• 
• 

There is no doubt in my mind that Thaksin's call from London last week for Samak to be reinstated was in order to cause further civil unrest and the continuation of the state of emergency, so that Thaksin could use the situation to strengthen his asylum plea to the British government.

On the anniversary of the 2006 coup, I call on the British authorities to comply with Thailand's extradition request and send Thaksin home to face trial. Thailand deserves a real chance to have democracy, and without completion of the trials, democracy shall remain non-existent, the country will delve further into division, and money will continue to be used by individuals to evade the law and buy undeserved freedom.

Carolyn

Bangkok

 

Thaksin awfully chatty for a wanted fugitive

If the Burmese refugees living in Thailand started calling home to advise their friends on how to resist the junta, we would rightfully point out that they were abusing the safe haven that we had generously given them, for they were involving us in their domestic affairs.

So why is Thaksin being so free about calling the People Power Party, and vice-versa? People Power Party deputy spokesman Suthin Klangsaeng said that the man in London called to express his "preference" as to who should be prime minister - and, lo and behold, the party heeded his advice.

Perhaps Her Majesty's Foreign Office should give Britain's guest a lesson from Miss Manners? Or, if the UK and Thailand deem his behaviour acceptable, we should allow our refugees to similarly guide their colleagues across the border. Either way, a single standard, please.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

 

Benefits of globalisation also come with risks

Re: "Expensive lesson from financial globalisation", Editorial, September 18.

The AIG and Lehman financial failures have wreaked havoc on Wall Street and fear on Main Street. Your editorial is a popular response to such disaster from abroad. The question of how to best protect local subsidiaries from the fallout is most appropriate.

But I believe the answer is more about compliance with proper rules and regulations, survival of the fittest and competent management than it is about diversifying global risk.

So far the economies of Southeast Asia have seen only minor ripples from the financial tornadoes now twisting through Wall Street, but that does not mean we have dodged a bullet. There will be more failures and we have yet to see what indirect effect all this will have on our lives. It is scary, and the natural response is to insulate ourselves from the downside risks of being part of the global economy.

But the global economy is merely a concept. The "Thailand market" for example, is global to those working in a multinational headquarters in the US, just as the "US market" is global to us here in Thailand. By detaching the countries and insulating one from the other in an effort to minimise the downside risks, one is rejecting the concept of globalisation.

You can't enjoy the benefits of globalisation without exposure to risks. Even if you did have local shareholdings, as your editorial suggests, parent companies still "own" these subsidiaries and must ensure the whole system benefits from the participation of each individual subsidiary.

Rather than trying to protect subsidiaries from each other and watering down the concept of globalisation, we should promote greater accountability for healthy business results. In other words, sound strategies, competent management and ethical business practices that produce sustainable growth.

No system is perfect, but you need to solve the problem, not relieve the symptoms. Diversifying risk and protecting subsidiaries from each other is logical, but it implies regressing and going backwards to more localisation.

This might be safer, but the evolution of capitalism is not based on this strategy. It is based on effective management governed by corporate responsibility.

Outraged Taxpayer

Bangkok