This is the same story of constant policy changes that prevent us from becoming a proper force in the world economy. Despite all the reasons given by Airports of Thailand (AOT) and the airlines, it's all about AOT's finances - remember it is now a publicly listed company. I am sure the short-term benefits will be too tempting for all involved.

AOT has spent months trying to solve Suvarnabhumi Airport's problems without success. Instead of working harder and blaming themselves, they chose to use the problems as an excuse to step back (to Don Muang). The hidden agenda is that they could then delay the Bt1.4-billion investment in another terminal at Suvarnabhumi or even save it altogether by scrapping the plan. The domestic airlines that agree to move back would also benefit from lower costs (set by the AOT). Thai Airways even said that it would move all but three domestic routes back to Don Muang to save costs!

What will happen to Suvarnabhumi Airport? What will happen to the nation's ambition to become a regional aviation hub? What will happen to the lucrative tourism industry? And would the rail link to the new airport still be justified? What about the traffic to and from Don Muang? We know how congested it was - will there be any plan to build a mass-transit link to Don Muang?

And what about the confidence of foreign investors after yet another policy shift? All of these factors would cost us as a nation more than AOT and the airlines would save. Come on, government, look at the big picture. A "national strategy" is the key.

Tor Tangsunawan

Bangkok

-------------------------------------------------

Amended business law needs changes to other laws as well

 Re: "Investors must be wary of NVDRs as they assess the new law", Business, January 12.

It looks as if this could be another snafu from our military-installed government, with its shoot-from-the-hip approach to financial and economic policy. In drafting the new Foreign Business Act (FBA), no consideration seems to have been given to the status of listed companies that are partly owned through non-voting depository receipts (NDVRs). Defining as foreign a company with 50 per cent or more of the voting capital owned by foreigners could have serious implications for many listed companies.

One interesting example is Kasikornbank. This bank is actually 70 per cent owned by foreigners, who own 49 per cent of the voting stock and another 21 per cent through NVDRs. Thus the voting-share capital comprises the 30 per cent of the bank owned by Thais plus the 49 per cent that is foreign registered voting stock, which equals 79 per cent. Therefore foreigners own 62 per cent of the voting stock and Kasikorn Bank would be a foreign company under the new FBA definition. Banks are of course regarded as exempt from the FBA because they come under the Commercial Banking Act. But are they exempt from the Land Code? Will Kasikornbank have to sell off all of the land it owns for its branch network and will it be unable to take possession of its defaulting clients' property as collateral in future?

This is potentially even more of a problem for listed property companies. Raimon Land for example is 81 per cent owned by foreigners (49 per cent foreign registered and 32 per cent NVDRs), giving foreigners ownership of 73 per cent of the voting stock. In addition to potentially being in violation of the Land Code, Raimon cannot be grandfathered under the new FBA because land trading is an Annex 1 activity, which cannot be exempted. Several other listed property companies will be in the same boat as Raimon.

Finally we come to the telecoms sector which, as an apparent afterthought, is now to be moved to the FBA's Annex 3, meaning that foreign telecom company shareholders, such as Temasek and Telenor, can be grandfathered by the new FBA without selling down their holdings. However, the foreign ownership limit of telecom companies is governed not by the FBA but by the Telecoms Act. This law was amended by the Thaksin government shortly before the sale of Shin Corp to Temasek, increasing the foreign ownership limit from 25 per cent to 49 per cent.

To facilitate the new FBA without risking more shocks to the stock market, it may be necessary also to amend the Land Code, the Telecoms Act, and the laws governing other industries. To allow grandfathering of listed property companies, land trading will have to be moved from Annex 1 to Annex 3 in the FBA.

Grandfathering of listed companies in general will presumably also have to be not a one-off process but ongoing, in order to accommodate all listed companies that may suddenly find they have become foreign due to the effect of NVDRs in the future.

Jon Scotia

Bangkok

-----------------------------------------------

Explanation of the new Foreign Business Act

 Re: "Govt has yet to clearly spell out economic benefit of revisions", Letters, January 13.

Please allow me to provide answers to George Morgan's questions.

First, the details of the revision to the Foreign Business Act are clear if one reads the draft amendments to the Act. In essence, counting foreign shares shall be changed from share units to a number of vested votes. Subject to declaration, most existing foreign corporations with foreign-majority votes are allowed [to continue as is]. But those few in the indigenous products or property ownership business have to modify their status to the new rule of Thai-majority votes within two years or otherwise be dissolved.

Thais who were used as nominees to falsely portray a company as majority Thai-owned have been given amnesty from prosecution if they declare themselves to the Commerce Ministry within 90 days and the company corrects the position within one year or is dissolved. However there is no amnesty for those who have already been prosecuted in the court or are currently subject to official investigation.

Based on the above, the main objective of the amended law is to improve the basis of measurement of foreign shares without disturbing the current status of foreign businesses unduly. No way out is offered to Kularb Kaew because the matter is now with the police department.

Second, the amendments are hardly beneficial to the Thai economy. On the contrary, our image as a free-wheeling economy has been disturbed and also distorted by foreigners.

Finally, the question of whether the new law enhances our "gross domestic happiness". That depends on which camp you belong to. If you are against the Shin Corp deal, there should be a sense of satisfaction in having the chapter closed this way. But if you are indifferent, you could ask whether the revisions are worth it and why we didn't let sleeping dogs lie.

Songdej Praditsmanont

Bangkok

---------------------------------------------------

Accusations against Jaruvan are simply to make trouble

 Re: "Jaruvan accused of nepotism, graft", News, January 12.

Having spent more than 10 years in the somewhat rarefied atmosphere of academia myself, I can state with absolute certainty that an academic is usually expert in his own particular field but outside the narrow confines of that discipline, is neither wiser nor more or less foolish than the rest of us. This is especially so when it comes to political matters. Proof of my contention lies in the attacks now being mounted upon Auditor-General Khunying Jaruvan Maintaka.

Over the past few years this lady has stood out as a beacon of probity in an otherwise surging sea of corruption. Very possibly she is a difficult and formidable lady, yet considering the circumstances surrounding her battle for formal recognition to her post, it is not in the least surprising that she should have chosen a member of her own family as the most trustworthy person to act as her personal secretary. Not merely unsurprising but also very sensible! What may be a little surprising however, is that her son, as the personal secretary in question, is paid rather more from the public purse than other holders of similar posts apparently earn. If this is true, perhaps he is worth it!

These pathetic and frivolous attacks on individuals who continue to serve the nation in the present administration, particularly attacks by academics whose intellect should enable them to think rather more clearly, are simply designed to cause as much trouble as possible and, having no merit, serve no other purpose.

Henry Ashe

Bangkok

---------------------------------------------------

China, Russia only protecting business interests in Burma

 How pathetic that China and Russia should block the UN on Burma, claiming that they are "against interfering in the internal matters of another country". We all know that they are really protecting something else - business interests.

Perhaps if the internal matters of Stalin's Russia and Chairman Mao's China had been interfered with, the massive loss of life that ensued under those dictators could have been averted. All I can say is, when true democracy comes to Burma and the country's tin-pot dictators are off living in exile with their ill-gotten gains, the Burmese people will remember who their friends were and who hindered their fight for democracy.

Chiang Mai Mike

Chiang Mai

--------------------------------------------------------

Ban George Bush from using term 'credible intelligence'

 Am I the only one who is disconcerted about the recent re-emergence of the dangerous cliché "credible intelligence"? This usage coming as a way of explanation from the White House after the US air attacks on "al-Qaeda" camps in Somalia and also in references to activities in Pakistan and Iran.

We all know where credible intelligence got us - this is why the Middle East is in such a dangerous, unstable mess today.

I think the new US Congress should take immediate steps to pass urgent legislation to ban lame duck President George W Bush from ever using the term "credible intelligence" again while holding any position of office in America.

A Warner

Bangkok