Are you sure “they have all exceed permitted limits in public share holdings” ?

Also you fail to mention that the shareholdings were apparently fully disclosed to the NCCC, and the real problem was the failure to transfer the shares.

From today’s Bangkok Post:
Meanwhile, Mr Sitthichai said yesterday he had not transferred ownership of his shares because he had a poor understanding of the law.
He said at first his legal advisers understood only that the anti-graft law barred cabinet ministers from holding shares in listed companies and from assuming executive positions in private firms.

I always thought that Sittichai was basically OK (especially after hearing him at the FCCT), and his latest actions have just confirmed my opinion.

I just find it difficult to swallow, to the point of puke, that Thailand’s mega-crook and biggest tax evader Thaksin Shinawatra, could actually symphatize with the Thai poor!

Yes, but are those two sources questioning the statistics you raise or an NESDB survey?

Almost all statistics come from the NESDB so will you not be relying on any of them anymore

So you agree with me that it is artificially low? Would you also agree that it is likely to increase in the short to mid term? And that this places the debtors in peril?

It is “artificially low” in Japan too and has been for a long time. Interests rates are also “artifically high” in NZ and have been for a long time too. I don’t agree they will increase significantly in the short or medium term as nothing I have read suggests this to be the case. If the economy slows down enough, and inflation is also low, interest rates might be cut through monetary policy. Obviously, any interest rate rise will affect people with debt.

But I know you are smart enough to be sceptical of any Thai statistics. And when NESDB present us with data so very different to two other sources (as I discussed in the blog) then I think I have good justification to question statistics.

Your implied argument is one which Crispin has used and that is on one hand, Thaksin didn’t actually spend that much money on the poor comparative to the amount of money used to bail our the rich.

Actually my argument was that debt fell because the government bought out so many debts.

It is artificially low because Thailand’s high exports, if they were any higher than more money would come into the country and we would get a rising baht which would led to lower exports.

So you agree with me that it is artificially low? Would you also agree that it is likely to increase in the short to mid term? And that this places the debtors in peril?

I meant to type GNP not GDP. My mistake.

Oh really. The percentage of those in poverty in the 3 southern border provinces dropped from 37%-18% between 2000-2004

I’m tempted to make some cold hearted observations about how that figure was achieved but I won’t. Less just say I wasn’t only referring to their wealth. I doubt the southerners are too fond of TRT right now, they certainly weren’t in the last election were they?

But no one, apart from you, has questioned the figures. NESDB have not revised their figures. Surely, the new government in trying to re-write history would be doing just that.

One of Thaksin’s first acts was to transfer the sum of …..wait for it…….seven hundred and eighty one billion baht of bad debts to a state asset management company. When Jotman talks about “the rate of non-performing loans is on the decline” I wonder if he realises he reason why. The spate of NPLs borne from the Asian Financial Crises of the nineties has been transfered to the state.

It was the 98-01 Democrats who instituted the same policy. I can’t see specifically where you are quoting this figure from, although I do remember Crispin quoting a similar figure. Your implied argument is one which Crispin has used and that is on one hand, Thaksin didn’t actually spend that much money on the poor comparative to the amount of money used to bail our the rich. It didn’t cost the government 781 billion baht either.

is the artificially low interest rate

It is artifically low because Thailand’s high exports, if they were any higher than more money would come into the country and we would get a rising baht which would led to lower exports.

The reality of the situation is that we have is a scheme that may have stimulated short term consumption (credit to Thaksin for that) but coincided with a drop in GNP (which ironically Jotman cites as evidence for Thaksin’s greatness) and a highly vulnerable group that have used debt through official channels for consolidation, have not received genuine opportunities for further investment or education and could be set for massive default loans if the economy does not pick up as expected.

They are calculated differently. Yeah and none of those poor people were able to use a maximum of 20,000 baht for educational purposes.

A drop in GNP? It is GDP that Jotman was referring to and not GNP. There was just over 4% GDP growth when Thailand came to power and he pushed it on average above 5%. Of course the new government will be lucky to get 4%.

Oh by the way, there is a another part of Thailand suffering from poverty in the deep south. Little has improved for them.

Oh really. The percentage of those in poverty in the 3 southern border provinces dropped from 37%-18% between 2000-2004 – (Source: Moi)

At the end of the present post you quote a passage from my blog. This quote can only be attributed to me (Jotman) as I wrote it, and only I am responsible for it. (BP is not responsible for it, and for all we know, may even disagree with it). Please attribute it to me alone. Thanks.

Also, it appears that the last line from this passage must have got cut off when you pasted it.