Airline meddling
Re: "Ministry allots B20bn for Thai Airways stake", (Business, Dec 11).
I'm happy to see THAI making such good progress on its rehabilitation, but the state should not own shares, or meddle in an airline. Owning a civilian airline is not essential for a government. For example, the US government chartered a cargo airline flight to evacuate Americans from Wuhan, China, during the Covid-19 epidemic. Also, lest we forget, government interference flew THAI directly into the bankruptcy court the last time around.
Burin Kantabutra
Futility of freebies
Re: "Debt bailout warning", (Editorial, Nov 26).
The editorial clearly makes a case for the potentially negative consequences of the government's debt bailout.
However, the mentioned "moral hazard' is not a potential risk. It is already a well ingrained part of the Thai psyche, as a result of past Pheu Thai governments that increased the electorate's dependency on government largesse or revenue (never their own billions) in various guises -- handout after handout, bailout after bailout.
They never do anything that will remedy the long-term systemic and structural weaknesses of the economy and its so-called democracy. These policies will do little or nothing to promote growth that lasts for more than a year, if at all -- until the next bailout or freebie. To be honest, what is required involves significant investment that leads to increased productivity and efficiency that enables people and firms to become proudly independent.
Why does Pheu Thai never really do this? The reasons can only be guessed at. A sustained and targeted investment programme would take time for the real benefits of such measures to become apparent, and certainly not within one election cycle -- so no popularity gains in time for the next election.
Perhaps it is because they lack the basic knowledge, ingenuity or creativity to have even a school-level understanding of how this might be achieved, and are possibly too arrogant to ask for advice and guidance.
GMT
Military might
Re: "The way to fight coups", (Editorial, Dec 11) and "2 parties oppose coup bill", (BP, Dec 11).
Attempts to curtail coups via reducing the power of the inner military circle bring out a smile from sceptics. Realistically, since 1932, there have been 13 successful coups in Thailand, or an average of one per seven years. If including the 11 unsuccessful attempts, the average is every four years. Without much further study, one can almost conclude that using the law to curb military might is a lost cause. It is out of touch with reality, as exemplified by the experience of the past 92 years.
South Korea's recent example, as lauded by your editorial, must have delighted most democracy lovers, in which a civilian-elected president declared martial law and was stymied by parliament within six hours. The military appeared to quell protesters peacefully. This scenario could be attributed to South Korea's long-abiding respect for the laws of its constitution. The country's charter followed the example of the United States in separating the powers among the three branches of government: the legislative, the executive and the judiciary. These provide checks and balances against each other. Hence, President Yoon Suk-yeol has been ordered not to leave the country.
Songdej Praditsmanont
