• 
• 

Published on August 14, 2007

Numerous studies are being conducted to gauge where problem areas will likely be, and it should come as no surprise that Africa is top of the list. Right alongside are Bangladesh and large sections of China and India. Those aforementioned countries' problems with droughts, floods, poor infrastructure and bad planning have been festering for decades - it's just that a warming globe will exacerbate them.

In contrast, there will be regions of the world that benefit from warming, depending on one's definition of the verb "benefit". Those regions are mostly northern parts of the northern hemisphere, namely Canada, Scandinavia, Russia and Greenland. Much of that boon will result from smart planning and investment.

In a nutshell, poor countries that don't prepare, will get hit hard - and well-off countries that plan ahead will do relatively well and probably prosper. How does Thailand fit in to that picture? It is neither a rich nor a poor country. It does not have permanently arid regions, and its annual problems with floods could increase from the effects of larger storms expected from global warming. Hurricane Katrina, which hit New Orleans, was a mild preview of what's expected in the near future. Watch out Bangkok.

The best thing Thai planners can do is to beef up infrastructure to handle extreme climate swings, which are expected in coming decades. There are numerous other measures that could be given impetus such as alternative fuels, conserving energy, water storage and filtration, more efficient farming - and those would be great topics for open forum discussions.

Our planet has gone through many drastic temperature and climate swings - and it's a continuing process. The only thing for sure is change. Running around trying to fix problems after they happen won't be nearly as effective as instilling preventative measures beforehand.

Ken Albertsen

Chiang Rai

Green credentials begin at home

Re: "Plant Tree, Create Life", Tesco-Lotus advertisement, Business, August 3.

It is nice to see Tesco-Lotus inviting us to plant trees in honour of HM the King's 80th birthday, but after the mixed success, if not failure, of a similar mass tree planting programme some years ago due to the lack of scientific methodology for regenerating forests, will the Tesco programme meet with greater success?

A successful methodology (the Framework Species Method) of forest regeneration, applicable at altitudes of over 1,000 metres, has been refined for use by the Forest Restoration Research Unit of Chiang Mai University, which was formed in order to try and find scientific methods with a higher chance of success than massive tree plantings had hitherto achieved.

Without knowing how the Tesco programme plans to choose species to be planted in relation to the specific environment of each planting site - are the tree species designed to establish commercial mono-culture, for example? - and without follow-up weed control, fertiliser application and fire control for several years at each site, together with measurements assessing success, Tesco's 9 million-tree programme might be of little use in terms of growing trees. If growing trees is the true purpose of Tesco's charity, it might be better to use the money (Bt2 in every Bt200 spent) to set up a foundation that sponsors micro-projects that utilise established scientific procedures of forest regeneration.

Meanwhile, if Tesco really wants to flex some green muscle, perhaps it could help us reduce the waste its own retail methodologies help us create. How many of us have opened a box of preserved food only to find it half-full of product, for example? Introduce green packaging standards enforced on upstream producers. Use bio-degradable plastics, foam and hemp-based paper in packaging. Encourage customers to bring reusable shopping bags. By greening the packaging used in its own outlets, Tesco could invite every single one of their customers to participate and help make a positive impact on Thailand's massive garbage problem. Would this not be a worthy gift in honour of Their Majesties?

North Watch

Chiang Mai

Meechai has a foot in each of three camps

I have been waiting for the following to be raised as a huge news story but for some reason the news sources in Thailand have been quiet.

Meechai Ruchuphan, the chief advisor to Sonthi Boonyaratglin and the primary driving force behind the latest draft of the constitution, is a member of the NLA, CDA and Council of State. While this might sound impressive, these three represent the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government.

Given that the whole point of the branches is to form a balance in which no one has complete control or power, how it is that one person can be serving on all three?

Recently in the United States, Dick Chaney made headline news when he said he was not part of the executive branch. Meanwhile, here in Thailand we have a person who is not only part of all three but was also the chief advisor to Suchinda Kraprayoon and that restrictive constitution. Why is this not headline news here?

Krisidah S

Bangkok

Recalculating the cost of education and health

Re: "Foreign investment has obvious benefits", Letters, August 13.

George Morgan needs to check the buttons on his calculator regarding the figures on education and healthcare spending in the UK and Thailand (per capita government expenditure on education at US$2.6 billion etc).

My own quick and dirty research gave me the following figures: UK public spending on education in 2002-3 was £53.8 billion, representing 5.1 per cent of GDP (BBC online). In Thailand in 2001 public spending on education was Bt223 billion, equal to 4.2 per cent of GDP (World Bank and iHHP Thailand).

UK health spending in 2002 was £80.6 billion (of which £67.2 billion was public spending) representing 7.7 per cent of GDP; in Thailand the total was Bt170 billion (of which Bt96 billion was public spending) representing 3.32 per cent of GDP (UK National Statistics, iHPP Thailand).

If my glasses, calculator and brain are working properly, we can see that Thailand spends proportionately less on education than the UK, and much less on health care. And its pile of money available to spend is only worth about one third of the UK's pile.

George Morgan is probably right, however, about many Thais' aspirations towards health care and education. But he should choose a gentler tone to berate Elizabeth Hardcastle, who was only giving an account of her own perceptions and experience. I've no doubt her view of Thai culture is partial, but then there are probably aspects that escape George Morgan, too.

Richard Sproat

Bangkok

Lack of judgement by the Ministry of Commerce

The attempt by the National Legislative Assembly to further restrict foreign involvement in the economy represents another blow for the image of Thailand as an investment- and foreign-friendly country. Day after day, investors, well-heeled individuals and tourists are now bypassing Thailand for more welcoming countries like the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia, based on the feedback of the foreign community in Thailand.

The last-minute withdrawal of the Foreign Business Act by the NLA and the Ministry of Commerce for further re-working has highlighted the controversy of this bill. In its drafting of the FBA, the Commerce Ministry has failed to address the concerns of all parties. While qualifying it as "balanced", it has now been sanctioned by the NLA as too lenient, while the foreign community has been shocked by what amounts to a retroactive take over of its assets.

While the concerns of the NLA are genuine - eg, to ensure land on Koh Samui stays with Thais, and that national assets are not sold to foreigners - the draft FBA is not solving these issues to the NLA's satisfaction. At the same time, the FBA allows the take over of the assets brought in by the foreign community, which has brought Thailand most of its wealth in the last 30 years, and which was obviously based - and agreed upon - on the famous proxy "loophole".

The arguments about the US, Europe and other countries being as, or even more, restrictive is simply not true. Every country faces its own specific situations and complexities and tries to address them with discernment, avoiding painful side-effects.

To deny that the proxy loophole did not have a purpose that suited this country; to expect that an individual or corporation would invest money without controlling its business; or to say that foreigners are to blame for the problems in this country amounts to a blatant lack of judgement - to say the least.

Jean-Noel Rey

Bangkok