Who 'owns' the Bank of Thailand?

In the article it reads “… he indicated that commercial banks will be rewarded by being allowed to increase the level of deposit insurance protection for their customers”. 

This is not true since commercial banks already have to pay deposit insurance and their depositors are already protected by the Deposit Insurance Fund up to the maximum allowed per account as stipulated.

Secondly, it says that “the government will also reduce significantly the premiums paid to the Deposit Protection Agency (DPA), currently 0.4 per cent of their deposit base, in order to divert money for debt payment”. Meaning that less money will be available to insure depositors’ money. How does this “increase the level of deposit insurance protection” when there will be less money in the fund?

Thirdly, it reads, “The government would increase deposit insurance coverage for commercial bank customers so that there would be a level playing field between commercial and state-run banks.

“’It can be done easily without reducing the 100-per-cent guaranteed protection of state banks’ depositors’, he said in reference to the wide gap in deposit protection.”  

However, commercial banks are already required to pay premiums to the DPA, and their depositors are protected up to the amount stipulated. This will not change. On the other hand state banks currently do not, and under the changes still will not, contribute to the DPA, yet their depositors will enjoy unlimited protection of their funds, unlike commercial banks whose protection only extends to Bt10 million per account, and be reduced to Bt1 million per depositor per bank later this year. How exactly is this a level playing field between commercial and state-owned banks?

My feeling is that the finance minister does not understand the decree, or he is deliberately using misleading statements to confuse the public into thinking this action is needed.

Perhaps the finance minister can disclose who is the real owner of the Bank of Thailand’s assets? Most people would believe that the reported US$180 billion foreign reserves belongs to the BOT, and thus the Thai government. If this is true, that the BOT is a state entity, then how does moving the Bt1.14 trillion legacy debt from one government agency onto the books of the BOT (another state-owned agency) mean that this is no longer part of the Thai government’s debt obligations? 

How does shuffling money around like this make any difference in the Thai government’s fiscal position, unless the BOT is not really a state-owned agency. Then we are left wondering who do the foreign reserves (and the FIDF debt) really belong to if not a government-owned entity? 

Curious

Bangkok