love to run the niggly line, "Not PM, was acting placeholder PM whatever"

 

I think I am far more honest as I do point out issues on both sides, something you fail to do.

 

Yes you do indeed point out issues on both sides, the problem being when you do so; you are often inaccurate on facts with the side you oppose. If I do indeed only point out one side, at least I do not attempt to portray the other side inaccurately such as you do.

 

TH

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, ND loves the fact you†argue about what happened as opposed to the rhetoric no one believesâ€Â

 

So lets take a look at what you say happened. I’m sorry, but another long one.

 

 

Thaksin was and is a corrupt thug who employs rhetoric about democracy when it suits his purposes. But he was ousted in a coup. And after that coup, supporters of TRT and its successors were re-elected back into power twice. And by "supporters" I include coalition partners that - when the voting occurred - were known to support TRT and Thaksin. This is significant because a vote for these coalition partners is a strong measure of the support for TRT.

 

Yes, Thaksin was ousted in coup. After the coup there was an election and the successor party, the PPP won just short of a majority of seats, so they were not re-elected into power. I assume the remark about being re-elected into power twice is a reference to voting in the Parliament for the position of PM as there has only been one general election since the coup. So yes, there were two votes in Parliament where the Chart Thai party headed by Banharn Silpa-Archa voted with the PPP for first Samak and then Somchai. It is interesting to note that during the 2007 campaign Banharn vowed before the Emerald Buddha never to rejoin Thaksin because of the corruption scandals but in January 2008 joined the PPP in voting for Samak, For this Banharn is known as the “Slippery Eel."

 

So based on this is there truly support for the TRT/PPP or is that support just based on political opportunism? Is it the same opportunism that had Banharn switch to the Democrats (in fact fulfilling a campaign promise)?

 

 

…keep getting elected, and keep getting booted out of power by non-democratic measures.â€Â

 

Let us examine the so called non-democratic measures. Samak did not get disqualified for a cooking show. He got disqualified for being employed by a production company that was paying him 80,000 baht a month. This is in direct violation of the constitution (both 1997 and 2007) where the 2007 constitution states:

 

Section 267. The provisions of section 265 shall also apply to the Prime Minister and Ministers, save in the case of holding office or taking action by operation of law, and such persons shall not hold any position in a partnership, a company or an organisation carrying out business with a view to sharing profits or incomes or be an employee of any person.

 

When a complaint was lodged with the Election Commission, Samak responded with a sworn statement staying he was not an employee and received no compensation. This despite earlier saying in an interview he did indeed receive 80,000 baht a month.

 

So, you have a PM that violates the constitution and then lies under oath about it. What country in the world would that person not be impeached? \

 

In fact, Samak was only disqualified and as he had quit the production company, he was eligible to be elected PM again. Instead, Thaksin chose his brother-in-law Samak. There is no doubt Thaksin made this choice as there is ample evidence of him doing so.

 

The Somchai government and the PPP dissolution.

After the 2007 election, PPP deputy chairman Yongyuth Tiyapairat was given a red card for election fraud. He was secretly video taped giving money to be used as bribes. This incident was mentioned in the 2007 report by The Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL) on the election as positive sign of enforcement of voting laws. In July, he was convicted. Since he was a party executive, under the constitution the party is dissolved, and in December 2008, the Constitution Court accepted the recommendation of the Election Commission and dissolved the party and banned the party executives for 5 years.

 

In anticipation of this, the PTP had been setup and most of the PPP non-executive members joined. The exception was group of MP’s known as the “Friends of Newin†who did not, and in a deal brokered by General Anupong, they along with Banharn agreed to vote with the Democrats in the PM election.

 

If you read the political news in late 2008, there is mention that Newin was not happy with the selection of Somchai as PM and was especially angry about how the cabinet selection process was done. And though a long time Thaksin supporter, he was a prime target to move to supporting the Democrats. In my opinion both him and Banharn required no arm twisting to join, they saw an opportunity to join a coalition that would likely be much stronger then the faction torn PTP and they without a doubt made significant gains their political power by doing so. The coalition has survived some 3 no-confidence votes now, and can easily pass any legislation it wants at this point.

 

(side note: It does appears the Pheua Phaendin may leave the coalition due to the factionalism that has plagued the Thaksin parties and coalitions and now appears to be springing up in the Democrat coalition. )

 

So, show me the “non-democratic meansâ€Â. Where is the desperation? In fact, the main event of the PPP being dissolved was triggered by an event that an independent monitor hailed as important step in improving the election process in Thailand.

 

The reason the government is not seen as legitimate in some areas, is because all they hear is the half truths and outright lies promoted by their faction leaders who are out of power right now. To say this is across all of the Issan and the North is just not true, it is only in areas where factions are still part of the PTP. In areas where they have left, either recently or even before the 2007 election, there is not such feeling.

 

What I would have liked to have seen in an interview of a red shirt protestor was the following questions:

 

Who is are your Members of Parliament? Did you vote for them? So, you are here in order to force an election so you can vote for them again? What change do you see this making?

 

TH

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I am far from an expert on politics, but to me it does seem odd that politicians change parties so often. Does this happen in other countries as well?

 

Also is there any party here that actually has a real platform and strict ideas about certain issues, or are all the parties just created on the spot with one goal in mind "make as much money for its members as possible"?

 

The latter is certainly how it seems to me, parties created to further the interests of its members rather than to fight for an ideal.

 

Sanuk!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 64 year old Democrat Party is the only real party. It was formed shortly after WWII and has always had a platform. The other parties are simply "gangs" formed by one or two leading politicians to gain money and power. Thaksin founded TRT with the express purpose of making himself PM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The latter is certainly how it seems to me, parties created to further the interests of its members rather than to fight for an ideal.

 

I'm another guy who doesn't know much about politics (especially Thai politics) and the general topic wears me out quick.

 

That said, have picked up on an interesting phenomenon.

 

There are 2 email threads in my inbox that have been running the past several weeks with a small group of Thais both in Bangkok and the US, along with a couple married expat spouses, and much of the banter has been about corruption.

 

One aftershock of the mess in Thailand is that people are taking a more critical view and thinking about it. Granted, it's still the 'other' side is the corrupt side, but, the focus on it could be a good thing over time. I don't know.

 

Edit: Ps. Appreciate the contributions here too. It's forced me to learn a little bit and do some digging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...