• 
• 

Published on December 9, 2007

However, as a Thai, I envy many of them since, for the most part, they can move visa-free between countries and, in countries where they can't, they can usually get a visa-on-arrival for a fee.

Earlier this year when I was residing in London, I was invited to an important event at the Vatican and was given a reasonable three weeks' notice to get my documentation in order. Imagine my consternation when the Italian consulate informed me that the next available appointment for them to even consider the application would be in two months!

While I realise that gaining permission to enter a foreign country is not a right, most people would agree that being made to wait for two months for consideration is rather ludicrous. This is not to mention the financial extortion of the ever-popular automated premium phone-lines that have to be used to make the appointments.

I imagine that many people will think that this is one of the perils of living in Europe as a citizen of a newly industrialised country, one that has never been colonised no less.

But really, are we living in the first half of the twentieth or the twenty-first century?

For all the talk of the world becoming a "global village" and all the free-trade agreements that have been signed, I argue that there can be no meaningful economic - never mind cultural - exchanges between nations without the corresponding free movement of people.

Indeed, with the concern that some European countries seem to have regarding their languages no longer being so popular, I would have imagined that they would be keen to have additional tourists wanting to experience their cultures first-hand, falling in love with these cultures, and returning to encourage their relatives and friends to do the same.

But how can they if, every time they want to make even a one-day trip, they have to steel themselves to wait an eternity for an appointment, pay unreasonable fees, gather a huge pile of documentation, and even brave the odd rude embassy official?

The whisperers on the streets say that the next government may not last long. I say that if they, or any government, can at least gain visa-free agreements for short visits with the Schengen and other countries in that time they will have the quiet, if not vocal, gratitude of many Thais that have links with foreign countries in all trades, both in the present and in the future.

[The 1985 Schengen Agreement among some European countries allows for the abolition of systematic border controls among the participating countries.]

I commend the previous foreign ministers' efforts in gaining visa-free access to Asean countries, Russia, and even Djibouti, but I think it's time to step up the game.

If the citizens of Uruguay, Guatemala, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Malaysia and other countries comparable to ours can enter Italy (and the other Schengen countries) visa-free for up to 90 days, I think it's about time that Thais should be able to negotiate for this privilege.

Apisake Monthienvichienchai

Bangkok

Media campaign needed to shame vote-buyers

I wonder why the Election Commission so far has not come up with a motto like: "Those who sell those votes are not Thai and those who buy votes are enemies of Thailand." Given how proud Thais are of their country, this might prove a powerful deterrent against vote-buying. This isn't about being for or against somebody, left or right in your politics, this is simply about right and wrong. This could be expressed in a short and precise way in the media.

How would certain politicians feel if they knew that behind their backs they were being called enemies of Thailand?

Sam Munich

Bangkok

Think-tanks skewing debate on global warming

Re: "Adaptation, not emission cuts", Opinion, December 7.

It is no surprise that Kendra Okonski of the International Policy Network (IPN) writes in favour of business as usual in terms of emissions.

The IPN, according to the website www.lobbywatch.org, is part of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, established to bring "freedom to the world" by helping "develop and strengthen a network of market-oriented think-tanks that spans the globe".

The IPN's Washington address is the same as that of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). Kendra Okonski was previously a CEI researcher.

The IPN and CEI are part of this network of "think-tanks", including the Liberty Institute, that are essentially fronts for big corporate interests, seeking to discredit any studies or data that threaten to circumscribe what big corporations would like - a free run with minimal or no government regulation.

Okonski ends her article by saying, "If negotiators are serious ... they should be looking primarily at adaptation, not at trying to cut emissions", which is like a doctor telling a patient: "Forget about the disease, here's an aspirin".

A few minutes of diligent "Googling" easily reveals this network of lobbyists, who are trying to shift the focus to adaptation because (mostly US-based) big corporations are worried about what emission cuts will do to their profit margins.

So they are in favour of business as usual, while developing countries most impacted by global warming can be left to swim or sink.

Nirmal Ghosh

Bangkok

Boom during Howard's term profited only the rich

Re: "Expat concerns likely did little to oust Howard", Letters, December 1.

Rodney Sheaves must be like Australian Prime Minister John Howard and company who believe that paper shuffling at the stock exchange is a productive activity.

The only solid cause of the so-called "economic boom" that has increased employment and added extra revenue to state and federal coffers is the reopening of mineral exploration and the boost in unprecedented share trading in mineral resources.

Should however Sheaves go around the state capital cities with open eyes, he would see the contradictory picture of homeless adults and children hanging about the streets and parks.

The issue of denial of citizenship is discussed in the report of the Senate's Inquiry on the Australian Diaspora referred to in my letter. I do not recollect whether it was put forward by the anti-intellectual senators of the committee or by their tame academics, whose submissions smacked of connivance with the Howard government rather than of genuine independent research.

The limitations that returning expatriates face are apparent as soon as they deal with government services. These limitations are of an administrative and fiscal nature, introduced during the reshuffling of pre-existing departments and services - there are even requirements that can be seen as a violation of the right of freedom of movement.

Last point: expatriates' postal votes have surely contributed to the Liberals' debacle.

Loki Ragnaroekssen

New South Wales, Australia

 

Send us your views in an instant

E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to

the Editor' in the subject box, to:

letters@nationgroup.com

The Nation