• 
• 

Published on August 28, 2007

The sad situation reported here was made far sadder by the appallingly inhumane "solution" offered: crack down on the unfortunate mothers whose desperate plight leads them to do such an unhappy act.

A far better solution would be to amend the laws so that women - mainly young students with no husband, no means of support and no hope - can be offered safe abortions on request. This would be better for all concerned. It would obviously be better for the unprepared mothers, whose entire lives would not thereby be blighted by being compelled to raise a child that is unwanted and which they cannot raise in any decent manner. It would be better for society, which would not then suffer the problems caused by desperate mothers trying to get money by any means possible to raise their unhappy children. Society would also benefit by preventing crime, drug abuse and other problems that unwanted children can create when they reach the age of acting on their own behalf.

I would also like to add a couple of comments to counter the expected opposition to this sound and humane proposal. First, some may object that a foetus is a human being: it is not. No reasonable account of what it is to be a human being would include a blob of cells that cannot think, feel, move, or engage in any human behaviour whatsoever. Abortion at an early stage is not murder. Second, some might object that abortion is against Buddhist teaching. This may or may not be true, but it is certainly irrelevant to the formulation of state laws. Religion is a personal matter, and if an individual feels it is against their own personal religious beliefs, then they may choose to forgo that choice.

It is immoral to use the force of the state to compel everyone to fit in with the religious beliefs of others, even where "others" means a majority. Democracy is not mob rule, and freedom of belief means that religion may not be used as an excuse to act against the right to self-determination of others, especially not to their clear detriment, and that does seem to be contrary to Buddhist teaching.

If Senior Doctor Sirijit Wassanawat truly cared for the welfare of these women, and the good of Thai society, he would be petitioning for changes in the laws relating to abortion, and he would definitely not be seeking to further punish desperate young women. 

Peter Filicietti

BANGKOK

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

Bureaucrats: get out of the way of commerce

It is difficult to understand how devising measures to further restrict FDI, while promoting industrial relocation to Vietnam will foster growth and prosperity here.

Successive governments' paternalistic attitudes towards the private sector have very substantially restrained growth. Excessive and arbitrary laws and bureaucracy are strangling the economy. The authorities are mothering the private sector to death.

Any lingering faith in the state-directed, command economy model crumbled in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Nowadays it is only radical and authoritarian regimes that see economic solutions in increased state control and exclusionary policies.

The private sector does not need politicians and bureaucrats to hold its hand. It needs them to get out of the way.

There are plenty of other things the authorities could do to foster growth. Providing universal vocational and language training opportunities and equipping the entire nation with 21st-century infrastructure is likely to be more beneficial than increased regulation and interference.

T Mercer

BANGKOK

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

Abandon short-sighted, destructive policies now

Seems that with all the challenges facing Thailand, it is long past time for policy makers to abandon agendas that have been set for them by the previous administration and start making decisions based on common sense and commercial market realities. The first useless policy approach that should be abandoned is the vestiges of the great "social order" campaign. As most well-informed observers know, the attack on nightlife and alcohol was driven by the personal agendas of a few powerful people and has done nothing to actually improve life in Thailand; but has had serious costs. Rather than the carefree, tolerant destination which it was long known to be, Thailand is now less attractive to young, fun loving tourists than Singapore, where neither nightclubs nor alcohol are targets of pointless over-regulation.

We see daily coverage of policymakers struggling with the appreciation of the baht. There is a simple solution that seems to have escaped all the PhD economists (remember the guys who said the baht would never need to be devalued in '97?). Thailand has very punitive taxes on all kinds of premium imports, among them wines and spirits. Seems that someone in the Revenue Department should have realised by now that reducing these taxes would result in much higher import volumes, an actual increase in tax revenues to the government, and a resulting weakening if the baht.

As these taxes were imposed pre-crisis when Thailand had a serious current account deficit, it might be time to revisit the appropriateness of these taxes in the prevailing situation of a high current account surplus and a strong currency.

Other policies implemented by the previous government - early closure of nightclubs, restrictions on visas, and various other measures which are lowering investment, reducing tourist arrivals and spending - are still being maintained and pursued, but for what reason?

It's time for policy makers to look at the situation with fresh eyes and an open mind, and perhaps reflect on how the openness of their policies and societies have brought prosperity to Singapore and Hong Kong - prosperity that all the politicians claim they wish to achieve in Thailand.

Thailand has no lack of highly educated, talented people, many of whom can certainly devise more effective policy approaches if the baggage of the past is discarded.

Frustrated

BANGKOK

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

Samak offers only more divisiveness

Re: "Samak gets a caution", News, August 27. Samak Sundaravej's outburst on Friday that he couldn't care less if people thought of him as Thaksin Shinawatra's nominee and that he planned to avenge the former prime minister reveals so much about the man.

First, by suggesting he is Thaksin's nominee, Samak has confirmed suspicion that he has been approached and appointed by Thaksin to run political errands for him in Thailand. This is against the Constitution Tribunal's verdict that banned Thaksin from political activities in the Kingdom for five years.

Second, Samak is making it hard for himself to quash being Thaksin's political stand-in in Thailand, as suggested by Election Commission member Sodsri Satayathum. Commissioner Sodsri also warned Samak his further moves on the nominee issue could land him in hot legal water should people start lodging complaints; his party could also face dissolution as a result.

Third, it shows Thaksin is using London as his base for political activities in Thailand, to destabilise the Thai Kingdom - this against his promise to wash his hands of politics. The British government should reconsider its visa granted to Thaksin as a result of this subversive act against Thailand, a friendly nation.

Fourth, it shows Samak has downgraded himself.

Chavalit Van

Chiang Mai

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

Suvarnabhumi 'bus gates' are a second-rate service

What is wrong with this picture? Bangkok has a brand-new airport with seemingly miles and miles of gates from which to directly board an aircraft, and yet virtually every time I fly in or out of the country, I get on a bus at the gate to be driven out to a plane parked on some remote part of the tarmac. If this only happened now and again there would be little cause to complain. But I fly frequently and better than 90 per cent of the international Thai Airways flights I either board or get off involve a bus careening from one end of the airport to the other.

I would like to see a letter of reply in this column from some official in the AOT who can explain why this situation continues. Even in its heyday, when Don Muang was at its most crowded, "bus gates" (as I have come to call them) were usually only reserved for the smaller carriers that AOT compelled to operate from the most far-flung corners of the airport. Sadly, at Suvarnabhumi, the "bus gate" seems to be standard operating practice. Yet again, when it comes to the basic convenience of travel - arguably the most important indicator by which to evaluate an airport's performance - Suvarnabhumi fails to measure up to the airport that it replaced.

Philip S Robertson Jr

BANGKOK

Send us your views in an instant

E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to

the Editor' in the subject box, to:

letters@nationgroup.com