• 
• 

Published on December 16, 2007

The Supreme Administrative Court's decision in stopping the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat) from being privatised just a few days before the shares were due to be traded was masterful and a great contribution to our society in terms of fairness and good governance.

The days of government officials riding roughshod over small men are dwindling because of the existence of this court. The best and truest example of upholding the real concept of good corporate governance is this court, and not those self-appointed judges in the commercial world. Let it be known that anybody of any nationality can call for fairness and justice from the court when mistreated by those in power.

Friday's landmark decision on PTT was another great example of justice being done and openly seen to be done. PTT was distinguished from Egat and held as correct in its listing procedures while being required to correct its obligations in transferring property that the court held as public domain and not belonging to PTT.

As the English jurist Sir John Powell (1633-1693) appropriately pointed out in one of his court cases on the status of law: "Let us consider the reasons of the case. For nothing is law that is not reason."

Songdej Praditsmanont

Bangkok

More watchdogs needed to guard national assets

'Return the country's assets to their real owners" was the message handed down by the Supreme Administrative Court on Friday.

The voice of the underdog, normally overwhelmed by those of vested interests in a capitalist society, was heard loud and clear throughout the land. From now on PTT, though not delisted from the Stock Exchange of Thailand, has to compete on a close-to-level playing field with other energy companies.

At least for now, a certain portion of shares is still in the hands of the state. As part of the verdict cautioned, there is no certainty that the Finance Ministry will not sell off its stake in PTT at a disadvantage to the state. It happened before under a crooked administration, otherwise there would not have been such a legal battle that led to Friday's ruling.

We need more vigilant watchdogs like Rosana Tositrakul and Saree Ongsomwang. Congratulations!

Chamnong Watanagase

Bangkok

People don't lose their power after elections

 Many people think that after an election the MPs and Cabinet chosen by majority vote have absolute power to do anything they want.

The reason we hold an election is because it is not possible for all people to meet and vote on important matters. In fact, if Thai people had a chance to decide, they might choose to spend money improving educational facilities instead of recapitalising state enterprises or other purposes.

We elect our representatives to act on our behalf. In casting their votes, the people do not give away the country to these MPs. The people still own the country and retain the right to demand good service from MPs. The perception of politicians being able to do anything after winning the election without taking into consideration the views of the people or the rule of law is not correct. If the MPs pass laws that are against the constitution or Cabinet members break any law, people or the relevant authorities can, and should, take the matter to court.

The opposition also has a duty to perform. If their performance is poor, people can protest. Recent history shows that getting elected does not necessarily mean that the candidate is competent. They can win by making themselves popular, buying votes or making lofty promises, without having demonstrated skills in public administration.

The duty of MPs is to serve all Thais, who still own the country. Their performance will determine whether they deserve praise or condemnation.

Prichar

Bangkok

Something amiss about NLA still passing laws

 I would like to remind the democratic society of this nation that to hold a general election the House has to be dissolved and the whole Cabinet including the prime minister have to assume caretaker status.

How come such normal democratic process has been missed or neglected? One week before election and the National Legislative Assembly is still passing laws. What is going on? Don't tell me that sooner or later this election is going to be declared illegal by the courts.

Om P Tiwari

Bangkok

Who is to blame for monkey killing baby?

 The recent killing of a human baby by a captive monkey unfortunately illustrates again that keeping a wild animal as a pet is in principle dangerous.

The pig-tailed macaque that was kept as a pet escaped on December 5. Although the owner tried to catch the monkey and asked for help from the Department of National Parks and Wildlife (DNP), they were not able to get hold of it. Subsequently the macaque killed a two-month-old baby on December 13. The monkey was shot dead the next day.

Besides the fact that the owner of the monkey is in principle guilty of any damage done by the macaque, it does occur to us that some blame lies with the DNP for not enforcing the wildlife-preservation act that stipulates that no one is allowed to hunt, transport or keep endangered wildlife. All macaque species are subject to this law, issued in 1992.

Around Thailand we find wild animals kept as pets by private citizens and small businesses, some for personal pleasure, some to attract customers or tourists, but in almost all cases hunted from the wild. A survey in 2006 by the Wildlife Friends Foundation Thailand (WFFT) suggests that more than 4,000 primates (monkeys and gibbons) alone are being illegally kept as "pets" throughout the country. The WFFT has sent more than 40 complaints and reports on this issue to the DNP over the past 18 months and has yet to see legal action or receive a reply from the authorities. Another tragedy will occur if the status quo remains unchanged.

The DNP has numerous times forbidden any NGO to rescue, help or care for captive wildlife but lacks the motivation and/or expertise to deal effectively with the matter itself. Recently a juvenile bear that was rescued from a temple in Cha-am, Phetchaburi, by forestry officials escaped only days later from a substandard cage at a government facility and has been roaming a community forest near Hua Hin for over a month, scaring local villagers. Offers by the WFFT wildlife rescue team to help locate and catch the bear to move it elsewhere have not been accepted. It will probably be shot dead, paying with its life for the incompetence of people.

Since the story about the monkey that killed a baby broke, the WFFT has received several calls from pet-owners who want to give up their monkey to the foundation. One family drove up without even calling in advance and handed over a pig-tailed macaque while expressing fear of a similar attack. The monkey was refused at a government facility, as they were supposedly full.

Edwin Wiek

Wildlife Friends Foundation Thailand

Share revenues from parks with fishermen

 

 Though I strongly oppose illegal fishing in national marine parks, there is also a flip side to this issue: the poor fisherman trying to feed his family. I fully understand his position and I would suggest the following solution.

Give the fishermen a share of the national park fees collected. This will give them an incentive to protect the marine environment.

The cash payment of park fees directly to the rangers must be stopped. All dive operators have passenger lists. Allow them to pay the fees monthly, based on these lists, directly to the national parks account.

Allocate Bt100 per dive customer to the fishermen to give them the incentive to see more divers inside the national parks. This Bt100 will not result in lower revenues for the national parks department because the post-payment system will eliminate corruption and it will receive the true amount of fees due.

A fishermen's fund should be created and their share of the park fees distributed monthly among them on a fair basis. If any boat is seen fishing inside the park boundaries, it should be excluded from a share of the fund for a period of at least six months. Further sanctions for illegal fishing must be implemented.

Less fishing, more fish. More divers, more money for fishermen and the national parks service. Everybody wins. Except those who currently benefit from corruption.

Jack Doe

Phuket