TrueMove plays the race card in revenge against DTAC

[Spitfire]

Seems DTAC wants to roll out proper 3G services across the country and TrueMove and CAT don't like it as they think they should etc, etc, handbags at dawn and all.

Sometimes I don't know why any large company bothers with this country really, with the threat of the same happening to you as did happen to Carlsberg before. TrueMove claims DTAC is 71% own by foreigners and should be investigated by the Crime Suppression Division.

Some bad blood between this lot, for sure.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/06 ... 57864.html

[Name Taken]

It really is shameful how TrueMove and CAT are trying to stop DTAC from rolling out 3G service. I am a DTAC customer and i think DTAC is the best isp(internet service provider) in Thailand at the moment.
I don't know why any large company bothers with this country either.

[The understudy]

Yo Yo Spitfire my Man

read this article in the online Edition of the Bangkok Post
and the the Ten readers comments under it.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/tel ... w-heats-up

I'd say I without DTAC we would have a true oligopoly if we haven't have it allready.

We have only three major players in the mobile Ops Business in Thailand with no medium or small size operrators to Challenge them.

Xenophobia @ it's best and probably worst for Thailand. that's why I can understand completely why T-Mobile of Gernamny, Vodafone, O2 of UK ain't comming to Thailand!

The understudy The Society Critique par exellance!!!

[bcrglobal]

Sorry, but how is this the race card?

The FACT is that DTAC is majority foreign owned, in contravention of Thai laws. DTAC has structured it's ownership so that this is hard to show, but it is a fact.

As an example: As a foreigner you cannot own land, but you can own 49% ownership in a Thai company 51% owned by Thais that DOES own land. So you set up 2 companies, one owns the land, and you are 49% owner of that company. The second owns 51% of the first company and is also 49% owned by you. Your REAL ownership stake in the land is now +-75%, and that WOULD be in violation of Thai law, even though neither of the companies is directly breaching the law.

Is the law fair or proper? I would seriously argue against these types of laws, I just do not like them, and think they are bad for the country, bad for consumers, and bad for business....but that is not the question. If a competitor is breaking the law in business a company is fully right to blow the whistle on the criminal activity. DTAC IS breaking the law. They may be doing it through a complicated system of straw-companies, and subsidiary holdings, but in reality DTAC is heavy majority foreign owned in violation of Thai laws.

[STEVE G]

This is possibly the relevant part of the original article:

"True Move's complaint appears to be in revenge for DTAC's filing last month at the Central Administrative Court against CAT Telecom and its board, which sought a judicial review of the legality of the agreements between CAT and True Group on their joint investment in 3G services."

[Spitfire]

Sorry, but how is this the race card?

I'm guessing that that is a rhetorical question.

The FACT is that DTAC is majority foreign owned, in contravention of Thai laws. DTAC has structured it's ownership so that this is hard to show, but it is a fact.

The affirmative action poster-boy response. Guess you must have a business here then.

As an example: As a foreigner you cannot own land, but you can own 49% ownership in a Thai company 51% owned by Thais that DOES own land. So you set up 2 companies, one owns the land, and you are 49% owner of that company. The second owns 51% of the first company and is also 49% owned by you. Your REAL ownership stake in the land is now +-75%, and that WOULD be in violation of Thai law, even though neither of the companies is directly breaching the law.

Tell us something we don't know. And you seriously think they are 'bleating' because of the law, rather than the fact that they are competition and can't beat them? If it wasn't such big business then there would be not be any noise about it.

I would quote again but I think it is being used/highlighted as it's the only way for them to try to torpedo the business of DTAC. It's got nothing to do with business etc, it's the only way they (TRUE/CAT) can fcuk DTAC's situation as they are a threat (foreign one at that too), not through making a good business themselves, but through a xenophobic (racism) route because all else has failed.

Why not just make a good business with good services that customers want so that people don't want to use DTAC and will use the local providers instead..........it's called 'last resort' stuff etc.

However, we all know the nepotistic/corrupt answer to that one.

Surprised by the naive answer to be honest brcglobal as if the law means shit here unless it's benefiting the rich/powerful.

Didn't figure you for a poster-boy mouth piece.

Try reading this thread........viewtopic.php?f=8&t=18295

[The understudy]

Sorry, but how is this the race card?

I'm guessing that that is a rhetorical question.

The FACT is that DTAC is majority foreign owned, in contravention of Thai laws. DTAC has structured it's ownership so that this is hard to show, but it is a fact.

The affirmative action poster-boy response. Guess you must have a business here then.

As an example: As a foreigner you cannot own land, but you can own 49% ownership in a Thai company 51% owned by Thais that DOES own land. So you set up 2 companies, one owns the land, and you are 49% owner of that company. The second owns 51% of the first company and is also 49% owned by you. Your REAL ownership stake in the land is now +-75%, and that WOULD be in violation of Thai law, even though neither of the companies is directly breaching the law.

Tell us something we don't know. And you seriously think they are 'bleating' because of the law, rather than the fact that they are competition and can't beat them? If it wasn't such big business then there would be not be any noise about it.

I would quote again but I think it is being used/highlighted as it's the only way for them to try to torpedo the business of DTAC. It's got nothing to do with business etc, it's the only way they (TRUE/CAT) can fcuk DTAC's situation as they are a threat (foreign one at that too), not through making a good business themselves, but through a xenophobic (racism) route because all else has failed.

Why not just make a good business with good services that customers want so that people don't want to use DTAC and will use the local providers instead..........it's called 'last resort' stuff etc.

However, we all know the nepotistic/corrupt answer to that one.

Surprised by the naive answer to be honest brcglobal as if the law means shit here unless it's benefiting the rich/powerful.

Didn't figure you for a poster-boy mouth piece.

Try reading this thread........viewtopic.php?f=8&t=18295

Agree with you The understudy does Spitfire!
This Xenophobic Attitude had also prevented Disney Theme Park to set up shop in Thailand (within Pattaya Area) around 1999 or so but Thai lawmakers got greedy and demanded $50 Million Dollars in Backhanders and additional $50 to 100 Millions Dollars for smooth building permits. etc. Disney crossed Thailand off their shortlist opting for Hong Kong instead.
Back to Topic:
Your's The understudy!!!!

[Super Joe]

The FACT is that DTAC is majority foreign owned, in contravention of Thai laws. DTAC has structured it's ownership so that this is hard to show, but it is a fact.

As an example: As a foreigner you cannot own land, but you can own 49% ownership in a Thai company 51% owned by Thais that DOES own land. So you set up 2 companies, one owns the land, and you are 49% owner of that company. The second owns 51% of the first company and is also 49% owned by you. Your REAL ownership stake in the land is now +-75%, and that WOULD be in violation of Thai law, even though neither of the companies is directly breaching the law.

Then the two sets of 51% Thai shareholders would own 77% of the land wouldn't they!?
You're not really looking to have a larger ownership stake, just control, and the 49% in the initial company has all the control it needs, due to the type of shares. And the 49% thing has always been a red herring (even though that's my set up as I never knew any better), but one foreigner could hold just 10% of the shares and still have control over 500no. Thai shareholders owning the remaining 90%. The 90% hold ordinary shares entitling one vote per share, the 10% hold preference shares entitling 10 votes per share. You control the company.

The problem, no doubt, will be that the Thai shareholders are not genuine shareholders, ie: did not really invest their own money into the company (their 'ordinary' shares have to be fully paid up), they have not been receiving dividends, and possibly not really attending shareholders meetings to vote on shit. This is why the DBD first part of the investigation declared they have been registered as a Thai company, ie: 51% (really 50%+1) shares are owned by Thai nationals... so the DBD took no time at all in getting themselves in the clear 'proceedurally' (that is a word isn't it?).

The next step is to look into the 51% Thais among the total of 33,000 shareholders to see where they took money out of their accounts to buy their shares on 'x' dates, to see how they were paid their dividends and where they paid the tax on it, why they used their ATM card in Chiang Mai at 2pm on the 5th of some month when they were also at a shareholders meeting in BKK... blah blah. They'll be told 'co-operate with us and you'll get a small fine, don't and we catch you out then the law applies' ... jailtime. Are all 16,501 gonna come thru the test

So 'if' they authorities want to go through with it, and Dtac do infact have 'nominee' shareholders then they do not qualify as a 'Thai' company, and as a foreign one they can not be conducting their business as it's restricted by the FBA. I wouldn't have thought the government would want to go through with it as it'll damage foreign investment. I'm guessing they'll be trying to reach a compromise behind the scenes.

I would quote again but I think it is being used/highlighted as it's the only way for them to try to torpedo the business of DTAC. It's got nothing to do with business etc, it's the only way they (TRUE/CAT) can fcuk DTAC's situation as they are a threat (foreign one at that too), not through making a good business themselves, but through a xenophobic (racism) route because all else has failed.

Why not just make a good business with good services that customers want so that people don't want to use DTAC and will use the local providers instead..........it's called 'last resort' stuff etc.

I think that's asking a bit much of True to be honest mate, to spend additional money of theirs in order to make themselves competitive against an illegal company (if proved, and I really hope they are legal) who was quite happy to use the legal system to damage their business. I reacted the same as you when I first read it, what a dirty trick etc... until I read that Dtac had brought action against them, now it reads to me that True have not used this 'card' before but have played the white man, even seeing Dtac have more of a share in the market, but have only gotten legal after Dtac did. Dtac took the gloves off, and now (as is the custom here) will be surrounded 10-to-1 by the locals and kicked all around the park

This is possibly the relevant part of the original article:
"True Move's complaint appears to be in revenge for DTAC's filing last month at the Central Administrative Court against CAT Telecom and its board, which sought a judicial review of the legality of the agreements between CAT and True Group on their joint investment in 3G services."

Absolutely, Dtac, if not legal, have committed suicide, over-stepped their mark, and let down other similar businesses who have been quietly playing by the 'rules'. Getting 'personal' like this was the stupidest move anyone could make here, whoever made the decision wants a good shoeing. My money would be on it passing away quietly, with a deal behind the scenes to placate True (give them a greater share), some minor penalizing of Dtac (Ture face-save) where they have 'x' days to put right certain shareholding irregularities here or there.


SJ

[crazy88]

On the ownership angle if, as it is, the law, that those percentages of foreign ownership apply then what about McD etc???? How do they get around it? Surely they hold a bigger market share between them than any Thai burger chain? Very simplistic example I know but if there was a major Thai Burger chain owned by the right people?????????

Crazy 88

[Super Joe]

On the ownership angle if, as it is, the law, that those percentages of foreign ownership apply then what about McD etc???? How do they get around it? Surely they hold a bigger market share between them than any Thai burger chain? Very simplistic example I know but if there was a major Thai Burger chain owned by the right people?????????
Crazy 88

I believe that under the current FBA guidelines foreigners are only allowed to legally own large french fries and a regular coke, and ofcourse the big mac is reserved for Thai nationals only

You have FBA lists 1, 2 & 3, list 1 (land among others) is forbidden to foreign majority owned companies, list 2 a foreign company can obtain a BOI (bored of investing) licence but needs cabinet approval, list 3 (food industry) a lot easier to get a license. I just looked to see what telecomms is under but it's more involved in that and has it's own 'act', so like land code a whole load of extra rules and regulations.

But as you can see below regarding license for a majority foreign ownership... 'non possibile', as they say in Peckham...

SJ

[playboy]

Hello;
Very interesting subjet and I learn alot from the post here. I was wondering for a long times, couple years ago in Paris, all McDonald chains foods("American's embassy" (called by our guide tour guy in Amsterdam)) were changed their name and icons over night acrossed Paris. It must be ownership conflicted.

[Super Joe]

Try reading this thread........viewtopic.php?f=8&t=18295

Agree with you The understudy does Spitfire!
This Xenophobic Attitude had also prevented Disney Theme Park to set up shop in Thailand

In that thread we're complaining that the law is not being upheld against the Thai elite, and this thread we're complaining that it's being upheld against the foreign elite. Ok, I see where you're coming from US, but I think 'xenephobic' is a bit unfair, we're only doing a 'True' in reverse

SJ

[bcrglobal]

I believe you'll find McDonalds Thailand is 49% owned by McDonalds Canada (Who own the vast majority of all international rights for McDonalds) McDonalds Canada's shares account for 99% of the voting stock, and 75% of the dividends/profit share/resale value, with the remaining 51% of stock (Holding 1% of voting rights and 25% of dividends/profit share/resale value) belonging to somebody VERY Hi-So who basically get 25% of Mcdonalds Thailand revenues for being a silent partner in the business.

DTAC did NOT set up this way, apparently. Let's just use some hypothetical numbers here.

There are 100 shares of DTAC on the market.
Foreign company buys 49 shares.
Foreign company sets up a holding McDonald's style above, and that company owns 51 DTAC shares.
While Foreign Company would in reality control ALL DTAC shares, legally they could be said to own 73.99 shares (49 shares plus .49 x 51 shares) which would be in violation of the law.

This is an open secret on the market, and years later, DTAC decides to start a legal pi$$ing competition with their key rivals. Do any of you think that in business ANYWHERE in the world the key rivals would not raise this legal issue to gain advantage? Do you think it's unethical of the rivals to fight back in a pi$$ing contest that DTAC started?

The reality in Thailand is that a compromise will be found, but it will be expensive for DTAC--they are, after all, foreign owned. They are, after all, in violation of the law. They did, after all, start the pi$$ing contest with locally owned companies.

You don't pi$$ into the wind.
You don't pull on Superman's cape.
You don't break the law in Thailand and then try to sue your Thai competitors.

[Name Taken]

I personally think 51/49% ownership law is extremely anti-competitive and unfair.
I think it also discourages a lot of foreign companies from investing and doing business in Thailand.

[bcrglobal]

I personally think 51/49% ownership law is extremely anti-competitive and unfair.
I think it also discourages a lot of foreign companies from investing and doing business in Thailand.

Couldn't agree more, NT. It is, however, the law of the land.