I write in response to the letter from FTA Watch's Kannikar Kijtiwatchakul. Her comments are fair and constructive. And the appearance of a long, detailed letter from a free-trade agreement (FTA) opponent like her, in the absence of any such response from Thai proponents of the FTA, strongly underlines her point about the difficulty of debate on this matter.

At the same time, by dodging one of my column's central points, Kannikar too readily absolves progressive forces for their persistent failure to serve disadvantaged Thais better. She ignores my clear statement that failure is due in large part to those forces' continuing unwillingness to engage directly in electoral politics and to offer voters not merely alternative proposals but alternative representatives in parliament. 

Kannikar cites opposition to the FTA from workers and farmers. But the simple fact is that a majority of Thai workers and farmers have repeatedly gone to the polls in support of the same Thai Rak Thai Party government that now prevents public access to even a draft of the proposed Thai-US FTA. Their support for Thai Rak Thai reflects above all their simple lack of choice of an electoral alternative that better serves their interests.

Cold War realities and military dictatorships truncated Thailand's political spectrum in earlier decades, leaving it without lasting parties of the genuine Left. Even in those earlier decades, however, such men as Thong-in Phuriphat of the Sahachip Party in the late 1940s and Boonsanong Bunyothayan of the Socialist Party in the mid-1970s worked, ultimately at the cost of their lives, to build leftist parties to represent Thailand's disadvantaged.

Oddly, however, few progressives have taken advantage of the generally less repressive climate of more recent decades to follow in these men's footsteps. Had they done so, the Thai Rak Thai Party might by 2001 or 2005 have faced a serious left-wing challenge for control of Government House. Instead, Thai progressives have slid too comfortably into the NGO habit, disdaining party politics and therefore forfeiting any chance to have won power at the polls and to sit across the table from Washington's negotiators during talks on the proposed FTA.

Michael J Montesano

Visiting researcher, Regional Studies

programme

Walailak University

Nakhon Si Thammarat

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Utility not the only concern when it comes to purchases

Re: "Lack of consumer knowledge makes public prey for pushers of useless, expensive products", Letters, July 11."

Ken Albertsen argues that "wanton consumerism has ingrained itself deep into the fibre of Thailand - particularly its youth. It's become as strongly entrenched as the worst weeds in your local vacant plot of land".

I wonder if his concerns aren't misguided. I also worry for his mental well-being because he worries too much - consumerism is one of those ingrained human traits that won't go away, unless we become puritans.

But does his advice make economic sense? For starters, if we stopped buying consumer goods like whitening cream, we would put a lot of people out of work. Those very same people he calls the downtrodden masses would suffer the very fate he wants them to avoid!

Okay, I guess they could be making more useful things. Like tractors and tanks. But in a capitalist democracy, an "invisible hand" is guiding manufacturers to produce whitening cream rather than tractors, and it's been like that at least since Adam Smith first noted it.

Besides, there's also a psychological value to the products. To a teenager, whitening cream could be as vital as vitamins if she thinks it would make her prettier. Similarly, some adults think that driving a BMW makes them look prettier than if they used public transport, or driving a Toyota, say. All power to them, if they can afford it.

Of course, if the whitening cream had absolutely no effect, it would be criminal to market it as such. Most of the top brands are also sold in the West and Japan, where laws enforcing truth in advertising apply, as they do in Thailand.

He suggests high school courses should include topics such as "Why It's Better to Buy Outright Rather Than with Time Payments", and "Why It's Smart to Buy Second-Hand".

But this would be teaching bad economics since there are times when doing just the opposite would make more sense. Such as when prices are rising and incomes are fixed (that is, practically all the time). How is a middle-class family otherwise able to own a house, a car, or a computer unless the purchases are made through instalments?

If we were thinking of buying a second-hand car, for example, shouldn't we weigh the higher cost of maintenance against hassle-free rides afforded by a new car?

Taking his advice in toto would cause the economy to collapse, and we'd all be living in a little shack by a golden pond writing books, which, ironically, is what many of us dream of doing anyway. But please, permit everyone to live their own dream.

Trirat Petchsingh

Nonthaburi

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Right to privacy second to protection in a time of terror

The fact that international banking records are being reviewed in the hunt for terrorists unsettles some, though likely not likely as much as would attending funeral services for loved ones incinerated by terrorist bombs. Tuesday's outrage in Mumbai, sadly, will again demonstrate this.

One is reminded of the public official who famously opined that "gentlemen don't read each other's mail", only to have his prejudices necessarily swept aside in the build-up to World War II and its horrors. It should require little effort for most of us to realise that these extraordinary times clearly require our best security efforts; and with nuclear proliferation now also in the offing, best efforts can only become more vital.

Ron Goodden

Atlanta, Georgia

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Having religious faith no guarantee of moral choices

Re: "Being considerate should be the goal regardless of religion", Letters, July 12.

This letter whilst being quite charming; is sadly simplistic. The statement: "If you don't believe, you don't have to care; and if you don't care, you don't have to be responsible", when turned around, indicates that the writer seems to understand that in order to be responsible you need to both care, and be a believer.

This is a misleading and extraordinary mistake.  Belief in a system or set of values can be both a good thing and a bad thing. To steal or not to steal is as easy to answer as to kill or not to kill.

As an atheist, I have no problem stopping my car to let people cross, and I act in a responsible and caring way towards my fellow man. I have no requirement of a religious belief system to set the standards of my life, since I have a clear understanding of right from wrong, and justice and morality. My biggest problem are the misguided members of society who seek answers from a belief system that apparently deems it right to commit suicide with bombs, taking innocent people with them, as a means to an end. A pampered poodle or a soi-dog has no need of a religious system, merely a caring and responsible society.

A Voter

London

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Australian zoos concerned with profits, not elephants

The Australian zoos care little about protecting elephants and more about having a new exhibit at the two zoos in Australia.

If the zoos truly cared about elephants, they wouldn't waste more than US$60 million (Bt2.27 billion) on new exhibits too inadequate to keep a few elephants but would send that money (not a small percentage of it) to Thailand to protect habitats and improve anti-poaching/killing patrols. Zoos are businesses - they attract visitors and even admit they compete with amusement parks and other entertainment venues.

It's sad that the Australian government decided to give in to corporate interests rather than uphold existing laws. It's time for Thailand to take a stand and refuse to give away, exchange or sell its precious wildlife. Thailand needs to tell the countries with money (ie. Australia, the US, Europe, etc) that if they want to help with conservation, the rich countries need to send the hundreds of millions of dollars they waste on keeping elephants in their zoos to Thailand to help this country preserve the animals' natural habitat.

Deniz Bolbol

los angeles

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Lottery Office must be made to account for its billions

The Auditor-General is shining the spotlight on possible tax evasion, running into the billions, by the Government Lottery Office (GLO). This emphasis on transparency is to be doubly welcomed - not only because the GLO, like you and me, must pay its share of taxes as mandated by law, but also because its spending is clear as mud.

GLO's reputedly made Bt82 billion in profit from the two-and-three-digit lotteries over the past two and a half years. But have the GLO's spending guidelines been approved by the Finance Ministry, and put on the Web?

How ironic that its profits are so gross - given that it's the poor who are most likely to buy tickets. And caretaker prime minister Thaksin says he's eradicating poverty. Ideally, to help our CEO keep his worthy promise, the entire amount should have been used to benefit the poor through such venues as scholarships, hiring more teachers, or the Bt30 health scheme - but has it? 

The Auditor-General should audit the GLO and its accounts should be made public. Let's ensure that the billions help the underprivileged - not the wealthy and not politicians.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok 

Send us your views in an instant E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to the Editor' in the subject box, to: letters@nationgroup.com