Train Services Halted As Strike Against Privatisation Starts

[Plus]

Much more interesting is Thai public reacon to the strike - at least in the newspaper letter columns. They all seem to think that protesting workers should be severely punished. There's this predominating attitude that workers are slaves and should not step out of their place.

It seems Thailand is readier for benevolent dictatorship than for democracy and its inherent bottom up developments.

What are the bottom up developments 'inheirent' to benevolent dictatorships? And how do you go about getting one of them?

You don't. You cross your fingers- and hope that the next dictator will be better than the last. Even though the odds (as history shows) are stacked against you. And if he's not - tough luck. Nothing you can do about it- except bleed.

And that is why most countries gave up on that little bit of political fantasy many many years ago.

Maybe I should rephrase it and type slower as you got me completely wrong.

There's a public backlash against the strikers, at least among the usual contributors to letters pages.

I don't see anyone, including the usual democracy advocates, as much as acknowledging their rights. If these people can't accept it, what about the rest of the country? Democracy need to go a very long way to change people attitudes here.

[blaze]

Much more interesting is Thai public reacon to the strike - at least in the newspaper letter columns. They all seem to think that protesting workers should be severely punished. There's this predominating attitude that workers are slaves and should not step out of their place.

It seems Thailand is readier for benevolent dictatorship than for democracy and its inherent bottom up developments.

What are the bottom up developments 'inheirent' to benevolent dictatorships? And how do you go about getting one of them?

You don't. You cross your fingers- and hope that the next dictator will be better than the last. Even though the odds (as history shows) are stacked against you. And if he's not - tough luck. Nothing you can do about it- except bleed.

And that is why most countries gave up on that little bit of political fantasy many many years ago.

Maybe I should rephrase it and type slower as you got me completely wrong.

There's a public backlash against the strikers, at least among the usual contributors to letters pages.

I don't see anyone, including the usual democracy advocates, as much as acknowledging their rights. If these people can't accept it, what about the rest of the country? Democracy need to go a very long way to change people attitudes here.

On that we agree Plus. But any political party that comes along seeking to empower the workers of this country will be accused of duping them and manipulating them for the fatcat party bosses' own good. It will be taken as fact that the workers wouldn't really vote for a party that sought to empower them unless they were brainwashed and paid to do so.

Then- rumors will circulate that the party is corrupt beyond anything known to mankind- that the nation is on the verge of total collapse- and guess who will have to come riding in - once again - to 'restore social harmony'.

[plachon]

Privatisation of government run institutions is needed to increase their efficiency.

Unfortunately it is not unusual for the employees to resist, as they see their

current (possibly cushy) life threatened.

In reality the increased efficiency can result in higher revenues and hence higher rewards for all.

Thailand is just starting down a path that those in the West have already trodden.

............and in the case of Britain, led to an overpriced, poorly coordinated rail system with lower levels of service than under good old British Rail!

While I would fully agree that there needs to be modernisation and vast improvements in efficiency in the Thai rail network, I wouldn't necessarily jump to the conclusion that that goal is best served by privatisation. Because it is a mass transport system that provides an environmentally-friendly alternative to polluting road traffic, there is a strong argument to keep it state-run and subsidised, providing affordable travel to all sectors of society. If it was privatised, one could bet ones bottom baht that the absolute bargain 3rd class fares used by the poor and backpackers would soon be done away with.

Don't follow the British model is all I can say!

[TAWP]

The problem with many privatizations of mass transit-systems is the LACK of free market competition.

It's sometimes just moving a monopoly from the governments control to a large corporation. And that is what a proper handling should avoid. And sometimes fail.

[Plus]

any political party that comes along seeking to empower the workers of this country

I don't think it's political parties job. They can allow workers to empower themselves if they feel so inclined, that's all. 1997 consitution presented the opportunities

No one talks about labor unions at the moment but I believe Democrats would let them grow as made decentralisation of power their core ideology. "People First", you know.

[Plus]

The problem with many privatizations of mass transit-systems is the LACK of free market competition.

It's sometimes just moving a monopoly from the governments control to a large corporation. And that is what a proper handling should avoid. And sometimes fail.

In Thailand you can be absolutely sure it will fail ten times out of ten.

BTS wasn't privatised - it was build privately from the scratch. Thaksin wanted to nationalise it (so his buddies at MRT could buy it later).

Look at the precedents - PTT was a disaster and Egat was plain illegal. It's beyond Thai government capability to ensure free and fair competition for privatised monopolies.

They haven't been able to establish National Broadcasting Commission let alone regulate regulate airwaves fairly. It's snowball's chance in hel_l.

[blaze]

any political party that comes along seeking to empower the workers of this country

I don't think it's political parties job. They can allow workers to empower themselves if they feel so inclined, that's all. 1997 consitution presented the opportunities

No one talks about labor unions at the moment but I believe Democrats would let them grow as made decentralisation of power their core ideology. "People First", you know.

You think so? when their stated goal is increased foreign investment- foreign investors are pretty gun-shy when they hear the U word.

[Plus]

You think their Thai sponsors get all excited?

At best Democrats can let Unions live and treat their demands fairly, which will be a huge step forward from "populst" TRT.

But it's a fact that even Democrats do not have a good track record in dealings with disgruntled people.

[Spee]

The free trade pact between Japan and Thailand is due to take effect on Thursday after years of negotiations.

What a joke! Free trade pacts or free trade agreements between nations are a total farce. If trade really is free and international companies can do business "freely," then why do governments need to sanction it?

As for the rail privatization, I'm all for it. Government control has never been the solution to anything, with the exception of providing for police security and national defence. With the rampant corruption in Thailand, I'm not sure how easy privatized rail systems would be to implement. Then again, there is nothing that says people must work for a company that won't pay them a fair day's wage for a fair day's work.

By the way, the rail system isn't entirely government run. There are a lot of entrepreneurs who already play their trades selling food and drink all along the routes and at the stations. It's just a matter of extrapolation to the rest of the system.

As with America and other places, the most important thing is the rights of way and who retains control over them. Cars and services are the simple part for privatization. Private companies can negotiate financing through private businesses for rail cars and other infrastructure. But the rights of way are limited and allow more than just trains to pass. Just as in other countries, they are places to lay telecommunications services (fibre optic cables, points of presence, etc.), or anything else that can be placed under ground.

In Thailand, like other countries, most likely the government laid the rights of way and still own them today. The logical thing to do would seem to have the government retain ownership of the rights of way as a public asset and then lease the usage to the private rail companies.

The key to making it profitable is volume. In places like Japan, rail systems can be operated profitably because of the sheer volume. I don't know that that kind of volume is present in Thailand. If not, then rail is probably destined to be government run, like Amtrak in America, or heavily government subsidized like many areas in Europe.

[samran]

> BTS last I looked was privately owned.

An aging nationwide rail network in need of investments that are a multiple of the entire BTS network, is not the same as a mass transit system.

> Don't tell them that, now you will be labeled a neo-con...

I don't think anyone is labelling anything. I am submitting that the SRT is basically a dead man walking. The junta proposed privatising it (i.e. grabbing the profitable bits, especially some very prime real estate), but now have backtracked.

News at 11.

Just about every government at some point has proposed 'privatising' SRT. It has been on the Ministry of Finace's agenda for years, and will continue to be so.

The problem with SRT is that as the sole organisation responsible for running trains in Thailand, it spends 95% of its time as a property manager and land lord with its vast land holdings, and 5% of its time running decrepid trains.

The real answer starts in getting SRT to begin focusing on trains, and that involves spinning off the property empire into a seperate unit from SRT. To my mind this holding company for land should be sold, it would flood the market with new land, create extra liquidity on the property market (ie more land to buy and sell) and raise funds for SRT.

These monies could then be invested into revamping the rail system.

Focusing on trains means that SRT will be run as a business - as far as possible. There will always be loss making activities, for instance, third class passengers which will need state subsidies from government.

To my mind though, rail freight should be up for grabs too. The fact remains that rail freight, by rights, should be seen as a competitor to road frieght. Not only better for the environment by taking decrepid trucks off the road, it decreases wear and tear to the existing road network.

But, all this is years away. SRT unions won't let it happen, and neither will some vested interests.

[LaReina]

I don't know.. privitisation .. only helps the rich get richer.. and there are loads of poor people who ride those trains on a daily bases. There are fares for 2 baht here in bangkok, and for 3 baht I can take a 30 minute ride to Hua Lampong. (an hour ride for me by taxi)

Efficient or not, it helps the masses of poor people.

If they want to become more efficent, then bring in someone from the private sector to shake things up and re-vamp it. But to hand it over completely?? WIth the wages the average person makes??

Ask an average thai person if they ride the BTS or Undergound.. and they will tell you it was made for the tourists and the rich people. They can not afford it.

[Chris Bussell]

If I live in Thailand long enough perhaps, just perhaps, I'll be able to travel from Khon Kaen to Bangkok by train faster than it takes to drive.

State owned companies (in other words no competition) always equals the same thing - inefficiency.

I've seen cattle trucks in the UK in better condition than the rolling stock in Thailand.

Privatization? Bring it on !!

But at what cost? lives of passengers? The UK has seen the true effect of privetisation and no corpirate responcability. PADDINGTON, Not one person resigned. I have seen people crammed in like cattle every day in the UK to make more profit! with no regard to safty of the passengers. Greed of the shareholders and management. The state had to take back the running of the privetised tracks because of the cowboy practices of the private sector. The UK is not a good example of rail privetisation it is how ever a good example of the worst type of greed and bad management.

[Sturbuc]

Privatisation of government run institutions is needed to increase their efficiency.

Unfortunately it is not unusual for the employees to resist, as they see their

current (possibly cushy) life threatened.

In reality the increased efficiency can result in higher revenues and hence higher rewards for all.

Thailand is just starting down a path that those in the West have already trodden.

HaHaHa;

yes higher revenues for some people as stated in GB and planned in GER, but the result is the loss to be socialized.

Private owners aren't interested to serve but to rise profit and there might be a lack of reinvestment but a rise of accidents.

To be improved with British history. And, by the way, who could be angry if private companies won't serve the poor

north-east if there's no profit? Or does Thailand commit to pay for somebody to serve such destinations?

Higher efficency? Maybe at one hand but whats the price for this? Why do you think public run institutions fail to efficient?

Maybe it's necessary to check the staff as it is highly recommended by political parties to have some of the members to be

paid by the public sector but work for the partie? And, do you agree that it might be better to have many people employed

and provide some services like cleaning or housekeeping than be unemployed? Maybe some consolidation might be more helpful.

May be i'm getting really angry because when the discussion starts about the price to be paid, but nobody minds about the

real worth of all the property (real estate etc)? Who could walk on his own property from Malaysia to Mianmar?

So please, don't be so easy in mind.

Edited November 4, 2007 by Sturbuc

[DerringDo]

Privatisation doesn't guarantee higher efficiency, only profit for some at the expense of many.

Prices will rise whatever the "-ation" because wages rise and infrastructure costs more to maintain or improve.

Robber Barons are needed to generate painful change. Philanthropists are needed to soften the upheaval. Governments are catalysts for both through policy.