OPINION

SKYY's the limit

Re: "Investment boost questioned", (BP, March 14) and "B7bn SKYY9 Centre deal was shady: MP", (BP, March 11).

An examination of the Thai Social Security Organization's (SSO) website reveals what appear to be rather standard government investment criteria. They outline three areas that guide their decision-making: market risk, credit risk, and risk diversification. Furthermore, in their portfolio, they list 10 "blue-chip" stocks, which include Apple, Tencent, Nvidia, Amazon, and amusingly enough, Tesla. Low risk, high return, liquidity, and a good track record would guarantee the Thai people have a solid future return for their lifetime of investment in their retirement and welfare.

When one reads that the Social Security Fund (SSF), as managed by the SSO, bought a building on Rama IX Road called the SKYY9 Centre, the first question would be how does such a purchase (questioned and perceived as an overpriced transaction) comport with the three criteria stated above? Real estate is notoriously illiquid in Thailand. Thai banks have uncounted numbers of overpriced properties on their books, which no one wants. The banks keep them to offset their profits, and their asset management departments are not exactly hotbeds of action. The SKYY9 Centre is an ideal candidate for a large bank's NPL portfolio, not as a genuine investment. Second, the value of said property will not go up in the future. Buildings depreciate, even the best of them. The land they are built upon may appreciate, but it is often insufficient to offset the asset's overall depreciation. Third, and seemingly obvious in this instance, the valuation by appraisal is at best an inflated guesstimate. Currently, the occupancy rate at SKYY9 does not meet the earlier projected target of 65%. This site clearly has been a toxic asset from the Tom Yum Kung economic crisis since 1997. That said, its purchase by the SSF loudly cries out to be investigated. The larger question is how the government will deal with this.

Regulate AI

Re: "Old school forever", (PostBag, March 4) and "AI has potential, but care needed", (Editorial, Feb 23).

Both the above man and the editorial were correct in the assertion that even though AI has great potential, it still needs to be regulated.

For instance, did you know that using a simple AI application such as Chat GP takes up far more energy than a Google search or that vast amounts of water are needed to cool down systems which use AI, among other things?

Things are never so bright as they appear at first glance when experimenting with new forms of technology.

Kowtowing to China

Re: "Deporting 40 Uyghurs 'best option'", (BP, March 7), and "Canada, US 'offered to resettle Uyghurs'", (BP, March 6).

It is no longer possible to stay dumb and blind any longer after what I kept on reading in the Post about the deportation of 40 Uyghurs to China by the Thai government.

To start with the March 6 article titled "Canada, US 'offered to resettle Uyghurs'" by Reuters and BP, I must confess that I am baffled as to why both news media refused to disclose the sources of the statement where they said Thailand did not want to upset the Chinese government.

Deputy PM Phumtham Wechayachai claimed that no country had made any concrete offer to welcome the 40 Uyghurs for the last 10 years. Whereas Pisan Manawapat, ex-Thai ambassador to US and Canada, confessed Thailand did not want to upset China since China is Thailand's biggest trading partner. So the excuse of "we don't want to upset China" by the Thai government is a sign of nothing but a deep level of fear of China, or simply a lack of spine to protect the country's sovereignty.

Speaking of the trade impact, it is better to look at the trade flow between China and India, which are known for having a longstanding territorial dispute. India has also accepted Taiwan as a sovereign country, but it refuses to accept China's "One China" policy. Meanwhile, Tibet's Nobel laureate and spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, has been exiled in India for six decades. India has also blocked more than 400 Chinese apps and increased its stringent surveillance of Chinese investment. Yet their bilateral trade in 2023 alone surpassed US$115 billion (3.9 trillion baht). The conflict did not stop their trade.

Let me refer to another article dated March 7 and titled, "Deporting 40 Uyghurs is the best option". Vice Foreign Minister Russ Jalichandra claimed that no country had made a firm commitment to resettle them for over a decade.

Such an explanation sharply contradicts what the US government and Canada have claimed. They maintain that they have been talking with the Thai government for the past decade in order to try to resettle the 40 Uyghurs in their respective countries. Mr Russ's statement shocked the civilised world order, claiming that Thailand believes China's promise to guarantee the safety of the 40 Uyghurs and that Beijing would allow Thai government agencies to monitor them after they land on Chinese soil. The Thai government is now paying the price for this, starting with travel warnings issued by the United States and Japan. It seems the term "human rights" does not exist in the Thai vocabulary anymore.

Thailand will consistently fail to protect its sovereignty until it shows itself to be truly independent.

Saving Mother Earth

Re: "Why global governance is failing badly", (Opinion, March 14).

U Thant, the second secretary-general of the United Nations, already questioned the myth of the absolute sovereign state in 1962: "The assembled statesmen of the world clung to this myth. They still conceived it possible to have a peaceful world consisting of a number of armed sovereign states without any thought of abandoning an iota of his sovereignty".

U Thant's speech is again quoted in the book Reflections on Earth Trusteeship, released in 2023 and edited by both Justin Sobion, an international environmental lawyer and senior tutor at the University of Auckland, and myself.

Still, even far into our present century, "any proposed new paradigm of planetary governance runs the risk of sounding utopian", as Antara Haldar states in her article.

In search of a new narrative, it would be advisable to look back not only to the (failed) League of Nations, but also to the First Hague Peace Conference in 1899, where the foundations were laid for a still unfinished job: a legal world order which would prevent war and other ways of destroying the Earth. And also to the Peace Treaties of Westphalia in 1648.

A powerful, potentially universal narrative is that of Mother Earth. She is a person, needs care and protection and offers us abundance.

A diversity of organisations have gradually, over decades, provided designs for parallel, initially advisory, participatory UN governance structures.

The World Federalists, organisations like Democracy Without Borders and CIVICUS have laid out plans for a UN Parliamentary Assembly, the recognition of world citizenship and they plead for a Special UN Envoy for civil society who would shape more direct and balanced peoples' impact on the UN, at present run by non-elected professional diplomats.

However, the major paradigm change needed is a shift from the self-interest of nations and corporations to service. It is advised that the newly hailed collaboration in Europe vis-à-vis Russian aggression and an unreliable United States, will not mark another episode of arrogant "fortress Europe" but one of planetary service.

From this point of view, "Earth trusteeship" adequately fits the need for a new governance paradigm. No ownership but trusteeship to serve humanity, Mother Earth and future generations. All global citizens are equal trustees of the Earth.

Repurposing the UN Trusteeship Council, as suggested by Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in his "Our Common Agenda" but was not taken up by member-states, would open a practical window for governance of the 30% of the Earth protected areas pledge for biodiversity, urgent massive ecosystem restoration, oceans beyond national sovereignty, and post-war areas to support rehabilitation and new independence under temporarily UN trusteeship, as was the original mission of the Trusteeship Council until its suspension in 1994.

Post moderation key

Modern media remain committed to freedom of expression, and engaging readers in societal debate is a rare and invaluable function. However, this openness also makes them vulnerable to attacks from groups that reject diversity and aim to push their own agenda.

The handling of posts from commentators on platforms like PostBag is a case in point. Moderation should be handled directly by the editorial team to regain control and ensure fair discussions. Users who have repeatedly violated the guidelines should be consistently blocked. An analysis of their past behaviour and community ratings can help identify problematic actors.

An effective reporting system is essential to ensure problematic content does not remain online for hours or days.

During particularly sensitive periods, moderation should be intensified to allow for prompt interventions. It is also important for users to have a direct point of contact within the editorial team to report issues and facilitate rapid resolutions.

Commentators on PostBag online should have the ability to block other users, meaning that blocked individuals cannot leave replies under their comments. This feature, which is standard in many modern games, could help prevent targeted attacks on commentators.

Through these combined measures, media platforms can regain their independence and continue to offer their users an open and respectful culture of discussion.

CONTACT: