Re: "Red Bull clan leads rich list", (BP, July 4).
I read that Red Bull is now the richest company in Thailand, yet the spoilt heir Vorayuth "Boss" Yoovidhya, wanted for the killing of a policeman, is still free; what a joke.
Justice for some.
Re: "Choose sustainable", (PostBag, July 5).
It was encouraging to read student Pyn Lochaya's comments about the unsuitability of conventional nuclear power and casinos here. In the interest of encouraging further learning regarding salient geopolitical history and present-day realities, I would encourage Khun Pyn to view the documentaries How Big Oil Conquered the World by James Corbett and The Secret of Oz, a documentary from 2010, shortly after the financial crisis of 2008, by Bill Still.
With that foundation in hand, an examination of the world's financial and power structures can be fruitful. At the top of all financial power and control is the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), which is aligned with 63 central banks and some 76 international organisations, many of which are under the umbrella of the United Nations. These include the WHO, which fabricates pandemic frauds, the WMO, which helps support climate change fraud, GAVI, the Gates-funded global vaccines facilitator, and many more.
What will surprise most readers is that the upper tiers of individuals working for these organisations are free from prosecution under national and international law because they possess sovereign immunity and special privileges as provided by the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA) of Dec 29, 1945. This immunity is often extended to NGOs working under contract with these institutions.
They sit above political leaders and governments and ultimately dictate our fate as enslaved taxpayers. And unless students such as Khun Pyn receive an education that includes the realities of history and these pertinent but well-concealed facts, we will have no opportunity to see these things change in the future.
Re: "The heart of Asean", (PostBag, July 5) & "Thais favour proactive foreign policy", (Opinion, July 2).
Apart from that unhappy verb choice in "Thailand must groom its youth", Glen Chatelier makes an excellent point in suggesting that Thailand needs "a new value system which counteracts" the bad old ways, which are, in fact, often recent traditions. He is, nonetheless, vague on what that might be.
I would suggest that the far older insights of the Buddha be a pillar of that new value system. Specifically, Thailand, including Thai youth, would benefit from the Buddha's ancient insight that nothing should be believed merely because some authority says it is so: not because teachers say it, not because a coup-made PM asserts it, not because revered elders proclaim it, not because 99.9% of fellow citizens accept it, and certainly not because a respected figure, not even a monk as the Buddha explicitly points out, says it. The Buddha lucidly emphasises the need for open, critical dialogue on all topics in his brilliant Kalama Sutta. It is a wonder that Thai lawmakers refuse to respect such wisdom. It needs to be said that the much-debated Section 112 of the Criminal Code is also not aligned with the critical dialogue and free inquiry the Kalama Sutta espouses. Such reform of the old values would require exactly the open dialogue that now threatens to disband Thailand's most popular political party, the Move Forward Party.
Let us hope for the sake of Thai youth and their nation's future that Mr Chatelier's call to nurture (please, no more grooming) Thailand's youth may soon be given more than lip service.
A good start would be to dismiss all those indefensible criminal charges filed for nothing more than healthy, critical, peaceful questioning of the sort the Buddha insists his followers engage in.
Re: "Cabinet set to review Land Bridge bill 'in September'", (BP, July 2).
A world first for Thailand -- a bridge built in three stages over a period of 10 years and partly operational after the first stage. Standard construction: build both ends at once, 100% operational on completion. This project can only have one contractor and operator to integrate three internal transfers. Think of the Bangkok rail network and no common ticketing with multiple owners/concession holders. Will international shippers pay three separate costs for a container?
Past major transportation contracts -- for example, from conception to signing the contract, as well as cost and time overruns -- in the case of the Sino-Thai high-speed rail, this has taken several years and cost 4 billion baht. Bangpa-in-Korat Highway -- 19 years ... five years ... no data.
Predicted outcome. Contract signed before next general election with the only contractor with the resources offering % finance terms which can be adjusted post-contract and inability to supply contracted engines. After another four years, project is recognised as unfeasible, will bankrupt the nation, and the next government cancels the project. Contractor enforces takeover of ownership of part-complete port in Ranong as compensation, which is designed to handle Ppanamax container ships and aircraft carriers (personal prediction for amusement only).
Seriously, let's hope for predicted estimates of construction costs, timeframe and income stream in the public domain substantiating 8.62% return after 24 years, and the provision for contingencies that can be shot down when presented to the knowledgeable opposition in parliament.
Re: "New overseas income rules proposed", (Business, June 5).
If the tax laws are implemented will the government departments, finance and immigration want proof of you paying tax in your home country? Will you have to get an expensive validating letter from the embassy similar to the pensions letter we used to have? I cannot imagine not having that letter because how would the official know what your proof was if you come from Japan, Arabic countries or any other language? They would need validated translations from the embassy.
Re: "Time and hassle", (PostBag, July 2) & "New overseas income rules proposed", (Business, June 5).
Apparently, Phil Cox has not digested my numerous contentions well.
First, I have never advised expatriate readers to read the double taxation treaty of one's country but explained the gist given of the reliefs of the agreement related to individual income, which was also explained by the Bangkok Post's investigative reporter Wichit Chantanusornsiri on June 27. I should know better since, for a living, I had to digest the UK/Thailand Double Taxation Agreement in 1981 and suffered not only headaches but also heartache. It was like reading Plato's The Republic.
Secondly, since presently a law-abiding expatriate, one has to file the returns yearly by March, the various allowances must have been known on each year's tax filing. It is based on self-declaration annually and not on being present at the immigration office or customs.
Thirdly, if keeping documentary evidence on yearly tax affairs is too burdensome, then that is not the fault of the Thai tax authority.
Fourthly, it is child's play for international tax advisers on such an issue because hardly much further research is needed on mostly general questions. Before a customer completes his question, a respectful expert already knows how the guidance needs to be given.
Fifthly, the proposal of taxing global income is only the recommendation of the nation's tax collectors and not a fiscal policy maker at the Finance Ministry. The research of one PostBag writer (Michel Barre) stated that countries in Asean like Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines are still based on taxes on territorial income -- including Thailand, for now. That does give some encouragement that taxing world income may not be forthcoming. So, why worry?
Finally, my writing on this subject is not being nationalistic but more sympathetic towards the real or imaginative concerns of expatriates. As a former expat in the UK who received extremely fair treatment for a decade, one simply likes to pay it back. As a then-alien in 1968, I had to report my presence to a local police station, causing them headaches. But while waiting, I was still offered a cup of tea.
Re: "Quest for tax clarity", (PostBag, June 30), "Tax trauma", (PostBag, June 29), "Review tax reform", (PostBag, June 15).
Thank you, Songdej Praditsmanont, for highlighting the current situation concerning this attempt by the Thai Revenue Department to tax foreigners on their worldwide income, as most developed countries are already doing. The article you mentioned by the Post's reporter, Wichit Chantanusornsiri, was indeed a very good summary.
Thank you also for suggesting that I should request a Thai friend to assist if I ever need to visit the Revenue Department, but it is a tax lawyer (already hired) that will join me as I speak Thai fluently.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that Songdej agrees with this announcement, irrelevant if it is blatantly unfair, "no taxation without representation". This slogan was first adopted during the American Revolution by American colonists under British rule; they objected to the imposition of taxes on colonists by a government that gave them no role in its policies.
It summarises the injustice of taxing foreigners without giving them any of the rights and privileges granted to Thai citizens.
In opposition to such an apologist perspective, MP Foscolos, with his very accurate recent contributions, hit the nail on the head. Not much needs to be added. And it is not "whining" Songdej. Let's see how this unfolds.
05 Jul 2024
All letter writers must provide a full name and address. All published correspondence is subject to editing and sharing at our discretion
SEND
