Yes, many thanks for that link to Phaisan, Bangkok Pundit. Is that book that Patiwat mentions what used to be the Tara Siam directory? If so, here is the link to the latest edition, which sells for US$1700: http://www.biz-lib.com/ZBGTB.html . Note that there is a ten-page section on the CPB. Previous editions of this book have drawn largely on data from Ministry of Commerce registration files, the same ones that I mentioned earlier. At the same time, those earlier compilations also reflected the clear influence of someone who *really* knew his way around the Thai business scene.
Sorry, my old company had one tattered copy that had been thumbed to death. It was lost during an office move. I suspect the book was published by the consulting/research company that Peter founded. Since Peter was active in AMCHAM, they might have kept a copy as well.
I don’t necessarily think it is a bad thing, but the amount of money they spend for a week was outrageous.
And what about the 500,000 baht commission fee?
I seriously doubt that in the civilized world politicians are taking their relatives for free and pocketing commission fees on luxury fact finding trips.
Plus, another thing I found troubling about the article is that it didn’t even bother to ask what was learned on those trips, if anything was learned at all.
But are we kidding ourselves or what? We know this is has been the modus operandi of Thai politicians and generals for years.
And, of course, the worthless Thai press lets them get away with it.
The Bangkok Post wrote a glowing profile of General Saprang just a couple days before.
2. Saprang is not PM or senator, he is appointed military men to AOT board. And this trip is on AOT, should not AOT board be held responsible for the authorization?
He’s the Chairman of the AoT Board. If he wants to, he can just replace the entire group and replace them all with hand-picked directors, just like he did at TOT.
3. Charuvan say she have right according to project authority and rule to take whoever she want. Fine. But does AOT board right’s be the same as Auditor-General in taking children also?
See above – when you alone set the rules, there’s nothing you can’t do.
Soon, Chang Noi will write a follow-up article on the “sufficiency economy” as a means of keeping the masses passive by “exploiting the symbolic power of the monarchy.” Lo len na ja.
This kind of trip is not uncommon, but a norm. All politician be PM, senator, or diplomat in the past, including Thak’s, use this benefit and more.
The problem that I see are.
1. Is he really on a business trip? (just take the travel plan and confirm with foreign airport, easy news investigative work)
2. Saprang is not PM or senator, he is appointed military men to AOT board. And this trip is on AOT, should not AOT board be held responsible for the authorization?
3. Charuvan say she have right according to project authority and rule to take whoever she want. Fine. But does AOT board right’s be the same as Auditor-General in taking children also?
4. If so, does the act constitute playing by the rule but unethical? (Keep in mind, this coup come to depose the late-unethical leader)
5. If the media let this slip, what happen when all military men of Saprang’s rank start demanding the same treatment?
On “local electoral culture” > Have you been in contact with Marc Askew, who has just finished a book manuscript on political and electoral culture in Songkhla province, and the role of the Democrats in the south?
Croissant and Pojar are probably not a good source for supporting the possibility of reduced vote buying, because all they have is the Bangkok Post, The Nation, and the electoral structure. That is, their opinion is a s good as your own; it doesn’t add any weight.
Even Charuvan Maintaka, that royally-mandated paragon of virtue who is the Auditor-General of Thailand (and should know a thing or two about what expenses are appropriate and what aren’t) brought her two children on a “study trip” to Russia. See here and here.
If the Auditor-General herself can bring her family along for a week of state-funded fun, then certainly every member of the junta can…
If anybody is interested in this sort of topic (family business empires), there was a great thick overview on it written by the late Peter Beal. Peter lived in Thailand for over 35 years, was very well linked in the American Chamber of Commerce, and was also a professional business researcher. His book contained a tremendous wealth of information on the business empires of Thailand’s 50 most prominent families (CPB included).
The CPB destroying the Siam Intercontinental and putting the Siam Paragon in its place surely is a bizarre way of supporting the principle of modesty highlighted by the sufficiency economy. Or look at of what will happen with the Suan Lumb Night Bazar, etc. etc. If even the core royal enterprise can’t be made to follow the king’s approach, why should anybody else care (except UNDP, the bureaucracy, and the Royalists of course–at least verbally)?
Could the MA curriculum on the sufficiency economy, mentioned in an earlier post by sombody else, include the CPB as a critical case study about how one should NOT “implement” the king’s ideas? Or should one merely use it as an example of hypocrisy?
I did. For anyone interested the article is available here.
The Phaisan/Paisal piece has a lot of historical data. I was surprised at the size of CPB’s upcountry land holdings and yes, the chart is excellent. I agree with Polo who states:
“The Asia Sentinel piece offers a new perspective on how the CPB is rushing to develop its land holdings, one shopping center and luxury hotel after another.”
Given the prominence that the sufficiency economy philosophy has had and also the expressed concern about excessive consumerism there has been very little in the Bangkok Press looking at CPB and its role. Is this because there is nothing to it or concern about lese majeste/indirectly criticising HM the King? For me it is because people are wary of the later not the former. The Asia Sentinel piece is far from perfect, but there are many tidbits of information there.
It might be worth considering that, in the election of February 2005, TRT received 18,993,073 votes on the party list ballot, while the party’s constituency MPs received only a combined 16,523,344 votes. Hardly anybody doubted that this result genuinly represented the will of the voters, and that is was not mainly the result of “cheating” (e.g. vote buying).
Andrew, it’s convenient to blame royalist/military conspiracies as the problem, but how can you respect the electorate when it continues to support Thaksin?
t’s not like Thaksin was a Chavez character who was opposed to the elites/ruling class – Thaksin just represented another form of elite.
Is it your position that the 30 baht health scheme and the village funds were enough for his supporters to overlook any wrongdoings (or even his obvious character flaws)
Vote buying is the only other way I can understand it, but you seem to discount it.
I hope that vote buying does not play a major role, because if that is the basis for deciding how to vote, then the party with the deepest pockets will always win.
If the masses can show that they do vote based on policies, and not just who pays them most, then over time they should get the policies they want.
BUT, if they ignore policies, wrongdoings and serious character flaws and vote mainly based on who pays the most, then the cycle is sure to continue.
Patrick Jory: “whatever one thought of Thaksin, at this stage in Thailand’s democratic development it was necessary to support AS STRONGLY AS POSSIBLE the principle of respecting the result of elections”
How strong is that?
Does Patrick suggest that Thai academics should have thrown all their muscles to support Thaksin, refraining from criticism of him, because it was a war against the royalists?
Does he imply that those who criticised Thaksin were also guilty of supporting the royalists by not supporting Thaksin enough, despite that they also criticised the royalist PAD?
“I think the book is important because of the way some contributors are trying to help others to understand and confront what has changed with this coup. … Sure you have to look back, but in a spirit which helps people to move ahead.”
Academic writing as an exercise in psychotherapy (or reeducation)?
Thanks, Polo. This is very interesting. You are right in what you say about the “new” angle of the Asia Sentinel pieces. Just didn’t strike me as all that new for anyone who has been around Bangkok in recent years. But maybe I am too harsh. I have never looked into this, and vague assumptions are often wrong. But my own vague assumption is that the CPB has no developmental vision. I have assumed that the the key question is your “What’s the rush for the money?” and that after the financial crisis the CPB made a conscious decision to realize more revenue from its landholdings. (Another reason that I consider the Phaisan piece a useful base-line.) The Bangkok rumor mill has suggested that the need to do so resulted not least from Chirayu’s mismanagement (or worse) during the 1990s. Hence my suggestion that his role be examined more carefully. And I guess that Wichit needs scrutiny, too. Bottom line, pending better research, is that there *is* indeed this acceleration in the CPB’s blind greed in recent years. And I think that it is at least worth considering that, like so much both in Thailand and across the region, some of this is a long-term consequence of the 1997 financial crisis and a certain approach to recovering from losses then suffered and to insuring against such losses in future. But your questions suggest that we are many, many well researched articles away from getting to the bottom of all this.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The tawdry cloak of sufficiency
Yes, many thanks for that link to Phaisan, Bangkok Pundit. Is that book that Patiwat mentions what used to be the Tara Siam directory? If so, here is the link to the latest edition, which sells for US$1700: http://www.biz-lib.com/ZBGTB.html . Note that there is a ten-page section on the CPB. Previous editions of this book have drawn largely on data from Ministry of Commerce registration files, the same ones that I mentioned earlier. At the same time, those earlier compilations also reflected the clear influence of someone who *really* knew his way around the Thai business scene.
The tawdry cloak of sufficiency
Sorry, my old company had one tattered copy that had been thumbed to death. It was lost during an office move. I suspect the book was published by the consulting/research company that Peter founded. Since Peter was active in AMCHAM, they might have kept a copy as well.
“Unrealistic expenses”?: the 5.5 million baht “sufficiency teow”
I don’t necessarily think it is a bad thing, but the amount of money they spend for a week was outrageous.
And what about the 500,000 baht commission fee?
I seriously doubt that in the civilized world politicians are taking their relatives for free and pocketing commission fees on luxury fact finding trips.
Plus, another thing I found troubling about the article is that it didn’t even bother to ask what was learned on those trips, if anything was learned at all.
But are we kidding ourselves or what? We know this is has been the modus operandi of Thai politicians and generals for years.
And, of course, the worthless Thai press lets them get away with it.
The Bangkok Post wrote a glowing profile of General Saprang just a couple days before.
“Unrealistic expenses”?: the 5.5 million baht “sufficiency teow”
2. Saprang is not PM or senator, he is appointed military men to AOT board. And this trip is on AOT, should not AOT board be held responsible for the authorization?
He’s the Chairman of the AoT Board. If he wants to, he can just replace the entire group and replace them all with hand-picked directors, just like he did at TOT.
3. Charuvan say she have right according to project authority and rule to take whoever she want. Fine. But does AOT board right’s be the same as Auditor-General in taking children also?
See above – when you alone set the rules, there’s nothing you can’t do.
“Unrealistic expenses”?: the 5.5 million baht “sufficiency teow”
Soon, Chang Noi will write a follow-up article on the “sufficiency economy” as a means of keeping the masses passive by “exploiting the symbolic power of the monarchy.” Lo len na ja.
“Unrealistic expenses”?: the 5.5 million baht “sufficiency teow”
This kind of trip is not uncommon, but a norm. All politician be PM, senator, or diplomat in the past, including Thak’s, use this benefit and more.
The problem that I see are.
1. Is he really on a business trip? (just take the travel plan and confirm with foreign airport, easy news investigative work)
2. Saprang is not PM or senator, he is appointed military men to AOT board. And this trip is on AOT, should not AOT board be held responsible for the authorization?
3. Charuvan say she have right according to project authority and rule to take whoever she want. Fine. But does AOT board right’s be the same as Auditor-General in taking children also?
4. If so, does the act constitute playing by the rule but unethical? (Keep in mind, this coup come to depose the late-unethical leader)
5. If the media let this slip, what happen when all military men of Saprang’s rank start demanding the same treatment?
р╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Щр╕╣р╕Н р╕Кр╕▓р╕зр╕Ър╣Йр╕▓р╕Щ – the “rural constitution”
On “local electoral culture” > Have you been in contact with Marc Askew, who has just finished a book manuscript on political and electoral culture in Songkhla province, and the role of the Democrats in the south?
Croissant and Pojar are probably not a good source for supporting the possibility of reduced vote buying, because all they have is the Bangkok Post, The Nation, and the electoral structure. That is, their opinion is a s good as your own; it doesn’t add any weight.
“Unrealistic expenses”?: the 5.5 million baht “sufficiency teow”
For those who miss Thaksin, here is the right web site:
http://www.hi-thaksin.net
The tawdry cloak of sufficiency
Patiwat: Can you please provide the bibliographical details of he book? Thank you.
“Unrealistic expenses”?: the 5.5 million baht “sufficiency teow”
Come on… this isn’t that bad.
Even Charuvan Maintaka, that royally-mandated paragon of virtue who is the Auditor-General of Thailand (and should know a thing or two about what expenses are appropriate and what aren’t) brought her two children on a “study trip” to Russia. See here and here.
If the Auditor-General herself can bring her family along for a week of state-funded fun, then certainly every member of the junta can…
The tawdry cloak of sufficiency
Thanks for the link, BP.
If anybody is interested in this sort of topic (family business empires), there was a great thick overview on it written by the late Peter Beal. Peter lived in Thailand for over 35 years, was very well linked in the American Chamber of Commerce, and was also a professional business researcher. His book contained a tremendous wealth of information on the business empires of Thailand’s 50 most prominent families (CPB included).
The tawdry cloak of sufficiency
The CPB destroying the Siam Intercontinental and putting the Siam Paragon in its place surely is a bizarre way of supporting the principle of modesty highlighted by the sufficiency economy. Or look at of what will happen with the Suan Lumb Night Bazar, etc. etc. If even the core royal enterprise can’t be made to follow the king’s approach, why should anybody else care (except UNDP, the bureaucracy, and the Royalists of course–at least verbally)?
Could the MA curriculum on the sufficiency economy, mentioned in an earlier post by sombody else, include the CPB as a critical case study about how one should NOT “implement” the king’s ideas? Or should one merely use it as an example of hypocrisy?
The tawdry cloak of sufficiency
Anonymous:
“Have another look at the Phaisan article.
I did. For anyone interested the article is available here.
The Phaisan/Paisal piece has a lot of historical data. I was surprised at the size of CPB’s upcountry land holdings and yes, the chart is excellent. I agree with Polo who states:
“The Asia Sentinel piece offers a new perspective on how the CPB is rushing to develop its land holdings, one shopping center and luxury hotel after another.”
Given the prominence that the sufficiency economy philosophy has had and also the expressed concern about excessive consumerism there has been very little in the Bangkok Press looking at CPB and its role. Is this because there is nothing to it or concern about lese majeste/indirectly criticising HM the King? For me it is because people are wary of the later not the former. The Asia Sentinel piece is far from perfect, but there are many tidbits of information there.
“The silence of the intellectual lambs”
It might be worth considering that, in the election of February 2005, TRT received 18,993,073 votes on the party list ballot, while the party’s constituency MPs received only a combined 16,523,344 votes. Hardly anybody doubted that this result genuinly represented the will of the voters, and that is was not mainly the result of “cheating” (e.g. vote buying).
“The silence of the intellectual lambs”
Andrew, it’s convenient to blame royalist/military conspiracies as the problem, but how can you respect the electorate when it continues to support Thaksin?
t’s not like Thaksin was a Chavez character who was opposed to the elites/ruling class – Thaksin just represented another form of elite.
Is it your position that the 30 baht health scheme and the village funds were enough for his supporters to overlook any wrongdoings (or even his obvious character flaws)
Vote buying is the only other way I can understand it, but you seem to discount it.
I hope that vote buying does not play a major role, because if that is the basis for deciding how to vote, then the party with the deepest pockets will always win.
If the masses can show that they do vote based on policies, and not just who pays them most, then over time they should get the policies they want.
BUT, if they ignore policies, wrongdoings and serious character flaws and vote mainly based on who pays the most, then the cycle is sure to continue.
“The silence of the intellectual lambs”
At that time, in that atmosphere, I am afraid, there was no such difference.
“The silence of the intellectual lambs”
There is surely a difference between supporting Thaksin and defending the “principle of respecting the result of elections.”
“The silence of the intellectual lambs”
Patrick Jory: “whatever one thought of Thaksin, at this stage in Thailand’s democratic development it was necessary to support AS STRONGLY AS POSSIBLE the principle of respecting the result of elections”
How strong is that?
Does Patrick suggest that Thai academics should have thrown all their muscles to support Thaksin, refraining from criticism of him, because it was a war against the royalists?
Does he imply that those who criticised Thaksin were also guilty of supporting the royalists by not supporting Thaksin enough, despite that they also criticised the royalist PAD?
“The silence of the intellectual lambs”
“I think the book is important because of the way some contributors are trying to help others to understand and confront what has changed with this coup. … Sure you have to look back, but in a spirit which helps people to move ahead.”
Academic writing as an exercise in psychotherapy (or reeducation)?
The tawdry cloak of sufficiency
Thanks, Polo. This is very interesting. You are right in what you say about the “new” angle of the Asia Sentinel pieces. Just didn’t strike me as all that new for anyone who has been around Bangkok in recent years. But maybe I am too harsh. I have never looked into this, and vague assumptions are often wrong. But my own vague assumption is that the CPB has no developmental vision. I have assumed that the the key question is your “What’s the rush for the money?” and that after the financial crisis the CPB made a conscious decision to realize more revenue from its landholdings. (Another reason that I consider the Phaisan piece a useful base-line.) The Bangkok rumor mill has suggested that the need to do so resulted not least from Chirayu’s mismanagement (or worse) during the 1990s. Hence my suggestion that his role be examined more carefully. And I guess that Wichit needs scrutiny, too. Bottom line, pending better research, is that there *is* indeed this acceleration in the CPB’s blind greed in recent years. And I think that it is at least worth considering that, like so much both in Thailand and across the region, some of this is a long-term consequence of the 1997 financial crisis and a certain approach to recovering from losses then suffered and to insuring against such losses in future. But your questions suggest that we are many, many well researched articles away from getting to the bottom of all this.