PTT ruling welcomed

General News - Saturday December 22, 2007

IN Print

PTT ruling welcomed

A local daily proclaimed the ruling as another victory for grassroots politics and an example of the value of the judiciary in balancing the power of the executive branch

KAMOL HENGKIETISAK

It is a partial victory for the people that the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) ruled on Dec 14, 2007 to instruct the government to take back ownership of the PTT Plc's gas pipeline network, said a Thai Rath editorial.

A lawsuit, filed by a group led by the Foundation for Consumers, sought to re-nationalise the corporation and asked the SAC to delist PTT from the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET). The suit argued that PTT should not be allowed to keep possession of land expropriated from the people to lay its gas pipelines when it was no longer a state enterprise. The lawsuit was filed last year after the foundation had been successful in stopping the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat) from being privatised.

The SAC did not compel PTT to delist from the SET because such an action would involve revoking the two royal decrees that transformed the state energy giant into a public corporation. The court deemed that revoking the decrees would cause irreparable damages to Thailand. However, the court agreed that the gas pipeline network should revert back to the state.

This is another victory for grassroots politics, said Thai Rath, and the efforts to protect the country's assets. It is also an example of the value of the judiciary in balancing the power of the executive branch. It can be regarded as true progress down the road of democracy, said Thai Rath.

In 2001, during the administration of Thaksin Shinawatra, the government issued two royal decrees. One decree prescribed the power and privileges of the PTT Plc in setting up a private corporation and the other prescribed the revocation of Thailand's Petroleum Law. The two decrees received widespread criticism at the time from some quarters but the government went ahead with the privatisation.

The criticisms became louder when the PTT announced an IPO (Initial Public Offering), selling shares to the public before listing on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET). The shares were sold out within seconds. People who camped out to buy shares were denied, while some people close to powerful politicians were able buy in large number. These people later made huge profits, as the PTT shares continued to rise. The PTT executives lamely justified the inordinate allocation of shares to people of influence, their kin and associates by saying they were benefactors of the company. The Thai Rath editorial wryly commented that they must have helped PTT in their former lives.

The editorialist declined to predict how the SAC's ruling on PTT's privatisation would affect other state enterprises waiting to list on the SET. The most outstanding example of these is Egat, which was stopped from doing so during the administration of Mr Thaksin by the Administrative Court, which also heard arguments focusing on the expropriation of state lands.

The editorial welcomed the PTT ruling, agreeing with the decision not to force PTT to revert back to the status of state enterprise, which would adversely affect the SET and investor confidence.

However, concluded Thai Rath, the rulings on both PTT and Egat should serve as a lesson for the upcoming government to exercise restraint in trying to privatise state enterprises in the future.

Demoralised doctors

In early November at a public hospital in Pathum Thani, the relative of an elderly patient was displeased that the patient was not recovering. She complained of the heat and overcrowding to a female doctor. The doctor turned and walked away without answering. The relative then grabbed the doctor's collar, choked her and slapped her on the face, noted Dr Chanwalee Srisukho, writing for Matichon.

In early December of this year, a Criminal Court in Thung Song, Nakhon Si Thammarat, passed sentence on another female doctor at Ron Phibun Hospital for injecting a patient who was waiting to be operated on for appendicitis with an anaesthetic. The patient died from an adverse reaction to the drug. The court deemed that the doctor was negligent and jailed her for three years.

Dr Chanwalee said that being physically assaulted and sentenced to jail are harsh treatments for medical doctors who never intend to harm any patient. Doctors are not miracle workers and medical practice cannot escape the laws of nature. Even the best physicians cannot prevent undesirable consequences, whether in Thailand or the most medically advanced country in the world.

It's very rare that patients die or don't recover due to doctors' carelessness or misconduct, continued the writer. Most often it is the health system that should be looked into.

Dr Chanwalee pointed out that since the 30-baht universal health scheme, and later free treatment for all, were introduced, there have been too many patients at many hospitals, overwhelming the facilities and the staff. Medical personnel have to work harder and longer while spending less time with each patient. This results in deteriorating quality of treatment and mistakes.

The problem is compounded by the Public Health Ministry's failure to produce enough doctors and other health care personnel to serve in rural areas. Many who are in these positions lack experience and skill.

Meanwhile, the country's budget shortfall is resulting in an inadequate procurement of modern equipment. Most rural and provincial hospitals never have money to make improvements, and sometimes life-saving equipment is absent.

Dr Chanwalee commented that the overall health care budget shortfall problem is compounded by an inequitable allocation system. Several public hospitals are barely surviving.

More and more doctors are resigning from public service due to heavy workloads, and the lure of private hospitals with better pay and working conditions is strong. Several public hospitals lack experts in many fields.

The Public Health Ministry is trying to solve the problem by urging medical schools to turn out more doctors, but questions of quality and experience remain.

The gap between big cities and rural areas is vast, continued Dr Chanwalee, not only in regard to doctors, but also other health care professionals. This is partly because big cities offer more opportunities, for example in children's education.

Meanwhile, social attitudes are changing. Doctors are not as esteemed as they were in the past. There have been several high profile cases of criminal and civil malpractice suits, and there is a network of lawyers ready to take the cases of disgruntled patients.

Dr Chanwalee said that people should take more responsibility for their own health. Most people lack proper education on health matters. They think that health care is the exclusive domain of medical doctors. They don't care for their bodies, damaging them by drinking, smoking, overeating and lack of sleep. Often they come to see doctors when they are too sick to be cured but they don't accept that. When they are not cured in a short time or not recover, they blame doctors for incompetence. Some even accuse doctors of prolonging illness to get more money.

Dr Chanwalee admitted that some medical doctors and nurses are not good at communication. Some give too much hope, and some too little to patients and kin. Some don't talk at all.

Yet, most doctors at public hospitals throughout the country are doing their utmost to deliver patients from illness and death. Acts of violence and lawsuits against them can demoralise doctors and may adversely affect their practice. Then the patients will bear the consequences, concluded Dr Chanwalee.

Don't derail election

Some few people are still attempting to derail tomorrow's general election, but these attempts have been met with resounding condemnation, noted a Matichon writer, who added that, judging from the huge number of people turning out for advance balloting last week and the intense last-minute electioneering by parties and candidates, most people are very enthusiastic about the election.

The writer said there are some people and institutions that will not like the results of tomorrow's election, and may not accept them. These may be the same people who did not accept the results of the general election on Feb 6, 2005 and April 2, 2006, when the former Thai Rak Thai party was overwhelmingly victorious.

For the good of the country, however, everyone should respect the people's choice, even if it does not correspond to their goals, concluded Matichon.

Bangkok Post