OPINION

Understand choices

Re: "Long-term structural issues hobble Thailand's growth", (Business, Jan 5).

Democracy works only when voters understand the choices before them and their long-term consequences. In this regard, the media and universities have vital roles to play.

The media should help explain Thailand's structural problems, as identified by bodies such as the NESDC and TDRI, and clearly summarise what each major political party proposes to do.

Equally important is presenting assessments by neutral experts on the likely long-term impact of these policies.

Universities, meanwhile, should host public debates among major parties and power brokers, focusing on long-term national benefits rather than short-term populist appeals, and stream them widely on social media.

Consider the inefficiency of Thailand's bloated public sector, where seniority often outweighs performance, even in top positions. What transparent and job-relevant KPIs should be used, and why should taxpayers pay for poor outcomes?

Thailand also faces rapid ageing. By 2033, it will be a "super-aged" society, with farmers already averaging 59 years old.

Raising birth rates will not help for decades. Has any party proposed welcoming young, skilled migrants -- such as doctors and engineers fleeing Myanmar's draft -- with proper screening, acculturation and a path to citizenship?

Finally, 64% of Thais aged 15–65 struggle to understand simple written instructions, severely limiting productivity. How does each party plan to address this, and what measurable progress should voters expect within one term?

Voters should study the issues carefully and demand clear, measurable answers.

Lesson on losses

Re: "Resource grabs", (PostBag, Jan 7).

As is very often the case, I agree with everything ML Saksiri Kridakorn wrote in his latest letter, but if I might, I think I have a few things to add as an older American.

When the astute writer spoke about (paraphrased) "the USA's ability to strike any nation all while sustaining minimal losses," I would point out from spending Day 1 to 35 years of my life in America and having many past friends in the US military that "sustaining minimal losses" is actually America's Achilles heel; because the Vietnam War teaches that once large numbers of American servicemen begin arriving home in caskets, America's public will revolt.

Additionally, one can use public records to verify this, but right now "sustaining minimal losses" is also a necessity because America's conventional munition stocks are severely low thanks to needless foreign escapades elsewhere than Venezuela.

Since President Trump has no substantial military experience, it is crystal clear that he does not understand that the USA could start running out of conventional munitions within only a few weeks, not months or years, and then I guess they will have to fight slinging prickly durians from slingshots; well, good luck on that.

I conclude by saying empires very sadly often go warring to try to prevent their end; usually an end due to decadent excesses and profound arrogance, common to most citizens, which causes many citizens to broadly overvalue their real place in the world.