Public energy enterprise as a national asset

The anti-privatization movements regard state energy enterprises as a national asset. They ask who should own or regulate the energy enterprises and who can share in the energy enterprises’ profits. The movements’ participants believe the nation and the Thai people—not the private sector—should regulate the energy enterprises because they were on public authority, taxes, and public lands that should remain under the people’s control.

One leader of the Anti-EGAT Privatization Movement’s leader said “we thought EGAT was a national asset and the public property of all Thai people because the EGAT had been constructed through taxes on the Thai people and by expropriating the lands of the Thai people. In this sense, privatizing EGAT equated to selling a national asset”²⁶⁹. The Anti-PTT Privatization Movement argued that “PTT should belong to the nation, not the private sector because it was constructed under public authority”²⁷⁰.

These arguments were echoed in social movements’ activities and demonstrations.

The head of EGAT’s labor union stated “All participants in this demonstration shared the same idea, and that was canceling EGAT’s privatization. The EGAT was the property of the Thai people. If the EGAT would be privatized, Thai citizens would lose power to regulate energy enterprises like in Argentina”²⁷¹. In a press interview after prosecuting PTT’s privatization, movement leader Rosana Tositakul repeated this idea: “We tried to protect public interest by bringing our national property that was illegally privatized back

269 Panthep Phuaphongphan, interview, September 19, 2017.

270 Naewna, “Jermsak Points Government Need to Recall the National Asset and Investigate the PTT Privatization,” December 17, 2007, 10.

271 Prachachat, “Understanding the Leaders of EGAT Labor Union: We Would Take Our Children to Fight Against the Privatization Plan,” March 8, 2004, 10.

152

to the nation”²⁷². This idea appears in the blueprint for energy reform offered by the PDRC Movement. It proposed restoring PTT to the state control in order to reduce hegemony of private companies in determining the price of oil and natural gas²⁷³.

The anti-energy privatization movements gave voice to a second concept: who should benefit from state energy enterprises? The movement’s leaders and members awarded Thai citizens first priority. They endorsed such advantages as buying shares of state energy enterprises or subsidizing energy bills with profits public energy enterprises.

Business, government coalitions, and foreign investors should gain no such advantages and should not participate in administering state energy enterprises.

The Federation for Consumers emphasized that “the government was privatizing EGAT in the stock market. This policy delivers a national asset to a business group. The government should not sell this public asset because business would take this chance to exploit profit from ordinary people”²⁷⁴. The court decision rejecting EGAT privatization declared:

“According to the Civil and Commercial Code and the Ratchchaphatsadu Land Act 1975, EGAT properties for which EGAT had employed state power to expropriate lands for constructing power plants, dams, transmission lines, and transmission systems were public property. Because EGAT ought to be employed

272 Manager, “Rosana Points If She Wins the Prosecution of the PTT Privatization, She Would Continuously Sue the other Seven Public Enterprises,” September 18, 2006, A 6.

273 Manager, “Discussing the Blueprint of Energy Reform,” February 24, 2014, 7–8.

274 Post Today, “The Anti-EGAT Privatization Mob Actively Marches to Request People Reject Purchasing EGAT’s Shares,” October 5, 2005, A3.

153

for public and national interests, transferring its ownership from the public to the private sphere through privatization was illegal”²⁷⁵.

Speeches by leaders of the Anti-EGAT Privatization Movement and Anti-PTT Privatization Movement called for denying government and foreign business any role in administering state energy enterprises. As movement leader Rosana Tositakul told an interviewer, “the EGAT was set up by the taxes from Thai people. The government expropriated lands from people at a cheap price. The EGAT should return profit to those people. The EGAT was neither the government’s asset nor the Prime Minister’s property.

The EGAT belonged to the nation”²⁷⁶. The PAD Movement leader Sondhi Limthongkul, who filed suit against PTT’s privatization, said:

“We wanted to revoke the privatization of PTT and bring the PTT back to the nation. Selling the PTT’s shares to foreign juristic persons created a chance to steal a national asset to abroad. The PTT’s shares were a Thai people’s asset. If the government wanted to sell the PTT’s shares, Thai people should have the first priority to purchase the shares, not foreign investors. This was the time to recall the national asset to belong to the nation and Thai people”²⁷⁷.

The PDRC leaders attacked monopolization by business and foreign investors and suggested repurchasing PTT shares back to state ownership for reducing energy prices:

275 Bangkok Biz News, “Court Sentences Conflict of Interests as the main reason for Cancelling EGAT Privatization,” March 24, 2006, 2; Matichon, “The Supreme Court Sentences Cancelling EGAT Privatization,” March 24, 2006, 2.

276 Post Today, “The Federation For Consumer Informs the Rationale to Oppose EGAT Privatization,” November 12, 2005, A6.

277 Manager, “The Foundation of Nation’s Guard Sues the PTT Privatization,” August 1, 2011, 13;

Manager, “This Is the Time to Recall the PTT Back to the Nation,” September 24, 2011, 16.

154

“We created the blueprint of energy reform in order to recall the PTT back to all Thai people. The petroleum industry of Thailand was monopolized by private companies and foreigners. Nowadays, Thai people had to buy expensive oil and natural gas. We should bring the petroleum resources in the business companies’

and foreigners’ hand back to Thai people”²⁷⁸.

One movement leaders combined the two arguments above to press their anti-privatization agenda. Kornkasiwat Kasemsri said:

“PTT privatization involved illegally selling the national energy asset at a cheap price abroad. The method for protecting the national interest was the state repurchasing the privatized shares of PTT from private investors in order to guarantee energy security in Thailand”²⁷⁹.

Rosana Tositakul also highlighted this claim during the personal communication:

“EGAT privatization under the administration of Thai Rak Thai party (a ruling party in Thaksin government) was a selling national asset to investors without any embarrassment. We should not allow any government to privatize the EGAT”²⁸⁰. Movement leaders and members cited corruption as a reason not to privatizing state energy enterprises.