• 
• 

Published on July 27, 2007

People criticise you for having no target level for the baht. Should there be a target?

When implementing economic policies, one always has to face both good and bad consequences. No policy is 100-per-cent positive. So far, I haven't responded to suggestions made by some academics because each is responsible and has integrity.

Sharp rate reductions may allow the baht to weaken. But the negative impact is savers will get fewer returns while real interest rates will be negative, which will affect savings. Some said we could fix the baht at Bt36 or Bt35 to the dollar, or even a band. Every Bt1 appreciation against the dollar makes oil prices lower by Bt0.6. But the negative impact is: are we ready to pay for higher oil prices? We are the largest oil consumer in Asia except for Singapore.

They say this is a crisis - like a patient in a coma - and ask why is the bank not helping?

We need to solve the problem at its root. Now, the problem of the baht has affected some exporters but overall exports are still growing by between 18 per cent and 19 per cent. If we focus only on baht value, it would be a solution that doesn't attack the root. We must help exporters that are really in trouble, such as labour-intensive industries and SMEs. We can't use just one measure to solve the entire sector. We should learn from Japan and Taiwan that have gone through similar problems.

Does the criticism ever make you feel like giving up?

No, I knew from the start that I would face pressure. I still sleep well.

What can we do with our foreign-currency reserves?

This will be discussed among academics, the Finance Minister and experts. What benefit can we get from the reserves? Or whether we should set up a fund to manage them? Or whether we will manage the reserves separately?