LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Large Thai investors not practising what they preach when choosing where to invest
Re: "Leaders see rocky road for business", Business, January 31.
I note that Kan Trakulhoon, president of Siam Cement Group, plans to invest Bt30 billion overseas this year and urges other Thai corporations to do the same. Siam Cement and most Thai companies in a position to invest overseas are represented at the Thai Chamber of Commerce, which overwhelmingly supported the amendments to the Foreign Business Act. It therefore stands to reason that they should practice what they preach and take only minority positions in their overseas investments, allow local joint venture partners to have majority stakes and management control, and strictly avoid the use of nominees. Unsurprisingly, however, the reality is far from what these companies want to force on their foreign counterparts investing in Thailand. In fact, according to the Bank of Thailand, 60 per cent of Thai firms' investment overseas is going to just four countries, all of which actively encourage foreign investment, allowing foreign ownership and control with few restrictions - namely Singapore, Burma, the British Virgin Islands and China. It is particularly interesting to note the strong interest shown by Thai investors in the British Virgin Islands, which accounted for 12.5 per cent of total outward Thai investment at the end of 2005. This Bt20 billion of Thai investment might have overwhelmed the British Virgin Islands with its tiny population of only 22,000 by now, if it were physically present there. Since there are no signs of this and most companies registered in the British Virgin Islands are, in fact, offshore shells, we can only assume that Thaksin Shinawatra is not the only Thai businessman who likes to conceal his investments behind nominees. Nick Fogarty Bangkok ----------------------------------------- Airport's legacy of corruption stems back further than TRT
Re: "Corruption 'could stem back to Thaksin'", News, January 31. There has been a lot of speculation and half-truths about the new airport. With very little investigative effort over the coming months the following will be revealed: The airport issues started over 20 years ago when the original internationally approved plans were scrapped after the international contractor refused to approve sub-par materials. New plans were drawn up by a local engineering authority approving the poorer materials. The high water-table and tidal flow of the area affected these materials. Efforts were made to quietly stabilise this effect but this was not possible and this has lead to the recent obvious cracking and other effects. These issues were known and raised when the buildings and other structures were constructed but also ignored at the time. The only way to fix this issue now is to, for example, remove the runways down to a good depth and start from scratch effectively making the airport unusable. That this information was known during construction and the effects predicted makes the issue even worse. That the process has spanned two decades, many governments and contractors will make it a very difficult process to point fingers and assign blame. The facts behind the whole affair can be easily traced by starting with the first set of plans and working forward. For the truth to come out may require a completely independent investigation, something unheard of in Thailand to date. No matter what some writers feel, a move back to Don Muang while the whole thing is investigated and fixed is about the only viable solution. Veratis Bangkok ----------------------------------------- Taxpayers forced to foot the bill for Suvarnabhumi fiasco
Re: "Corruption 'could stem back to Thaksin'", News, January 31. It seems that a number of airlines see the move back to Don Muang as a financial impediment, but they will eventually be forced to make the move. Suvarnabhumi Airport, prematurely opened by Thaksin Shinawatra to secure a further tenure of egotism and corruption, has been found to have more than 100 cracks in its runways, taxiways and the apron, with 11 of the 51 piers for unloading aircraft unusable. The taxpayer is being asked to fund its repairs for a staggering Bt1.5 billion. They say it will take some six months to complete. Is this another joke? More like two years. To add insult to injury, Sumet Jumsai, one of Thailand's top architects, insists that the airport will collapse anyway, as it was built on a swamp. How about that as a demonstration of Thailand's integrity? And still we're nowhere nearer to bringing anyone to book. Sucatash Bangkok ----------------------------------------- Ex-PM forever linked with corruption in airport scandal
Re: "Corruption 'could stem back to Thaksin'", News, January 31. It is good to see the outpouring of outrage against alleged corruption at Suvarnabhumi Airport and the possible association with Thaksin. Linking the Thaksin brand and Suvarnabhumi's disgraceful image with corruption is very appropriate. It is only a matter of time, before we have evidence that bids were rigged in favour of contractors in Thaksin's clan, and vast sums of money were siphoned off into someone's pocket illegally. This is not a difficult case to investigate, given the cost of the airport and the resultant shoddy construction. It is very likely that high bids were awarded and the actual materials and labour used were far below performance specifications. Those in charge of examining corruption at Suvarnabhumi just need to analyse price versus product. They need to then punish those contractors and airport officials who allowed corruption to take place. Afford immunity to those willing to point the finger at the bigger fish upstream in the government. It is so blatantly obvious that we, the taxpayers of Thailand, got "screwed". We paid for a world-class airport and received a third-world piece of junk that is deteriorating at lightening speed. We should make whoever is responsible for this an example of what happens when you break the law and try to dupe the public. Outraged Taxpayer Bangkok ----------------------------------------- Mahathir speaks the cold, hard truth about S'pore
Re: "Mahathir supports Thailand in S'pore row", News, January 31. In reference to the interview with former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad, may I commend The Nation for interviewing him and discussing the subject of Singapore. If there is one person who knows the tactics of the Singaporean government well, it is Mahathir. True to form, he said it like no one in the Thai government could possibly say, that "Singapore doesn't really care about the opinion of it's neighbours" He went on to say that "Singapore believes the most important thing is what profits Singapore". I have always enjoyed the way the former prime minister Mahathir talks straight and causes countries like the US and Singapore to run for cover. Funny how the truth makes the self-absorbed, righteous types so nervous. Philip Cook Chon Buri ----------------------------------------- Suggested titles for a 'Thuggy' retrospective
If you are a writer and want to write about Thaksin, here are some suggested titles for your book: 1. The Selling of a Nation 2. The Final Showdown 3. The Last Man Standing 4. Prison is Waiting for You 5. No Way Home 6. So Long My Dear Thuggy 7. The Evil Plan 8. The Impossible Dream 9. My Good Buddy, Lee 10. Don't Hate Me Now, Singapore 11. A Coward Who Wants to be a Hero 12. Catch Me Now, If You Can 13. So Close, Yet so Far 14. Enough is Enough 15. Partners in Crime: Thuggy and the Lees 16. I Am Not a Liar 17. Run Thuggy Run Forever Thailand Bangkok ----------------------------------------- US military confrontation with Iran appears inevitable
Iran's ruling ayatollahs haven't the slightest intention of acceding to Western pressure to forgo nuclear weaponry. Any who believe otherwise are naive, politically motivated or paralysed by what the facts portend. Any perceived slight to Shia Islam, as interpreted by these fanatics, will be seen as an excuse for instant apocalypse and ascent to martyrdom. This summer's turmoil with Shi'ite extremists in Lebanon has also opened a new and more perilous era for Israelis, who've been left by geography with no true barrier between them and their enemies and perceptions of Iran that cannot be ignored. If Iran's ayatollahs these days truly seek to lessen tension by smiling less upon their front man President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hateful words, they've done nothing substantive to diminish his threat. The UN talk-shop will produce nothing with Iran beyond delay and appeasement. Unless we are willing to hand the future to terrorists, our stark choices are either military confrontation with Iran now or certain nuclear holocaust at some future date. It will be tragically ironic if the administration of George W Bush's defensive successes serve now to distract us from choosing. Ron Goodden Atlanta, georgia
|
