Shadow Cabinet Slams Governments One-Year Performance

[asiawatcher]

I have biting questions to Mr. Abhisit:

1. When you were in Office, where were you, when you were too busy NOT handling the accumulating flood problem measurements that were apparently to come months later, when you were dethroned by the Taksin organization?

2. What did he do to make the country better? Nothing??

So is he any better than Yingluck???

Gosh! You must have put a lot of thought and research into that. Very impressive.

Agree - Must be in Thailand a long time to come to that conclusion - and perhaps check up what he did do for the North East people. He achieved a shitload. But on the Yingluck question, and the purpose of the article, no populist policies ever work and they rarely are all, if ever, introduced. Another ATNO vote grabber group (All Talk No Action).

[Rancid]

Another day another desent into the irrelevancy of the dumbfounded. Sort of like Hitler getting up and criticising Stalin, yes he would be absolutely right, however he offered basically same program with a different spin for the same type of stakeholders to benefit. Time for the truly brain dead for whom objective thought is an unnatural aberation to take sides as if obligatory like a football match. Darrh, Go Reds they love democracy too much, no Go Yellows they really care abouts peoples! Must be time for as beer.

[rakman]

All very valid points, but the issue for PTT is an interesting conundrum.

As a shareholder, I would like to know does Mr. Abhisit suggest that it shouldn't be run to maximise profit within a regulatory framework, or is its job to provide cheap fuel to the people of Thailand?

Come to that matter, would he be complaining if Thai Airways made a profit, but tickets were above the purchase price of Thai people. Come to think of it, they make a loss, and the tickets are already beyond the reach of the vast majority of Thai people. In fact part of the reason they make a loss is because people like him are receiving subsidised tickets. I guess the shareholders should complain.

Doesn't PTT have a monopoly here in Thailand?

Doesn't that make it easy to have huge profits at the expense of the people?

Shouldn't the government intervene (like they do in many other countries in these kind of sectors)?

Impossible to compare it with Thai Airways.

No, PTT is not a monopoly, other oil companies compete in Thailand. It is Thai Government owned. Thai Airways is now a totally public entity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTT_Public_Company_Limited

[Thai at Heart]

All very valid points, but the issue for PTT is an interesting conundrum.

As a shareholder, I would like to know does Mr. Abhisit suggest that it shouldn't be run to maximise profit within a regulatory framework, or is its job to provide cheap fuel to the people of Thailand?

Come to that matter, would he be complaining if Thai Airways made a profit, but tickets were above the purchase price of Thai people. Come to think of it, they make a loss, and the tickets are already beyond the reach of the vast majority of Thai people. In fact part of the reason they make a loss is because people like him are receiving subsidised tickets. I guess the shareholders should complain.

Doesn't PTT have a monopoly here in Thailand?

Doesn't that make it easy to have huge profits at the expense of the people?

Shouldn't the government intervene (like they do in many other countries in these kind of sectors)?

Impossible to compare it with Thai Airways.

No, PTT is not a monopoly, other oil companies compete in Thailand. It is Thai Government owned. Thai Airways is now a totally public entity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTT_Public_Company_Limited

Ptt is definitely not a monopoly, is 51% govt owned, and last time i looked the finance ministry still owned 51% of Thai airways.

So my question still stands, is abhisit suggesting that ptt exists to maximize profit or give cheap fuel to Thai people?

[Nickymaster]

All very valid points, but the issue for PTT is an interesting conundrum.

As a shareholder, I would like to know does Mr. Abhisit suggest that it shouldn't be run to maximise profit within a regulatory framework, or is its job to provide cheap fuel to the people of Thailand?

Come to that matter, would he be complaining if Thai Airways made a profit, but tickets were above the purchase price of Thai people. Come to think of it, they make a loss, and the tickets are already beyond the reach of the vast majority of Thai people. In fact part of the reason they make a loss is because people like him are receiving subsidised tickets. I guess the shareholders should complain.

Doesn't PTT have a monopoly here in Thailand?

Doesn't that make it easy to have huge profits at the expense of the people?

Shouldn't the government intervene (like they do in many other countries in these kind of sectors)?

Impossible to compare it with Thai Airways.

No, PTT is not a monopoly, other oil companies compete in Thailand. It is Thai Government owned. Thai Airways is now a totally public entity.

http://en.wikipedia....Company_Limited

Ptt is definitely not a monopoly, is 51% govt owned, and last time i looked the finance ministry still owned 51% of Thai airways.

So my question still stands, is abhisit suggesting that ptt exists to maximize profit or give cheap fuel to Thai people?

Well...If the Thai government has 51% share in a company, we can assume that it will twist and turn its policies in order to "support" its own business.

Or do you believe that it will be an even playing field for their competitors? In Thailand? I don't think so. In a developed market economy and democracy you would be right, not in the LOS.

Edited November 27, 2012 by Nickymaster

[Thai at Heart]

To masternicky,

Well, is it ptts job to subsidize oil and gas to the Thai public or not. I am sure the investors, employees and the markets would like to know if ptt is some kind of quasi communist organisation or not.

Me, you or abhidit can't have it every which way.