jacknorman Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 what about Telenor, the Norwegian government owns about 70% of DTAC? Shareholder Structure Shareholders Stake in DTAC UCOM 43.1% Telenor Asia 32.6% Free Float 16.1% Other Thai 8.2% (as of December 31, 2006 Jack Norway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John1012 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Does the Thai government live in the real world? It seems that Thailand is slowly reverting to an industrialised protectionist banana republic, if a commodity is sold, legally, then it is the property of the buyer. If the buyer refuses to sell the assets , then what can be done. Thailand can only go to an INTERNATIONAL tribunal, that won't give a rat's arse for face, or dignity (as the Thai engineers put it), but only take into account facts. Does Thailand want to be a trader in the world market?. If so then the Thai nation better start trying to live equally with the other developed nations and treat foreigners the same way as Thai's are treated when abroad. Is there a law in Europe stopping a Thai passport holder from owning a company or land? Maybe the EU commision should implement one, and force any Thais who do not have a European partner owning 51% to sell within 180 days. Anyway , why does Thailand need such a large army? Is it to close the borders with Burma,to stop the influx of drugs, not working. To control the islamist problem in southern Thailand, not working? So that a lot of puffed up people can wear medals and dominate the rest of society, that seems to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blaze Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 what about Telenor, the Norwegian government owns about 70% of DTAC? Shareholder Structure Shareholders Stake in DTAC UCOM 43.1% Telenor Asia 32.6% Free Float 16.1% Other Thai 8.2% (as of December 31, 2006 Jack Norway I think Telnor owns more than that: "Telenor Asia, a wholly owned subsidiary of Norway's largest telecom service provider Telenor, holds a 32.9 per cent stake in Total Access Communication (DTAC), one of the leading telecom service providers in Thailand. Telenor Asia also has a 25 per cent stake in DTAC's parent, United Communication Industry (Ucom), and owns 49 per cent of Thai Telco Holdings, which controls 61 per cent of Ucom." (from http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article-sout...parentid=43737) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tijnebijn Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Just let the next cabinet deside what to do,i do not think the thai want to make another misstep to make any decisions what the former cabinet made.The men in power should just be common sense and let the peace come back in the country and let real politicians make the decisions what is the best for the country,for them just go back to play wargames on the field,that is the best what they can do and what they are trained for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimdog Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 what about Telenor, the Norwegian government owns about 70% of DTAC? Shareholder Structure Shareholders Stake in DTAC UCOM 43.1% Telenor Asia 32.6% Free Float 16.1% Other Thai 8.2% (as of December 31, 2006 Jack Norway Thai Telco put on the marriage market Telenor said on the lookout for likely local talent Telenor is seeking local partners for Thai Telco Holdings, which is a part owner of United Communication Industry Plc, a source close to Ucom shareholders said last week. "The potential buyers can be local financial institutions or [other] serious investors," the source said. The Norwegian telecom giant hopes that a new local shareholders would make Ucom safe from the controversy surrounding foreign nominees. Thai Telco is among 13 companies under investigation by a Commerce Ministry committee for possibly violating the foreign business law by acting as nominees for foreign investors. The probe started with Kularb Kaew, Cedar Holdings, Aspen Holdings and Cypress Holdings, all of which were directly or indirectly involved in the takeover of Shin Corp in January by Singapore's Temasek Holdings. The government decided to expand the investigation because it came under public pressure to treat all companies with questionable ownership fairly. In the year 2000, Telenor bought 24.8 per cent of Ucom and 30 per cent of DTAC through its subsidiary Telenor Asia. DTAC has been the main rival to AIS, the leader in the cellular market. Last October, Telenor increased its stake in its local partnerships in a complex series of transactions that saw Thai Telco Holdings, Telenor Asia's 49-per-cent-owned affiliate, buying 39.9 per cent of Ucom in a deal worth Bt9.2 billion. Thai Telco now owns 42.4 per cent of Ucom, while Telenor Asia holds 47 per cent. Ucom owns 43.1 per cent of DTAC, while Telenor Asia owns 32.6 per cent. The foreign business and telecom laws cap foreign shareholdings in telecoms at 49 per cent. A company defined as a nominee for foreign interests could face a fine or imprisonment. DTAC chief executive Sigve Brekke said the Singapore-listed telecom would list on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) in the middle of next year as part of its dual-listing plan. DTAC plans to float 44.4 million shares in a public offering, of which 16.4 million new shares will come from DTAC and 28 million shares from Ucom. After that Ucom will be delisted from the SET. Ucom reported to the SET that the 28 million common shares were equivalent to 6.11 per cent of DTAC's total shares and are worth about Bt4.2 billion. source: http://eng.ntc.or.th/index.php?option=com_...7&Itemid=22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livinginexile Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 If is easy for Thailand to get its assets back. Since all profits are derived from Thailand, all they have to do is tax all monies from telecom businesses that leave Thailand at a 50% or higher rate. Singapore would be more than willing to sell the assets back without taking a loss because if they don't, Thailand could tighten the rules more until Thailand gets all the profits and is unwilling to buy the assets at the original price. Oh thats intelligent!....Should Singapore tax all Thailands investments in Singapore too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Livinginexile Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Does the Thai government live in the real world? It seems that Thailand is slowly reverting to an industrialised protectionist banana republic, if a commodity is sold, legally, then it is the property of the buyer. If the buyer refuses to sell the assets , then what can be done. Thailand can only go to an INTERNATIONAL tribunal, that won't give a rat's arse for face, or dignity (as the Thai engineers put it), but only take into account facts. Does Thailand want to be a trader in the world market?. If so then the Thai nation better start trying to live equally with the other developed nations and treat foreigners the same way as Thai's are treated when abroad. Is there a law in Europe stopping a Thai passport holder from owning a company or land? Maybe the EU commision should implement one, and force any Thais who do not have a European partner owning 51% to sell within 180 days. Anyway , why does Thailand need such a large army? Is it to close the borders with Burma,to stop the influx of drugs, not working. To control the islamist problem in southern Thailand, not working? So that a lot of puffed up people can wear medals and dominate the rest of society, that seems to work. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbkudu Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 (edited) I don't feel like I'm living in Thailand anymore; more like backstage of a Marx Brothers' film. Only difference is that it isn't so funny, here I mean, not the movie. Edited February 16, 2007 by mbkudu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laulen Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 (edited) If is easy for Thailand to get its assets back. Since all profits are derived from Thailand, all they have to do is tax all monies from telecom businesses that leave Thailand at a 50% or higher rate. Singapore would be more than willing to sell the assets back without taking a loss because if they don't, Thailand could tighten the rules more until Thailand gets all the profits and is unwilling to buy the assets at the original price. Oh thats intelligent!....Should Singapore tax all Thailands investments in Singapore too? It strikes me that this is a saga that will run and run. Thailand, or rather those in power, of whatever political leanings, have much to learn about transparent government, corporate governance and the rule of law. They should take a trip to Finland; perhaps there they will understand the reason why this country regularly tops the poll in corporate governance. It is small enough and outside the 'Western/American/Chinese/Russian' sphere of influence that so many in Thailand dislike (although Thais everywhere are always quick to take any 'buck' that they can get). Edited February 16, 2007 by Laulen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foggy Bottom Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 The Singapore company has some responsibility to shoulder, I mean they hold the company through a number of questionable entities to evade the 51% rule, helping Taksin to avoid taxes etc..I mean buying such a huge company directly from the prime minister of said country. They must have known there would be questions when Taksins time ended, knew that there were rules they were circumnavigating in terms of ownership etc.. They took a risk, it looks like it won't be paying off. For Thailand they simply need to follow through on their own rules, perhaps limit foreign ownership of telecomms/energy etc... to 25% or so. When Thaksin came to power the foreign holdings limit on telco's was 49.5% One of his first major self-help measures was to drop that to 25% immediately after Orange had put in the money to vreate CP Orange here. Immediately before the sale of Shin, he reversed it back up to 49.5% Vested interest? Abuse of position and authority? Absolutely ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sing_Sling Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Thailand demands telecom, satellites back from Singapore "I want my belongings back." What a joke . . . What a joker . . . By the way, they never belonged to him or Thailand, they were privately owned, weren't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mai Krap Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 As far as Thailand attacking Singapore? That aint gonna happen, The place is defended by the United States and the United Kingdom. If you've ever been on the runway at the Airport you would know this and more. I do believe something will happen here but what exactly I have no idea. Does anybody know whatever happend about the Singapore Air Force renting the airport at Udon Thani? I remember it was protested but was it a write off? Excuse me while I go make up some more popcorn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farangsay Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 As far as Thailand attacking Singapore? That aint gonna happen, The place is defended by the United States and the United Kingdom. If you've ever been on the runway at the Airport you would know this and more. I do believe something will happen here but what exactly I have no idea. Does anybody know whatever happend about the Singapore Air Force renting the airport at Udon Thani? I remember it was protested but was it a write off? Excuse me while I go make up some more popcorn! All right , Boon Mee and Spee let's have a real strategic assesment of the military situation here. Jeez. That is a computer representation of my eyes rolling northward into my skull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenk3z Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I wonder if they'll take my wife back. She is, to some extent, the property of Thailand. kenk3z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farangsay Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I wonder if they'll take my wife back. She is, to some extent, the property of Thailand.kenk3z LOL Thai rules - sale is final -no refunds - any defects are your problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egeefay Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I think governments should agree to deals struck by former administrations...even if the deal was a lemon for Thailand. Imagine the reluctance that foreign governments would have doing business with Thailand knowing that any contract or agreement could be reversed by newly elected officials Governments who decide to take foreign assets and "nationalize" industries in their countries suffer a big international loss in confidence. The message they send is that rule of law and signatures on contracts are only good from one adminstration to another. In addition All foreigner who bought condominiums in Thailand should start worrying that the new government isn't going start regarding them as national assets. Or if you are married to a Thai and own a house you might start worrying if Thailand is going to take away her right to own property. That's how it was only 10 or so years ago wjem the economy was in the toilet and the Thai government changed the law to attract foreign capital Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lannarebirth Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I think governments should agree to deals struck by former administrations...even if the deal was a lemon for Thailand.Imagine the reluctance that foreign governments would have doing business with Thailand knowing that any contract or agreement could be reversed by newly elected officials Governments who decide to take foreign assets and "nationalize" industries in their countries suffer a big international loss in confidence. The message they send is that rule of law and signatures on contracts are only good from one adminstration to another. In addition All foreigner who bought condominiums in Thailand should start worrying that the new government isn't going start regarding them as national assets. Or if you are married to a Thai and own a house you might start worrying if Thailand is going to take away her right to own property. That's how it was only 10 or so years ago wjem the economy was in the toilet and the Thai government changed the law to attract foreign capital Yeah, that's what one would think alright. Hey, remember the Russian Bond default? Look how it turned out: http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/in...%2Fintchart.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sourdough Al Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 In Thailand, things are never as they appear on the surface. IMHO, The deals have been made on the back channel by the the big power/money guys on both sides. What we are seeing is the marketing campaign designed to make the deal palatable to the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikster Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Yesterday in Singapore, a taxi drive (Who spoke much better english than Thaksin) asked me why the Thai government was trying to screw over Singapore. well its a bit more complicated than that... the sale of more than 49% of shin to temasek would be illegal. so its clear that a large part of the deal whereby temasek bought shin was against the law. temasek should have done their homework and never gotten into this in the first place. "but the law is never enforced in thailand" isn't good enough for a proper due diligence process. then again, lots of companies still invest in Russia and 3rd world countries where there's a good chance the governments will suddenly re-nationalize assets in one way or the other. risky business is still business. sonthi's comments are rather strange and confrontational - not a good sign. i hope surayud brings some rational thinking to the process - all thailand has to do is enforce existing law and it will get 51% of shin back. the only thing left to do is work out the details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lannarebirth Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 In Thailand, things are never as they appear on the surface.IMHO, The deals have been made on the back channel by the the big power/money guys on both sides. What we are seeing is the marketing campaign designed to make the deal palatable to the rest of us. You could very well be, and probably are, to a certain extent, correct. Temasek/Singapore I'm sure have a lot of compromising Thaksin intelligence to trade. The government may allow them a way out with a sacrifice of one or two of Shin's divisions. Satellite and maybe ITV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 send up a new satellite, and tax the hel_l out of shin corp...oh, and stop selling the singapore island water Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greywolf05 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Who do you guys think, arn't Thailand Military stronger than the small Singapore armed force? Will the US & US really help Singapore when war broke up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjallittle Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 If is easy for Thailand to get its assets back. Since all profits are derived from Thailand, all they have to do is tax all monies from telecom businesses that leave Thailand at a 50% or higher rate. Singapore would be more than willing to sell the assets back without taking a loss because if they don't, Thailand could tighten the rules more until Thailand gets all the profits and is unwilling to buy the assets at the original price. And it's equally easy for Singapore to flip the switch (and the bird) to the dismay of Thailand's kindergarten military junta. Their premise that it's all about Thai security is just too lame to be credible. Are they worried about Singapore finding the secret recipe for Tom Yum or Pad Thai? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redewenur Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Unfortunately, what I'd like to say about it can't be said publicly. Still, we know that this regime can't be idiots, after all, the king OK'ed it. This isn't toy town is it? is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dradam Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 If is easy for Thailand to get its assets back. Since all profits are derived from Thailand, all they have to do is tax all monies from telecom businesses that leave Thailand at a 50% or higher rate. Singapore would be more than willing to sell the assets back without taking a loss because if they don't, Thailand could tighten the rules more until Thailand gets all the profits and is unwilling to buy the assets at the original price. And it's equally easy for Singapore to flip the switch (and the bird) to the dismay of Thailand's kindergarten military junta. Their premise that it's all about Thai security is just too lame to be credible. Are they worried about Singapore finding the secret recipe for Tom Yum or Pad Thai? Thailand worries that its patented jasmine rice will be stolen and used in other countries but doesn't care about stealing patents on medicine, entertainment, software, or technology. The Thai military seems to try to take whatever it wants. Its recent announcement that it will make generic versions of patented medications is a clear indication that it does not respect the rights of others. Now it wants to take a telecom business. At some point Thailand leaders need to wake up and realize they are not playing nice. Maybe it will be an adult that needs to step in and give the toys back to the other kids and let Thailand sit in the corner crying until they are ready to share. The Thai baht continues to rise and soon Thai commodities will no longer be able to compete internationally against China. When that happens Thailand is ready for a rude awakening, especially since business in Thailand is looking more and more shaky. I certainly have put off investing there until I see a democratically elected government in action. I am advising others to do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukamar Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Will the US & US really help Singapore when war broke up? Maybe not, but Malaysia would step in and it wouldn't be on Thailand's side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sriracha john Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 laughing out very loud @ those talking of war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macular Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Who do you guys think, arn't Thailand Military stronger than the small Singapore armed force?Will the US & US really help Singapore when war broke up? Thais and Singaporeans are after all good friends. It's only a minority who stirred up the peaceful relationship. There are a lot of nice and peace loving Thais and Singaporeans. People from both countries don't need and don't want war. IMHO, the situation in Thailand now is like having an ophthalmologist performing kidney transplant. Hope that Thailand will find a correct surgeon to bring prosperity and stability back to the country soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redewenur Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 (edited) Thailand worries that its patented jasmine rice will be stolen and used in other countries but doesn't care about stealing patents on medicine, entertainment, software, or technology......I certainly have put off investing there until I see a democratically elected government in action. I am advising others to do the same. Yes, the pot knows well how to call the kettle black. You and I are quicker to acknowledge that than the majority of Thai nationals, in whose interests these decisions are made. I expect we will see a government elected by the people. How democratic it will be remains to be seen. Big brother is watching. One false move and there'll be another PM in exile - for the good of the country, of course. What we see is a pattern that's been repeated many times in poorer countries frantically struggling to compete with the economic giants. A sorry mess in which the rich usually become richer, and the stay poor; but it needs the support of the West - in the absence of that, the East will do. Edited February 16, 2007 by redewenur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 This has two aspects. As a Military man he is correct to demand secure communication channels. This is a requirement for all militaries. The fact that Singapore is saying they do not listen in is probably not true unless their government did not realize they had this capability which is possible. He should try all means to have HIS GOVERNMENT find a way to get him the secure communications he needs. But it should be the Government doing this via a much more intelligent means. The other aspect is what will it cost Thailand to further alienate the free market. They could always purchase it back. Most things are for sale if the price is right. If it truly is a national asset they should buy it back. Taking back the asset is the wrong method without a doubt. They may not be able to take it back anyway. This is not an oil well that sits under their land that they can take back. Whoever has the passwords to access telemetry and communication channels controls the satellite. I have not doubt the command set was altered when new ownership took over. Should Thailand try to take the satellite back the Singaporeans could simply disable the satellites via commands. Trying to force the company to give back the Satellites is definitely the wrong approach. I have no doubt the general is good at running an army. But yet again this shows why generals should not run countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now