Why they fear Pita
Re: "Pita vows a comeback in 9 years to be 'best prime minister'", (BP, May 5).
It is not difficult to understand why the old guard, conservatives, Thaksin Shinawatra, Prayut Chan-o-cha, and their rather sufficiently rich mates abhor Pita Limjaroenrat.
It is because the former leader of Move Forward, the election winner, is a genuinely moral person. He has no need of gaudy medals and ribbons to impress. Pita needs no motorcades or even a single luxury car to awe. Now a scholar at Harvard, he does not need to protect himself from peaceful, honest opinion with defamation and other lawfare to suppress the open dialogue that reveals him as he truly is. The popular leader's morals need not be veiled by legally forced ignorance lest the truth be known: truth and openness are friends to Pita Limjaroenrat.
After the legal machinations following the May 2023 election, can any other person in the land match the genuine respect that voters continue to give the leader of Move Forward and the party reborn as the People's Party?
Felix Qui
Reform is just talk
Re: "Call for major rethink of economic policy", (Business, May 5).
Although it states the obvious, this article is right on the money. And without any doubt, the obvious needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Because the cost of doing business weighs heavily on efficiencies and stimulus measures are never an option (although politicians are smitten by them), economic reality must be acknowledged and the government must act accordingly. Let's look at the OECD's (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) Jan 25 report on corporate governance of 52 state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in Thailand.
Although the OECD has made numerous recommendations for SOE reform, the government has neglected to implement many of them. These include establishing a policy framework to ensure competitive neutrality, improving board autonomy and independence, and enhancing transparency and disclosure measures. Noteworthy and troubling is the fact that SOEs are still exempt from the Trade Competition Act, in direct contravention of public interest. Examples are PTT in the retail coffee and hotel business, and the SRT leasing retail vendor space.
The Thailand Tobacco Monopoly made 221 million baht in profit in 2023, and the Ministry of Finance gobbles up most of this yearly. Why are they not contributing a large portion to the National Cancer Institute? The Thai government is exceptionally talented at camouflaging public interest, and this fact lies at the core of all necessary reforms, economic or otherwise.
Michael Setter
The smarter gamble
Re: "PM: Casino project will be responsible gambling", (BP, May 4).
Oxford's Dictionary defines gambling as "playing games of chance for money" and "taking risky games of chance for a desired result". That is to say, the dictionary itself defines gambling as "risky", not responsible.
Regardless, I would point out that there is a better way to win the lottery in life. It's called sufficiency economics, which was developed in Thailand. A key pillar of sufficiency economics (stated simplistically) is to make more money than you spend and save for lean times.
It remains to be seen whether Thailand will have better luck should it build entertainment complexes, but in America, major crime escalates when gambling centres or entertainment complexes are built. I would suggest to "empower Thais" -- work hard, spend less than you earn, and gamble on yourself.
Jason A Jellison
