Kamol Sukin made a good attempt to do a comprehensive report on JTEPA but inadvertently ended up misquoting me and my foreign minister, misplacing my views out of context and rather disappointingly omitting what I stressed to be important facts that the public should know. These are:

First, the JTEPA has received broad public support from agricultural cooperatives, industries, exporters and most NLA members. They urge the current government to sign it soon.

Second, the only vocal opponents of JTEPA come from FTA Watch and a couple of other NGOs who have the tenacity to dwell on two subjects on a daily basis. Our responses to their concerns seem to have fallen on deaf ears.

This is quite understandable, for even a prominent NGO member in the NLA told me not to worry; these NGO people have the role to oppose; period. But he was wrong in his prediction that once the NLA had concluded the debate in favour of JTEPA, these NGOs will respect the decision. Far from accepting it, they are not shy to slam the NLA, TDRI and even the prime minister, all of whom have refused to join their rhetoric.

Third, even if our negotiating team remains confident that the JTEPA text, as it stands, offers adequate protection on our rights to safeguard Thailand's interests against dumping of toxic waste and patent piracy on micro organisms, we took the NLA concerns on these two points to Tokyo anyway.

The Japanese certainly did not "finally admit(ted) that our points were valid". Quite the contrary, they were puzzled by the two specific concerns.

Nevertheless they understood our internal difficulties and agreed to translate our common understanding into words.

Now that we have obtained written assurance from Tokyo on both points, which would be legally binding, we hope critics with reasonable minds would agree to put these two concerns to rest.

As for the people who have the role to oppose all FTAs, I do not expect they will come to their senses.

While it is good to have their vocal views in the process, politicising or dramatising the issues to create unfounded public fear would not help improve their image problems in any way. The public is smarter than they think.

Finally, the JTEPA process has already taken five years, making it Thailand's longest running FTA negotiation. It has gone through fair, transparent steps with public participation throughout. Even the FTA Watch members have played a part and this fact is well documented. Last year, the whole legal text was again scrutinised for over three months by the leading researchers of the TDRI. They would not have hesitated to speak out if something was terribly wrong.

Pisan Manawapat

JTEPA chief negotiator

Bangkok

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

Evidence is there to bring rogue cops to book

To their great credit, Prime Minister Surayud and acting police chief General Seripisut have re-opened the investigations into the many alleged human rights violations during the Thaksin era, including the abduction of southern lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit.

But talk without strong supporting action is writ on the wind. Police Major Ngern Thongsuk was convicted of physically forcing Somchai into a car on the night of his disappearance - yet apparently hasn't been disciplined.

I hope that if a civilian committed Major Ngern's crime, he'd be held without bail while his appeal was heard.

Surely a cop guilty of coercion is a clear and present danger to the public. His being a leader in the Crime Suppression Division (CSD) means he should be a role model of adherence to the law.

Three years to hear an appeal seems to be inordinately slow. That, combined with the cop's staying free, sounds like somebody just wants the case to go away. But the police should not be above the law.

Prime Minister Surayud and General Seripisut: we need strong acts to back up your strong and welcome words of justice. One standard for all, please: jail the rogue cop now and hear his appeal quickly.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

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

Restrictions on business ownership hurt the market

Re: "Consumers the ultimate losers with Foreign Business Act", Letters, March 7.

Burin Kantabutra is absolutely right in exposing the sham that has been perpetrated against Thai consumers since 1972 in the form of the Foreign Business Act. Businesses that have persistently failed to become competitive over 35 years are obviously providing inferior quality services to Thai consumers who have no other choices. These businesses are of no value to the Thai economy and protecting them can only benefit a small number of owners of the inefficient businesses.

Another interesting anomaly of the FBA is the position of exports of services. While exporting goods is fully open to foreigners and supported by generous BOI privileges and even capital controls, the export of services is prohibited to foreigners under the FBA.

It is true that Thais are unable to compete in most of these businesses but that is largely because they have little or no interest in doing so. Examples include shipping, offshore software development and offshore fund management. These are all international businesses that can be located in different countries and at the same time serve the same overseas customers.

While Thailand may not be an obvious place to locate any of these businesses due to the lack of skilled workers and low level of English, there are other advantages that could persuade foreigners to set up shop here. Bangkok is a good hub from which to cover Southeast Asia and the Indian Subcontinent. It is regarded as a highly liveable city by many foreigners and costs of living and doing business are much cheaper than Singapore, Hong Kong, Mumbai or even Shanghai.

While Thailand is busy tightening up its archaic regulations on foreign investment in the services sector, it is being leap-frogged in at least one instance by China. Despite the equally poor level of English there, the giants of the offshore software development industry are all now making huge investments in China (wholly foreign owed of course), training up thousands of Chinese software developers and teaching them English.

In the case of exports of services there is not even an argument to be made in favour of protecting Thai owners of inefficient businesses.

It is incomprehensible that foreigners should not be actively encouraged to invest in these sectors. Unfortunately, the protectionist proponents of the FBA choose to portray all foreign investors not in export manufacturing as criminals in pursuit of short-term gains.

George Morgan

Bangkok

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

Check the regulations before you invest money anywhere

Re: Foreign investors will simply move their money out", Letters, March 12.

Responding to Mike Greenwald about the restrictions on money movements and what foreigners can and cannot do in Thailand, I would suggest that when you move your investments to Vietnam or wherever you want, don't cry in the paper about it.

Wherever you plan on doing business, you need to study the rules of the place you are setting up in and be flexible to adapt to change. Have a look for a moment at the Thai businesses that are sprouting up in neighbouring countries. Do you see them crying in the newspapers that they have to set up in other countries? They are chasing new opportunities, and if you feel that Thailand isn't as easy for you to do business, then go.

Foreigners who remain here do so because they feel overall this is a better place to live and to conduct business. Once you do some careful research of the rules in the countries of this region for your business or personal requirements, you will find that Thailand has its pros and cons, as do all other nations. It's the wise businessman who professionally manages his business by adapting to changes. Just because the rules here don't totally satisfy your tastes doesn't make them unreasonable.

The days of Thailand having lax rules that allow anyone to do anything here are over. And by the way, the neighbouring countries do have restrictive rules for foreign firms conducting business, including Vietnam.

Did you ever stop to notice any foreign restaurant chains in Ho Chi Ming City (besides those owned by Vietnamese)? Did you ever see anyone besides Sinopec selling fuel in China? How do companies manage, then?

That's your homework assignment.

Philip Cook

Chon buri

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

A brief history of 'non-elected' leaders

Re: "Countries you seek to emulate have also had non-elected leaders", Letters, March 12.

 It is perhaps unfortunate that the letter from Prachyadavi Tavedikul was printed since it contains entirely erroneous information to support his view that non-elected prime ministers are acceptable in a democracy. This is simply not the case.

When World War II broke out in Europe, Winston Churchill had been an elected member of the British parliament for many years and, being appointed First Lord of the Admiralty, was a member of the government's war Cabinet. Upon the resignation of Chamberlain as prime minister in May, 1940, Churchill became leader of the Conservative party and, in consequence, was invited to form a government. He formed a coalition government which he led until his own party's defeat by Labour in the first post-war election.

Gerald Ford was the elected vice-president under Richard Nixon and thus automatically became president when Nixon was forced to resign in 1974.

Neither of these gentlemen was appointed without having first been elected, both having spent many years in their respective government houses.

Henry Ashe

Bangkok