PTT sells stake in Neo Mobility Asia to MGC
In 2021, PTT announced a joint venture investment with MGC through Arun Plus Co, a wholly-owned subsidiary of PTT, to establish NMA. The investment by the two companies was set at a ratio of 50:50.
The plan was for NMA to become the sales agent of Chinese EV brands, such as Zeekr and Xpeng.
MGC and Arun Plus wanted to drive the country to become the leading EV market in Southeast Asia during that year.
However, the slowdown in China's economy and current oversupply in the battery-powered EV market have affected EVs ecosystems.
PTT released a statement to the Stock Exchange of Thailand on Aug 4, announcing the sale of its entire stake in NMA to MGC-ASIA Greentech Co, a subsidiary of MGC, with a total transaction value of 83 million baht.
Pattaralada Sa-ngasang, PTT's chief finance officer, said the sale was completed on Monday in alignment with PTT's strategic direction, which not only focuses on enhancing competitiveness in the oil and gas business, but also revisits non-oil and gas businesses to reinforce cash-flow capabilities and strengthen its long-term competitive position.
When it comes to the oil and gas sector, PTT is also suffering from overcapacity of the oil refinery and petrochemical sector across the global market and the company is currently planning to restructure this business sector.
During the period 2020 to 2022, PTT entered into the non-oil and gas business by setting up Arun Plus as a flagship EV business and Innobic Asia Co as a flagship life science and bio-based business.
In January this year, PTT decided to have its subsidiary Horizon Plus Co reduce its share in an EV manufacturing company in Thailand to 40% from 60%.
MGC chief executive Sunhavut Thamchuanviriya said the entire wholly-owned NMA is expected to benefit the future of the ecosystem.
This aligns with the company's policy of creating a mobility sector that encompasses both user experience, technology, and sustainability, in line with the company's strategy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bangkok Post
4 hours ago
- Bangkok Post
Singapore turns 60 with much to show
No country turns 60 like Singapore. In a neighbourhood of political dynasties and varying shades of autocracies and flawed democracies, the little island state of six million got lucky with its strongman rule. When he died in 2015, Singapore's patriarchal founder Lee Kuan Yew left a great country behind. This weekend, Singaporeans can take stock of what's gone by and rightly celebrate its milestone with much to show for. To be sure, Singapore's success is time-tested. In 1965, when it was virtually kicked out of the Federation of Malaya -- Malaysia today -- the then self-governing island of predominantly overseas Chinese faced dire conditions and dim prospects. The ruling People's Action Party and its leadership under Lee had to build up their poor little island, less than half the size of Bangkok's land area, into a prosperous nation from ground zero. As the first decade led to another and more, small steps accumulated into leaps and bounds. Singapore went from a backwater nation in the 1960s to an industrialised country by the 1990s. The PAP's initially iron-fisted top-down rule under Lee brooked no dissent and meant that Singaporeans had to work hard, keep their heads down, and trade off lesser rights and freedoms for jobs and better living standards. As the founding prime minister for 31 years and as cabinet advisor and guardian of the political system thereafter until his death, Lee focused on equipping Singaporeans with skills and education for the country to thrive. His most indelible and lasting legacy arguably is the education system, especially the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University, both distinct but in a collaborative fashion connected to a network of research institutes, think-tanks, and the broader policy community. Today, graduates of these two universities, both among the top-ranked in Asia and worldwide, can go toe-to-toe with peers from renowned universities elsewhere. The nexus of universities, research institutes, think-tanks, policy community, and private sector collaboration has made Singapore the hub in Southeast Asia for global and regional conferences, prominent lectures, and corporate meetings. Yet Lee did not do it all by himself. As with any great political system, no good leader can be effective without a good team around him. Lee's partners in the PAP included S Rajaratnam and Goh Keng Swee, who were equally instrumental in Singapore's success. University colleges and schools in Singapore today are named after them. Lest readers think this is an article driven by obsequity and ingratiation, I was a critic of Singapore for many years. Some 30-35 years ago, Singaporean diplomats and public intellectuals, such as Kishore Mahbubani and Bilahari Kausikan, took to the world stage to engage with Western intellectuals about "Asian values". It was their right, but I wondered why these Singaporeans should be self-appointed spokespersons for Asian values. This was a time when East Asia's phenomenal economic performance, in tandem with shades of autocratic rule, was a puzzle to many. How could autocratic systems do so well economically? The "Asian values" answer from the Singaporeans was Asians' deference and respect for authority, communitarianism over individualism, familial piety and social harmony, discipline, hard work, and so forth. Back then, it was seen as a self-serving rationalisation because Singapore was a single-party-dominant state without a real parliamentary opposition, an independent media, basic freedoms and rights. A socially engineered society, the Singaporean government at one point banned chewing gum and caned an American teenager for vandalism. While Singapore's ruling tactics were controversial with a lot to answer for, Lee and other leaders were adamant and stayed their course. Lee also passed on the leadership baton to Goh Chok Tong for nearly 14 years to be kept for his son, Lee Hsien Loong, who ruled for nearly 20 years. The dynastic rule from father to son was initially seen as despotic and reminiscent of other ruling families in Southeast Asia. After the 1990s, my scepticism of Singapore shot through the roof when Thaksin Shinawatra sold his telecom conglomerate known as Shin Corp to Temasek, Singapore's sovereign wealth fund, in January 2006 for US$1.9 billion without paying any tax. A simple "due diligence" would have informed Temasek that the deal was scandalous in view of the unfolding Thai political crisis centring on Mr Thaksin's corruption and conflicts of interest. The title of one of my articles in this space in 2006 was "Is Temasek complicit in scandal?," followed by another questioning "Singapore's culpability," criticising Temasek, whose chairwoman happened to be the prime minister's wife. Having held a visiting position at a research institute in Singapore in 2005, I was quickly disowned by its director, who wrote in a regional newspaper that he had no more respect for me. Communication and invitation from Singaporean counterparts were muted, and I felt like a persona non grata. It was all unpleasant, and I have no regrets. But the past 20 years have changed my perspective. Singapore has gone up and up, while Thailand has gone down and down. Singapore can boast not just a world-class economy, a merit-driven society with the rule of law, and Oxbridge-quality universities, but also a new generation of leaders, now headed by Lawrence Wong, an outsider not from the Lee family but an offspring of the system Lee built. Singapore now helps carry and keep Asean together. For example, Singapore was the first in Southeast Asia to set up a cyber force, a digital branch of its armed forces, which is now providing cybersecurity capacity-building for other Asean members. The self-interest thinking is that Singapore cannot be safe if its neighbourhood is unsafe. Moreover, the statesman-like level and stature of Singapore's leaders, their knowledge grasp, and ability to articulate and engage on principle and substance are second to none worldwide. Singapore continues to deliver for its people and to provide them with a future worth working for. Although Singaporeans tend to complain about this and that, they know deep down that they have a good country. Nowhere is a reflection of Singapore's success simpler and more touching than the arrival announcement of its flag carrier, Singapore Airlines. When landing in Singapore, passengers will hear "Welcome to Singapore, ladies and gentlemen, and to residents of Singapore and Singaporeans, a warm welcome home." Tinged with pride and comfort, the tone of "home" for Singaporeans is surely worth coming back to and celebrating. Thitinan Pongsudhirak, PhD, is professor at Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Political Science and a senior fellow at its Institute of Security and International Studies in Bangkok.
Bangkok Post
4 hours ago
- Bangkok Post
Sub deal raises questions
Of course, the armed conflict between Cambodia and Thailand at the border reminds us about the sacrifices soldiers make. Of course, we know that the country needs a stronger army, and that a strong army needs better weapons and equipment -- not to mention decent welfare and treatment. Despite the situation at the border, lawmakers must remain vigilant when scrutinising the army's budget spending. Casualties of war -- or the fear of them -- are not and should not be grounds to hand a blank cheque to the armed forces. It is worrying that this might be the case for Thailand in precarious times. As the border skirmish with Cambodia continues and ultra-nationalism takes hold, the military keeps asking for more weapons, while the government asks fewer questions and seeks to appease. A glaring example of this is the latest development in the controversial submarine procurement project. This week, the Royal Thai Navy officially announced that it would permit Chinese shipmakers to fit a Chinese engine in a 13.5-billion-baht S26T Yuan Class submarine for Thailand, despite the fact that the seller would be violating the original contract over engine specifications by doing so. The green light was given by Phumtham Wechayachai when he was the defence minister, before he was named acting prime minister. Instead of fitting a German-made engine or one stipulated in the contract, the seller, China Shipbuilding & Offshore International Co (CSOC), is offering a protocol model recently used by the Pakistani navy. Military equipment enthusiasts might not understand why the engine cannot simply be replaced. The answer is that the navy has made a contractual demand to purchase proven technology for its first submarine in eight decades. What is more worrying is that this leeway will set the tone for future sub procurement projects. The Royal Thai Navy planned to purchase three submarines from CSOC under a government-to-government deal. The contractual violation, however, forced the navy to scrap the deal for the other two. It remains a big question why the government did not cancel the entire deal instead and find a new supplier. Even worse, the navy kept buying related equipment, such as tug boats and even uniforms, from China to use with submarines it didn't have yet. This newspaper has been questioning this dubious procurement -- not because we prefer a particular brand or country. We believe that public procurement projects must be transparent and accountable. Any contractual changes must be verified and agreed by parliament -- not a closed-door meeting. But this is not the case with the dubious sub deal. Bombarded by the media over this sub deal, Mr Phumtham simply becomes coy. "It is classified... we do not discuss arm procurements during wartime," he says. This laughable explanation is not acceptable. Arms procurements -- especially this one -- must be vetted by parliament, and pertinent details must be made available to taxpayers in the country. This project will set a bad precedent for future procurement projects. It would not be a surprise if this leeway will encourage the armed forces and the government to revise other contracts after being pressured by foreign governments to do so. It is expected, too, that arms procurement contracts in the future will be liable to changes. And this will not create the strong military that Thais want to see.
Bangkok Post
a day ago
- Bangkok Post
Trump hails $100bn US investment pledge by Apple
WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump has announced that Apple will invest an additional $100 billion in the United States, a move that could help it sidestep potential tariffs on iPhones. The new pledge raises Apple's total domestic investment commitment in the US to $600 billion over the next four years. Earlier this year, the company announced it would invest $500 billion and hire 20,000 workers across the country in that period. The announcement centres on expanding Apple's supply chain and advanced manufacturing footprint in the US, but still falls short of Trump's demand that Apple begin making iPhones domestically. 'Companies like Apple, they're coming home. They're all coming home,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday, moments after Apple CEO Tim Cook gave him a US-made souvenir with a 24-karat gold base. 'This is a significant step toward the ultimate goal of ensuring that iPhones sold in America also are made in America,' Trump added. Asked if Apple could eventually build entire iPhones in the US, Cook noted that many components such as semiconductors, glass and Face ID modules are already made domestically, but said that final assembly will remain overseas 'for a while'. While the investment pledge is significant, analysts say the numbers align with Apple's typical spending patterns and echo commitments made during both the Biden administration and Trump's previous term. In May, Trump had threatened Apple with a 25% tariff on products manufactured overseas, a sharp reversal from earlier policy when his administration had exempted smartphones, computers and other electronics from rounds of tariffs on Chinese imports. Trump's effort to reshape global trade through tariffs cost Apple $800 million in the June quarter. 'Today is a good step in the right direction for Apple, and it helps get on Trump's good side after what appears to be a tension-filled few months in the eyes of the Street between the White House and Apple,' said Daniel Ives, an analyst with Wedbush Securities. 'Savvy solution' Apple has a mixed track record when it comes to following through on investment promises. In 2019, for instance, Cook toured a Texas factory with Trump that was promoted as a new manufacturing site. But the facility had been producing Apple computers since 2013 and Apple has since moved that production to Thailand. Apple continues to manufacture most of its products, including iPhones and iPads, in Asia, primarily in China, although it has shifted some production to Vietnam, Thailand and India in recent years. Despite political pressure, analysts widely agree that building iPhones in the US remains unrealistic due to labour costs and the complexity of the global supply chain. 'The announcement is a savvy solution to the president's demand that Apple manufacture all iPhones in the US,' said Nancy Tengler, CEO and CIO of Laffer Tengler Investments, which holds Apple shares. Partners on Apple's latest US investment effort include specialty glass maker Corning, semiconductor manufacturing equipment supplier Applied Materials, and chipmakers Texas Instruments, GlobalFoundries, Broadcom and Samsung. Apple said Samsung will supply chips from its production plant in Texas for its products including iPhones, while GlobalWafers said it would be supplying 300mm silicon wafers from its Texas plant.
