Taxi Driver: For what it’s worth, I think Sonthi B is simply trying to do the right thing. Prem’s role is more complex – I hope he is trying to do the right thing…. time will tell.
My track record might not be too good though, as like Vichai, I too thought Thaksin would do the right thing because he was already so rich when he entered politics (maybe I discounted the influence of Pojaman).
You don’t have to speculate too far with the conspiracy theories, Vichai, it’s quite well known that the King is the dominant shareholder in SCB, Siam Cement, Christiani & Nielsen, Thai Insurance, Sammakorn, and other giants of the Thai economy. Nothing new here…
On a related point: somebody commented on a different post that the Thai royal family is exempt from paying taxes. That seems quite extraordinary, given its massive wealth and income. Can somebody confirm that, please?
I haven’t read Nawi Rangsiwararak’s work yet. So could somebody please explain to me what exactly policies Boonchu and Kukrit initiated that were so enduring?
The only example given is the revamping of the rural credit system. Does this mean the BAAC? Because the BAAC was established during the 1960’s – Kukrit headed his government for a short time during the mid 1970’s.
Vichai, TRT doesn’t have a monopoly on generosity.
Recently, Abhisit Vejjajiva realized that somebody had been using his credit card to make nearly a million baht in purchases and withdrawals. Over a hundred transactions during nearly a year, and our unemployed opposition politician never even noticed that anything strange was going on with his finances! He must have quite a bit stashed away, and he never even ran a government. Think about it: a million baht for him is a mere rounding error…
Taxi Driver, this discussion thread has gotten a bit long – why don’t we continue the detailed discussion in a more relevant post by our kind hosts.
To answer your question shortly: Sonthi is the representative of the military/bureaucratic/palace complex. That’s why the travesties that pass for a Cabinet and Parliament are packed with generals, current and retired bureaucrats, and the very conspicuous ex-Privy Councilor. If he was trying to keep them “on a leash”, he wouldn’t have given them so much power, would he?
Scapping lese majeste would destroy the monarchy, which is why they will never do it, at least in this reign. Because this would gve a green light to investigations into too many debilitating scandals for the monarchy, foremost among them the death of the king’s elder brother in 1946, which started it all.
Are you really wishing for ‘more baby Thaksins’ to pop out Jon?
What on earth for? Any mother who suspects that they are carrying ‘baby Thaksins’ should abort. That’s the surest way of preventing future Thai coups.
1. I would like to see the history of the Rice Bank, whether the king really started it, and how widespread and effective it is. It seems farmers are mostly pledging their crops to others — millers/middlmen dealer — for loans rather than handing over their surplus (what they must save for food and seeds) to any “Rice bank”.
2. I don’t think shareholder lists for Siam Cement and Sammakorn mean much. If I recall Sammakorn was developed as a low-profit modest housing community development at the start on land the royals owned already. I think more interesting is the number of “phuyai” who signed on as shareholders giving them access to the royal family. As far as Siam Cement goes, it has been pretty responsible in strategic as a “national company” whatever it returns to the family (and however it was bailed out in 1997-98).
It is the Thai people who “won” and “lost” on Sept. 19th. The Thai people “won” by losing a dangerous divisive criminal Thaksin Shinawatra who was intent on clinging on to power, to protect his ill-gottens, even if that would rend the country apart. The victory was however bitter . . . the constitution was suspended and we have yet to see whether a better constitution will follow, or, as suspected by ‘Chang Noi’ we get a regressive constitution instead.
I am hopeful that Thai people will get a much better constitution. But I admit we have to be wary. Once people are in power they always somehow manage to lose their way . . like the previous Thaksin regime.
Do I support Sonthi-Surayud team? At this very moment, yes! Because so far they are doing all the right moves. I will be waiting how the reform of the constitution proceeds and my opinion could change by then – – could be more favorable or could be very negative.
Same thing happened when I voted for Thaksin’s party TRT the first time. I was hopeful the billionaire-PM would be different and would set a new standard of integrity, transparency and honesty in the PM office. We all know what a disappointment Thaksin & TRT turned out to be.
Ngarnadeeleg I doubt very much that my comments will be taken on board by those currently in power! I’m only a taxi driver after all :).
I don’t believe we should simply “accept the coup” so that “the country can move forward again”. I think we need to be very weary of what is happening.
The “other forces” that won on Sept 19 are well identified in the Chang Noi article: the military, the police, and the bureaucrats. An important queston to ask is this: does Sonthi B. (& Prem for that matter) represent these forces, or are they simply the guys who are trying to keep these “other forces” on a leash?
I think this is an important question and your own answer will determine your stance in relation to the coup leaders….do you support Sonthi & Prem because you think they are trying to do the right thing & control the “other forces”, or do you oppose them because they represent the “other forces” that stole an elected government from the peope. You & Patiwat may wish to share your view on this?
Patiwat before we leave the taxation issue, I just cannot help getting amused by two striking epiphanies (which may or may not have taxation relevance):
(a) The highest paid househelps in the world can be found in Thailand . . that means drivers and maids, paid in family company shares worth billions! Perhaps because that has to do with the out-of-this-world generosity of the Shinawatra/Damaphongs to their househelp, or, because those househelps were just those rare out-of-this-world extraordinary employees, or both.
(b) Generosity begets generosity. Only in Thailand will you find a housemaid giving a Baht 740 million wedding gift, two years late by the way, to her boss’ brother.
I conclude that only in the Shinawatra household will the world find true love . . affection that extends to every member down to drivers and maid. And love is reciprocated accordingly. I agree with Patiwat that it would be injustice for the Thailand Revenue Department to tax such love. Right Patiwat?
Republican you meant to hog and you are hogging the topic for sure. Is Thaksin Shinawatra himself feeding you all these financial data concerning the monarchy?
If only Republican you can get Thaksin Shinawatra to declare all his assets too in this forum, including every honest or dishonest mistakes, then we can evaluate who is the richest in Thailand.
Someone will have to draw a diagram explaining the complicated web of inter-related interests that are served by coup and counter-coup. Another piece in the puzzle from Chang Noi today:
I hope the end result of this tortuous political process is that some more baby Thaksins pop out of their eggs and through some miracle keep each other in check and prevent each other from usurping all power and wealth, that a linear evolution that betters the life opportunities of rural folk and gives them some upwards mobility, is possible, rather than a mere cyclical repetition of past history.
Nganadirek, yes that bad link was to the article linked in comment #49. I’ve often requested that several bloggers devote some space to a substantial debate on taxation. But this current topic already has 53 comments on it, and I don’t think it should be extended to contain a long technical discussion about taxation.
I believe the support that people show to Thaksin is misinterpreted. Just because people are against the coup doesn’t mean they necessarily support Thaksin. And just because people are worried about the future of Thaksin’s populist policies doesn’t mean they would support Thaksin’s re-entry into politics. And just because people want their civil rights back doesn’t mean they love Thaksin.
If the junta were to repromulgate the 1997 Constitution, pardon itself, schedule elections in 3 months, establish committees to investigate police, army, and politician responsibility for the War on Drugs and the Southern Insurgency (to satisfy people like Vichai), ask the King to appoint a committee to recommend amendments to reform the constitution, and ban everybody whose last name is Shinawatra-Damaphong or has ever been a Phalang Dharma or Communisty Party member from running, I don’t think anybody would complain (including the Shinawatra-Damaphongs). On the contrary, I believe that the Thai people, being such wonderful pragmatists, would thank Siamthewathiraj that the junta and its sponsors displayed such generosity to the Kingdom.
Of course, if you read Chang Noi’s editorial, you’ll realize why this is a pipe dream.
p.s., the reason the Shinawatra family’s wealth has gone down is probably due to the sharp appreciation of the Thai Baht these past few months under the wise management of the junta. Like any wealthy investors, they probably had a diversified international portfolio.
Lastly (I didn’t mean to hog this topic, but the ideas are flowing) the other thing that occurs to me is that the phenomenal success of the Thai monarchy today is largely due its partial “invisibility”, made possible by that cloak of invisibility, lese majeste. What I mean is that if even 10% of the space devoted to covering Thaksin’s business dealings was spent on reporting the monarchy’s own investments then one would think that it would spark something of a public outcry. But of course that is impossible, because of lese majeste. That outcry today is therefore confined to a few websites and of course the gossip-rumour mill, which has no real public credibility because it is necessarily just that, unconfirmable rumour.
We could say the same for the monarchy’s “political invisibility”. The monarchy has been partially invisible as a political actor for most of the last 50 years. In English lang. scholarship Handley and McCargo and a few others have been working to change this situation. For Thai scholars it is harder because of lese majeste and the obvious career obstacles (to say the least) that such research would encounter. But nevertheless there are a few brave souls who dare. I would urge those interested to look at the extremely important debate now taking place on Fa Dio Kan (http://www.sameskybooks.org/webboard/show.php?Category=sameskybooks&No=539) about the publication of a book on the king and democracy published by Thammasat University where, among other things, the monarchy has essentially been written out of the 6 October 1976 massacre of students at Thammasat. If Thammasat University can publish fiction such as this, while its Rector is sitting in the junta’s appointed rubber stamp legislative council, one could be justified in asking oneself what hope is there for Thai academia.
But this cloak of invisibility is, of course, a ‘magical cloak’, because while the monarchy’s political and economic activities and interests are invisible, its “moral”, “religious”, and cultural activities are highly visible. Not only are they visible but they are magnified by the “state ideological apparatus”, as they used to call it, so that that is all that we, and people like Tony, actually see.
Shin Corp is one of Thailand\’s largest companies. When the founding shareholder of Shin Corp wanted to sell his majority share, there were few Thai investors who were rich enough to buy all the shares. Selling the shares in millions of small lots would take too much time and would depress the stock price.
But there was one investor who could buy all the shares. That investor was one of the richest men in Thailand, although the exact value of his wealth is unknown, because he didn’t have to report his income or pay any taxes.
Despite his great wealth, that individual didn\’t want to bear all the burden of buying Shin Corp at their current market price. You see, that investor believed that people should save money and he believed that actions speak louder than words. You might say that he was a supporter of self-sufficiency. So that individual got the Singaporean government\’s investment company, Temasek, to buy most of the shares, while that individual became a minor shareholder.
As everybody knows, Singaporeans are very gullible, and believe that any investments involving that very rich Thai individual are risk free and untouchable.
Little did they know that the sale of Shin Corp would cause a major controversy. That rich individual then got his military to stage a coup. One of the first tasks of the military junta was pressuring Temasek to sell its shares in Shin Corp.
But who could buy so many shares at such short notice, even if the price was reduced dramatically? Who else, but that very rich minor investor in Shin Corp. If that individual bought the shares, the controversy would end immediately.
Of course, that minor investor would make several tens of billions of baht in profit almost over-night from its purchase of Shin Corp shares at discounted fire-sale prices. That money wouldn’t go to waste. He would save some for himself, but most of it would go to his family, who have rather expensive habits.
Heck, with so much money made so quickly, he could probably give some crumbs to the poor farmers of Thailand. Nobody would loose any sleep, because net-net, Thailand would gain (at the loss of the Singaporean government and tax-payer). But who really cares about them anyway?
It hardly needs to be said but with investments such as these (I will limit myself to just these three examples as I am conscious of not wanting to take up anymore of the New Mandala site’s precious memory allocation with more details of the monarchy’s prodigious investment portfolio) the Thai monarchy is nothing if not “self-sufficient’!
Now, what exactly was the role of SCB in the Shin Corp-Temasek deal? How does the royal interest in this company fit in with the king’s overall self sufficiency economic strategy for the country?
patiwat: Thanks for the detailed response. The link does not work – is it the same one I refereed to in comment # 49 above?
I agree with your last paragraph (sorry to harp on about Thaksin), but unfortunately I am not so sure that the Thaksin era is over because he obviously still has some support, and he been a very slippery customer who has shown no real signs of change, and presumably still has plenty of money to buy support/agitation.
(Although his family seems to have dropped down the latest rich list in todays Bangkok Post – maybe that’s why they are fighting the tax bill so hard!)
By the way, I still think you are looking at the wrong share transaction to tax – ask yourself why didn’t Ample Rich sell direct to Temasek, and why did Ample Rich sell to the kids at way below market value?
Those transactions are much different than you or I merely buying and selling shares on the stock market.
For the good of the country, maybe it’s time Thaksin urged his supporters to direct their energies towards ensuring the next constitution addresses a lot of the things mentioned in your last paragraph (& Chang Noi’s opinion piece).
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
“Politics is boring”
Taxi Driver: For what it’s worth, I think Sonthi B is simply trying to do the right thing. Prem’s role is more complex – I hope he is trying to do the right thing…. time will tell.
My track record might not be too good though, as like Vichai, I too thought Thaksin would do the right thing because he was already so rich when he entered politics (maybe I discounted the influence of Pojaman).
Against the grain?
You don’t have to speculate too far with the conspiracy theories, Vichai, it’s quite well known that the King is the dominant shareholder in SCB, Siam Cement, Christiani & Nielsen, Thai Insurance, Sammakorn, and other giants of the Thai economy. Nothing new here…
On a related point: somebody commented on a different post that the Thai royal family is exempt from paying taxes. That seems quite extraordinary, given its massive wealth and income. Can somebody confirm that, please?
Pro-poor programs
I haven’t read Nawi Rangsiwararak’s work yet. So could somebody please explain to me what exactly policies Boonchu and Kukrit initiated that were so enduring?
The only example given is the revamping of the rural credit system. Does this mean the BAAC? Because the BAAC was established during the 1960’s – Kukrit headed his government for a short time during the mid 1970’s.
“Politics is boring”
Vichai, TRT doesn’t have a monopoly on generosity.
Recently, Abhisit Vejjajiva realized that somebody had been using his credit card to make nearly a million baht in purchases and withdrawals. Over a hundred transactions during nearly a year, and our unemployed opposition politician never even noticed that anything strange was going on with his finances! He must have quite a bit stashed away, and he never even ran a government. Think about it: a million baht for him is a mere rounding error…
Taxi Driver, this discussion thread has gotten a bit long – why don’t we continue the detailed discussion in a more relevant post by our kind hosts.
To answer your question shortly: Sonthi is the representative of the military/bureaucratic/palace complex. That’s why the travesties that pass for a Cabinet and Parliament are packed with generals, current and retired bureaucrats, and the very conspicuous ex-Privy Councilor. If he was trying to keep them “on a leash”, he wouldn’t have given them so much power, would he?
New species of military democracy discovered in the Pacific!
Scapping lese majeste would destroy the monarchy, which is why they will never do it, at least in this reign. Because this would gve a green light to investigations into too many debilitating scandals for the monarchy, foremost among them the death of the king’s elder brother in 1946, which started it all.
Thai style democracy
Your photographer got the angle wrong. The gun and the Constitution (on the phan) are the wrong way around.
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
Are you really wishing for ‘more baby Thaksins’ to pop out Jon?
What on earth for? Any mother who suspects that they are carrying ‘baby Thaksins’ should abort. That’s the surest way of preventing future Thai coups.
Against the grain?
1. I would like to see the history of the Rice Bank, whether the king really started it, and how widespread and effective it is. It seems farmers are mostly pledging their crops to others — millers/middlmen dealer — for loans rather than handing over their surplus (what they must save for food and seeds) to any “Rice bank”.
2. I don’t think shareholder lists for Siam Cement and Sammakorn mean much. If I recall Sammakorn was developed as a low-profit modest housing community development at the start on land the royals owned already. I think more interesting is the number of “phuyai” who signed on as shareholders giving them access to the royal family. As far as Siam Cement goes, it has been pretty responsible in strategic as a “national company” whatever it returns to the family (and however it was bailed out in 1997-98).
“Politics is boring”
It is the Thai people who “won” and “lost” on Sept. 19th. The Thai people “won” by losing a dangerous divisive criminal Thaksin Shinawatra who was intent on clinging on to power, to protect his ill-gottens, even if that would rend the country apart. The victory was however bitter . . . the constitution was suspended and we have yet to see whether a better constitution will follow, or, as suspected by ‘Chang Noi’ we get a regressive constitution instead.
I am hopeful that Thai people will get a much better constitution. But I admit we have to be wary. Once people are in power they always somehow manage to lose their way . . like the previous Thaksin regime.
Do I support Sonthi-Surayud team? At this very moment, yes! Because so far they are doing all the right moves. I will be waiting how the reform of the constitution proceeds and my opinion could change by then – – could be more favorable or could be very negative.
Same thing happened when I voted for Thaksin’s party TRT the first time. I was hopeful the billionaire-PM would be different and would set a new standard of integrity, transparency and honesty in the PM office. We all know what a disappointment Thaksin & TRT turned out to be.
Against the grain?
Somsak is truly a brave soul.
http://somsakj.blogspot.com
http://www.sameskybooks.org/webboard/show.php?Category=sameskybooks&No=539
And this book by the dean of TU’s political science faculty is a disgrace for its pretense to be an academic piece. This is a pure fiction!
“Politics is boring”
Ngarnadeeleg I doubt very much that my comments will be taken on board by those currently in power! I’m only a taxi driver after all :).
I don’t believe we should simply “accept the coup” so that “the country can move forward again”. I think we need to be very weary of what is happening.
The “other forces” that won on Sept 19 are well identified in the Chang Noi article: the military, the police, and the bureaucrats. An important queston to ask is this: does Sonthi B. (& Prem for that matter) represent these forces, or are they simply the guys who are trying to keep these “other forces” on a leash?
I think this is an important question and your own answer will determine your stance in relation to the coup leaders….do you support Sonthi & Prem because you think they are trying to do the right thing & control the “other forces”, or do you oppose them because they represent the “other forces” that stole an elected government from the peope. You & Patiwat may wish to share your view on this?
“Politics is boring”
Patiwat before we leave the taxation issue, I just cannot help getting amused by two striking epiphanies (which may or may not have taxation relevance):
(a) The highest paid househelps in the world can be found in Thailand . . that means drivers and maids, paid in family company shares worth billions! Perhaps because that has to do with the out-of-this-world generosity of the Shinawatra/Damaphongs to their househelp, or, because those househelps were just those rare out-of-this-world extraordinary employees, or both.
(b) Generosity begets generosity. Only in Thailand will you find a housemaid giving a Baht 740 million wedding gift, two years late by the way, to her boss’ brother.
I conclude that only in the Shinawatra household will the world find true love . . affection that extends to every member down to drivers and maid. And love is reciprocated accordingly. I agree with Patiwat that it would be injustice for the Thailand Revenue Department to tax such love. Right Patiwat?
Against the grain?
Republican you meant to hog and you are hogging the topic for sure. Is Thaksin Shinawatra himself feeding you all these financial data concerning the monarchy?
If only Republican you can get Thaksin Shinawatra to declare all his assets too in this forum, including every honest or dishonest mistakes, then we can evaluate who is the richest in Thailand.
Isn’t that the object of your posters?
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
Someone will have to draw a diagram explaining the complicated web of inter-related interests that are served by coup and counter-coup. Another piece in the puzzle from Chang Noi today:
http://www.geocities.com/changnoi2/coupcharter.htm
I hope the end result of this tortuous political process is that some more baby Thaksins pop out of their eggs and through some miracle keep each other in check and prevent each other from usurping all power and wealth, that a linear evolution that betters the life opportunities of rural folk and gives them some upwards mobility, is possible, rather than a mere cyclical repetition of past history.
“Politics is boring”
Nganadirek, yes that bad link was to the article linked in comment #49. I’ve often requested that several bloggers devote some space to a substantial debate on taxation. But this current topic already has 53 comments on it, and I don’t think it should be extended to contain a long technical discussion about taxation.
I believe the support that people show to Thaksin is misinterpreted. Just because people are against the coup doesn’t mean they necessarily support Thaksin. And just because people are worried about the future of Thaksin’s populist policies doesn’t mean they would support Thaksin’s re-entry into politics. And just because people want their civil rights back doesn’t mean they love Thaksin.
If the junta were to repromulgate the 1997 Constitution, pardon itself, schedule elections in 3 months, establish committees to investigate police, army, and politician responsibility for the War on Drugs and the Southern Insurgency (to satisfy people like Vichai), ask the King to appoint a committee to recommend amendments to reform the constitution, and ban everybody whose last name is Shinawatra-Damaphong or has ever been a Phalang Dharma or Communisty Party member from running, I don’t think anybody would complain (including the Shinawatra-Damaphongs). On the contrary, I believe that the Thai people, being such wonderful pragmatists, would thank Siamthewathiraj that the junta and its sponsors displayed such generosity to the Kingdom.
Of course, if you read Chang Noi’s editorial, you’ll realize why this is a pipe dream.
p.s., the reason the Shinawatra family’s wealth has gone down is probably due to the sharp appreciation of the Thai Baht these past few months under the wise management of the junta. Like any wealthy investors, they probably had a diversified international portfolio.
Against the grain?
Lastly (I didn’t mean to hog this topic, but the ideas are flowing) the other thing that occurs to me is that the phenomenal success of the Thai monarchy today is largely due its partial “invisibility”, made possible by that cloak of invisibility, lese majeste. What I mean is that if even 10% of the space devoted to covering Thaksin’s business dealings was spent on reporting the monarchy’s own investments then one would think that it would spark something of a public outcry. But of course that is impossible, because of lese majeste. That outcry today is therefore confined to a few websites and of course the gossip-rumour mill, which has no real public credibility because it is necessarily just that, unconfirmable rumour.
We could say the same for the monarchy’s “political invisibility”. The monarchy has been partially invisible as a political actor for most of the last 50 years. In English lang. scholarship Handley and McCargo and a few others have been working to change this situation. For Thai scholars it is harder because of lese majeste and the obvious career obstacles (to say the least) that such research would encounter. But nevertheless there are a few brave souls who dare. I would urge those interested to look at the extremely important debate now taking place on Fa Dio Kan (http://www.sameskybooks.org/webboard/show.php?Category=sameskybooks&No=539) about the publication of a book on the king and democracy published by Thammasat University where, among other things, the monarchy has essentially been written out of the 6 October 1976 massacre of students at Thammasat. If Thammasat University can publish fiction such as this, while its Rector is sitting in the junta’s appointed rubber stamp legislative council, one could be justified in asking oneself what hope is there for Thai academia.
But this cloak of invisibility is, of course, a ‘magical cloak’, because while the monarchy’s political and economic activities and interests are invisible, its “moral”, “religious”, and cultural activities are highly visible. Not only are they visible but they are magnified by the “state ideological apparatus”, as they used to call it, so that that is all that we, and people like Tony, actually see.
Against the grain?
Here\’s the obvious explanation:
Shin Corp is one of Thailand\’s largest companies. When the founding shareholder of Shin Corp wanted to sell his majority share, there were few Thai investors who were rich enough to buy all the shares. Selling the shares in millions of small lots would take too much time and would depress the stock price.
But there was one investor who could buy all the shares. That investor was one of the richest men in Thailand, although the exact value of his wealth is unknown, because he didn’t have to report his income or pay any taxes.
Despite his great wealth, that individual didn\’t want to bear all the burden of buying Shin Corp at their current market price. You see, that investor believed that people should save money and he believed that actions speak louder than words. You might say that he was a supporter of self-sufficiency. So that individual got the Singaporean government\’s investment company, Temasek, to buy most of the shares, while that individual became a minor shareholder.
As everybody knows, Singaporeans are very gullible, and believe that any investments involving that very rich Thai individual are risk free and untouchable.
Little did they know that the sale of Shin Corp would cause a major controversy. That rich individual then got his military to stage a coup. One of the first tasks of the military junta was pressuring Temasek to sell its shares in Shin Corp.
But who could buy so many shares at such short notice, even if the price was reduced dramatically? Who else, but that very rich minor investor in Shin Corp. If that individual bought the shares, the controversy would end immediately.
Of course, that minor investor would make several tens of billions of baht in profit almost over-night from its purchase of Shin Corp shares at discounted fire-sale prices. That money wouldn’t go to waste. He would save some for himself, but most of it would go to his family, who have rather expensive habits.
Heck, with so much money made so quickly, he could probably give some crumbs to the poor farmers of Thailand. Nobody would loose any sleep, because net-net, Thailand would gain (at the loss of the Singaporean government and tax-payer). But who really cares about them anyway?
Against the grain?
It hardly needs to be said but with investments such as these (I will limit myself to just these three examples as I am conscious of not wanting to take up anymore of the New Mandala site’s precious memory allocation with more details of the monarchy’s prodigious investment portfolio) the Thai monarchy is nothing if not “self-sufficient’!
Against the grain?
Self Sufficient Royal Investments, Part 3
Now, what exactly was the role of SCB in the Shin Corp-Temasek deal? How does the royal interest in this company fit in with the king’s overall self sufficiency economic strategy for the country?
Source: Stock Exchange of Thailand: http://www.set.or.th/set/companyinfo.do
SCB : THE SIAM COMMERCIAL BANK PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED
Free Float Overview as of 15/03/2006
Minor Shareholders (Free float) 16,853 % Shares in Minor Shareholders (% Free float) 80.80
Overview Overview As of 18/04/2006 Rights Type : XD
Total Shareholders 18,102 % Shares in Scripless Holding 89.53
Rank Major Shareholders # Shares % Shares
1 CHASE NOMINEES LIMITED 42 115,138,476 6.09%
2 р╕кр╕│р╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕Зр╕▓р╕Щр╕Чр╕гр╕▒р╕Юр╕вр╣Мр╕кр╕┤р╕Щр╕кр╣Ир╕зр╕Щр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕вр╣М 100,265,685 5.30%
3 MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL-LONDON 100,261,145 5.30%
4 р╕Ър╕гр╕┤р╕йр╕▒р╕Ч р╕Чр╕╕р╕Щр╕ер╕Фр╕▓р╕зр╕▒р╕ер╕вр╣М р╕Ир╕│р╕Бр╕▒р╕Ф 82,010,000 4.34%
5 р╕Ър╕гр╕┤р╕йр╕▒р╕Ч р╣Др╕Чр╕вр╣Ар╕нр╣Зр╕Щр╕зр╕╡р╕Фр╕╡р╕нр╕▓р╕гр╣М р╕Ир╕│р╕Бр╕▒р╕Ф 79,626,553 4.21%
6 HSBC (SINGAPORE) NOMINEES PTE LTD 76,704,987 4.06%
7 RBC DEXIA INVESTOR SERVICES TRUST 73,161,169 3.87%
8 STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY 57,729,704 3.05%
9 р╕кр╕│р╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕Зр╕▓р╕Щр╕Чр╕гр╕▒р╕Юр╕вр╣Мр╕кр╕┤р╕Щр╕кр╣Ир╕зр╕Щр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕вр╣М 50,000,000 2.65%
10 MELLON NOMINEES (UK) LIMITED 49,164,200 2.60%
11 DBS BANK A/C 316398-9-001 47,900,000 2.53%
12 MELLON BANK,N.A. 45,292,388 2.40%
13 UBS AG, LONDON BRANCH-ASIA EQUITY 37,307,866 1.97%
14 CHASE NOMINEES LIMITED 1 36,677,574 1.94%
15 CHASE NOMINEES LIMITED 30 36,652,400 1.94%
16 GOVERNMENT OF SINGAPORE INVESTMENT CORPORATION C 32,851,700 1.74%
17 LITTLEDOWN NOMINEES LIMITED 31,162,000 1.65%
18 RBC DEXIA INVESTOR SERVICES TRUST A/C 1 29,951,100 1.58%
19 THE BANK OF NEW YORK (NOMINEES) LIMITED 26,628,340 1.41%
20 STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, FOR LONDON 26,322,849 1.39%
21 LITTLEDOWN NOMINEES LIMITED 5 25,318,200 1.34%
22 MORGAN STANLEY & CO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 18,438,663 0.98%
23 HSBC BANK PLC-CLIENTS GENERAL A/C 17,207,700 0.91%
24 GOLDMAN SACHS INTERNATIONAL 16,749,190 0.89%
25 р╕кр╕│р╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕Зр╕▓р╕Щр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╕кр╕▒р╕Зр╕Др╕б 16,543,100 0.88%
26 р╕Бр╕нр╕Зр╕Чр╕╕р╕Щ р╕Ър╕│р╣Ар╕лр╕Щр╣Зр╕Ир╕Ър╕│р╕Щр╕▓р╕Нр╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕Бр╕▓р╕г 16,105,050 0.85%
27 GOVERNMENT OF SINGAPORE INVESTMENT CORPORATION H 15,753,500 0.83%
28 р╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Чр╕гр╕зр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Др╕ер╕▒р╕З 15,214,380 0.80%
29 NORTRUST NOMINEES LTD. 15,037,735 0.80%
30 INVESTORS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY 14,341,861 0.76%
31 N.C.B.TRUST LIMITED-UBS AG LONDON BR-IPB CLIENT AC 12,844,200 0.68%
32 р╕кр╕│р╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕Зр╕▓р╕Щр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╕кр╕▒р╕Зр╕Др╕б 12,570,000 0.66%
33 STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY FOR AUSTRALIA, 11,898,905 0.63%
34 CHASE C.S. CEBTRAL NOMINEES LIMITED 24 11,053,200 0.58%
35 THE BANK OF NEW YORK NOMINEES LTD. 10,226,300 0.54%
“Politics is boring”
patiwat: Thanks for the detailed response. The link does not work – is it the same one I refereed to in comment # 49 above?
I agree with your last paragraph (sorry to harp on about Thaksin), but unfortunately I am not so sure that the Thaksin era is over because he obviously still has some support, and he been a very slippery customer who has shown no real signs of change, and presumably still has plenty of money to buy support/agitation.
(Although his family seems to have dropped down the latest rich list in todays Bangkok Post – maybe that’s why they are fighting the tax bill so hard!)
By the way, I still think you are looking at the wrong share transaction to tax – ask yourself why didn’t Ample Rich sell direct to Temasek, and why did Ample Rich sell to the kids at way below market value?
Those transactions are much different than you or I merely buying and selling shares on the stock market.
For the good of the country, maybe it’s time Thaksin urged his supporters to direct their energies towards ensuring the next constitution addresses a lot of the things mentioned in your last paragraph (& Chang Noi’s opinion piece).