Steve P comments that "the press is not willing or able to publish readers' letters on the new immigration laws". Maybe it's because most believe that Thailand is finally doing the right thing when it comes to visa rules.

I have many farang friends in Thailand and very few are even remotely concerned about the latest rules. That is because they're all here legally! There are various means available for a foreigner to reside in Thailand legally. Fact is, if you can't find one, then you shouldn't be here.

And he brings up the same tired argument about how the country would be hurt by the financial exodus. He is seriously overestimating his importance. It's a drop in the bucket and, when you consider that the ones leaving don't belong here in the first place, the minuscule loss is more than offset by getting rid of the undesirables. Besides, money isn't the driving force. If it were, then we should be putting out the red carpet for the Colombian drug lords, Russian mafia, money launderers, Imelda Marcos … you get the picture?

I personally welcome foreigners of all race, colour, creed and religion to Thailand. But I have neither patience nor sympathy for those that aren't willing to comply with the government's rules and regulations. I do hope that Steve P and his ilk do as promised and make a beeline for Cambodia. Then they'll appreciate how good they had it here. If nothing else, there'd be a heck of a lot less whining.

SSC

Bangkok

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

Exodus of expats will have little impact on Thailand

 Re: "Visa rules will separate families, cause a cash exodus", Letters October 23.

Steve P alludes to the fact that he owns property, has millions of baht in the bank and a family in Thailand. Despite his good fortune, because of some new draconian immigration laws he will have to now abandon his family and move to Cambodia. He attempts to play on the reader's humanity by saying that there will be a "massive exodus of expats", and that the new visa rules will be "upsetting tens of thousands of Thai families". This simply is not the case.

I wonder where his empirical data is coming from regarding the number of expats affected and the money that will be lost to Thailand. Any expat who has been a long-term guest in this country knows of or has seen the abuses by other expats throughout the country. Many of these expats that the new visa rules affect are the ones who have little or no money and little interest in contributing positively to Thai society or culture in any way.

While it is true that the new rules will affect thousands of expats in Thailand that are here on semi-permanent, recurring 30-day tourist visas, the rules are put forth by the government in an attempt to properly control immigration into this country. Anyone with a family, enough money and the desire to remain in this country can get a proper visa. It may require a trip to your country of origin but a year-round stay is far from impossible.

David Barkdull

Bangkok

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

If you want to stay, follow the immigration rules

 Re: "Visa rules will separate families, cause a cash exodus", Letters October 23.

Most countries in the world have limits on the length of stay on a tourist visa. There are many different types of visas here in Thailand, one of which is for foreigners who are married to Thais and would like to stay here. If all your papers are in order, and you can prove you can support your family without working in Thailand, you will probably be granted such a visa.

However, most of those expats Steve P refers to, who stay here on tourist visas or even transit visas, either work here illegally or run businesses illegally. They do not pay taxes, they compete with legal businesses that do pay taxes and actually exploit Thailand, not support it. I think the main purpose of this new law is to get those working or doing business here to get their act together, apply for the correct type of visa and start supporting Thai society instead of just using it.

I have been living in Thailand for about 16 years. Once I realised that it's the place I wanted to be I got my act together, applied and got the correct visa. I don't need anyone to explain to my family why I have to leave as I don't have to. If at any point in time I either have to or decide to leave, my family members will be part of the decision-making process and will definitely come with me, not be left behind.

JJ

Bangkok

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

Open letter to the chief of Chiang Mai traffic police

 Sir, I wonder if you are aware that the traffic in Chiang Mai is now completely out of control?

One-way streets and U-turns have become meaningless, young children ride motorcycles, and yet all we see are occasional spot checks for helmets.

The other night I drove from Thapae Gate to Sansai at 2.15am, having watched the Grand Prix televised late on TV at one of my favourite restaurants. It was some 11 years since I had driven in the city after midnight and I was horrified. Most motorcyclists and many car drivers ignored all the red lights, all the time.

When turning right on a green light at the central ring road, a pickup facing me suddenly set off against his red light and I narrowly avoided a head on collision. Obviously drunk, the driver was laughing out of his open window.

Is it true that you all go off duty at 10pm?

When are you actually on duty?

When shall we see you helping to save lives instead of simply extracting fines (in the daytime only) for technical offences?

David Hardcastle

Chiang Mai

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

Thaksin's popularity also due to manipulation of media

 Re: "How to salvage the coup and move to the reform", Opinion, Monday September 25.

Kavi Chongkittavorn's article prompted the following thoughts:

First, the political preferences of rural voters have not been determined entirely by the sham populist programmes of the now-defunct Thaksin regime. Perhaps a more important factor that explains the big difference in the perceptions of rural and urban citizens is the lack of complete, accurate information.

Thaksin controlled all TV stations, therefore, all the information presented served a single, self-serving point of view. With more complete information, they, too, would see Thaksin for what he is.

Guaranteeing a free, equitable flow of information via state-owned media (why should they be state-owned, rather than state-regulated?) is, as Kavi states, of the highest priority.

Second, prior to the Bt30 healthcare scam, most health services provided by government hospitals had been free, or available at a low cost, for many decades. All Thaksin did was package and rename the existing scheme, and claim credit for what already existed. The entire scheme was under-funded, putting a great strain on many hospitals and causing many doctors to quit government service due to exhaustion and inadequacies. While the attention given to the system did stimulate some positive adjustments and make rural people more aware that the services are available, the primary motivation was to enrich himself, his family, and his cronies.

Third, perhaps the Human Rights Commission should have more power than merely to reprimand. The police are far too corrupt to rely on, since they are the primary violators of human rights in Thailand.

Gibson Martin

Bangkok

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

Thoroughly investigate all deals related to new airport

 I certainly hope the corruption investigation entities put King Power high on their target list. How did King Power get a monopoly of all retail operations at the new airport without any competitive bidding? By what right did King Power take over space originally allocated for people-movers and designate it for retail operations? Why are Bangkok's "duty-free" prices the highest in the region?

The answers will certainly implicate politicians, as well as Airports of Thailand executives and air force officers, but that's the price of transparency and equity. Thailand needs to work for the benefit of the many, not the few, to earn respect in the international community.

Investigation of the new airport from the construction phase through to operations is going to reveal a pervasive pattern of shameless corruption. Let's hope the investigators have the guts to do what is right and fair.

John Ashton

Bangkok

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

Support for alcohol ad ban is hardly from 'many' sectors

 Re: "Ad ban wins praise from many sectors", News, October 23.

The headline suggests that the ban on alcohol advertising is enjoying wide and varied support. Indeed, the Oxford Dictionary definition of many is "great in number; numerous". Therefore, to see only two "supporters" listed was a little surprising. And a closer examination of these revealed some interesting information.

At first sight a reader might be forgiven for believing that the Consumer Protection Board is an independent watchdog; sadly not so. Nor is it an independent public agency. It is a government body shown to be under the Public Relations Department in the listings for the Office of the Prime Minister.

You give the second "supporter" as the Global Policy Alliance (Gapa) which is actually the Global Alcohol Policy Alliance, a group of, in their words, "experts and advocates from around the world [who] came together to share their views and to find a way to coordinate their efforts ... to monitor the marketing strategies being taken by the global alcohol industry to increase sales". Their last publicly listed activity was December 12, 2005.

Neither source can be said to be "independent" and therefore their support is hardly unexpected. So the word "many" in the headline is a little misleading.

Dr John Patterson

Bangkok