You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

June 27, 2011

Free Computer Tablets: Has This Scheme Really Been Thought Out?

Subscribe to Updates
The Nation

* This is an op-ed piece contributed to The Nation by David Lyman, Chairman & Chief Values Officer of Tilleke & Gibbins.

At a seminar on June 15 hosted by The Nation and Asean TV on the subject “July 3 Election: Foreign Trade, Investment and Tourism”, four guest panellists participated, each representing a major or significant Thai political party. Each panellist was interviewed by an Asean TV moderator and then in a question-and-answer session by members of the audience.

One of the subjects discussed was the state of the education system in Thailand and how each party would address the shortcomings of the system. The representative of the Pheu Thai Party, Dr Olarn Chaipravat, chief economic strategist of the party, stated that his party would provide Android Tablets, at a cost of about Bt5,000 each, to 800,000 to 1 million middle-school children nationwide at a cost to the government of only about Bt4 billion to Bt5 billion and would “… encourage parents to oversee their children’s studies. These moves are aimed at solving the issue of the lack of skills in both foreign languages and mathematics among our children.” (Front page, The Nation, Thursday, June 16). This move, he postulated, would go a long way to solve the education crisis.

I do wonder if Dr Olan and his colleagues have thought through the additional costs necessary to support this proposed use of Android Tablets. For instance, many of the students to whom the tablets would be issued barely have enough money for shoes to walk to school. To me, shoes would seem to be a priority. But I digress. Let me pose some questions related to the tablets:

Are there already enough computers in Thailand’s schools so that the students are already computer literate? Bear in mind that most of the parents of the children today are not.

Who will sell these Android Tablets to the Ministry of Education and schools? How many suppliers?

Is this distribution of 800,000 to 1 million Android Tablets a one-time shot or a long-term repetitious programme to cover future students coming into the educational system?

Will this transaction be totally transparent? How will that be accomplished?

Who will teach the students and the teachers how to use the Tablets? Who will teach the parents of the children about the use of the Tablets? How much will that cost? Who pays for such instruction?

To effectively use the Tablets, they must be able to connect to the Internet. And to do that, there must be WiFi routers present in the schools or learning places. How many will need to be installed? How much will they cost? Who pays for such installations?

For the WiFi system to work, it must be connected to a telephone landline or be linked to a mobile phone or a satellite? Thailand is still in the Dark Ages with its antiquated 2G telecom system – way behind all of its neighbours. How many such connections will be required? How long will they take to be installed? Who will install them? How much will they cost? Who pays for such installations?

Who will pay for the air time that each Tablet uses via WiFi and landline or mobile phone charges? How much will that be?

Many of the school children who will receive the Tablets come from homes without electricity. How will they charge the batteries in their Tablet? Who will pay for such electricity supply?

If there are few PCs/computers in children’s homes, how can the students synchronise their Tablets to back up information? Who pays for that? How much will that cost?

Software for Tablets is constantly being improved and made available to users. How can you be sure that the upgrades are installed in each of the Tablets? How much will these upgrades cost? Who will pay for them?

Without access to the Internet, upgrades can only be installed from another computer? Whose computer? In rural areas?

Children, being children, are likely to be somewhat rough on their Tablets and may damage them, crack the screens, drop them, break them on hard surfaces or in liquids, lose them, have them stolen, and otherwise cause them to be useless for the purposes intended. What will stop parents from selling the Tablets to pay for family expenses? Will such children be entitled to a replacement? What procedure must the child follow to prove loss of the unit, whether or not he or she is at fault? Who pays for the replacement?

What happens if a child misuses the Tablet for personal purposes – i.e. playing games? Spending time on social networks?

The lifespan of a computer – and the Tablet is a computer – is about three years. What happens thereafter to the child who receives a Tablet today? What happens to the million or so Tablets? How will they be disposed of? Who will pay for the collection and waste processing of the Tablets?

The 800,000 to 1 million students – is that a present count or does it cover new students coming into the system every year? Will more Tablets be purchased for these new students? How many? What cost? Who pays?

Will the Tablets become the property of the student or will they remain the property of the State? If they are given away by the State, what is the legal authority to do so?

Do the Tablets need to be returned to the State? What happens if the Tablets are not returned?

Is the Android Tablet programme a one-off program or will it continue into the future? For how long? At what cost? Who pays?

I trust that those in the Pheu Thai Party who have worked out this programme have done their maths and factored in all of the related costs and the long-term impacts and residual costs and benefits therefrom.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 20, 2026
Myanmar’s industrial design registration regime has been steadily gaining momentum since the country officially began accepting applications under the Industrial Design Law of 2019. The Industrial Design Division of Myanmar’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD) has actively advanced examination and registration procedures, and as of March 2026, approximately 300 industrial design applications have been published in the IPD’s publicly accessible database—a meaningful milestone in the development of Myanmar’s emerging intellectual property framework. This figure reflects only published applications; additional filings remain pending and will be published after the conclusion of ongoing examination. Filing Requirements in Practice Compliance with a defined set of mandatory requirements is the foundation for filing a valid design application. These mandatory particulars must be provided at the time of filing in order to establish a filing date. These include the applicant’s and creator’s identifying details, a notarized appointment of representative form, the Locarno Classification of the associated product, and a set of graphic representations of the design across multiple standard views. Applicants must also provide a written description of the design and, where applicable, information relating to any priority claim or request for deferred publication. Filing fees are payable at the time of submission. Beyond these core requirements, applicants typically need to provide supplementary documentation, either at the time of filing or in response to a formality examination. This may include evidence of the applicant’s legal entitlement to the design—particularly where the applicant and creator are different parties—as well as supporting corporate and authorization documents. Where priority rights are claimed, the relevant documents must generally be submitted within three months of the Myanmar filing date, with certified English translations required for any non-English priority applications. The supplementary requirements may vary depending on the nature of the application and the examiner’s requests during the formality examination process.
Read More
April 15, 2026
On March 31, 2026, Vietnam’s government issued Decree 102/2026/ND-CP (Decree 102), which amends Decree 75/2019/ND-CP on administrative sanctions for competition law violations (Decree 75). Effective from May 20, 2026, the new decree introduces a number of significant changes aimed at strengthening enforcement, revising penalty structures, and broadening the range of remedial measures, primarily for violations related to economic concentration. Revised Penalties for Economic Concentration Violations Decree 102 significantly revises the penalties for violations related to economic concentration. Failure to notify an economic concentration; implementing an economic concentration before clearance Under the new framework, Articles 14 and 15 of Decree 75 have been amended to impose a range of monetary fines, rather than relying solely on percentage‑based penalties as under the previous regime, for violations involving the failure to notify an economic concentration or the implementation of an economic concentration prior to clearance. The fines range from VND 500 million to VND 1 billion for each enterprise participating in a concentration with combined assets, revenues, or purchase value below VND 3,000 billion in the preceding fiscal year, capped at 5% of the violating enterprise’s total turnover in the relevant market. For concentrations meeting or exceeding the VND 3,000 billion threshold across those same metrics, the fines increase to VND 1 billion to VND 2 billion per enterprise, also subject to the 5% cap. These differentiated thresholds allow penalties to better reflect the size of the transaction and its potential competitive impact. Non-compliance with conditional approvals Enterprises that do not implement or only partially implement the conditions specified in a conditional economic concentration approval decision face fines ranging from 1% to 3% of total turnover in the relevant market during the fiscal year preceding the violation. Decree 102 also adds a new remedial measure requiring enterprises to fully implement all conditions
Read More
April 10, 2026
Following Thailand’s recent expansion of the “major shareholder” definition for securities and digital asset businesses, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) launched a public hearing on April 7, 2026, on expanding the major shareholder definition further to cover funding sources behind share acquisitions in licensed securities and digital asset business operators. The public hearing will remain open for 15 days from the launch date, after which the proposed expansion is expected to take effect promptly so that operators can comply with both the earlier and additional requirements within the 180-day transitional period under the earlier regulations. Funding Sources Captured Under Control-Based Test Under the draft rules, persons who fund direct or indirect major shareholders’ acquisition of shares in a licensed operator would be deemed “controlling persons” and subject to SEC approval as major shareholders. This extends beyond traditional lenders to include guarantors, counterparties to derivatives or structured products, and any arrangement that results in a person being, directly or indirectly, a source of funding to a major shareholder. The SEC proposes to exempt three categories of funding arrangements from approval: Loans from Thai licensed financial institutions or BCBS (Basel Committee on Banking Supervision)-jurisdiction foreign banks; Margin loans for securities trading under Thai securities law; and Repurchase agreements under Thai securities law. Exemptions for Funding Sources of Government-Linked Entities The consultation proposes to stop look-through beyond the level of certain government-linked shareholders, including, without limitation, ministries, departments, bureaus, public organizations, independent agencies, and certain state enterprises. The SEC reasons that these entities’ mandates, duties, and funding sources are already subject to government oversight and audit, presenting minimal ownership-structure risk. Practical Implications Licensed securities and digital asset business operators should begin mapping their funding chains under the expanded definition in preparation for filing approval applications for any newly captured funding providers
Read More
April 10, 2026
Thailand has introduced new regulatory guidance requiring digital platform operators to adopt structured, transparent, and fair fee practices. On March 16, 2026, the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) published Announcement No. DPS 2/2569, titled “Guidelines for Transparency and Fairness in Digital Platform Service Fee Determination,” issued under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Service Business Operations B.E. 2565 (2022). The guidelines establish a framework governing how digital platform operators should set, disclose, and adjust fees charged to users and related service providers such as logistics and payment providers. Although framed as best-practice guidance rather than legally binding rules with explicit penalties, the guidelines carry regulatory weight under the royal decree and represent a significant step toward structured governance of digital platform fee practices in Thailand. The guidelines establish various transparency principles and divide fees into two distinct categories—compulsory and additional—with specific governance principles for each. Transparency Principles The guidelines recommend that digital platform operators adopt several transparency measures to ensure that users can fully understand the costs of using a platform. Fee catalog. All fees should be consolidated into a single, accessible location, which should include the fee name, definition, scope of covered services, calculation methodology, rate, billing period, and calculation examples. Minimum service disclosure. Operators should disclose the minimum service that users can expect, such as baseline visibility, product listing capabilities, access to transaction data, and back-end dashboard access. Price structure disclosure. Operators should disclose the categories of costs underlying their fees, such as system maintenance, cybersecurity, and operational costs. While exact cost figures need not be made public, operators should be able to provide numerical data to regulators upon request. Clear fee formulas. Fee calculations should be simple and easy to understand—for example, percentage of net sales, cost per order, or cost per product listing. Operators should
Read More