I can assure John Arnone I am not a "dog of foreign business", as he emotionally describes those who invest in this country. His letter shows a poor understanding of how investment here works broadly and who benefits from it.

A large part of foreign investment is used to set up new manufacturing industries. Nearly all the production of these factories is sold on the international market and is a huge revenue earner for the country.

It is true that the process is sullied by greed and a certain degree of exploitation of an underemployed, low-wage labour force, but it is equally true that these same labourers are better off than they would otherwise be. How else do we explain that the factories are able to maintain a full workforce.

It is exactly this process of export-oriented industrialisation that made South Korea and Taiwan so prosperous. Thailand started down this road much later but has benefited immensely from it so far, as shown by the increase in GDP for most years since the mid 1980s.

Paul Sweeney

Bangkok

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

Look to China to see terrible results of encouraging FDI

 Re: "Investors looking to cash in on country care for little else", Letters, April 14.

I laughed until I cried as I read this letter regarding foreigners and foreign investment.

Of course, proof of the one-sided nature of foreign investment is seen quite clearly by looking not far away in Asia, at China - the most significant destination for foreign investment in the world.

China's open-door policy on foreign investment, knowledge and expertise (and even, recently, foreign immigration), has led to nothing but economic stagnation, a general degeneration of Chinese culture into an odd mix of Western and Japanese karaoke bars, a phenomenal decrease in educational opportunity, and a nationwide decrease in the well-being and livelihood of the average Chinese citizen.

Or has it?

Bruce Janis

Chiang Mai

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

Thailand is a unique case and should continue to be

 Last October I wrote in reply to a letter from George Morgan who was pleading for a liberalisation of the Foreign Business Act. I see from Friday's paper that he and others continue to tediously bang on about how the revised FBA is going to ruin Thailand. We have had this same tired rant ad nauseam from sundry foreigners in the letters column over the past few months.

The plain fact of the matter is that the previous Act was circumvented and not adhered to by various dubious means and now there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth because the new one, very similar in intent, brings the subject out of the "don't speak about it" shadows into the "bright sunlight of fresh legislation" by a government that seeks to take Thailand on a quite different route to the money-oriented, discredited Thaksin regime.

The authors of these letters warn of the dire consequences of upsetting foreign investors, who will take their fat wallets elsewhere and Thailand will be the loser. The central theme of these letters is that this is bad, bad, bad. Well, is it, I wonder? Is money and consumption the root of all happiness? Indeed it is not. A recent study of employees in the West found that professionals earning high salaries were not as happy as vocational workers. His Majesty has been promoting his sufficiency economy principle for some time now and it has much to commend it as an approach to modern living.

A previous much-loved monarch, Rama V, shielded Thailand from the ravages of colonialism, thus protecting the cultural and territorial integrity of the country. I suspect this was due to a shrewd understanding of the beast, having been, at the astute direction of his father, educated in its bosom. Indeed inoculation remains to this day the most effective shield against infection.

Thailand is Thailand because it has not trodden the same worn path as the rest of the world, either by direction or desire for material gain. Thailand remains unique because of this and I for one would not wish to see the baby being thrown out with the bath water. May Thailand continue to be different, that is its strength and its charm and its beauty.

Dr John Symons

Bangkok

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

Lament for the gracious Songkran of bygone days

 A few years ago, at a family gathering before the Thai New Year, our host poured a little water on guests' hands to offer Songkran good wishes, then the water dripped into a silver container. I have since watched this beautiful Songkran tradition degrade from an elegant ceremony to an elephantine water war, seemingly a pale imitation of the "La Tomatina" festival in Spain.

Having seen motorcycles do amazing stunts in the "cross-water" as people fired at each other, now I just hide indoors during Songkran, leaving the street to silly kids.

This year, I saw more policemen checking foreigners' backpacks at the subway than checking crazy Thai youngsters' water guns.

Thais care little about the real graciousness of Songkran nowadays, and tourists even less so. Perhaps in the near future, The Nation will provide e-cards of Songkran greetings that shoot 3D virtual water from the screen! However, safety is no laughing matter - the police force should look at this issue seriously.

Julian Wang

Taiwan

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

'Siam' would be a better, more inclusive name for Kingdom

 Re: "Historian wants country called 'Siam'", News April 3.

One of Thailand's truly prominent and senior historians, Dr Charnvit Kasetsiri of Thammasat University, has called for the name of Thailand to be changed back to its more comprehensive ancient name of Siam.

The country's first constitution in 1932 had this name, reflecting the country's extensive cultural diversity and ancient history. But in an arbitrary decision, then prime minister Field Marshal Plaek or simply P Pibulsongkram changed this name to Thailand in 1939, during a period when there was no monarch on the throne. The nationalistic slogan at the time was "Thailand for the Thai". This was the same Pibulsongkram, an admirer of Mussolini, who allied Thailand with the Japanese and declared war on the United States and Britain in 1942. The Thai ambassador in Washington refused to deliver that formal declaration of war.

Pibulsongkram's wrong decisions of the war years have been forgotten, but his renaming of the country - which was reversed from 1945 to 1949 and then changed again to Thailand in May 1949 - continues till today.

The nation now is at a watershed in its history, and for the sake of greater unity through diversity, and the emphasis on historical continuity over centuries, a small gesture of enormous import could be the restoration of the old name of the Kingdom. The proposal deserves serious and extensive discussion. Now is a time for the country to listen to one of its most knowledgeable historians.

Bill Templer

Phitsanulok

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

Most women would prefer to marry a man with money

 Re: "Internet forums often a fount of misinformation about Thai culture", Opinion, April 14.

Stephen Cleary writes that it is a popular myth among Westerners that Thai women are after men's money. Maybe so, but when I first came to Thailand I remember talking to a well-educated Thai woman who said much the same thing.

To explain the situation, she recommended that I read "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austin. It is the story of four English sisters in 18th-century England. Although educated, there is no suitable employment for women like them and they must therefore find a husband or face poverty. Their ideal would be to find a man who is agreeable, but practical considerations dictate that he must first of all be wealthy enough to support them in reasonable comfort.

For the majority of Thai women the situation is not dissimilar. There is little well-paid employment available for women and when children come along a man, Western or Thai, with a good job or money in the bank is their best hope for a reasonably comfortable life and a good education prospects for their children.

Both in the West and in Asian countries like Singapore and Japan, the opportunities for women to earn good salaries have improved enormously, with the result that women no longer need to marry for support and, since they can think of no other good reason, they choose to stay single.

Dom Dunn

London

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

SUV commercials on TV encourage rash driving

 Whilst I applaud the governments anti-drink driving campaign, I feel that part of the blame for the death toll and injuries over the Songkran period lies elsewhere.

I would like to question the corporate responsibility of auto manufacturers regarding their television advertisements for SUVs that depict breathtaking driving stunts.

In this profit-over-people era we live in, more thought should be given to the quality of life of the shocking number of people who will be maimed over this festive period.

People are influenced by commercials, so in my opinion auto manufacturers should convey more prudent images.

C & C

Bangkok