I wonder why no one ever looks at the experience that other countries have had with this phenomenon. Most likely it's because what happened in the West some 40 or 50 years ago would not fit the local political agenda.

As a matter of fact, the small shops in those countries went down the drain not due to superstores but due to mini-mart chains. Nobody drives to a superstore for a pack of cigarettes or a pack of instant noodles - the time spent wouldn't be worth it. That kind of small shopping used to be done at mom-and-pop shops but now is done at the convenience store on the next corner. And the other way round, why would anybody go to the shop around the corner when buying household items for the next month? It's likely that the shop buys it's stock at the big stores and adds a few baht on the prices.

If our politicians and opinion leaders weren't be so good at lying to themselves and all other Thais, they would have to go after companies like 7-Eleven or other mini-mart chains. But hold it, the owner of 7-Eleven in Thailand is a local company, Charoen Phokpand, aka the chicken people, if I'm not wrong. And who owns the Family Mart chain? But Thais don't criticise Thais - that would be a sacrilege.

I myself try to avoid the 7-Elevens and similar mini marts, just because I know they are the killers of the small family-run shops around the corner.

We should keep in mind another fact: many small shops are a way for elderly people to make a living, those who are no longer able to work in factories or in the fields. Why kill off their chance to make some money, which would also reduce the strain on their family or the government of supporting them? Those who work at the mini marts are mostly young people who could get more education and aim for better paid jobs. With the population getting older, it becomes increasingly more important to keep open ways for older people to make some money.

Sam Munich

Bangkok

Big stores simply offer

better value for money

 I just read that Tesco Lotus is temporarily halting expansion in Thailand and I have to ask why. Every time I go to Lotus I see it filled with Thais (not many farangs) who look happy to be getting good value for their baht. What is wrong with that?

The small shop owners don't want to give up their non-competitive ways and ripping off consumers. They can't compete, so why should consumers suffer?

I want to see a Tesco Lotus and any other superstore that wants to compete with them within easy driving distance for all consumers in Thailand.

Bill Cymbalsky

Bangkok

Redefine the objectives of

the Foreign Business Act

 In revising the Foreign Business Act, we should follow one of Stephen Covey's seven habits of highly effective people: "Begin with the end (goal) in mind" and seek the most effective way to achieve that goal.

So why prohibit foreigners from activities in List One of the law, such as rice farming? As economies develop, people tend to leave the farms for the cities due to the higher incomes etc, so instead of ensuring that Thais will always be farmers why not promote their education, for example through vouchers redeemable at the public school of their choice?

Coming to List Two, a Bangkok-Geneva-Bangkok economy ticket on Etihad Airlines (Middle East ownership, two-year-old planes) costs Bt32,000, whereas Thai International charges Bt53,000. If we exposed THAI to more competition by allowing broader ownership (for example by Singapore Airlines - highly praised, very efficient), might it not become more efficient, benefiting everybody? We could protect national security by setting clear pre-sale conditions such as specifying that THAI's hubs will always be in Thailand.

Similarly, in List Three, why prohibit foreigners from becoming tour guides when, for example, we don't have enough Korean-speaking guides to fill the need? If we let Korean tourists bring in their own guides, their numbers will rise and so will our national income. Don't we want that?

In short, instead of having the Foreign Business Act, which is a very blunt, brute-force instrument, I suggest that we question our objectives. For those that survive scrutiny, let's use targeted, highly effective measures. As a wise man said: "When you have a weak platform, wrap yourself in the flag."

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

Asking for the same rights

as citizens is going too far

 Re: "Time foreign contribution was recognised", Letters, November 13.

It is pathetically amusing whenever a non-citizen in any country demands "equality" with the citizens.

Giles Wynne whines about not having "representation in local government" and being "only just tolerated in Thai society". Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he holds a valid visa. He remains an alien. He is not, and likely never will be, a Thai citizen. All of us in this status have limited "rights". We do, however, reserve the right to return to our home country. As expats, we choose to live in this wonderful and very tolerant country. The Thai authorities likewise choose to allow us to reside here, generally without interference and with only minor inconveniences (visits to Immigration every 90 days). I'm truly baffled about what "basic rights are denied" to us as Wynne complains.

His unspoken request seems to be that he, a non-citizen, be granted a right to vote or even to run for local political office. Does he not exercise those rights in his home country? "One man, one vote, one time, one place" seems to work well around the world. Just before the recent US election a letter to The Nation suggested that the world at large should be allowed a voice in selecting the US government. Wynne appears to be in this camp with his demand for a voice in Thai politics.

No non-citizen anywhere should be allowed even a voice, much less a vote, in the affairs of any other country. You are entitled to your opinion on Thai politics. Just keep it to yourself and allow the Thais to run their country as they see fit. Letters to the editor or other public criticism by expats of anything Thai is generally unwarranted. If you truly feel "just tolerated" or otherwise unappreciated, vote with your feet and leave. Otherwise, shut up and enjoy your life in paradise!

Grandpa

Chon Buri

Research on selfishness applies to former PM

 Re: "Capitalism's moral bastards", Opinion, November 13.

The article cites research at Emroy University that has shown that even monkeys have "moral values" and react with outrage if food (money) is not equally shared around. The researchers also conducted a study that found that about 2 per cent of undergraduates were "non-cooperators" who simply keep all the money rather than share.

When Thaksin still had the chance to correct, at least a little, his negative image as a greedy businessman/politician, he chose to avoid paying taxes and so showed himself to be a non-cooperator.

Perhaps it is wishful thinking to hope for morality in politics as the term "politics" is understood by most people to mean something calculating and self-serving.

One of the few exceptions to this rule in recent Thai political history was Chuan Leekpai who, while holding the most powerful position in this country, refrained from personal greed and did not even own a house in Bangkok. A fact most probably ridiculed by his successor. But guess who has the last laugh now.

Myrtha Leosawasthiphong

Chiang Mai

Newspaper's new format is

very messy for readers

 As a daily reader of The Nation, I am very disappointed with what you have done to the paper. Put simply, it is now one big mess - far too many "bits and pieces" all of different shapes and sizes.

While the global trend is to go tabloid and simplify, The Nation goes in the opposite direction. A broadsheet is always a cumbersome thing to read; now it is almost impossible. By the time you have finished there a bits of the newspaper everywhere.

Please, go tabloid, and get rid of all those separate, ugly sections.

I notice, to my extreme disappointment that the Scramble Words segment is now missing. That, along with your bridge column, is one of the two things, to me anyway, that set your paper apart from your main rival.

As ever I enjoy reading your news coverage, but it is harder than ever to find it!

George Cuppaidge

Bangkok

Thai society needs to cherish people who stand up for truth

 Re: "Help! Thailand needs more whistleblowers", Opinion, November 13.

I'm totally with Kavi Chongkittavorn. This is what is lacking most in Thai society right now. The line between right and wrong seems to have become blurred. It seems that anything is okay as long as you can keep your head from being chopped off, and that is how people act these days.

People do not dare to express their views on simple cases of right and wrong that even an idiot could pass judgement on. Our ability to judge between right and wrong has been badly impaired.

But how can society ask for whistleblowers, heroes and heroines when it offers nothing to protect them. Thai society only brands these people as stupid for speaking their minds. It much prefers bending with the wind, going with the flow to survive. This society will certainly go downhill if truth is not made the ultimate value and good people are not recognised and protected.

Minanorati

Bangkok