There are several state enterprises in the pipeline for privatisation, including Egat Plc, TOT Plc, and CAT Plc. However, the Egat plan, considered to be the privatisation showcase, has been forced to a halt due to protests by its labour union and a subsequent decision by the Administration Court to delay the agency's plan to list plan on the Stock Exchange of Thailand.

The court has summoned Egat and the protest group to discuss the case on March 20.

The delay in Egat's listing plan came after increasing public doubts about whether previous privatisation deals have been done for the public benefit or for a small group of politicians who received a majority of initial-public-offering shares.

Moreover, the share prices of the previously privatised PTT Plc were allegedly influenced by both fundamental and "artificial" forces. Opposition MPs and media Sondhi Limthongkul have accused some politicians of speculating in PTT share prices.

There are no receipts and no evidence, but a large amount of money has reportedly floated into the pockets of certain groups. This is not an accusation that investment bankers want to hear since they only want the privatisation deals to go through for the sake of their fee incomes.

Many have speculated that Thailand will follow Mexico's path. Mexico's privatisation of utilities significantly reduced the government's foreign-debt burden. However, without safeguards to ensure competition, utility prices went up while the public service remained poor. Moreover, a few politically connected families benefited most from the share floats.

More importantly, not all state agencies are suitable for privatisation. The World Bank's 2003 report entitled "Private Participation in Infrastructure in Developing Countries" was by no means a blanket condemnation of privatisation, but it found that private ownership did not automatically solve problems in government-run enterprises.

 The report looked at the results of the massive influx of private investment in developing countries over a decade, averaging US$60 billion (Bt2.3 trillion) a year between 1990 and 2001. Toll roads in Mexico, mobile-phone systems in India, power distribution grids in Brazil, and water utilities in Latin America were among the 2,500 projects built or purchased with these funds.

In the best cases, private companies introduced better management.

But privatisation sometimes replaced some forms of corruption - awarding jobs to cronies and pilfering by employees - with others, such as allowing friends and relatives to buy lucrative companies at low prices. It has had a negative impact on the poor when new owners raise rates to pay for improvements and make a return on their investment.

 Consumers can threaten not to re-elect a government that fails to provide adequate services. However, they will have a harder time to hold private companies accountable. A Latin barometer poll that covered 17 countries in 2001 found that 63 per cent of respondents felt they had not benefited from privatisation, the World Bank report said.

National carrier Thai Airways International has performed less and less satisfactorily, and faced a big drop in net earnings last year. This is a good example of a state agency that the government should pick with a view to its performing better in private hands.

Eventually, whether privatisation will do any good for Thai taxpayers needs to be addressed with more clear data and credibility. The philosophy of privatisation explains well the benefits it would bring to Thai people. Nonetheless, it is up to the government to proceed with privatisation with the right methods and transparency in order to convince the public that privatisation is really good for them.

The first part of this series appeared yesterday.