OPINION

Victory for the few

Re: "Thais will not slash all tariffs: Paopoom voices fear of hit to industries", (BP, July 18).

Thailand's recent success in negotiating a 19% reciprocal tariff on exports to the United States -- down from the 36% -- has been framed as a diplomatic and economic win. The result places Thailand on par with regional peers such as Cambodia, Indonesia, and Vietnam. With the US accounting for roughly 18% of Thai exports, this outcome undeniably matters.

But while trade negotiators led by Finance Minister Pichai Chunhavajira and Deputy Minister Paopoom Rojanasakul exercised caution in talks with the USTR, one must ask: Whose interests were they protecting?

Mr Paopoom has argued that fully opening Thai markets could jeopardise local producers, particularly farmers and SMEs. Yet these very groups already struggle under the weight of monopolistic domestic structures in the hands of a few powerful conglomerates spanning retail, telecoms, agriculture, and more. This economic reality translates into fewer choices, inflated prices, and limited upward mobility. In agriculture -- where nearly one-third of the workforce is employed -- smallholders are frequently bound by contract farming schemes that limit their independence and entrench rural poverty.

Meanwhile, the close nexus between politics and business continues to insulate monopolies from genuine competition. In this light, Thailand's trade talks with the US offered more than a moment to fend off tariffs -- they offered an opportunity for economic introspection. Did we use that moment wisely?

While defending vulnerable sectors is important, real reform demands more than defensive posturing. It requires confronting the structural inequalities that undermine inclusive growth and hold back long-term competitiveness.

Thailand must ask itself: Is it safeguarding its people, or merely protecting the entrenched interests of a few?

Bring in the pros

Re: "Put a foreigner in charge", (PostBag, Aug 3).

I will second that!

South Korea put a German foreigner in charge of promoting the tourism industry there a few years ago, and it seemed to pay dividends.

Thai people, for the most part, know what Thais want, but can only guess what needs to be done in order to attract foreign travellers here. It is not enough to travel only in Thailand. A foreigner who comes from a Western country, for instance, knows not only what people from his country want, but also what other foreigners in Western countries want. Basically, most Western travellers want the same things when they travel, just like tourists from other parts of the world.

So I think that it d be a great idea to put a foreigner in charge of promoting the tourist industry here, as it has now become abundantly clear to any independent observer with any knowledge of the situation, that the Thai tourism indistry has now become stagnant.

Drop the alien talk

Re: "New online arrival cards target crime: Immigration touts system's 'convenience'", (BP, April 27).

When I lived and worked in Japan, I had to get an Alien Registration Card. Some expats campaigned to change the name to something more respectful. It was changed to Foreigner Registration Card!

The alien or resident alien wordings were similarly challenged in the US and Korea regarding entry documentation.

The new Thai arrival card uses passengers, alien, aliens and foreigners.

With the need for Thailand to build visitor numbers to the Land of Smiles, wouldn't it be a good idea to use words such as welcome visitors and/or welcome resident foreigners?