Sometimes I’m naive, but I’ll risk other readers’ derision by asking…Is it possible the dog, HMK’s Tong Daeng (sorry if spelt wrong), is seated near HMK because HMK feels comfort in having his trusted, loyal canine constantly by His side during these stressful times? After all, He loves Tong Daeng so much that He’s written books about her. Maybe we’re reading a little too much into the dog’s proximity to her beloved master.
A group of Thai law lecturers have issued their statement against the judgment of 26- 02- 2010. The allegation made by Don is argued in ‘Verdict No 5’. See the group’s overall stament in Thai newspapers like Matichon or Bangkok business (or Prachatai on line).
Take note that Sitthichai, whom Don refered as his informant in a column, was a minister in the Kor Mor Chor appointed Surayut government.
You’re comments make a few assumptions which I think are wrong.
First – you assume that Than Shwe et al really want an end to sanctions. Nothing they have said or done indicates that this is an important goal for them. Why should it be? There are billions in regional investment and trade they could get if they just opened up their economy. They are isolating themselves as much as anything. You can’t bargain with something they don’t really value.
Second – you say engagement hasn’t worked. Well, I would say it’s worked a lot better than sanctions. Sanctions were mean to pressure the SPDC to compromise with ASSK. The result? Zero. So why not push for lifting sanctions? Engagement on the other hand has meant that there are now dozens of international NGOs working with hundreds of Burmese NGOs on issues ranging from emerging aid to Nargis victims to mass vaccination campaigns, to work with HIV/AIDs patients, to disaster preparedness. Tens of thousands of community based groups have been formed. There are now over 1,000 UN staff (mainly Burmese nationals) working with UNICEF, the World Food Programme and others. Thousands of young people are being trained through different NGO and international programmes. There is much better direct access for foreign aid officials and others than anytime in recent years. This is the stuff that’s changing life on the ground. Engagement isn’t the one-day diplomacy that’s in the news. It’s the real life work inside that improves people’s lives.
Third – you mention horror stories about the elections in the media. Anyone who thought the 2010 elections would be free and fair elections is a fool. They dont even happen in Thailand, much less Afghanistan or any other country coming out of conflict and war. ASSK was never going to be allowed to run. Whether this process results in a better government and better policies should be the only test.
StanG excuse on that but if I have to go into detail it would be a 50 pages essay, I’m just make a quick summary here.
Thaksin won the election in Jan 2001, so the Dem was technically still in power in 2001 and in fact the whole concessional fees was pass on into 2001, DTAC although not directly partner with Norwaytelenour but they have brought in many of the technology since the B-T-O (Build-Transfer-Operate) wasnt kind of deal they want to get into, and sorry for the 2002 typo, the 1 and 2 is simply next to each other but you get the point.
Tarrin, there are too many factual errors in your post to consider your narrative seriously. CAT wasn’t set up to establish wireless network, Dtac wasn’t in partnership with Telenor in the 90s, Democrats were not in power in 2001, Thaksin wasn’t elected in 2002 and so on.
Grant Evans, I think this para in his article is pretty much sum it up.
Listening to a TV interview with former ICT Minister Sitthichai Pokai-udom helped summarise the hour-long blurb into a nice, digestible nutshell.
Noting that he actually point to only one sided fact without looking into another, and the history of the industry as a whole.
Anyway, let me tell you a brief history of Thailand communication sector history,
Back in the old day of around 1954 cicra the government has set up a company called TOT to provided Thai citizen with access to telephone line and CAT came after around 1980s to establish the wireless network.
However, the problem in investing wireless network is that the government agencies dont have the “know-how” to do it, moreover they dont have the necessary investment capital to do, so they made the next logical thing to do is to ask for private investment.
On one dare to touch the deal because as you all know, Thailand’s state agency is corrupted and incompetent so not many people dare to make a partnership with them, this due to a ridiculous condition that once the project is complete the ownership of the network will be transfer to the state agency, who in turn, will charge for the concessional fees and furthermore the operator will have to pay for maintainance, to add salt to the injury, foreigners are bar from participate in the bidding due to a legislation passed out earlier regarding the concern about country’s strategic asset being under foreigner control (to sum it up, if you are foreigner, you are not allow to own any of the wireless asset). In the end, any logical investors of the day all stay low and try to ignore the deal until a former policeman turn business man named Thaksin Shinawatra has offered to partner up with the state agency, thus in 1986 a company called Advance Info Service is form under Shin Corp (a computer company). Being a police man with vase network, Thaksin negotiate with the state’s agency to soften the term down so that he can at least make some profit and doesnt make this a investment suicidal run. The detail of the deal is very long but to summarize, AIS will initially pay 5% of revenue to TOT for the concessional fees and then every year (I’m not sure how frequent) the cost will increase to 10% 15% and so on.
As it turn out the business took off, with around less than 1% market penetration initially because the technology is still expensive and not that many people can afford to own a cel-phone, the initial subscription fees excluding phone was around 3,000 baht in 1990 money or close to 6,500 baht a month in today money. DTAC soon join the competition there after by forming partnership with Norwaytelenour. However, DTAC was coming in with different payment scheme, they will have to pay 200 baht up front with shaer of 5% revenue per head and increase subsequently. Due to subscription fees of 3000 baht per head DTAC can compete without much problem because after somewhat more cost, DTAC can still make some profit.
So in 2000 the payment scheme for DTAC and AIS is as follow
AIS – 25% deduct from revenue
DTAC – 200 baht up front and with 25% deduct from whatever left over.
Fast forward, in 1998-99 a break trough came in with the pre-paid business model or the refill-card as we know it. Now the problem came since the current payment scheme set up almost a decade ago doesnt suit with pre-paid business model since a decade ago doesnt quite suitable for the current, so the cost per minute at that time for pre-paid was around 5 baht a minutes so on average the company can charge around 314 baht per user, (according to their 2005 reporthttp://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:uAmNB2ZWSaEJ:www.dtac.co.th/en/download/about/ir/q205resultsrelease.pdf+prepaid+revenue+average+user+thailand+dtac&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=au). The market penetration for cel-phone still less than 10% then. Moreover, stiff competition made the price decline to around 1000 baht per head in 2001. If the concessional fees from post-paid to pre-paid, DTAC simply dont stand a chance
DTAC feeling like they are unable to compete, file complain to the government (noted that the Democrat government is about to end the term and Thaksin is about to be elect) so the Democrat government was toying with changing the concessional fees in 2001. After Thaksin got elected in 2002, he look into this matter and couple with plan to privatize TOT and CAT, it is unfair to both AIS and DTAC and any new comer to compete with the new private own TOT under the condition set a decade ago.
So finally after a long debate and plan draw the government finally pass the new policy regarding the concessional fees AIS now pay 20% to TOT and the rest of 5% will be tax in form of income tax directly to the ministry of similarly with DTAC who now pay 18% and no longer has to pay TOT the 200 baht up front. Under the new deal the TOT revenue jump from a measly 34 million baht to a whooping 9 billion due to a jump in revenue due to lower price from the new concessional fee scheme.
now back to the article,
Sitthichai explained that it changed the game on three major fronts. Firstly, while it was supposed to be leveled across the entire industry, for some reason Shin Satellite was left out and did not have to pay or recalculate the excise tax.
I think he might just say it wrongly but Shin Sat is not a wireless operator so they are not obligated to the same concessional fees. However, if he talked about AIS then no, AIS paid the same fees as DTAC. (or he just simply lied since the pro coup leader has not a single motivation to say anything that might benefit Thaksin anyway)
Secondly, while it did not affect the three major telcos, AIS, Dtac and TrueMove, as they simply deducted the amount of excise tax from the revenue share they were to pay to ToT and CAT, respectively, it did have a big effect on ToT and CAT’s operations themselves. In other words, the private sector under concession simply had to do some creative accounting but CAT and TOT had to pay the tax for real, putting them at a disadvantage.
By reading this you should know the stance of the writer and the incompetent of TOT and CAT. Anyway, if you read what I’ve written up there, you would know that TOT and CAT is simply leech out the money from the telcos, they are not doing the wireless business per-se, they are not competing with the telco, they simply let the telco invest, then they took over the asset that the celcos “invested” and leech on the asset, so this “disadvantage” is somewhat puzzling since TOT and CAT is not even competing with telco.
Thirdly – and most importantly – the excise tax was central into propping up Shincorp’s shares during the Thaksin era.
Ok I’m not sure what’s he’s smoking here, Shin stock had appreciate around 150% from 2002 to 2006 while the SET index appreciate at whooping 175%. To say, the whole thing increase the price of Shin, then how about DTAC? True???
Last note on Orange, Orange quit the market not because they are in disadvantage or afraid of AIS, but its about this law that past along in the 80s, if about Strategic asset, yep Orange found that the indirect cost of operation in Thailand is simply too much to bare so they decided to left, not because they are in disadvantage. Ironically, if they would wait out until the new concessional fees policy came in, they would be able to compete no problem.
Anyway, I hope that answer to all of his assertive points.
The point of my reply was that it was not Don’s analysis. He was repeating an account by a minister in the junta’s government, who I believe also provided evidence to the court for the prosecution.
Note the dog’s expression of proud disregard. Absolutely no inclination to betray his family’s dignity and superiority by slobbering in the kow-towing Prime Minister’s ear.
IMHO, the “constructive engagement approach” with the SLORC/SPDC junta has zero probability of success and the evidence to date has amply demonstrated this. They are just playing Senator Jim Webb and everyone else associated with this strategy for a bunch of suckers and fools. The simple fact is they are being extremely inflexible and have offered nothing of substance at the bargaining table. Than Shwe needs to give the West some reason or excuse to lift the sanctions, but thus far nothing has been forthcoming. Worse still, everyday there is another horror story in the international press about how rigged and unfair the 2010 elections will be (the date for which is still to be announced).
Grant Evans might have noted, as Don Sambandaraksa does in his article (http://www.bangkokpost.com/tech/techscoop/34208/the-fallout-from-thaksin-judgement-day-and-how-it-affects-thailand-telcos), that Don is citing an explanation he gleaned by “Listening to a TV interview with former ICT Minister Sitthichai Pokai-udom helped summarise the hour-long blurb into a nice, digestible nutshell.” He was a minister appointed by the junta’s government led by General Surayud. Interesting background about him at Wikipedia.
[…] and here) and (iv) attack the opposition coalition, especially Anwar Ibrahim relentlessly (read here) . Najib has now managed to overthrow a legitimately elected opposition government illegitimately […]
Tarrin, why is it possible for many other countries that have laws preventing similar conflicts of interest to attract some capable people into politics? And why is Thailand an exception so that only “those useless homeless people from the street”, as you so charmingly refer to your fellow human beings, would be qualified? There seems to be a gap in your logic here.
Since both of your paragraph is pretty much deal with the directorship, conflict of interest and about the asset declaration so I’m just going to sum it up because I’m too tired.
First lets take a look at Article 1 of the united state constitution, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution
Why its important? because it states the due process and requirement for someone who can be eligible to be elected. Now, here why the US can attract so many talented and capable people and why I assumed that Thailand can only afford a useless bum. it waas because the US there is not a single line in the article about qualification that said “you can’t own more than 5% share in any public company” all they asked to do is “please you have a $300,000 salary so you are not suppose to take anymore from other state agency and please declare you asset” so a pretty good indicator of whether someone is good to run a executive branch? he better be able to run a good company, so by saying “you can’t own 5% shares in any company” is almost like saying if you are rich or successful, you better stay away from politic, that’s why I say under the current constitution we can get only bum to run the country. Let me know if you have any further argument, I’m willing to response promptly.
Patiwat, they are select among themselves so, at least that is what they are saying, so a would assume that its more like select a class representative. Btw, you will not see this kind of process anywhere in the world, its made in Thailand indeed.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thai style democracy?
Sometimes I’m naive, but I’ll risk other readers’ derision by asking…Is it possible the dog, HMK’s Tong Daeng (sorry if spelt wrong), is seated near HMK because HMK feels comfort in having his trusted, loyal canine constantly by His side during these stressful times? After all, He loves Tong Daeng so much that He’s written books about her. Maybe we’re reading a little too much into the dog’s proximity to her beloved master.
Making sense of the verdict
Grant Evans,
A group of Thai law lecturers have issued their statement against the judgment of 26- 02- 2010. The allegation made by Don is argued in ‘Verdict No 5’. See the group’s overall stament in Thai newspapers like Matichon or Bangkok business (or Prachatai on line).
Take note that Sitthichai, whom Don refered as his informant in a column, was a minister in the Kor Mor Chor appointed Surayut government.
Never-ending Burma debate
Arthurson –
You’re comments make a few assumptions which I think are wrong.
First – you assume that Than Shwe et al really want an end to sanctions. Nothing they have said or done indicates that this is an important goal for them. Why should it be? There are billions in regional investment and trade they could get if they just opened up their economy. They are isolating themselves as much as anything. You can’t bargain with something they don’t really value.
Second – you say engagement hasn’t worked. Well, I would say it’s worked a lot better than sanctions. Sanctions were mean to pressure the SPDC to compromise with ASSK. The result? Zero. So why not push for lifting sanctions? Engagement on the other hand has meant that there are now dozens of international NGOs working with hundreds of Burmese NGOs on issues ranging from emerging aid to Nargis victims to mass vaccination campaigns, to work with HIV/AIDs patients, to disaster preparedness. Tens of thousands of community based groups have been formed. There are now over 1,000 UN staff (mainly Burmese nationals) working with UNICEF, the World Food Programme and others. Thousands of young people are being trained through different NGO and international programmes. There is much better direct access for foreign aid officials and others than anytime in recent years. This is the stuff that’s changing life on the ground. Engagement isn’t the one-day diplomacy that’s in the news. It’s the real life work inside that improves people’s lives.
Third – you mention horror stories about the elections in the media. Anyone who thought the 2010 elections would be free and fair elections is a fool. They dont even happen in Thailand, much less Afghanistan or any other country coming out of conflict and war. ASSK was never going to be allowed to run. Whether this process results in a better government and better policies should be the only test.
Thai style democracy?
The carpet is red for a reason!
Making sense of the verdict
StanG excuse on that but if I have to go into detail it would be a 50 pages essay, I’m just make a quick summary here.
Thaksin won the election in Jan 2001, so the Dem was technically still in power in 2001 and in fact the whole concessional fees was pass on into 2001, DTAC although not directly partner with Norwaytelenour but they have brought in many of the technology since the B-T-O (Build-Transfer-Operate) wasnt kind of deal they want to get into, and sorry for the 2002 typo, the 1 and 2 is simply next to each other but you get the point.
Making sense of the verdict
Tarrin, there are too many factual errors in your post to consider your narrative seriously. CAT wasn’t set up to establish wireless network, Dtac wasn’t in partnership with Telenor in the 90s, Democrats were not in power in 2001, Thaksin wasn’t elected in 2002 and so on.
Thai style democracy?
There are no accidents at the Palace.
The dog was in that spot for a reason.
Making sense of the verdict
Oh sorry I didnt see the link initially.
Grant Evans, I think this para in his article is pretty much sum it up.
Listening to a TV interview with former ICT Minister Sitthichai Pokai-udom helped summarise the hour-long blurb into a nice, digestible nutshell.
Noting that he actually point to only one sided fact without looking into another, and the history of the industry as a whole.
Anyway, let me tell you a brief history of Thailand communication sector history,
Back in the old day of around 1954 cicra the government has set up a company called TOT to provided Thai citizen with access to telephone line and CAT came after around 1980s to establish the wireless network.
However, the problem in investing wireless network is that the government agencies dont have the “know-how” to do it, moreover they dont have the necessary investment capital to do, so they made the next logical thing to do is to ask for private investment.
On one dare to touch the deal because as you all know, Thailand’s state agency is corrupted and incompetent so not many people dare to make a partnership with them, this due to a ridiculous condition that once the project is complete the ownership of the network will be transfer to the state agency, who in turn, will charge for the concessional fees and furthermore the operator will have to pay for maintainance, to add salt to the injury, foreigners are bar from participate in the bidding due to a legislation passed out earlier regarding the concern about country’s strategic asset being under foreigner control (to sum it up, if you are foreigner, you are not allow to own any of the wireless asset). In the end, any logical investors of the day all stay low and try to ignore the deal until a former policeman turn business man named Thaksin Shinawatra has offered to partner up with the state agency, thus in 1986 a company called Advance Info Service is form under Shin Corp (a computer company). Being a police man with vase network, Thaksin negotiate with the state’s agency to soften the term down so that he can at least make some profit and doesnt make this a investment suicidal run. The detail of the deal is very long but to summarize, AIS will initially pay 5% of revenue to TOT for the concessional fees and then every year (I’m not sure how frequent) the cost will increase to 10% 15% and so on.
As it turn out the business took off, with around less than 1% market penetration initially because the technology is still expensive and not that many people can afford to own a cel-phone, the initial subscription fees excluding phone was around 3,000 baht in 1990 money or close to 6,500 baht a month in today money. DTAC soon join the competition there after by forming partnership with Norwaytelenour. However, DTAC was coming in with different payment scheme, they will have to pay 200 baht up front with shaer of 5% revenue per head and increase subsequently. Due to subscription fees of 3000 baht per head DTAC can compete without much problem because after somewhat more cost, DTAC can still make some profit.
So in 2000 the payment scheme for DTAC and AIS is as follow
AIS – 25% deduct from revenue
DTAC – 200 baht up front and with 25% deduct from whatever left over.
Fast forward, in 1998-99 a break trough came in with the pre-paid business model or the refill-card as we know it. Now the problem came since the current payment scheme set up almost a decade ago doesnt suit with pre-paid business model since a decade ago doesnt quite suitable for the current, so the cost per minute at that time for pre-paid was around 5 baht a minutes so on average the company can charge around 314 baht per user, (according to their 2005 reporthttp://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:uAmNB2ZWSaEJ:www.dtac.co.th/en/download/about/ir/q205resultsrelease.pdf+prepaid+revenue+average+user+thailand+dtac&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=au). The market penetration for cel-phone still less than 10% then. Moreover, stiff competition made the price decline to around 1000 baht per head in 2001. If the concessional fees from post-paid to pre-paid, DTAC simply dont stand a chance
DTAC feeling like they are unable to compete, file complain to the government (noted that the Democrat government is about to end the term and Thaksin is about to be elect) so the Democrat government was toying with changing the concessional fees in 2001. After Thaksin got elected in 2002, he look into this matter and couple with plan to privatize TOT and CAT, it is unfair to both AIS and DTAC and any new comer to compete with the new private own TOT under the condition set a decade ago.
So finally after a long debate and plan draw the government finally pass the new policy regarding the concessional fees AIS now pay 20% to TOT and the rest of 5% will be tax in form of income tax directly to the ministry of similarly with DTAC who now pay 18% and no longer has to pay TOT the 200 baht up front. Under the new deal the TOT revenue jump from a measly 34 million baht to a whooping 9 billion due to a jump in revenue due to lower price from the new concessional fee scheme.
now back to the article,
Sitthichai explained that it changed the game on three major fronts. Firstly, while it was supposed to be leveled across the entire industry, for some reason Shin Satellite was left out and did not have to pay or recalculate the excise tax.
I think he might just say it wrongly but Shin Sat is not a wireless operator so they are not obligated to the same concessional fees. However, if he talked about AIS then no, AIS paid the same fees as DTAC. (or he just simply lied since the pro coup leader has not a single motivation to say anything that might benefit Thaksin anyway)
Secondly, while it did not affect the three major telcos, AIS, Dtac and TrueMove, as they simply deducted the amount of excise tax from the revenue share they were to pay to ToT and CAT, respectively, it did have a big effect on ToT and CAT’s operations themselves. In other words, the private sector under concession simply had to do some creative accounting but CAT and TOT had to pay the tax for real, putting them at a disadvantage.
By reading this you should know the stance of the writer and the incompetent of TOT and CAT. Anyway, if you read what I’ve written up there, you would know that TOT and CAT is simply leech out the money from the telcos, they are not doing the wireless business per-se, they are not competing with the telco, they simply let the telco invest, then they took over the asset that the celcos “invested” and leech on the asset, so this “disadvantage” is somewhat puzzling since TOT and CAT is not even competing with telco.
Thirdly – and most importantly – the excise tax was central into propping up Shincorp’s shares during the Thaksin era.
Ok I’m not sure what’s he’s smoking here, Shin stock had appreciate around 150% from 2002 to 2006 while the SET index appreciate at whooping 175%. To say, the whole thing increase the price of Shin, then how about DTAC? True???
Last note on Orange, Orange quit the market not because they are in disadvantage or afraid of AIS, but its about this law that past along in the 80s, if about Strategic asset, yep Orange found that the indirect cost of operation in Thailand is simply too much to bare so they decided to left, not because they are in disadvantage. Ironically, if they would wait out until the new concessional fees policy came in, they would be able to compete no problem.
Anyway, I hope that answer to all of his assertive points.
Making sense of the verdict
The point of my reply was that it was not Don’s analysis. He was repeating an account by a minister in the junta’s government, who I believe also provided evidence to the court for the prosecution.
Thai style democracy?
Note the dog’s expression of proud disregard. Absolutely no inclination to betray his family’s dignity and superiority by slobbering in the kow-towing Prime Minister’s ear.
Making sense of the verdict
Grant Evans can you please give a quote or a link to his article so we can address his “substantive points”?
Editor (NSF): Tarrin, the relevant piece is available here.
Thai style democracy?
Yeah the irony eh?
Thai style democracy?
Yes.
Never-ending Burma debate
IMHO, the “constructive engagement approach” with the SLORC/SPDC junta has zero probability of success and the evidence to date has amply demonstrated this. They are just playing Senator Jim Webb and everyone else associated with this strategy for a bunch of suckers and fools. The simple fact is they are being extremely inflexible and have offered nothing of substance at the bargaining table. Than Shwe needs to give the West some reason or excuse to lift the sanctions, but thus far nothing has been forthcoming. Worse still, everyday there is another horror story in the international press about how rigged and unfair the 2010 elections will be (the date for which is still to be announced).
Making sense of the verdict
I must confess that I know nothing about Mr Don. However, the replies do not address his substantive points.
Making sense of the verdict
Grant Evans might have noted, as Don Sambandaraksa does in his article (http://www.bangkokpost.com/tech/techscoop/34208/the-fallout-from-thaksin-judgement-day-and-how-it-affects-thailand-telcos), that Don is citing an explanation he gleaned by “Listening to a TV interview with former ICT Minister Sitthichai Pokai-udom helped summarise the hour-long blurb into a nice, digestible nutshell.” He was a minister appointed by the junta’s government led by General Surayud. Interesting background about him at Wikipedia.
Comment on Burma’s election law
Why will aspects of the election laws be announced progressively? Why not release them all at once?
Two years after 8 March 2008
[…] post first appeared in The New Mandala Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)A year later, Guan Eng soldiers onLessons of the […]
Malaysia on Trial – Really?
[…] and here) and (iv) attack the opposition coalition, especially Anwar Ibrahim relentlessly (read here) . Najib has now managed to overthrow a legitimately elected opposition government illegitimately […]
Making sense of the verdict
Since both of your paragraph is pretty much deal with the directorship, conflict of interest and about the asset declaration so I’m just going to sum it up because I’m too tired.
First lets take a look at Article 1 of the united state constitution,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution
Why its important? because it states the due process and requirement for someone who can be eligible to be elected. Now, here why the US can attract so many talented and capable people and why I assumed that Thailand can only afford a useless bum. it waas because the US there is not a single line in the article about qualification that said “you can’t own more than 5% share in any public company” all they asked to do is “please you have a $300,000 salary so you are not suppose to take anymore from other state agency and please declare you asset” so a pretty good indicator of whether someone is good to run a executive branch? he better be able to run a good company, so by saying “you can’t own 5% shares in any company” is almost like saying if you are rich or successful, you better stay away from politic, that’s why I say under the current constitution we can get only bum to run the country. Let me know if you have any further argument, I’m willing to response promptly.
Patiwat, they are select among themselves so, at least that is what they are saying, so a would assume that its more like select a class representative. Btw, you will not see this kind of process anywhere in the world, its made in Thailand indeed.