EDITORIAL: Generous bail-out for the private sector

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

Generous bail-out for the private sector

By The Nation

 

The government is squandering taxpayers’ money to assist telecom firms and digital TV operators

 

The Prayut government has unduly but magnanimously rewarded the private sector by approving multibillion-baht debt moratoriums and generous payment terms for costly licence fees currently owed by digital TV broadcasting and telecom companies.

 

In the broadcasting sector, all 24 digital TV licensees are entitled to apply for shielding under the three-year debt moratorium after encountering financial troubles. During this period, they will be required to pay a relatively low interest rate of 1.5 per cent per annum on the amounts owed to the government. In the telecom sector, AIS and True are the two beneficiaries of the government’s largesse, despite having bid up the prices for the spectrum to be used for cellular mobile services. 

 

Both packages to help telecom and broadcasting firms need approval by Cabinet as well as National Council for Peace and Order, since the Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has to exercise his sweeping power under Article 44 of the charter to implement the measures.

 

The Central Administrative Court earlier ruled that the National Broadcasting and Telecom Commission (NBTC) had failed to fully implement supportive measures during the transition from analog to digital TV, as promised before it took bids for digital TV licences. This resulted in business challenges for those winning the licences, after fewer viewers than expected tuned in to watch the new digital TV channels. As a result, licensees could not generate enough advertising and other revenues to stay afloat during the past two or three years.

 

The court’s ruling is probably the only sound rationale supporting the government’s measures to help digital TV licensees, though proponents of the aid package have also cited rapid technological changes and an oversupply of digital operators as other key factors hindering the industry.

 

After all, there is no sound reason for the government to use taxpayers’ money to help private firms that are in trouble because they misjudged the direction of new tech trends, which in this case took the form of rapid adoption of social media and streaming technology.

 

As to the oversupply of operators, it is also unreasonable to argue that there are too many digital TV channels and competition is too fierce, since all licensees were clearly aware from the outset that there would be at least two dozen newcomers vying for viewers.

 

However, the aid package for both AIS and True is probably worse in the context that it is not the government’s business to bail out private telecom giants that have made miscalculations in business and investments. Both bid up the licence fees for its spectrum to a record high and ended up owing the government several tens of billion baht. 

 

Based on an annual interest charge of 1.5 per cent per annum, the telecom giants will gain enormously, since they will be allowed to spread out the payment of their last major instalments of a combined Bt64 billion over a period of five years. True was obviously aware from the beginning what it was doing when bidding for the additional 4G telecom spectrum. For AIS, the situation was slightly different, since it did not win the spectrum but was later encouraged by the NBTC to take it after another bid winner backed out.

 

And yet, when market interest rates are taken into consideration, the two firms will save an enormous amount of money from the government’s generous aid package.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/opinion/30341528

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-03-23

[Samui Bodoh]

This editorial exemplifies Thailand in a nutshell.

 

On one hand, the military government and a bunch of rich people screwed up on a business deal and are using public monies to bail themselves out, contrary to market mechanisms and without any accountability or repercussions.

 

On the other hand, the monies promised for the AIDS patient, the destitute elderly, the wheelchair-bound and others are stolen on an industrial scale and only ever so slowly are the details emerging. Few people, myself included, really believe that there will ever be fair accounting or responsibility taken.

 

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The phenomena isn't unique to Thailand, one might argue that it is prevalent in every country in the world.

 

What IS unique to Thailand is the sheer scale, the indifference to the 'rights and wrongs' of the matter, and the shamelessness. 

 

It breaks my heart to see how the poor and needy are treated here.

 

Edited March 22, 2018 by Samui Bodoh
Lack of coffee

[YetAnother]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

n the context that it is not the government’s business

an important question that should be asked often: is {xyz issue} the business of government generally and the business of this government

[Sealbash]

Many countries provide some type of government subsidies to certain industries. In this case, it will be of benefit to the entire country to have updated communications systems. The OP appears to have a quite limited understanding of business practices.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Anak Nakal]

Rich people make bet, lose, cry to Mama

 

Pigs!

[RichardColeman]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

The government is squandering taxpayers’ money to assist telecom firms and digital TV operators

Own the media, control the media

[Samui Bodoh]

5 hours ago, Sealbash said:

Many countries provide some type of government subsidies to certain industries. In this case, it will be of benefit to the entire country to have updated communications systems. The OP appears to have a quite limited understanding of business practices.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

Respectfully, I do have an understanding of business practices. And, this may surprise you, I agree that there are times when it is in a country's interest to use public monies as a strategic investment to enhance certain key areas of the economy. Case in point; Thailand needs to upgrade its immigration facilities and capacities in its airports to enhance its tourism sector. And yes, perhaps a re-think of the communications sector is in order as well.

 

I believe that it is you who doesn't understand the situation in Thailand. In this particular case, you had a military government with limited capabilities and knowledge in the telecommunication(s) sector. You had a regulatory body made up of cronies appointed by said military government rather than true experts acting on behalf of the Thai people. And you had investors who live in a climate whereby 'who you know' matters more than whether or not it is a good investment.

 

To sum up; It was a giant clusterf***.

 

I see no reason why all these rich connected people should get sweetheart deals from the Junta using the extraordinary power of Article 44. 

 

As you seem not to agree, perhaps you could make the case?

 

Looking forward to it...

 

Edited March 23, 2018 by Samui Bodoh
Lack of coffee

[Srikcir]

8 hours ago, Sealbash said:

Many countries provide some type of government subsidies to certain industries. In this case, it will be of benefit to the entire country to have updated communications systems. The OP appears to have a quite limited understanding of business practices.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

What you seem to not understand is

10 hours ago, webfact said:

the Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha has to exercise his sweeping power under Article 44 of the charter to implement the measures

because otherwise:

10 hours ago, webfact said:

there is no sound reason for the government to use taxpayers’ money to help private firms that are in trouble because they misjudged the direction of new tech trends, which in this case took the form of rapid adoption of social media and streaming technology.

What "many countries" have a Head of Government (ie., prime minister or president) that can override laws using absolute power to provide what you call "subsidies?"

[baboon]

2 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Respectfully, I do have an understanding of business practices. And, this may surprise you, I agree that there are times when it is in a country's interest to use public monies as a strategic investment to enhance certain key areas of the economy. Case in point; Thailand needs to upgrade its immigration facilities and capacities in its airports to enhance its tourism sector. And yes, perhaps a re-think of the communications sector is in order as well.

 

I believe that it is you who doesn't understand the situation in Thailand. In this particular case, you had a military government with limited capabilities and knowledge in the telecommunication(s) sector. You had a regulatory body made up of cronies appointed by said military government rather than true experts acting on behalf of the Thai people. And you had investors who live in a climate whereby 'who you know' matters more than whether or not it is a good investment.

 

To sum up; It was a giant clusterf***.

 

I see no reason why all these rich connected people should get sweetheart deals from the Junta using the extraordinary power of Article 44. 

 

As you seem not to agree, perhaps you could make the case?

 

Looking forward to it...

 

I am going to take a wild shot in the dark here and guess that when these private businesses start to make a profit, the public who bailed them out will not see a penny of it.

It's funny how these companies are not labelled 'bums' and 'welfare scroungers' the way the rest of us seem to be these days when we fall on hard times...

[Jonmarleesco]

On 3/23/2018 at 4:56 AM, webfact said:

when market interest rates are taken into consideration, the two firms will save an enormous amount of money from the government’s taxpayer's involuntary largesse. generous aid package.

A lot like the 2008> bank bail outs: the more incompetent the morons in charge, the more likely that their businesses will be bailed out by taxpayers' hard earned cash. Of course, that can equally apply to the government.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Jonmarleesco