In the story "Hundreds of retailers to protest at ministry" (Business, September 13) 7-Eleven was not mentioned as being responsible for the closure of corner shops in communities, despite the obvious fact that they are. Why? Is it because the 7-Eleven franchise in Thailand is wholly owned by Thais (CP Group)?

It is plain for everyone to see that 7-Eleven stores are and have been putting the old-fashioned corner shops out of business for more than 10 years. In my small soi there are two 7-Eleven stores within 100 metres of one another, and another just around the corner. They occupy space that was formerly occupied by traditional shops. The nearest foreign hypermart is over three kilometres away. I think these clumsy, xenophobic attempts to curtail the legal, legitimate business of foreign stores are crass and absurd.

Mr 24-7

Bangkok

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

Shopping at hypermarts helps them shut out the little guy

Re: "Mom and pop rejoice, we cry", Business, September 13.

It's amazing that people like the writer of this article who are well educated should mind paying a few baht more for a bottle of fish sauce from a corner shop instead of driving four kilometres to the nearest Tesco Lotus for tiny savings.

Instead of whining about the efforts of small people, which I deem to be absolutely legitimate, the writer should study more about how these hypermarts work and determine if their existence is fair for small businesses. Discount stores should be for wholesalers and housewives that need to shop in big quantity.

The writer needs to talk to mom and pop operators who have suffered to find out about how hypermarts squeeze manufacturers before she whines about her own interests.

Korbsook Iamsuri

Bangkok

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

Thaksin etching out a legacy of failure in every respect

Re: "Public will demand next PM probes Thaksin", News, September 13.

Thailand's political scenario in the near future will likely be messy - regardless of whether caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra stays on in power or takes leave, temporarily or permanently, from politics. All because of a bitter legacy that Thaksin will have left us.

True, Thailand's economy has expanded somewhat impressively during his tenure, but that was largely based on exports and tourism - not as a result of better management.

As a result, a paradox has occurred: while the rich reaped benefits of the growing economy, the poor of our country got poorer.

Household debt has soared despite growing personal incomes. Our country's much-needed education reforms were not adequately pursued. The southern Muslim terrorist problem, which started and grew during his administration, is set to get worse because of the inconsistency and incoherence of his government's policies.

There is no clear-cut number two or successor below Thaksin. There is no Plan B for the party's future. Thus, Thai Rak Thai is standing on shaky ground - it could collapse any time.

With all of his failures as prime minister and political party leader Thaksin has painted himself into a corner. It will be some time before Thailand recovers from the aftershocks of Thaksinocracy and gets going again on the right path.

Chavalit Van

Chiang Mai

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

TRT's attempt to silence academics beggars belief

Re: "TRT warns state university academics", News, September 13.

For the very first time, I have difficulty in believing the accuracy of your reporting. In this article, it is claimed that Peerapan Palusuk and Surachai Baochanya, members of the Thai Rak Thai legal team, suggested that in Thailand it is okay for Thaksin to say whatever he wants to say in order to support himself, but it is not okay for those in the employ of the state to enjoy the same rights if they disagree with him. This cannot be true for if it were, it would smack of bullying and blackmailing the little guys.

 I'm sure that these two highly intelligent people really do understand that there is a large minority (some 45 per cent of the nation), the bulk of whom are the country's educated masses, who sincerely detest Thaksin and do not believe he is a suitable person to be prime minister. It cannot be possible that these highly respectable, well-educated lawyers would dream of denying these people their right to freedom of speech, especially at election time. No sir, I'm sorry, but your report simply cannot be true!

Henry Ashe

Bangkok

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

Protectionist policies could devastate Thailand's economy

Thailand is stumbling down a dangerous path that will have long-term consequences for its ability to continue its economic expansion. I am writing about its recent xenophobic actions to make it harder for foreign investors to set up business here and chase out hardworking farangs, many of who keep at least a partner or two fat and happy.

Misguided is its recent crackdown on nominee shareholders in all sectors, a practice necessitated by the communist-style laws that requires most foreign outfits here to have a Thai partner with a majority stake. If the country didn't have such onerous laws, the entire nominee phenomenon would never have started. The government giving into the hysteria over foreign retailers (which, by the way, all have Thai partners) expanding is also disturbing. Mom and pop stores are going by the wayside around the globe and if Thailand wants to modernise and be the player it already thinks it is, then that's the price it has to pay.

Finally we now have new visa regulations that won't allow foreigners to renew their 30-day visas more than three months in a row before having to leave for 90 days before re-entering the country. Scores of schools and language academies that can't secure work permits for their employees because of the rigorous standards will be in a world of hurt as their employees bail out for better-paying teaching jobs in places like Vietnam (which bafflingly pays more despite its level of development).

There are plenty of countries in the region that are pining for more foreign direct investment. Thailand's unavoidable losses will be their gains. Thailand's actions convey that the country can do just fine on its own. Wrong! If it weren't for foreign money, Thailand would be just another backwater in Southeast Asia. This country was built on foreign money in the form of FDI and exports. Sadly, when the powers that be receive a retaliatory slap in the face after biting the hand that feeds the country, it will be too late. And that's the price of overconfidence and swollen pride.

Copper Johnny

Bangkok

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

Feudal ownership laws will only divert foreign investment

Re: "Report blows lid off use of nominees", Editorial, September 13.

On the back of the nominee issue involving Shin Corp, there has been a belated backlash on foreign nominee companies. With the seeming lack of cooperation from the Commerce Ministry to resolve the issue relating to Shin, we now find a law that has been almost dormant for years now being resurrected and acted upon.

One of the many reasons given for this is that Thailand will no longer tolerate foreigners making a living illegally and not paying taxes, such as bar beer owners in Pattaya. But what does this have to do with legitimate companies setting up here that now have nowhere to turn? Does the ministry and all those who support strengthening the law really imagine that farang businessmen will entrust 51 per cent of their potential wealth to an active, participatory Thai national they do not know? No, but for new businesses this is the reality.

But this brings us to the real point here: isn't it about time that Thailand accepts multinationalism, in which foreign ownership, particularly in the West, has become the norm? Can you distinguish the national base of foreign corporations operating in continental Europe? Is Britain, France or Europe the entity? What about Asia? Does it matter?

This development is the nature of the floating nation-state for the 21st century. For Thailand to be so feudal about its foreign ownership laws will reduce capital inflows. It will not be a great long-term investment destination because there will, from now on, be no one coming to this country that will trust the uneasy partnership arrangements, and foreign nationals will instead go somewhere that will - Malaysia, for example. The "doomsday naysayers' constant howls" will be heard no more; they'll be tucked up in bed with your next-door-neighbours' multiculturalism.

Sucatash

Bangkok

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

New visa rules in line with regulations elsewhere

Although I can understand LS Bergman's exasperation with potential changes to Thai visa rules ("Blanket visa regulations cause unnecessary difficulties", Letters, September 13, 2006), the writer utterly fails to understand why the rules might have been put in place. Clearly Thailand has no wish to bar foreigners from entering the Kingdom. After all most nationalities can enjoy 30 to 90 days of a visa-free, no-questions-asked visit. Instead, the new measures are aimed at preventing long-term stay of poor and/or unemployed foreigners in Thailand.

It is a bit infuriating isn't it to be judged exclusively by your economic status? That is unacceptable. But then Thailand is simply following great examples set by Western countries which do not hesitate to judge foreigners based on their nationalities and economic well-being and yet have the audacity to preach human rights. Maybe Thailand would do away with these rules once Thai citizens are treated on a reciprocal basis.

Meanwhile, with our limited natural resources, we unfortunately can only allow economically well off and productive foreigners to remain in the country.

P Ittigusumaln

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