• 
• 

Published on October 9, 2007

Most readers, including myself, do not easily understand the complexity of the forex situation facing the Bank of Thailand (BOT). But this much we learnt from your report: the BOT started incurring a loss last year with its currency intervention, and that loss continues to this day. We also learnt that the currency intervention has been self-defeating but the BOT is still sticking to this policy. BOT Deputy Governor Atchana Waiquamdee reportedly said if the government did not issue an executive decree to wipe out the red ink, the central bank would "not be able to contribute its income to the Finance Ministry if its balance sheet showed the net loss".

This is a thinly veiled threat and indeed, coming from a highly revered institution such as the BOT, it should be heeded. One question must be asked, though. Because the BOT claims this loss to be a "book loss", why then must the government be responsible for something it did not do, especially if the loss is probably more illusory than real, or it would not have been called a "book loss" in the first place? Is the BOT losing real money in baht terms?

Strange but true, your newspaper also reported that as of September 28, the central bank's foreign exchange was US$80.7 billion (Bt2.7 trillion) and the net forward position was $12.9 billion. We should be happy with these figures because for the first time in history we have amassed this much wealth under our belt. There were times that when the dollar was cheap (such as in the pre-1997 period), our economy was considered strong and vibrant. Not anymore, I suppose?

The fact is that the BOT is fighting a lost cause. It cannot prevent the baht from strengthening further. The baht that has been spent in acquiring dollars has not producing the desired effect. The BOT is probably looking to prevent the collapse of the "sunset industries" which form the major bulk of Thai exports. If that is the case, it should have nothing to worry about. I seem to recall that the August figures in this regard hit the targeted increase of 15 per cent or more.

And the BOT, by itself, cannot help the sunset industries over the long term by keeping the baht cheap just so we can export more, thus creating this "book loss" syndrome. Those industries must help themselves by honing their competitive edge so it matches that of the newly emerging economies such as Vietnam, India, and China. The Thai economy has reached a point of no return and must undergo a transformation. It can either go forward or slump back.

Managing the dollars effectively and efficiently should be the BOT's priority, not fixing its own account. I do not see China, with the largest foreign-exchange reserve in the world, complaining about it.

Prachyadavi Tavedikul

Bangkok

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

Tourism helps Burmese poor, keeps

Most tourists would think twice about going to Burma these days. Think again. It's time to go now! Rest assured that the government would get along just fine without busloads of tourists travelling around the country. Their business dealings with China, Thailand, and India are more than enough to sustain their cash flow. But without tourists visiting the country, locals who depend upon tourism are facing the prospect of little or no income for the rest of the year. Those affected include people working in hotels, restaurants, gift shops, and travel agencies, as well as trishaw and horse-cart drivers, and freelance vendors.

Some people say that tourists should boycott Burma - 'don't visit a country that's run by an evil junta. Why put more money in their pockets?' But I disagree with that mindset. I think we should flood the country with more tourists. The more eyes and ears the better; the more cameras clicking the better; the more helping hands the better. Yes, a portion of your tourist dollars will go to the government; paying some fees and taxes are unavoidable to a certain extent. But savvy travellers can control where, how much, and how they spend their money, and they can do much to funnel cash directly to needy people, families, orphanages, and monasteries.

Despite the recent crackdown, Burma remains a very safe country for tourists to visit. It's a country with sights, customs and charms that will totally captivate you. It is an incredibly scenic country, populated by incredibly friendly and caring people. They absolutely want more tourists to visit. And they need you to visit soon. Isolation and further sanctions will only serve to further penalise the poor populace.

Han Win

Bangkok

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

India's global status could soar with Burma stand

Re: "Burma needs to feel the heat from all sides", Opinion, October 8.

In part because of its vast size and comparatively very large military, India could play a constructive role leading coordinated international strategies against the Burmese junta.

Since the end of the Cold War India has been striving to attain the status of a leader and shaper of geopolitical politics.

As part of this drive, India has, during the last six or seven years, been assertively lobbying for it to be granted a permanent seat on an expanded UN Security Council.

Without taking a responsible, assertive and action-based position regarding the current unconscionable problems in Burma, international onlookers will be right to have severe misgivings about India's future purposes and role in the world. If India cannot stand up and do the right thing in response to a crisis situation in its own neighbourhood, its appropriateness for promotion on the world stage to the status of a permanent member of the UN Security Council would be ludicrous.

Due to their common border, India could serve well as a launching point or points for overland expeditionary forces into Burma, should this become necessary, after developed world/Asean nations first attempt - for a change - "hardball" strategies against the Burmese junta.

Hardball tactics against Burma's generals ideally would include developed world/Asean nations submitting an ultimatum for transition to democracy to the Burmese junta. If this ultimatum was rejected, the following measures could be pursued:

l Militarily seizing a couple of Burma's strategic airports, and perhaps, one or two seaports, and stationing enough commando units to effectively guard a dozen or so of Burma's most prestigious monasteries/holy sights where monks reside from the Burmese military;

l Isolating Burma's new capital city with air-power;

lDemanding that the junta immediately embark upon supervised talks with protesters on how the country would be most efficiently moved to a democratic system.

Many believe that India would glower at outside military involvement into Burma. The country ought to consider that by leading such an initiative with the help of the developed world, the country would put itself firmly on the world stage as a leader and shaper of geopolitical politics, rather than remaining in its traditional position, especially in a time of crisis: on the sidelines.

Russia would have nothing to lose, and everything to gain prestige-wise by supporting the above tactics either in principle or by active participation.

By supporting hardball strategies with a military component against the Burmese junta, Russia would, similar to India, be repositioning itself positively on the world stage, as both a leader and a constructive shaper of geopolitical politics.

As well, both India's and Russia's trade relations with the developed world and a large majority of other nations could only benefit over the short and long term from these two countries' assuming a military interventionist position concerning Burma.

Roderick V Louis,

Vancouver, BC

Canada

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

American voters unlikely to elect Obama or Rudy

Re: "There are no guarantees in US presidential politics, Letters, October 7.

Eric Bahrt cautioned readers: "Don't underestimate him [Barack Obama]. This race [against Hillary Clinton] ain't over yet."

Sorry, Eric, you don't need to be a political pundit to figure this out. There is an unwritten rule that Americans won't vote for a presidential candidate with a foreign name. And worse, Obama sounds similar to Osama (Bin Laden). Imagine the 44th US president sworn in before the chief justice of the US Supreme Court, saying "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear to execute the Office of President of the United States, and will... so help me God..." That would be something wouldn't it?

By the same rule, New York's former mayor Rudolph Giuliani (too Italian) is also wasting his time seeking the Republican nomination.

In the meantime, if Obama gets nominated and wins the 2008 election, Eric, I'll buy you a steak and a pork chop (or lamb chop if you prefer). If he loses, you owe me nothing. Deal?

Meechai Burapa

Chiang Mai