In March, Egat announced it would proclaim in May where it planned to build three nuclear power plants. Has anyone heard its promised announcement in May? Or June, or July?
"Egat" stands for the Electric Generating Authority of Thailand, and it's a corporation owned and run by the Thai government; therefore, it is owned by the Thai people. How much input do the Thai people have in their corporation's operations? For example, did the Thai people have any say when Egat decided to run three separate sets of power lines over 100 kilometres of steep hills to the small town of Pai in the northwest? A town which, if we had innovative thinkers, could have been powered with a combination of solar and thermal power.
When might Egat consider large-scale solar and thermal power? Maybe when elephants learn to flap their wings and fly. Meanwhile, Arizona is building another large solar farm that is projected to create 5,000 new jobs and provide power for 70,000 large American homes.
No, Egat is quixotically fixated on nuclear, because it doesn't want to lose face to Vietnam and other Asian countries that are considering nuclear. Forty years after it builds its nuclear plants, Thailand will realise the manifold follies of its decision (made way back in 2010) and realise it should have gone with cleaner, cheaper energy. And anyone who thinks that nuclear is emission free, has to think deeper. It takes gadz of carbon belching fuel to build nuclear plants and to transport and safeguard expensive refined uranium. Plus it takes fossil fuels to deal responsibly with spent radioactive rods, and it will take more fuel to decommission the plant and guard it for a subsequent 60,000 years as a no-go dead zone.
KEN ALBERTSEN
CHIANG RAI
Treat tourists as guests, not victims
According to the United Nations World Tourism Organisation, the top ten countries with the most tourist arrivals in 2009 were France (74 million) followed by the United States (55m), Spain (52m), China (51m) and Italy (43m). The other five were the UK, Turkey, Germany, Malaysia and Mexico - each in the range of over 20 million tourists.
The big surprise was the appearance of Malaysia, a country with a small population and land area.
[On the matter of long-stay visitors] Malaysia has succeeded since 2007 due to its welcoming policy and the "Malaysia My Second Home, (MM2H)" programme. The programme requires only a Bt1.5 million (for over 50s) or Bt3 million (under 50) bank deposit to prove one's intention. Among the incentives given are permission to work, car purchase free of import duty, and import of domestic helpers. It is not only the ability to buy land and better communication in English that has helped Malaysia to succeed, since both advantages have been with Malaysia since independence in 1957. It is the serious policy of treating visitors as true guests and not their victims.
With Thailand having geographic and cultural advantages but with no serious similar effort, 15 million visitors in 2010 have made most Thai officials happy. Do you think we could be sporting enough to give incentives similar to Malaysia, or make a serious attempt to eliminate touts and scams in order to attract visitors?
Having seen the result of the "elite cards" of our previous initiatives introduced at the same time as Malaysia's MM2H, and the repeated narcissistic views of most officials, I do not expect to see any changes in my lifetime despite the obvious advantages of adopting a more liberal policy.
SONGDEJ PRADITSMANONT
BANGKOK