Re: "Graft board asks AoT for 'clear' bids", (BP, April 5). I strongly support Anti-Corruption Organisation of Thailand (ACT) chairman Vichien Phongsathorn in ACT's insistence that the Airports of Thailand (AoT), as a state-run enterprise, join an integrity pact to prevent graft during the bidding process to run the duty-free shops at AoT's four airports.I strongly support Anti-Corruption Organisation of Thailand (ACT) chairman Vichien Phongsathorn in ACT's insistence that the Airports of Thailand (AoT), as a state-run enterprise, join an integrity pact to prevent graft during the bidding process to run the duty-free shops at AoT's four airports.
Such pacts will be essential in protecting the nation's interests as opposed to just those of AoT. "Under the Integrity Pact, a third party or "independent observer" from the civil sector (will be) added (to) the process, starting from creating the Terms of Reference (ToR) to the end of the agreement. To create a transparent and fair process of procurement, this participation enables the third party to observe and monitor risks to any corruption that may happen in the procurement process" (source: ACT's website).
The independent observer from the civil sector should have the right to issue a minority report in any matter for which a vote is taken, and have the same rights and compensation as any other member in the vetting process, including the right to documentation that he/she deems necessary.
The airports should be run for Thailand's interests as a whole, since travellers are a lucrative, high-income captive audience that's vital to our country's growth, and airports tend to be natural monopolies. Companies would be delighted to "lend" any number of Richard Miles watches, etc. to influence the selection process, and integrity pacts, vigorously implemented, would be a strong deterrent to temptation.
Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha should fight corruption with more than words -- starting with having integrity pacts in all matters related to AoT's awarding of contracts.
Burin Kantabutra
Reforming bad ways
The revelation that Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, leader of the hugely popular Future Forward Party, is alleged to have committed sedition because he supported democracy way back in 2015, when it had already been overthrown by the dictators' coup against the rule of law that had destroyed Thailand's form of democratic government according to the constitution that had been in force, is but the usual bullying of good people by the bad.
The bad naturally feel threatened because comparison with the good makes them look bad. If supporting democracy is indeed a criminal offence, that proves only that the rule of law has been morally corrupted by dark forces to nurture injustice and other bad morals.
This latest farce further proves the Future Forward leader to be a good person leading a party with good policies for long overdue reforms to correct bad, old ways in Thai society, politics and morals.
Felix Qui
Bow to philanthropists
Re: "Charity, not politics", (Postbag, April 5).
Vint Chavala implied that billionaire Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit is selfish when he wrote "Thai billionaires should emulate Warren Buffett and Bill Gates who are giving a large part of their wealth back to their country and beyond to the global community."
I doubt that Vint himself is a billionaire, but if he is and has donated a bulk of his fortune to help get rid of the PM2.5 problem in Chiang Mai, I sincerely apologise. And if that is the case, I would arrange to have his portrait hung in my home and bow before it three times a day.
Somsak Pola
Fitting the agenda
Some of your American letter writers here have voiced that the winner of an election should be decided by popular votes.
How do they feel now when the wrong party for them turned out to get the most popular votes here in Thailand.
Not a few hundred or thousand, but seemingly at least half a million more votes. Do you still stand for popular votes as most democratic -- or is it only when it fits your political agenda?
A Johnsen
Don't question the status quo
It appears the army has found in Gen Apirat Kongsompong the perfect person to protect the interests of the one percent who own two-thirds of the wealth of this country.
I think anyone who dares to question this status quo publicly needs to be very careful as long as Gen Apirat is in a position of power.
A Reader
Something rotten
Re: "Wrong on Krue Se", (PostBag, April 4).
What evidence has Robin Grant to back up his claim Thaksin was not to blame for the Krue Se Mosque massacre I wonder.
The "inquest" found the army guilty of excessive force, but no criminal charges were made or demotions dealt out as far as I can find. If Mr Grant has some new conclusive information I hope he will enlighten us, as it looks suspiciously like a whitewash job to me.
Thaksin was the "all powerful" prime minister at the time, so how could a regional general dare to be insubordinate when 2,800 people had already been murdered in Thaksin's supposed "war on drugs"?
In fact, his campaign had little to with drugs, drug barons, smugglers, peddlers or addicts, just an opportunity to "clamp down" on the opposition under a flimsy facade.
An "inquest" was held and as far as I can ascertain nobody was charged with a crime despite all the killing.
Something is rotten in the State of Dubai, methinks.
Fireman Sam
CONTACT: BANGKOK POST BUILDING
136 Na Ranong Road Klong Toey, Bangkok 10110
Fax: +02 6164000 email: postbag@bangkokpost.co.th
All letter writers must provide full name and address.
All published correspondence is subject to editing at our discretion.
