OPINION

Handouts to poor do harm

The military government plans to spend 40 billion baht on cash handouts and subsidies.

Of interest is the 2,750 baht monthly payment to qualified low-income earners. Despite the good intentions, cash handouts to the poor have never worked, nor are they financially sustainable in the long run. The only exceptions are one-off cash payments (stimulus packages) for spending to stave off recession during a financial crisis.

Welfare schemes invariably have a political dimension. Aside from the junta's spending spree on defence, if they spend a lot on welfare, it will shift the financial burden to the next elected government. What if the next government cuts welfare spending? Will they be accused of being unsympathetic to the poor's plight? Will the scheme condemn the poor to be forever dependent on government handouts? Lee Kuan Yew said it best: "A fair, not welfare, society".

As millions of low-income earners are eligible, this will involve a lot of data processing and tracking, requiring lots of manpower and agencies. The government plans to credit the funds to users' electronic cards. Can we verify each individual is aware of this scheme and has the card? (Think ghost voters.) As the stored credit cannot be rolled over to the next month, will the unused portion be returned to the Finance Ministry? Who will monitor these processes? Are they accountable?

More appropriate, I believe, are direct discounts and the creation of real value to the economy, as follows:

1. Set up job training centres in every province where low-income earners (and indeed anyone) can get training in skills such as carpentry, craftsmanship, electrical work, etc, as well as a job search.

2. Do away with handouts. Provide the poor with a card that entitles them to free or discounts on transport, electricity and water bills, much like students or the elderly. No funds change hands.

3. Annual high-school and university scholarships.

4. Increase prices of agricultural produce or government direct purchases, as was the case with the government purchase of rubber in the South.

Throwing money at poverty will do more harm than good.

Can I echo the probable fears of other Bangkok residents by enquiring whether, given the ongoing weather conditions and current inundation upcountry, there is any reason to believe that Bangkok is better prepared to combat the inevitable runoff and havoc that occurred in 2011? Or do we glumly accept our fate and prepare ourselves as best as we can for the inevitable because the standard advice to head for higher ground is daft?

It looks like Jack Gilead does not realise that Thai railway and planning engineers are bakery engineers who do not know anything about railway design -- the same stupidity you can see when we face chronic floods during monsoon time.

And the ex-Bangkok governor was happy to tell residents to move to the mountains to avoid floods.

Re: "Train route of excess" (Postbag, July 25).

"Skeptic" is warranted in questioning the financial viability of the planned high-speed rail line between Bangkok and Nakhon Ratchasima. Even if all of the projected 5,300 passengers per day pay the maximum full fare of 535 baht, the line will generate only a bit more than 1 billion baht in revenue per year.

Considering the 179.5 billion baht initial investment cost for the high-speed rail line, it will take more than 170 years to generate enough revenue to pay for the initial investment cost alone -- not to mention the operating costs, which will also be substantial.

Thailand needs more sceptics to question how taxpayers' money is used.

Bangkok is going to try to cut the number of traffic deaths in half. It seems to me that the only way to do that is to get people off motorcycles. In order to do that, they need to make the public transport system more attractive and affordable. Except for offering some free bus rides, their efforts in this direction have been minimal at best as I still see buses that must be at least 30 years old being the mainstay of their system.

It's difficult to see how the country is going to implement its Thailand 4.0 modernisation programme, considering that human rights are stuck at v0.1, education at v1.0, corruption at v0.001, English-speaking skills at v0.5 and police competence at v0.0.

In fact, in many instances Thailand is clearly going backwards to previous versions. Just because you call it Thailand 4.0 does not make it so.

Re: "Time to go, Suu Kyi" (Postbag, July 26).

Good grief! I found myself for the very first time in total accord with Eric Bahrt.

Apologists for Aung San Suu Kyi's inaction on the Rohingya and her acquiescence to the clampdowns on freedom of speech and the media point out that she has a delicate balancing act to ensure she doesn't upset the military cliques who ruled (and ruined) Myanmar for so many years, and who still pull very influential strings.

Against that, "The Lady" knows she would have the full support of the civilised world if she did what was right and proper and that the generals would face international condemnation if they moved against her.