• 
• 

Published on August 29, 2007

The reason is the legislation will strongly affect all Thai consumers, and so we the people should be the ones to decide, through our elected representatives - and if we choose unwisely or sell our votes, we should suffer the consequences.

In the interim, General Surayud should have a neutral, credible body study the issues in depth, both the pros and cons, so we can decide with our eyes open: the Thailand Development Research Institute or the economic faculties of Chulalongkorn or Thammasat could do an excellent job. Such a study should focus on maximising the long-term benefits to Thai consumers as a whole - not the gains to any vested group, be they moms and pops or mega-retailers.

Operators of mom-and-pop stores are being sorely hurt by big retail chains - listen to them report: "I've had to redecorate my shop! Extend my hours! Order a wider variety of goods!" Such complaints show that the chains are benefiting Thai consumers as a whole - and isn't this what any government that claims to represent we the people should applaud, not seek to stop?

We should always seek to give consumers a choice, for many prefer the opportunities for social interaction, etc, that the moms and pops provide, and are willing to put up with the extra cost, less variety, etc, of such outlets. And, we should not exchange the monopoly of moms and pops for the monopoly of the big chains. So, how do we maintain long-term consumer choice?

Also, operators of small stores make up a significant segment of Thais. How do we alleviate their problems and help them in the long term? And what cost to society is acceptable?

All these questions, and more, should be researched before the Retail Control Act is debated. We should have research-based, not emotion-based, policies.

Burin Kantabutra

BANGKOK

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

Alternate days for car use to cut down on city traffic

I have been living in Bangkok for about three years and always see traffic jams. Recently, I read about a Chinese policy to curb traffic jams and reduce pollution. According to this policy, only cars with licence plates containing an odd number at the end can be driven on Fridays and Sundays, and only those with even numbers can be driven on Saturdays and Mondays. In order to avoid inconvenience, authorities also plan to run more buses and taxis. However, emergency services and public transport are exempted from this restriction.

I think this is a good practice and Bangkok should follow this example. In the beginning we could reduce traffic jams on Mondays by allowing only cars with licence plates ending with odd numbers and, on Wednesdays, only those with even numbers. Such a test would help not only reduce traffic and pollution but would reduce the cost of fuel as well. Bangkok is full of taxis, however, and some buses are in bad shape. Bangkok should run more luxurious buses as in Singapore, on which the people can easily commute. Further buses should have their own lanes, wherever possible. This has been the practice in Pakistan for about five years and they have been able to control their traffic effectively.

All of us who live and work in Bangkok have a problem with traffic jams and we should think about it seriously.

Ajarn Mark

BANGKOK

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

Nuclear power interests prey on climate concerns

In response to two articles published on August 26, "Govt 'keeping country in nuclear dark'", (News) and the "Watchdog" column "Nuclear power has plus points, but public unconvinced":

The nuclear industry, which has been in decline in Europe and the US, has seized upon the climate crisis as an opportunity to promote nuclear power as a relatively carbon-free energy source to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. The nuclear industry is currently engaged in a lobbying and public-relations offensive to persuade the governments in the Asean region, like Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand to adopt nuclear power to address the domestic energy security issue and to combat climate change. These proposals are very dangerous due to the inherent risks nuclear technology poses, not to mention other threats in the Asean context from geologically unstable areas and governance problems.

Besides the dangers of accidents and unresolved issues of nuclear-waste storage, building a nuclear-power plant involves enormous costs, thereby diverting funds from clean, safe and far more economical renewable technologies. The result will be more problems and less energy.

Globally, a small minority of the 435 commercial nuclear-power plant reactors currently in operation were built within the planned timeframes or budgets. In addition, competitive electricity prices could only be achieved by price regulations, direct and indirect subsidies to the production of nuclear power, an extreme limitation of liability in case of accidents, externalising most environmental costs of uranium mining and fuel production, and heavily subsidising a large part of the back-end costs, especially the costs of decommissioning, waste processing and storage. Most of these costs will then be forced upon the Thai taxpayer.

Nuclear power leaves a dangerous waste legacy that is incredibly expensive and difficult to deal with. The industry's cost estimates for building new reactors are purely for construction and do not cover the huge amounts of money needed for reactor decommissioning, waste and spent fuel management and storage. If fully included, these costs would add massively to the overall costs of electricity from a nuclear new build programme.

The current problems with lack of uranium supplies, operational risks, waste, proliferation and security hazards would only multiply under a scenario of massive nuclear expansion. The world will not be saved from climate change by building nuclear reactors, but we (future generations) will indeed have to live under the threat of unprecedented collateral damages and risks.

For all those reasons, nuclear energy is a dead-end that would only take money, engineering and construction capacities, and time - all those scarce resources that we need to fully focus on real, effective and proven solutions to climate change (with no collateral risks).

Shailendra Yashwant

Climate and Energy Consultant

Greenpeace Southeast Asia

BANGKOK

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

Dam building results in many animals drowning

When the Irrigation Department has meetings with other government entities regarding the environment and dams perhaps they could consider the matter of wild animals that drown in rising backwaters of new dams. Not all animals can swim.

I have a video taken some years ago of the late Sueb Nakasathien in a small boat pulling drowning animals out of the rising waters behind a dam in, I recall, Kanchanaburi. He had only one little boat and a couple of helpers. Gibbons - Thailand's only ape - cannot swim, they go to the highest tree, jump into the water and drown. Animals such as deer can swim for only a short while; when they are frightened they die of heart failure. Bears do not swim, Loris (nang ai) cannot swim, and many other species such as porcupines and pangolins also drown. Nobody seems to care.

Perhaps when a new dam is planned a proper budget could be included to save the animals. If the powers that be don't have the time or the interest then give a grant to a local NGO to handle it. Our wild fauna are finding it hard enough to survive, they should not be left to drown in dams.

Perhaps whoever is in charge of building the Nam Theun Two and Salween dams could also take this into consideration.

Leonie Vejjajiva

Founder, Wild Animal Rescue Foundation of Thailand

BANGKOK

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

SCB's role in transferring Shin funds needs scrutiny

Re: "AEC probes Bt2 bn transfer to Thaksin-owned company", News, August 27.

I read with resigned pessimism the latest instalment of this endless saga of the Byzantine and twisted fund movements after the sale of Shin Corp to Temasek.

The convoluted transfers show that the intention was to make following and tracing the funds as difficult as possible.

What was worrying, however, was the Siam Commercial Bank's role in the transfer of funds overseas in US$5 million (Bt172 million) lumps to allegedly avoid the attention of the Bank of Thailand.

I think that this behaviour warrants swift investigation to determine any culpability in this attempt to avoid regulatory attention.

Dr John Symons

BANGKOK

Send us your views in an instant

E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to

the Editor' in the subject box, to:

letters@nationgroup.com