• 
• 

Published on September 17, 2007

It's a relief to get a policy statement from one of the political parties that isn't a bunch of vague nationalistic fluff - and "tell the masses what they want to hear" rhetoric. This time the statement comes from the Democrat Party, which is taking a stance in favour of renewable power sources as opposed to uranium.

I wholeheartedly applaud their announcement. A multitude of one-megawatt bio-gas and bio-mass power plants set up throughout Thailand - which use local raw materials to generate electricity - is a far better option than a few giant nuclear plants which heavily rely upon outside materials and expertise.

Electricity from nuclear-power plants will wind up costing more than power generated from other means - particularly when you figure in the start-up costs, imported fuel supply, security and maintenance. They're financially risky because of their long lead times, cost overruns, and open-ended liabilities. Plus, such large projects in Thailand would inevitably involve corruption. Some pro-nuclear advocates say it's a good way to curb climate change. Granted, the plants don't produce too much carbon dioxide - but the power they produce is so expensive that it would be smarter to invest less money in renewable power production - and that would preclude the need to dispose of spent nuclear rods. "New, clear" energy, not nuclear is the way to go!

Ken Albertsen

Chiang Rai

Pridiyathorn took aim at problems he created

Re: "Mega-projects 'key to recovery'", News, September 16.

It sounded like the politics of sour grapes when former finance minister MR Pridiyathorn Devakula said the only way for Thailand to get out of the economic doldrums is for the new government to implement the so-called "mega-projects" quickly, as the outgoing administration seemed to be slow in its initiatives in this direction. Did he forget that it was he who caused the capital flight out of Thailand with his draconian "30-per cent reserve" measure, which also led to the evaporation of some Bt800 billion in market capitalisation in one day at the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET)? This is not to mention the fact that the measure did not help solve the problem of the strengthening baht. Foreign direct investment levels have yet to recover as a result of his policy, which is still in place and should have been removed a long time ago with his resignation from the Cabinet.

But did I also read elsewhere that Pridiyathorn predicted the next government would be in power for no more than one year? If this prediction of his should prove true, then how much hope is there for that government to be more effective than the one he left? Pridiyathorn reportedly also said that when compared to the Anand Panyarachun government, together with the National Peace Keeping Council (NPKC) which "appointed" it, the Surayud government and the present ruling military junta appear to be greatly inferior in terms of decisiveness, if not quality. Of course he should know, because he was in both administrations, at that time acting as deputy commerce minister.

What if Pridiyathorn had been chosen as prime minister instead of General Surayud Chulanont? At the time of the formation of the present administration he was tipped to be one of the candidates. Would he then have done things differently? I rather doubt it. He had his chance in government and should have seen it through, but out of the blue he unexpectedly handed in his resignation letter to the prime minister who did not demand it, despite the fact that General Surayud still had trust and confidence in him. Was Pridiyathorn running away from the mess that he helped create? The economy would not be in such a sorry state today had it not been for some of the policies that were crafted by the economic ministries over which he presided, even if for a short while.

General Surayud and his government appear to be everybody's favourite "whipping boy" - that is to say, for whatever is wrong or not moving in Thailand, they must take the blame. I rather sympathise with the prime minister in this regard because I do not think it is fair. If there is someone who is responsible it should be MR Pridiyathorn, who by now may be singing to his heart's desire the song "Don't Cry For Me, Thailand".

Prachyadavi Tavedikul

Bangkok

Surayud still has time to tackle party financing

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont, not being beholden to any political party, has an historic opportunity to force parties and politicians to be transparent in their finances, and thus make it a lot more difficult to be corrupt.

For starters, this government should require financial statements that politicians and their parties now file must also include an unqualified opinion by an auditor approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), under the same conditions and liabilities as apply to listed companies. Thus, for example, party leaders and their chief financial officers must sign off on their parties' statements, and be held accountable therefore, and auditors who act unprofessionally could lose their licences. If local/offshore companies are essentially controlled by politicians/parties, their finances must be consolidated into those of their owners.

Parties should also be held jointly and severally liable for the accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of the financial statements of their candidates - because, after all, the candidates represent the party.

The above would make politics a lot more transparent - it would make it easier to trace drivers, maids, etc, acting as nominees, and end games like the one involving Win Mark.

Prime Minister Surayud, this is your chance to leave a worthwhile legacy!

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

Let UN or another third party handle Hmong

Regarding the plight of the Hmong who have been kept in appalling conditions, why do the Thai authorities persist in their policy of persecuting all foreigners who they (and they alone) perceive to be a threat to "national security"?

There is an easy way out for the Thais that would save them the expense of keeping these unfortunate people in jail and would also inspire a bit of goodwill throughout the world instead of worsening Thailand's bad reputation: let the UN or some other responsible agency solve the problem and get them out.

I am sure that those who are working on the behalf of the Hmong, and many people around the world, would be only too pleased to do whatever is necessary to clear up the problem. Why does Thailand stick to such unnecessary red tape, which imposes such cruelty and hardship? Is this how Thai people want to be viewed? This is an unfavourable kind of nationalism. Thai people may not even be aware of what is going on.

It would be a welcome, meaningful and much-respected act if someone who had the power were to issue an order to immediately release these people into the care of the UN or another responsible agency that would ensure they were sent without delay to other countries which have agreed to accept them. Or is their plight of no concern to the authorities?

J Ellis

Bangkok

Only a new president can bring about change

Re: "Terror unleashed on Iraq following 9/11 attacks", Letters, September 13.

May I suggest to Mr Bill, with whose letter I am in total agreement, that the only change that will come in Iraq is that following the departure of George W Bush and his coterie from the White House and the installation of a president from the Democratic Party.

Edward Duhigg

Bangkok