Worth 35 Billion U.S. Dollars the guy is rich, rich, rich.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080821/en_af...lthpeopleroyals
0
Thai king world's wealthiest royal: Forbes
Started by tomfin, Aug 22 2008 11:09 AM
4 replies to this topic
#2
-
- Members
-
- 1,689 posts
Veteran
Posted 22 August 2008 - 04:25 PM
I guess we know now what that sufficiency thing was all about.
Hehehe....
Hehehe....
#3
-
- Members
-
- 3,744 posts
Veteran
Posted 23 August 2008 - 10:06 AM
You can add "touchy, touchy" to that sufficiency thing:
"A report in Forbes magazine on the world’s richest royals, which ranked His Majesty the King as the world’s richest monarch with an estimated fortune of US$35 billion, or about 1.1 trillion baht, is inaccurate and inconsistent, according to the Crown Property Bureau.
The Foreign Ministry yesterday released a statement saying the report published by Forbes on Aug 20, which ranked His Majesty as the world’s wealthiest monarch, was incorrect.
The ministry quoted the Crown Property Bureau as saying the report was inaccurate and inconsistent. While the report states that some items are not considered to belong to the King and as such were not counted in the monarch’s net worth, Forbes included land and other assets belonging to the Crown Property Bureau, which is not part of His Majesty’s personal net worth. . .
The Foreign Ministry added that the report’s reference to His Majesty the King and the 2006 military coup was also incorrect. The King had no role in the military intervention that took place in September 2006.
As the head of state, according to the constitution, royal assent is required for important matters of state. The King’s royal assent by signature to the order appointing the chairman of the Council for Democratic Reform was a pro forma exercise of functions assigned to a constitutional monarch."
http://www.bangkokpost.com/topstories/tops...s.php?id=129855
"A report in Forbes magazine on the world’s richest royals, which ranked His Majesty the King as the world’s richest monarch with an estimated fortune of US$35 billion, or about 1.1 trillion baht, is inaccurate and inconsistent, according to the Crown Property Bureau.
The Foreign Ministry yesterday released a statement saying the report published by Forbes on Aug 20, which ranked His Majesty as the world’s wealthiest monarch, was incorrect.
The ministry quoted the Crown Property Bureau as saying the report was inaccurate and inconsistent. While the report states that some items are not considered to belong to the King and as such were not counted in the monarch’s net worth, Forbes included land and other assets belonging to the Crown Property Bureau, which is not part of His Majesty’s personal net worth. . .
The Foreign Ministry added that the report’s reference to His Majesty the King and the 2006 military coup was also incorrect. The King had no role in the military intervention that took place in September 2006.
As the head of state, according to the constitution, royal assent is required for important matters of state. The King’s royal assent by signature to the order appointing the chairman of the Council for Democratic Reform was a pro forma exercise of functions assigned to a constitutional monarch."
http://www.bangkokpost.com/topstories/tops...s.php?id=129855
#4
-
- Members
-
- 1,962 posts
Veteran
Posted 24 August 2008 - 03:26 PM
"A Forbes magazine report that lists Thailand's king as the world's richest royal is "inaccurate and inconsistent" because it includes vast property holdings as part of his net worth, the Thai foreign ministry said. . .
But the Ministry of Foreign Affairs disputed those calculations. It argued the report was wrong because it included land and other assets "belonging to the Crown Property Bureau that are not part of the king's net worth."
"The Crown Property Bureau has clarified that the report is inaccurate and inconsistent," the ministry said in a statement Friday. It said the Crown Property Bureau is an institution "which essentially belongs to all Thais" that owns and manages the assets of the monarchy, and the assets are not the personal wealth of the king, The Nation newspaper said.
The ministry did not say what the king's net worth was.
The Crown Property Bureau has vast land holdings across the country and is one of the largest property owners in Bangkok. It also has a stake in industry heavy-hitters Siam Cement and Siam Commercial Bank. . .
The Forbes report was widely panned in Thailand, where the king is generally revered and criticizing him is a crime. . .
"Stop (releasing) social junk, especially when you write about foreign countries," a reader identified as King of King Reverer wrote on the Forbes Web site in response to the article. The "Thai King is not the wealthiest king in the world. Please do proper research. He's the only king in the world who (gives) the most he could to all Thais."
In Thai Internet discussion groups, most people criticized the report and used the opportunity to praise the king. "How much wealth (the king) has is irrelevant and meaningless," one reader identified as Thai Texan wrote on Pantip.com, one of the country's leading Internet discussion sites. "I'm sure the king cares for the well-being of his people."
The closest anyone came to criticizing the king's wealth was an anonymous reader who posted a link to the country's Finance Ministry Web site in response to a suggestion that the monarchy doesn't receive taxpayer money. It showed that Thai taxpayers contribute 2 billion baht (US$59 million) each year to the monarchy."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/23/...ichest-King.php
But the Ministry of Foreign Affairs disputed those calculations. It argued the report was wrong because it included land and other assets "belonging to the Crown Property Bureau that are not part of the king's net worth."
"The Crown Property Bureau has clarified that the report is inaccurate and inconsistent," the ministry said in a statement Friday. It said the Crown Property Bureau is an institution "which essentially belongs to all Thais" that owns and manages the assets of the monarchy, and the assets are not the personal wealth of the king, The Nation newspaper said.
The ministry did not say what the king's net worth was.
The Crown Property Bureau has vast land holdings across the country and is one of the largest property owners in Bangkok. It also has a stake in industry heavy-hitters Siam Cement and Siam Commercial Bank. . .
The Forbes report was widely panned in Thailand, where the king is generally revered and criticizing him is a crime. . .
"Stop (releasing) social junk, especially when you write about foreign countries," a reader identified as King of King Reverer wrote on the Forbes Web site in response to the article. The "Thai King is not the wealthiest king in the world. Please do proper research. He's the only king in the world who (gives) the most he could to all Thais."
In Thai Internet discussion groups, most people criticized the report and used the opportunity to praise the king. "How much wealth (the king) has is irrelevant and meaningless," one reader identified as Thai Texan wrote on Pantip.com, one of the country's leading Internet discussion sites. "I'm sure the king cares for the well-being of his people."
The closest anyone came to criticizing the king's wealth was an anonymous reader who posted a link to the country's Finance Ministry Web site in response to a suggestion that the monarchy doesn't receive taxpayer money. It showed that Thai taxpayers contribute 2 billion baht (US$59 million) each year to the monarchy."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/23/...ichest-King.php
#5
-
- Members
-
- 496 posts
Veteran
Posted 24 August 2008 - 03:49 PM
One of the things discussed in the Handley book you can't buy in Thailand is the confusion that has existed in Thailand since 1932 when the absolute monarchy was ended and confusion mounted over what property belonged to the monarch personally and what belonged to the State. It seems that the Crown Property Bureau itself has been subject to conflicting views on who owns what and in what legal capacity, from 1932 up to the present day.
My guess is that the Thais would not have reacted so negatively to the Forbes article but for this comment: "While the crown remains technically separate from state, the king exerts enormous influence and is thought to have given his implicit blessing to the 2006 coup that overthrew former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra."
http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/20/worlds-ri...thisspeed=25000
My guess is that the Thais would not have reacted so negatively to the Forbes article but for this comment: "While the crown remains technically separate from state, the king exerts enormous influence and is thought to have given his implicit blessing to the 2006 coup that overthrew former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra."
http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/20/worlds-ri...thisspeed=25000
