Re: "Thai visa exemptions cut by cabinet" (Business, May 20).
You published several misleading or confusing statements in the piece about the latest MFA effort to reduce foreign presence in the kingdom, without distinction between good or bad inflows.
The most alarming statement was from vice-president of the Tourism Council of Thailand Ratchaporn Poolsawadee, who said that "foreign-invested businesses are often able to evade taxes, unlike local operators".
He also appears to feel that the main "lost opportunity" is taxes that could be paid by these illegally operating businesses.
As a law-abiding foreigner who has complied with Thai law by not working or doing business here illegally, I find this offensive.
Every working foreigner I have met in more than a decade here is vigilantly aware of the limits of his work permit, and the risks of even appearing to violate them. The idea of a foreigner evading modest Thai taxes to save money does not make mathematical sense, and no otherwise legal foreigner would consider it.
You do not seem to have asked Tourism and Sports Minister Surasak Phancharoenworakul whether reducing 60-day stays will achieve any of his stated security goals.
Nor did you ask whether there is any evidence that changing 30-day entry periods to 60 days led to any net increase in criminality or disruption.
Most countries far enough away to necessitate a long, expensive flight were previously eligible for stays of at least 30 days. China, clearly, is still favoured.
You then casually allude to other options, "such as applying for the DTV (Destination Thailand Visa)".
As you know, there has been a crackdown or resistance to the DTV programme from Immigration -- hassles at borders on entry, extensions refused or made inordinately difficult, banking problems for DTV holders, while applicants who do not bribe agents struggle even to apply or ask questions.
Mr Ratchaporn's other ideas make sense. Thailand should absolutely consider how it is placing itself at a disadvantage compared with neighbouring countries and rivals for similar tourism and investment markets. And yes, it should be easier for qualifying applicants to obtain long-stay visas.
Good Guy Going, Going
Not so smart
Re: "Netherlands tax binge hurts growth and jobs" (Opinion, May 13) and "City's green spaces losing ground" (BP, March 30).
"Among the attributes of the Dutch people are hard work, punctuality, and a friendly and free spirit," says John J Metzler in his column.
A strong calculative instinct should be added. Supported by Calvinism, this trait helped make the Dutch vigorous traders and colonisers.
After World War II, socialists, Christian democrats and liberals built, through compromise, a stable society with good social housing policies, fair labour laws, public health provisions, modern water management and public transport.
But this model no longer exists. Neo-liberalism became the dominant force, driving an increasingly extreme calculative economy.
Healthcare, housing and public services were privatised and subjected to profit-making for a clever minority skilled in mass communication, power manipulation and wealth accumulation.
A short-sighted calculative drive does not necessarily guarantee positive outcomes. This may also be true of the way the Netherlands is selling its Bangkok embassy.
Without recognising -- and even actively blocking -- the unique opportunities inherent in cultural heritage and creative space in a hyper-urban setting.
Efforts to find a win-win solution -- facilitating the planned move of the embassy to modern office space while simultaneously repurposing the Witthayu Road compound with private capital as a semi-public international Asia-Pacific Peace Institute -- were rudely blocked.
The commercial sale must proceed above all. And in secrecy!
Hans Van Willenswaard
