Taksin family - unusual wealth

Thaksin and his family own assets about Bt12.7 billion

Total assets of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his family when he finished his first term in 2005 was Bt12.68 billion ( US$3.4 Billion) and debts of Bt110 million.

The figures was revealed by National Counter Corruption Commission on Friday. Prime minister and his cabinet members as well as their families were required by laws to declare their assets.

According to Thaksin's assets list submitted to the NCCC, Thaksin has Bt506 million, his wife, Khunying Pojamarn, Bt8.91 billion and his daughter, Paethongtarn Bt3.26 billion, when Thaksin finished his first term on March 14, 2005.

The laws require children of prime minister and ministers who are under 20 to declare their assets.

NCCC reported total assets of Thaksin and family as of March 14, 2006 increased to Bt12.75 billion. Thaksin owns Bt512 million, Pojamarn Bt8.99 billion and Paethongtarn Bt3.24 billion.

The Nation

What about the gardener, the nanny, and the driver?

What about the gardener, the nanny, and the driver?

My immediate thoughts exactly :cheese:

Hope the reporting at The Nation is better than their maths:
12,680,000,000.00 THB = 339,239,715.30 USD[/quote]

Obscene and immoral no matter how you look at it.

Obscene and immoral no matter how you look at it.Why is wealth obscene or immoral (unless you're a socialist)?

1/2 a billion baht? I guess that doesn't include the billions in the British Virgin Island accounts?

Bangkok Post:


Potjaman outdoes husband in riches

Potjaman Shinawatra outdoes her husband, deposed prime minister Thaksin, when it comes to wealth but not when it comes to watches.


According to a report of the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC) released yesterday, Khunying Potjaman's total assets are 8.88 billion baht, while those of Mr Thaksin are far behind at almost 512.5 million baht. But she owns only 18 luxury watches, eight fewer than her husband. Their preferred brands are Cartier and Patek Philippe.


The NCCC report also shows she has a passion for jewellery.


Khunying Potjaman, who returned from London on Thursday, has 108 items of jewellery, most made of diamond, worth more than 310 million baht in total. They include 19 diamond rings and 13 pairs of earrings. The most expensive piece is a diamond-clad-with-emerald necklace worth 20 million baht.


Others given a similar value are a circle-rounded diamond ring worth 17 million baht and a diamond necklace worth 15 million baht.


She also owns 11 cars. She bought them for 71.5 million baht and reported their value after depreciation at 41 million baht. They are three Mecedes Benzes, four BMWs, three Toyotas and one Mitsubishi.

Dear Homi,

Please reread my comment. I did not state that wealth was obscene and immoral per se. My statement alluded to the manner in which the Toxin's have accummulated their vast wealth. I'm sure you agree with me. Sorry if I confused you.

Dax

How did the poor dears ever scrape by?

Former Foreign Minister Kantathi Supamongkhon emerged as the wealthiest Thai Rak Thai Party newcomer in the now defunct Cabinet of ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

According to the National Counter Corruption Commission's (NCCC) public release of officially declared assets of ministers who were considered new faces in the Thaksin administration, Kantathi, as of March 14, 2005, was worth Bt4.46 billion, mostly in 22 bank accounts and other financial institutions. He also owned 193 plots of land worth about Bt2.8 billion.

He has in his name a Bt24-million house and 15 other buildings worth about Bt375 million, according to the NCCC. His wife, Sopawan, has assets worth about Bt35.3 million, mostly in banks and financial institutions.

According to Thai law, Cabinet members are required to declare their assets, along with those of their spouses and children under the age of 20, to the NCCC when they start and finish their terms in office.

Former deputy education minister Rung Kaewdaeng is the poorest ex-Cabinet member, having only Bt922,733 in assets, while his wife Phongsai has Bt4,600,535.

Pongsak Ruktapongpisal, when a deputy commerce minister before October 6, 2004, had Bt427,351,637 while his minor children were worth Bt436,633,067. But when appointed Transport Minister on August 3, 2005, he only had Bt101,500,664 left while his children had Bt848,728,354.

Sudarat Keyuraphan is poorer. She had Bt874,826,095 when taking office at the Agriculture Ministry on February 18, 2001 in the Thaksin I Cabinet, compared to Bt867,759,446 when retaining the title on March 14, 2005.

Suriya Lapvisutisin is another poor minister, having Bt669,332,989 in assets and Bt92,173,213 in debts when former deputy commerce minister in 2001. He had Bt487,034,711 in assets and Bt63,504,000 in debts when leaving office on August 2, 2004.

Somsak Thepsuthin has had his assets reduced hugely from Bt236,664,883 to Bt13,228,463 from the first to the second time he took office, on February 18, 2001 then on March 14, 2005.

Budsarakham Sinlapalavan

The Nation

Minor Children? Offspring by one's Minor Wife?

[Bob]

Not sure why you label it unusual. As a matter of fact (hate to get those pesky things in the way again), his reported wealth (being his, his wife's, and his daughter) is actually slightly less than he reported 4 years ago. Where did he get it? Well, absent some evidence of illegal activity, it's nobody's business.

Of course, this report doesn't include the gains acquired from the sale of the shin stock...but that wasn't required for this reporting (or at least that's how the thai newspapers report it).

Also didn't include the assets of his older son and daughter.

My statement alluded to the manner in which the Toxin's have accummulated their vast wealth. I'm sure you agree with meI still have to disagree. Thaksin got his wealth in the typical Thai (if not Asian) way - closed door processes, favoured bidders, shadowy connections, no transparency, no open bids. It's a story that's repeated over and over and over again in Asia. If you want to see how business is really conducted in Asia and why Thaksin is no different to most other Asian tycoons, I recommend reading Asian Eclipse - http://www.amazon.com/Asian-Eclipse-Exp ... 0471479128 (http://www.amazon.com/Asian-Eclipse-Exposing-Business-Revised/dp/0471479128)

The author has his own website at http://www.michaelbackman.com/ - a quote from his latest newspaper column is instructive in this context: "Smuggling is regarded almost as a fringe benefit for the armed forces of the likes of Indonesia, Thailand and China. Navies in the region also are heavily involved because of their access to ships." - http://www.michaelbackman.com/LatestAgeColumn.html

And on political corruption generally - this time in Malaysia - "The Malaysian Government, for example, recently required each cigarette manufacturer to buy machinery reportedly at a cost of about $US25 million each to produce security markings for each cigarette pack. One company was appointed the monopoly supplier of a special ink the machines must use тАФ a company on whose board sits a son of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. This same company has been appointed sole manufacturer of banderols that each pack will be required to have in several years."

Thaksin wasn't so different

Let me see if I understand you, Homi. Business as usual in Asia or for that matter anywhere in the world whether morally reprehensible or not is okay if everyone is doing it? And your statement that Toxin is no different from the rest of these 'businessmen' makes everything right? Sorry, Homi, I am unconvinced and stand my original observation, that Toxin's wealth is both obscene and immoral. Help me understand where my statement is wrong, Homi.

Dax

Help me understand where my statement is wrong, Homi.What's in it for me?

Would eight inches do, Homi? :bounce:

Dax

I'm confused.

When CNN International gave Thaksin a glowing interview just two days before he was "acquitted", in '01, Thaksin alluded to having 2 billion U.S. DOLLARS (he was speaking to a "US" audience - and noted, as if to generate sympathy, that would have been 4 billion $$$ B4 the 95/96 financial crisis).

So that would be 2 billion dollars * 40 baht/dollar = 80 billion baht.

Yet combined, now, Thaksin and his wife say they have only 12.65 billion baht.

Did I multiply wrong?


bangkokpost.com/News/21Oct2006_news02.php

Assets lists questioned

Anti-graft activist says figures unconvincing



SURASAK GLAHAN MONGKOL BANGPRAPA

A veteran activist and graft fighter yesterday voiced scepticism over the assets declared by the first Thaksin cabinet and their spouses and children, suggesting their combined net worth of 29 billion baht may be too low to be true.


Rosana Tositrakul, who has waged an anti-corruption campaign against political office holders, said she was unconvinced that the 36 members of one of the richest cabinets this country has ever known, as well as their spouses and children, had combined assets of just 29 billion baht.


Citing deceptive accounting practices adopted by several private enterprises, including the keeping of dual accounts, she suggested that the assets might have been stashed away somewhere or be held by nominees. Mrs Rosana said it was all up to the anti-graft agency to sift through documents for any discrepancies and find out the actual assets. She said the existing legal mechanisms to ensure accountability had been manipulated by politicians.


"Corruption has evolved, but we are deprived of legal techniques and rules to deal with them. One weakness is that the anti-corruption laws do not require the politicians' children who come of age to declare their assets," she said.


Mrs Rosana said the National Counter Corruption Commission would succeed in ensuring accountability if it had the same sweeping powers as the assets scrutiny committee. She made her comments following the disclosure of the assets of the first Thaksin administration.


NCCC member Klanarong Chanthik said the declared assets have yet to be verified and investigated. The NCCC has the mechanisms to scrutinise the assets and delve into their origins. It also has the power to order state agencies to submit related documents. "With the power we have, the NCCC has managed to indict several people," he said.


One of them was Mr Thaksin, who was acquitted in 2001 of an assets concealment case by the Constitution Court, now replaced by the Constitution Tribunal.


As of March 14 this year, Mr Thaksin and his wife declared assets worth 12.65 billion baht, which saw a slight increase in the assets declared to the NCCC in March, 2005. Mr Thaksin owned assets worth 512.49 million baht and his wife Khunying Potjaman had assets worth 8.88 billion baht. The rest of the declared assets was held by their youngest daughter, Paethongthan.


In the March, 2005 declaration, Mr Thaksin had assets worth 506 million baht, Khunying Potjaman had 8.80 billion and the daughter owned 3.2 billion baht worth of assets. Shares in Shin Corp were not declared because they had long been transferred to the other two legally-mature children _ Panthongtae and Pinthongta _ who are excused from the wealth and debt declaration.


The former prime minister's disclosure was made one year after the first Thaksin administration completed its term.


The law requires cabinet ministers and political office holders to declare their assets, along with those of their spouses and children under the age of 20, to the NCCC not only after they assume and leave office, but also one year after they leave office. Ministers of the second Thaksin cabinet declared their assets on assuming office on the same day as their counterparts in the first Thaksin cabinet declared their assets on leaving office.


According to the NCCC's report, former agriculture minister Khunying Sudarat Keyuraphan declared family assets worth 926 million baht as of March, 2006.


She posted a decrease of 16.5 million baht in assets.


Former deputy agriculture minister Newin Chidchob posted family assets worth one billion baht as of August this year. He held 256.49 million baht worth of assets in his name and his wife owned assets worth 752.4 million baht.


Former transport minister Suriya Jungrungreangkit posted family assets of 1.3 billion baht, as of Aug 2 this year. He gained 66 million baht in assets during the period of 16 months.


Former industry minister Pongsak Raktapongpaisal declared family assets of 863.3 million baht, as of March 14 this year. He posted personal assets of 14.6 million baht, a decrease of 410 million. However, his children seemed to hold the balance with assets of 848 million baht, an increase of 411.9 million baht. The NCCC's asset report detailed cash, shares, land plots, luxury cars, houses, and jewellery items.

So, Daxus, have you worked out yet that you are confusing ends with means? The end (or result) is the Thaksin family wealth. In and of itself it is entirely neutral in a moral sense. It's just money - the means of buying a boiled lolly or a boy. It's only immoral if, like socialists, you believe that personal wealth is immoral. How the Thaksin wealth was accumulated (the means) may be subject to moral scruples - hence the phrase "ill-gotten gains". You may want to suggest that opaque ways of conducting business, cronyism and all the other norms of doing business in Asia are "obscene and immoral" - that's your choice. I don't go in for moral posturing all that much; it's a nasty little trait best left to religious people and maiden aunts and radio announcers like Rush Limbaugh. Invariably such people (and we have a few examples on this Board) rely on their emotions rather than on logic and end up as hypocrites. I've always thought that whoever it was who remarked that "To those who feel, life is a tragedy; to those who think, life is a comedy" was right on the money - and that's why my constant refrain on this Board is "I'm only here for the laughs"

Sorry, Homi, I still see things much differently than you. Why am I confusing the ends with the means? Are they both not immoral and obscene in Toxin's case? Yes or no? It is really very simple for me. I see Toxin's accummulation of his vast wealth at the expense of his countrymen as outright immoral and obscene. Further, the use of these ill gotten gains to further his own agenda is a slap in the face to the Thais who are trying to make a difference in their country.

Dax

Envy is a really, realy ugly emotion, Daxus. Try and rise above it, there's a good chap. Clearly you're a sentimentalist, not a logician and for you life is a tragedy. It's also very, very un-Buddhist to feel emotion about something you simply cannot change - a cause of suffering. The Second Noble Truth, if I'm not mistaken. Moral outrage is such a silly activity. Think of all those homophobes - now there's real moral outrage for you. How are you any different (or morally superior) if you descend to their level?

There was a lot of immorality to do with Taksin, not sufficiently stated in Daxus' first post on the subject, but elaborated later on. To "envy" or hate him just for his wealth just leads to the argunent that, well really he is not immoral just because he has the wealth, which then, at least in his and his crony's deceived minds exonerates him from repurcussions for his arrogant, self serving manner and lastly his pathetic inability to lead unselfish efforts (though I note he was "capable" of leadership in the manner fitting to himself).

I think those missing billions are now in a BVI account, uncounted. I don't think Thaksin ever formerly complied with the law at the beginning of his administration, so a number to start with isn't available. He was "above" complying with the law then (arrogance). Now, finally, with a gun pointed at his head he'll comply with the law. Noncompliance with the law is pretty lacking in leadership, which is the most important issue here, behind his wealth and moral turpitude. Obviously, his leadership didn't turn out to be per some of his benefactor's expectations (Prem and HM).

... you feel happy now you've got that off your chest NewBeeBkk? It won't make one iota of difference, you know

[Aunty]

Clearly you're a sentimentalist, not a logician. And you're an idiot. But it doesn't stop you.

Homitern makes the same mistake here, Daxus, that is commonly found in people of his ilk. We see it all the time in the Republican Party of the United States and their misadventures in Iraq, and also in their buddies in the NRA - famously encapsulated in their response to demands for tighter gun control laws in the US. There are no bad guns, only bad people. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Therefore nothing changes, while all the time more and more innocent people are shot on the streets of America.

In Homitern's perverted delusional world of the play-yard bully, there is no such thing as immoral wealth or blood money, only immoral people. Wealth doesn't corrupt people, people corrupt people. Bollocks! And the good news is that in spite of all the assaults and patronising drivel that will come from him it simply doesn't change that simple fact. That what he wrote is demonstrable bollocks.

You have already quite rightly pulled this arsehole up on totally misrepresenting your first post, and then trying to pass it off as some kind of official interpretation setting himself up as the all mighty arbiter of good and evil and knowledge of all things. This is an internal belief he holds about himself. He is as arrogrant as he is wrong. It was quite obvious to anybody with half a brain, that what you wrote, in no way did you imply meaning that Homitern subsequently constructed. Do not allow yourself to be drawn into his game.

My advice, do not feed the troll.

So, Daxus, have you worked out yet that you are confusing ends with means? The end (or result) is the Thaksin family wealth. In and of itself it is entirely neutral in a moral sense. It's just money - the means of buying a boiled lolly or a boy. It's only immoral if, like socialists, you believe that personal wealth is immoral. How the Thaksin wealth was accumulated (the means) may be subject to moral scruples - hence the phrase "ill-gotten gains". You may want to suggest that opaque ways of conducting business, cronyism and all the other norms of doing business in Asia are "obscene and immoral" - that's your choice. I don't go in for moral posturing all that much; it's a nasty little trait best left to religious people and maiden aunts and radio announcers like Rush Limbaugh. Invariably such people (and we have a few examples on this Board) rely on their emotions rather than on logic and end up as hypocrites. I've always thought that whoever it was who remarked that "To those who feel, life is a tragedy; to those who think, life is a comedy" was right on the money - and that's why my constant refrain on this Board is "I'm only here for the laughs"

Crotch-monkey! Wait until you have a large butchers knife lodged in your skull, we call it getting the chop in Asia, then come squeaking about morals and scruples and maiden aunts. You have been in your armchair to long.
Thaksin and his family deserve to be stripped of all their assets and then he should be put away for life, If for no other reason than all the people he slaughtered without trial in his anti drugs frenzy, that left more than 3000 Thai civilians and others dead, this means dead. It's the minimum Thaksin deserves.

For anyone in doubt as to what should happen to Thaksin, disgraced former prime minister of Thailand, perhaps it would be fitting to quote the man himself.


Drug dealers and traffickers are heartless and wicked. All of them must be sent to meet the guardian of hell, so that there will not be any drugs in the country.Being ruthless back to them is not a bad thing.
Thaksin


They will be put behind bars or even vanish without a trace. Who cares?
Wan Muhamad Nor Matha, Thaksins interior minister at the time.

In August 2003, Thaksin also ordered a "shoot to kill" policy against people, simply suspected, of smuggling methamphetamines into Thailand from neighbouring Burma, in which thousands where shot on sight.

So shall we deal with Thaksin in the same way? Has he not been "heartless and wicked", isn't being "ruthless back" not perfectly fitting under the circumstances. Should he not meet "the gaurdian of hell" so Thailand will be free of one of it's biggest ring leaders of corruption, murder and fraud? I don't see why not.

The lunatic fringe are out tonight in force. Is it full moon already?

I've said in a number of threads over many months that I regard Thaksin as a bad prime minister who was only in it (like most politicians in Asia) for what he could get out of it. His family's wealth (the topic of this thread) has nothing to do with whether or not he deserves eg. punishment for the extra-judicial killings of alleged drug-dealers - a policy in which he was, according to some people, tacitly supported by the King (and of course by boygeenyus). Thaksin was pushed because the King believed Thaksin was setting himself up as a rival source of power and moral authority, and egged on his mates in the military to stage a coup. I don't see any of you getting antsy about arraigning Suchinda before a court of law for having his troops kill many more people just for protesting in the streets in the early nineties. Equally none of you alleged democrats seem prepared to discuss whether the King's interventions over the years in Thai politics, always on the side of the military and against the democratic inclinations of various Thais, has been benign or malign

As for my own politics, I'm an unabashed liberal (even in the pejorative, American sense of that word) - in favour of gun control, abortion, euthanasia, the market economy, globalisation, transparency, decriminalisation of all drugs, the rule of law ... need I go on? What I'm opposed to is bringing emotion into a debate and then turning it into "facts", which is what has been going on in this thread. However, there's always the Silver Lining of more material for Aunty's Mensa Moments - http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/fo ... g.php?w=21 (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/weblog.php?w=21)

The lunatic fringe are out tonight in force. Is it full moon already?

Anything other than an elderly couple from Nutley New Jersey, is fringe to Crotch-rot, so put away your 'alloween costumes and get Thaksin get Thaksin get Thaksin e.t.c etc etc....

[Bob]

I'm still a bit confused, Daxus. You now seem to indicate that having wealth per se isn't bad but what's bad is how one accumulated it. Have I got that straight? If so, I might agree with you (for better or for worse, I'm not a communist.....although that's a bad analogy as there never has been any true communism around as the communist leaders are the ones with all the wealth).

Well, please elucidate as to how Shinawatra accumulated his wealth - and please provide some facts other than those based on the National Enquirer. People rely just a wee bit too much on tabloid headlines, especially when it favors an attack on somebody they dislike (for whatever reason).

Shinawatra was an opportunistic and unethical businessman and politician in my view. And, of course, in my view, the only difference between him and countless other present and past thai businessmen and politicians is that he was more successful at it (having accumulated more money). Signing a deal with India for Shin Corporation during his first state visit wasn't illegal but it surely was unethical. Having the police ramp up efforts against the yaba gangs and importers (a group doing immense devastation to the fabric of thai society) was quite admirable in my view; however, simply killing them was hardly proper [although, as much as I dislike Shinawatra, I seem to be at a loss of any facts that would evidence that he authorized any extra-judicial killings....and perhaps you can fill me in on those facts (versus notions conjured from tea leaves)]. He and his family had the legal right to sell the Shin stock but, of course, his timing was incredibly stupid from at least a political point of view. And he didn't pay taxes on the gains (so what, there isn't any thai tax on capital gains from sale of stock).

To me, 90% of this comes down to pure jealousy.

I note that there is an editorial in the Bangkok Post today (or, perhaps, yesterday) calling on the military junta to lay out the claimed illegal activities of Shinawatra so that the "people" will understand why the junta played their coup card. I suspect that it'll be a while before the junta takes up that challenge and, when it does occur, the big item will be some amorphous comment that he disrepected the king. What's probably sad (at least in view of any dreamful notions that democracy or rule of law might take hold in Thailand someday) is that's all it took.

[Bob]

delete please....it posted twice

delete please....it posted

Sorry can't help, but I agree, it isn't worth posting.

... is that the style of doing business in Asia is self-limiting; this will not be the "Asian century" (or the Chinese century) because, to be a really robust economy, you need a liberal democracy (the marketplace of ideas), the rule of law, property rights, enforceable contracts and all those other ways of doing business that are so inimical to Asia. Thailand will continue to be a backwater (especially while the Thai elite, from the King down, refuse to educate the masses) and China will stumble (often) towards its desired superpower status. Thaksin, his wealth, his actions while in governemnt, the coup and the King might all excite the more jejune among us, but in the short term nothing will change because nothing can change. Thaksin will not be punished because that would be far too confrontational - not at all the Thai way

I could be proved wrong by events, but that's unlikely in my lifetime. Young Master Cedric may live to see significant change (but I doubt it). I try to remember the words of one of the greatest Englishmen of the last 500 years, Oliver Cromwell when I make these assertions, and reading poor old Aunty's ravings I can see why the circulation figures for Nuclear Physics for the Under Fives are in such poor shape. Whatever happened to scientific method? The null hypothesis seems to have jumped out the window and gone into hiding; Aunty's Ig Nobel Prize ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize ) has to be in doubt. Oliver Cromwell addressed the self-righteous parliamentarians (why do so many members of this Forum, with Aunty leading the charge come to mind when I use the phrase "self-righteous", I wonder) and said "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, consider that you might be wrong"

I could be proved wrong by events, but that's unlikely in my lifetime.

From the looks of you, I'd say that's the safest statement I've heard in a long time.

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, consider that you might be wrong"

Homel, a new age is dawning, clich├й aside, out of all this supposed anarchy you will see a much better order evolving, Thailand in it's own way, is spear-heading the age of reason in Asia, an age of mass participation, and self rule. You are already witness to this. In many ways this system in Thailand as it it stands is democracy as it's best, raw and capable, vital and invigorating.
I rather liked this little passage:

"Eminent Western political philosophers who intelligently theorised the right of rebellion of the governed against the ruler include Aristotle (c 384-

322 BC), Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1631-1704).

Aristotle's criticisms against the flaws of democracy included "the tyranny of the majority" that put the will of the majority above the law. He said such a ruler would be overthrown by revolt.

The Thaksin regime can be appropriately termed a "tyranny of the majority", because Thaksin and his cohorts systematically violated the Constitution and the law of the land. The regime theoretically turned Thailand into a state of nature. General Sonthi and his close associates exercised their natural right to seize political power by risking their own lives, in accordance with the "law of the jungle"

(Theeravit-prof emeritus politicalscience Chulalonghorn UNI.)

But please, please check the medication

It won't make one iota of difference, you know


Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeekkkkkkkkkkk. He's stalking me now!

Elections, or should we call them beauty pagents, from poorly enlightened cultures (and I mean the U.S. primarily) imply power, and the only legitamate power, and the winners are excused from inappropriate (immoral) behavior. EVERYONE else. kings, military generals, ... act only in their own pitiful, petty, self interest Is that what an unabashed, pejorative American liberal believes (wheeee I used new words today.)? The difference is already there. The difference is taht the world already acts much differently than how you fantasize.

[cottmann]

... Oliver Cromwell addressed the self-righteous parliamentarians ... and said "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, consider that you might be wrong"

Actually, what Cromwell wrote was "I besearch you in the bowels of Crhist think it possible you may be mistaken," and he used the words not while talking to self-righteous parliamentarians but in writing a letter to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1650 when he was urging them to see the error of their alliance with the king.

Cromwell was apparently quite fond of swearing by the bowels of Christ, and used the phrase in a letter in 1635 which is perhaps more apposite to this thread:".... I beseech you therefore in the bowels of Christ Jesus put it forward, and let the good man have his pay." (in a letter to George Storie)

Jesus made poo?

[Aunty]

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeekkkkkkkkkkk. He's stalking me now!

Quick, here's some garlic and a crucifix.

[Aunty]

Jesus made poo?

Beryl Hovelturd may well think so.

Hmm I find these Westerners who want to dominate in Asia very tiresome, they get very uppity when they can't. Has Tesco's been bombed recently?

Oh, dear! From an interview with coup-macher Sonthi, just published on the Nation website:


At an interview with Nation Group editors on Tuesday, the general had some bad news for opponents of Thaksin Shinawatra.

The post-coup investigation so far has uncovered no solid links between the overthrown leader and major corruption scandals.

The shocking admission came at a time when the coup leaders, the Council for National Security (CNS), is trapped between various forces.

Zeeeeniejus, it's just a trap :cyclopsani: :cyclopsani: :cyclopsani: say no more.

Is this just a coincidence or what? Boygenius points out the Homintern isn't posting, and now we find Cottman is back and correcting Homintern's mstakes. As I've said all along, Cottman = Homintern.

Curious? Not really.

Beryl Hovelturd may well think so.Is there no right to privacy on this Forum? Once again my identity has been laid bare by people like Aunty revealing my full name, and boygeenyus (so a correspondent tells me) discussing my tailoring. To set the record straight, I've posted an entry in my Blog - http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/fo ... .php?e=312 (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=312)

Meanwhile a report on Aunty's triumphs at the Ig Nobel Awards has been posted on Aunty's Mensa Moments (Mission Statement: I'm an educated well-read man) - http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/fo ... .php?e=313 (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=313)