Published on January 18, 2006
Re: “Thaksin begins his circus in At Samat”, News, January 17.
We have often heard our PM urging us to think independently. Now I have a question to ask, having thought independently about the issue again and again: what’s the reality of the “reality show” that Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is featured in at the moment? The answer is he is making an ad to promote himself, in an attempt to revive his waning popularity as a result of his true colours as a politicking politician and despotic state leader being exposed to the public more with each passing day.
This is an unheard-of absurdity. Nothing but a farce. State leaders of other countries are occupied with a myriad of state affairs every day. But rarely are they seen in the limelight almost every day like our PM is. He is the servant of the people. It’s his duty to serve the people without thinking of what he will get out of it. Instead, the television show demonstrates that he is asking to be repaid, in political gain, from the people. He even hopes to get something in return when he is shown giving Bt100 to children he meets. This should be done without it having to be shown. Our PM has set a very bad, disgusting example for the young generation: to be selfish. The ill effects of this are being felt strongly in our society today. I would like to tell the PM that even average people do not behave the way he does. Abee Bangkok ----------------------------------------------------------- Grandstanding on television won’t help eradicate poverty Re: “Thaksin begins his circus in At Samat”, News, January 17. The anti-poverty reality television show with PM Thaksin in Roi Et has become a notable event. It is a colourful PR stunt designed to shore up his declining popularity. However, if PM Thaksin really wants to eradicate poverty, the most effective thing he could do is resign. Under his administration, most of the wealth has gone to Thai Rak Thai-related families. The poor get the crumbs of addictive populist hand-outs. When he is gone, the marketplace will be free from Thaksinomic distortion and dislocation and from reckless spending and budgetary gimmicks. As a country, we may need a decade to recover, but we must. Netirat Intira Bangkok ----------------------------------------------------------- One way or another, public will end up footing the bill Re: “Securitisation could be the way to go: Vimol”, Business, January 13. After reading KI Woo’s article on securitisation of the government’s new administrative centre, I was eager to learn more about this new financing technique, which government figures have mentioned from time to time in connection with the proposed mega-projects. An Internet search led me to a memorandum for the securities in question. In plain language, this is what I learned: To fund the construction of the centre, the government does not borrow the money (nor guarantee any borrowing) but uses a nominee, a company set up for the purpose (a special-purpose vehicle, or SPV), with Bt10,000 in paid-up capital, owned 49 per cent by the state and 51 per cent by private entities. This means it is not a state enterprise; its debt, technically, is not public debt. The SPV issues a series of bonds with differing maturities stretching to 33 years and a total value of Bt24 billion. In the scheme, Dhanarak Asset Development Ltd (DAD), the government-owned property-development company, develops and owns the centre and leases it fully furnished to the Treasury Department, which represents government agencies moving into the centre. Rights to rental income from a 30-year lease contract are assigned to the SPV by DAD and underpin the large bond issue and construction funding. The lease includes unusual features, making it far from an ordinary building lease. For instance, rental payments from the Treasury have to be on schedule, regardless of any prolonged delay in construction or any event that would have a serious lasting impact on the usability of the centre. The government is certainly not being named the borrower in this scheme. However, it would be foolish to think that it is not similarly obligated to make an annual budget appropriation towards paying the bondholders. The key concept appears in the offering document’s disclosure on risk: a future government with a different policy may cancel the existing Cabinet resolution in regard to the administrative centre, but the rental cash flow from the Treasury, used to pay interest and principal, would be fully protected for the bondholders by the lease and assignment contracts. This is public debt, without being called so in name. (Incidentally, in this play with a complicated plot, the supporting cast of advisers, fiduciary agents, auditors and valuers is large, with combined fees estimated by one rating agency at equivalent to Bt600 million over the 30-year span.) Now, if more public borrowing for mega-projects is bad fiscal management, how would securitisation be any different? Arjun Pandava Bangkok ----------------------------------------------------------- Where’s the proof that FTAs are harmful to Thailand? Re: “Experience with past FTAs leads protesters to feel we are ill prepared for another one”, Letters, January 17. I would like to see the evidence for Chai Tan’s assertion: “There is enough empirical evidence that the FTAs signed with China and Australia are already hurting Thailand.” As far as Australia is concerned, the balance of trade is very much in Thailand’s favour, and Thai goods are now pouring onto the Australian market in huge quantities. Since Australia cannot compete with Thailand’s manufacturing and production costs, Thai farmers and workers don’t have much to fear from any Australian competition. Australia’s advantages are in hi-tech, biotech and environmental industries, upmarket food goods, etc. The overall advantages to Thailand greatly outweigh any adverse impact on the tiny Thai dairy industry, which is the only sector I am aware of that might be affected. Rodney Sheaves Bangkok ----------------------------------------------------------- Singaporean media are not controlled by the government Re: “City-state is Thaksin’s dream state for news”, Opinion, January 10. The article made use of Singapore to score Thai domestic political points. Please allow me to clarify the situation in Singapore. Singaporeans generally enjoy good government. Corruption is almost non-existent. The vast majority of Singaporeans own their own homes, are employed in jobs with reasonable wages and attend well-equipped schools that are staffed by well-trained and dedicated teachers. Sixty per cent of our students go on to institutions of higher learning. Our people have acquired the skills and knowledge that have given us a decent living standard. That is why Singaporeans have repeatedly re-elected the People’s Action Party in open, free and fair elections where money politics has never been a factor. Singapore could not have become a business, financial and media hub if it had the subservient press or government control of editorial policy alleged by Thepchai Yong in his article. In the recent scandal concerning the National Kidney Foundation (NKF), it was the Singaporean media that first drew public attention to the NKF’s lack of transparency in its internal governance. When suspicions over the abuse of funds arose, there was a debate in parliament, and the government ordered a full investigation. The results were publicly disclosed, and weaknesses in our system of regulating charities will be rectified. Peter Chan Ambassador of the Republic of Singapore Bangkok ----------------------------------------------------------- Future looks as dim as ever for long-suffering Tibetans Re: Passport offers ‘proof’ of Tibet independence”, News, January 16. China says its occupation of Tibet liberated it from feudal oppression. The socialist butchers of Beijing claim they “liberated” Tibet from feudal theocracy and serfdom. However, the brutal fact is that the only feudal slavery the Tibetans have suffered from is the present one, whose “progressive” reforms have been achieved at the ghastly cost of the systematic destruction of the Tibetan people and their unique way of life. At least 1 million Tibetans (one-sixth of the population) have been savagely slaughtered, among them hundreds of thousands of monks. Virtually all of Tibet’s magnificent temples and monasteries, its ancient cultural artefacts and libraries containing the sacred books of its great civilisation have been methodically razed and pillaged in an insane frenzy of extermination. There are no human rights for the Tibetans. They are a forgotten people. Out of sight, out of mind. Their Chinese occupiers demand a permanent presence in Tibet. OG Pamp Prachuap Khiri Khan ----------------------------------------------------------- Why not protest the bigger problem of drunk driving? Re: “Brewery’s Singapore listing gets SEC nod”, News, January 17. The “neither-nor” decision of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) to allow Beer Chang’s listing on the SET shows once more the uselessness of these institutions! The whole procedure is a joke and costs Thailand many millions! If I had Bt1 for every bottle of beer drank by these so called anti-alcohol protesters, I certainly would be a millionaire! Do they really believe that when Chang is listed in Singapore instead of on the SET, it will reduce excessive alcohol consumption in Thailand? Many people have been killed by drunk drivers, and many more will die after the listing. The settlement of the listing issue will be no difference at all. Why do Maj-General Chamlong Srimuang and his followers never demonstrate against drunk driving? Or is there another agenda behind their actions? M Pojaran Bangkok
Post your comment to this story here