Samak's land give-away is not all it seems

What about the poor who aren't farmers? Anyway, there are well over a million impoverished farmers: who will get the land - those who just happened to vote in PPP districts? The politically connected nominees, who will turn around and sell their plots for a song? The problem worsens when you consider that farming needs economies of scale, so less than a million farmers will benefit.

Is all the land suited for agriculture?

If I am a rubber farmer down south, what would I do with a tapioca field in the northeast? A key problem is that our farm productivity is stagnant. Who will teach these families how to raise their productivity, extend them credit, and teach them how to use market information?

I propose that a neutral body well-versed in land management, eg, the Crown Property Bureau, analyse what the highest and best economic uses of these million rai are, focusing on the long-term; likely, some will be best for large-scale modern farming, some for factories, commercial areas, parks, etc.

Sell/lease the farms, industrial estates, etc to professional firms, and list them in the Stock Exchange of Thailand/Market for Alternative Investment. Transparently distribute all shares to the impoverished, gratis and regardless of occupation, with a three-year silent period during which they may not sell the shares but may use them as collateral at commercial banks for education or income-producing loans.

I suggest that my proposal will not be as attention-getting as PM Samak's but will sustainably benefit the poor many times over.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

Freedom of speech is

govt's responsibility

Re: "FCCT urged to guarantee freedom of expression", June 10, 2008.

Chulalongkorn University political scientist Pitch Pongsawat calls on the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand to guarantee immunity for people who speak there.

What exactly does he expect the FCCT to do when people are harassed for exercising their right to freedom of speech?

Pitch seems to forget that it is the job of the Thai government to protect freedom of speech in Thailand, not the FCCT. The FCCT offers speakers an open forum to air their views. If closed-minded government dinosaurs harass a speaker because they are unable to tolerate dissenting views, the government is at fault not the FCCT.

Lewis Gibson

Hong Kong

Thaksin unlikely to quit the scene voluntarily

Re: "No peace until Thaksin is out of the game", Letters, June 10.

Netirat Intira's proposed solution to the current impasse by burying Thaksin for good is the example that Anand Panyarachun had in mind of our situation beyond compromise.

We are now in a society of divisiveness where either you are for or against Thaksin. There is no middle way in sorting out good and bad deeds of a person. Any indication of supporting some of Thaksin's deeds could cause that person to be branded permanently as being in Thaksin's pocket. It is this polarisation and irrationality that have caused mistrust on both sides and on society as a whole.

Whether one likes it or not, Thaksin will never voluntarily fade away like an old soldier to leave peace to us to get on with our lives. He has his name to defend. Having to meet an opposition so tenacious, he has no choice but to do the short-cuts, like insisting via his cronies to amend this young Constitution to allow him to return to politics quicker than the current time frame and frustrate legal actions against him and his cronies.

Hence, I was moved with Anand's impassioned opinion of our impasse and hopefully it may sink in the brains of either party to realise the danger of confrontation and concede without the Army's help. Conceding from the government's side would be nice for our country thereby lifting our level of democracy.

Losing one step may help this government to leap forward to a more sensible world and a longer lifespan. Please do it quickly since the patience of some is running short!

Songdej Praditsmanont

Bangkok

Political manoeuvring putting the country at risk

Re: Polarised to the point of extreme, Editorial June 10.

Today I read your editorial with sadness. Has our nation finally come to the point of no return in its political divisiveness because of one man's avarice?

Our country's trouble began with one man, who regards politics as simply an investment on a grand scale: One invests, say, B30 billion, on a political party; buys enough votes to take control of government; and reaps trillions of baht of profit over the years as a result. It's as simple as that, provided you have the money to invest and an insatiable greed.

What transpired as a result of Thaksin's business-oriented politics is that our country is inundated by greedy and myopic politicians. The country's core institutions are being threatened as a result of his arrogance and indifferent attitude. The gathering place for lawmakers resembles a pig farm. Our country in the future will be exactly like that: a big farm consisting of submissive and subservient people. Everyone will be regarded as a pig in a pen.

Unless we begin to recognise what Thaksin is doing in his behind-the-scenes political manoeuvres, our country will succumb to his brand of money politics, our future will be at risk.

Chavalit Van

Chiang Mai

     send us your views in an instant!

E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to the Editor' in

the subject box, to:

letters@nationgroup.com