• 
• 

Whenever there is a proposal for duty increases on alcoholic drinks, there will always be cries of reduced visitors and tourists from foreigners.

I have followed this trend since my younger days watching the taxes being raised many times and have never seen or heard of Thailand being by-passed significantly because of the increases. The ill-effects to the tourists and visitors are only temporary for them, just as I have to bear the rising cost of hotel accommodation in Paris, London and Tokyo - but I still love to visit these places.

I am a daily drinker of wine and beer, except during Lent, and likely to suffer from this rising fiscal imposition longer than a visitor. But as a good citizen, I accept this responsibility readily since it is a correct way of tax collection and a good way for curing our social ills.

Songdej Praditsmanont

Bangkok

 

More on the ICJ's ruling on Preah Vihear Temple

 

Re: "Clearing up historical issues surrounding Preah Vihear", Letters, August 2.

May I supplement Asda Jayanama's instructive letter regarding Thailand's status vis-à-vis the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Preah Vihear dispute. Thailand had accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ for a period of 10 years starting from May 3, 1950 (thus expiring on 3 May 1960). It is on this basis that Cambodia, on September 30, 1959 submitted the Preah Vihear dispute to the court.

Even though Thailand did not renew its acceptance of the court's jurisdiction after May 3, 1960, the case naturally remained before the latter until it rendered its final judgement, on June 15, 1962.

Detailed information on the ICJ adjudication of the Preah Vihear case, including the preliminary objections by Thailand on the subject of the jurisdiction of the court, can be found on the ICJ website at <http://www.icj-cij.org/doc>.

Hubert Felin

Chiang Mai

 

Each constitution important in Thailand's development

 

Re: "Premier has every right to amend the charter", Letters, August 6.

Just because the process of arriving at a constitution that is accepted by all in Thailand is different from the process in Australia doesn't mean that it is somehow invalid. The Australian constitution owed as much to its inheritance of British common law, parliament and the development of democratic institutions in Britain and its colonies as it did to the referenda that finally won its approval in 1901.

To many foreign observers, Thailand's evolution towards constitutional democracy since 1932 may seem to have taken far too long. However the change from an absolute monarchy to a lively, participatory democracy, which so far has taken only 76 years in Thailand, dwarfs by comparison the 700 years it took for Britain to go from Magna Carta in 1215 to universal suffrage in 1928.

Thailand's many constitutions have all been important components of this development. Each has represented an improvement on the previous one in terms of developing the laws and institutions necessary for a democratic system. Each has been a kind of statement of progress which documents the debate up to that point in time, including the result of lessons learned since the last one. In a country that was previously bereft of any strong traditions of common law, democracy or constitutionalism, progress to date has been outstanding. The regime in charge at the time of the drafting is far less important than the quality of the draftsmanship and the degree of the country's participation in its approval. I would recommend a thorough reading of the 2007 Constitution by prospective commentators before dismissing it.

Jonathan Peter

Pathum Thani