OPINION

Of Egypt and parrots

Re: "Exotic display", (BP, June 7).

What is a macaw parrot doing in "The Discovery of Egypt" event at MallLifestore, Ngamwongwan?

Macaws are native to South America, and at the time of Egypt's greatness, the New World had not been discovered, ergo no macaws in Egypt.

It would be more appropriate for an African Grey parrot to be part of the exhibition, for it is thought that Alexander the Great kept one as a pet, and one of his generals, Ptolemy 1 Soter established the Ptolemaic dynasty that was to rule Egypt for hundreds of years, before it fell to the Romans.

Bad property idea

Re: "Global Investors", (PostBag, June 4).

With due respect to the wise Khun Burin Kantabutra, I find his suggestion to open up Thailand's real estate sector to foreign buyers to be extremely short-sighted. Just take a look at countries that have taken that route: hot money has flooded in and led to sky-high prices, in the process making homes unaffordable to locals.

Yes, high prices benefit existing homeowners, but this quickly puts it out of reach of the younger generation. Imagine the impact on the futures of local youth who will no longer be able to dream of affording a home of their own based on their local income.

In fact, countries like Canada and New Zealand have reversed course and banned foreigners from property purchases for this very reason.

Raise daily film fee

Re: "Warning for makers of 'Jurassic' film", (BP, June 6).

Natural Resources and Environment Minister Phatcharavat Wongsuwan has welcomed the planned shooting of Jurassic World 4 in national parks in the South but said the production must not damage the environment.

While it's good that the Thai government is concerned about harm to the environment during the current filming of Jurassic World 4, I was surprised to read that the filming fee in national parks is a meagre 3,500 baht per day, which is slightly less than US$100.

This for a film that, according to IMDb, has a budget of $265 million. I would suggest that if the Department of Natural Resources wants foreign film companies to be mindful of protecting the environment, they should consider raising the daily film fee at least tenfold.

Yes, aid the poor

Re: "Think of the poor", (BP, June 6) and "Survey finds 40% of farmers live under poverty line", (BP, 31 May 2018).

I thank Khun Jisa Makarasara for wishing that poor Thais would be able to own land, but I suggest that it'd be more effective for the government to reduce interest rates for the low-income applicant's first mortgage rather than a blanket ban forbidding foreigners from owning land.

Forbidding foreigners from owning land deprives Thailand of the benefits that their investments would bring. For example, if Walt Disney Co wanted to build and own a Disneyland in Chiang Mai, it'd hire hundreds of staff, attract millions of tourists annually, and boost local hotels, shops, restaurants, etc.

Our farmers badly need funds. Their average income is merely B57,032/household/year (that's just B14,258/person/year!) -- and an average debt of B429,989/hh (equal to 7.5 year's income). Almost all (90%) farm households are in debt. Land price rises, powered by foreign money, would enable recipients to pay off debt, educate their children, switch to more profitable crops, and otherwise increase their productivity.

Yes, aid the poor -- including by allowing non-Thais to own land.

Monarchy above all

Re: "Move Forward case reveals autocracy" (Opinion, June 7).

Professor Thitinan Pongsudhirak is right to use the word "autocracy" to describe the apparent status quo that a group of petitioners has called on the Constitutional Court to rule is what existing Thai law dictates is so.

In addition, any argument supporting a guilty verdict against Move Forward will also need to clarify why so many other flourishing constitutional monarchies that are also genuine democracies, such as those of Norway, the Netherlands and, of course, England, among others, do not have cases like those of Section 112 that affect free speech in the way that Thailand's 112 criminal code does.

Should the court rule against Move Forward, its reasoning will make compelling reading. Will Thailand indeed be ruled not to be a democracy because that is incompatible with its steadfast attempt to protect constitutional monarchy at any costs?

Tax policies inept

Re: "New overseas income rules", (Business, June 5).

Following the recent announcement of Thailand's move to worldwide taxation, some media outlets proudly pronounce that Thailand still wants expats, but on its own terms. That may be so, but in the face of fierce competition it is the long-stay tourists/retirees who set terms, and countries interested in their capital try to accommodate them.

Thailand, in welcoming expats on its own terms, has now all but destroyed its once highly prized long-stay tourist/retirement hub. As it now stands, Thailand's terms seem to be much higher taxes and bureaucracy than expats face in their home country in exchange for a tourist visa with no social or health care benefits, no work permit, no permission to stay permanently, inefficient immigration processes (TM30/90-day reporting) and either a five to six figure visa fee or costly conditions such as insurance and a security deposit.

This is very unappealing, not only when compared to other long-stay tourism/retirement hubs, but when compared to just staying at home.

However, it is the tax requirements that have really pushed Thailand's terms way too far. First were the plans to tax all foreign remittances to Thailand by up to 35% starting Jan 1, 2024.

Then, to end what little hope was left, came the shock announcement that Thailand would tax all worldwide earnings of residents up to 35%, irrespective of whether earnings were remitted or not.

This policy of worldwide taxation well and truly marks Thailand as a no-go zone for affluent long-stay tourists and retirees alike and is a wake-up call for resident expats, many of whom will join the exodus that has, by all reports, already begun.

Revenue Director-General Kulaya Tantitemit, at a recent press conference, acknowledged the damage the new measures have done to capital flows so critical to the Thai economy.

She expects capital inflows will continue to slow further or may even reverse, but only in the short term as hot money leaves Thailand. This is either a very optimistic or a very naive assessment on the part of Khun Kulaya.

Anyone with common sense, let alone economic training, should be able to understand the impact that destroying one of Asia's largest long-stay retirement/tourist hubs will have on an open economy. Cutting off this major source of foreign inflows will have an immense, long-lasting impact on the Thai economy.

Sadly, this dire situation seems to be due entirely to Khun Kulaya's narrow-minded, inept handling of tax policy and, ultimately, Finance Minister Pichai Chumhavajira's actions.

Nonetheless, Khun Kulaya seems comforted by the fact that placing the nation's economy in such peril requires adhering to OECD Global tax principles. With all due respect to Khun Kulaya, this is total fiction.

There is absolutely no requirement under OECD Global tax principles for Thailand to move to worldwide taxation or, for that fact, even tax foreign income remitted by individual tax residents. Any self-respecting tax expert knows this.

No, Khun Kulaya. This seems to be no more than a reckless tax grab to help fund the government's populist policies. The unfortunate thing is that such an ill-conceived tax grab will not achieve its goals of raising extra revenue, as is blatantly clear from the recent outflows of capital.

The only thing that it is likely to accomplish is to suppress the Thai economy for many years to come and cause great suffering to ordinary Thais.

As for expats, there are plenty of countries that welcome them and their capital on the terms they demand: zero tax on remittances, no worldwide taxation, no bureaucratic tax filings. What's more, all these countries are not on the OECD grey list or have been removed from it. How do you explain that Khun Kulaya?

Outdated notions

Re: "Gender equality promotion to elevate kingdom's economy", (BP, June 2).

As a member of the LGBTQ+ part of our society, please let me comment on Khun Chai Wacharanoke, a spokesperson of the government's recent statements:

1) There is no evidence to support that LGBTQ+ people have more spending power. We are just as ordinary as the next person, and nowadays, with the many social advances, we are married with children… just as ordinary and with as much (or as little) disposable income as the next person.

2) LGBTQ+ plus people love to travel just as much as anyone else, when we have the money… just like everyone else…

3) How do you know that LGBTQ+ people stay longer than other tourists? Is there an immigration questionnaire?

Are hotels registering guests as LGBTQ+…. where do you get this notion from, any statistics please…? What nonsense…

While I am on a roll here let me also address Khun Ounjit, another government spokesperson who said our current prime minister was first to mention gender equality… according to my memory this was part of the Move Forward Party manifesto during the 2023 election.

So, please don't take credit where it is not due. Believe me, I am not angry about any of this I just want to point out that (particularly on points 1-3) these are very outdated misconceptions.

Weighing in on an "appreciation" for us LGBTQ+ people is nothing short of political opportunism. I am happy that this administration is LGBTQ+ "friendly", but maybe a few outdated notions should be confined to file 13.