• 
• 

Published on December 11, 2007

I want to thank "Friendly Skies" for being a supportive voice. While I concur that a Schengen-Thai agreement might be a long-time in the making, I don't think it's as difficult as some make it out to be.

Actually, as far as I know, the Schengen countries only require that countries on their visa-free list reciprocate the privileges. Currently, citizens of some Schengen countries need to apply for a visa prior to their arrival, while others can apply for a visa on arrival in Thailand.

I think, in the best interests of both parties, that Thailand should simply drop the visa requirements for Schengen citizens for short visits (up to 30 days), with the understanding that these privileges will be reciprocated.

Obviously, this would mean a drop in revenue from visa applications. However, on the plus side, the cash that would have been used for visa fees and fees to travel or send passports back and forth from consulates would now go directly to the people, as opposed to a government whose accountability tends to vary considerably, depending on who's in charge. This is not to mention the amount of time and paper-pushing that would be saved for all concerned.

Furthermore, Europeans may be more encouraged to use Bangkok as a stopover destination as opposed to Malaysia or Singapore, both of which have more competitive visa regimes. If Thailand is serious about becoming a tourist or an air-travel hub, this is something that should be considered.

Some may worry that if Schengen does open its doors, there'll inevitably be a flood of Thai illegal immigrants straining their social services. That might be true to an extent, but considering the fact that a Schengen-Thai agreement would eventually open up 30 countries, many of which are not particularly hospitable for long-term stays due to climate and language differences, the flood should be less severe than in past visa-free debacles to English-speaking countries.

To sweeten the deal, I suggest the introduction of a more streamlined retirement visa with improved privileges (eg limited land ownership, free entrance to state-owned tourist attractions). Since the diseases of the elderly tend to be the most draining on national health systems, if they retire here they can get five-star treatment for a fraction of what it would normally cost in their own country, whilst supporting our medical industry.

While we're at it, why not support any existing research centres for geriatric diseases or set one up (in Isaan, perhaps?), so that we can be a hub of something useful to mankind for a change?

I don't think it's particularly difficult. All that's needed is a vaguely imaginative and competent negotiator with a dash of vision that has the interest of the Thai people at heart.

Apisake Monthienvichienchai

Bangkok

-----------

US, not Iran, lacks mature foreign policy

Re: "Iran needs to show more maturity on the world stage," Letters, December 7.

In response to this letter by Ken Albertsen, I would like to draw your attention to an easy-to-understand debate these days: Iran's nuclear issue.

Albertsen writes: "The Western powers reluctantly accept additional members to the world's nuclear club (Pakistan and India are among the most recent), but accepting Iran is a stickler because of the shrill and extremist tendencies of the people who hold the reins of power there."

If we evaluate this statement critically and impartially, there is no doubt that Iran's leadership does not possess an extremist record. Iran has not invaded any other nation to give them democracy or toppled any regimes. The extremist intentions of the US government are very much clear when they, with the support of like-minded countries, imposed war on Iraq despite reports stating that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

It was the US government and its allies that invaded Iraq despite global anti-aggression appeals and up till now have found nothing, instead killing thousands of innocent civilians and destroying one of the richest Middle East nations.

It was not Iran that killed thousands of people by introducing nuclear bombs during World War Two. It was not Iran who tested dirty bombs and carpet-bombings on its opponents.

If Iranians are happy with the US intelligence report stating that Iran is not a nuclear threat, it is the victory of their long-held standpoint that they want to use nuclear energy for peaceful means. In fact, it is a strong blow to the stance of the US and its allies who have been so antagonistic for the past many years. This shows the maturity of Iranian policies and, ethically, opponents should accept it with an open heart rather than find new excuses to justify their attitudes.

It might be true that Iran has not denied any political slogans, but they have been regularly receiving threats of invasion and additional sanctions by the US and its allies. Can we believe that these threats are just a joke? Is there any denial of war threats from either side? In a hostile situation like this, in which the US and other countries are threatening Iran (only one country), why don't they have the moral courage to hear from Iran as well?

This is a fact that very few US citizens understand - that the US and its allies are putting unjustified pressure on Iran, which has already signed a nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to abandon its peaceful nuclear programme.

In conclusion, I must say that Western counties need to show maturity, not Iran, which has taken a clear and justifiable stance. The US intelligence agencies reported no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but were overruled by the US leadership, and now in the case of Iran we are standing at the same point again. The so-called "maturity" of Western countries could again push this world to another dreadful fate.

Muhammad Atif Ali

Bangkok

-----------

Broadband limits cap Thailand's Net potential

Re: "The Net's effect", Opinion-Features, December 9.

Cisco exec Howard Charney, who sees the Internet as a key driver for development, says: "Historically, education has always been the route to a better life - and the Internet has the potential to bring education to every person who wants it."

The piece goes on to say: "According to recent figures, only 11 to 12 per cent of Thais currently use the Internet..." Hopefully this figure will grow exponentially, but it's not happening yet.

Connection speeds for broadband Internet in this country are cripplingly slow. Every day I find myself swearing to the point I now believe I've developed Tourette's Syndrome - and quite often I also give my desk the sharp end of my boot - for Thailand's seeming lack of interest in addressing this issue is so frustrating. Charney says "there is an undeniable correlation between productivity and connectivity", which brings me to the attached letter on that page, "Vietnam soars as Thailand falters". The concluding paragraph of the letter predicts: "The only competitive advantage Thailand has to nurture is to serve as an operation base for knowledge intensive industries from the US and Europe."

How is this possible when Internet users are growing apace while the system is due, some day soon, to grind to a complete standstill unless something is done to address the problem?

If nothing is done, this so-called "operation base" will also see IT shifting quietly eastward across the Indian Ocean. And so will we.

James Groveway

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

The Nation