OPINION

Not that attractive

Re: "Money better spent", (PostBag, Sept 29).

I agree with Eric Bahrt that a person with a million dollars in savings and a monthly income of 80,000 baht will investigate all other options regarding return on investment (ROI). Knowing that the value of every major asset in Thailand will depreciate, especially real estate, it will be difficult to lure retirees to move to this part of the world.

In addition, restrictions on buying land, risky real estate assets, visa-related hassles, double pricing, and other rip-offs are a no-no for anyone with money. Tax incentives and work permit-related issues are also inadequate. Even the American and other foreign fast food franchises charge more than they would in their own countries. Take a few minutes to compare the prices of KFCs, McDonald's, and others.

Thai authorities have a very misplaced notion of the needs of retirees. The 90-day reporting and other visa hassles are a big barrier to attracting foreigners. There must be better incentives for someone with a million dollars in the account.

Re: "No time for religion", (PostBag, Oct 1).

Felix Qui said religion is only decent when held in check by fair institutions, he was half-right. He's correct that non-believers exist in all societies and almost every major area has a particular spin on any given religion. Thus, non-believers have inalienable human rights, period.

The other half, however, is that religion should be upheld as something to hold a legal code's moral character up against for comparison. Ergo, religion (often) provides good ideals and religion has to help hold the law accountable; much as the law has to hold religion accountable; rather like two decent friends from far-away lands. It's a yin-and-yang of humanity. So, as a Buddhist might say, the best society can do is walk the middle path between two extremes, that means, for Thailand, not becoming Iran (where women's rights are neglected), nor becoming modern America (where the FBI raids the homes of peaceful Catholic anti-abortion activists at gunpoint; all because the oppressors have power.) Yet, where does society draw the line? Well, by forever negotiating between two opposing forces and intentionally staying in the middle.

Re: "Unfit comparison", (PostBag, Oct 5).

Comments of VB on Hinduism invoke interesting thoughts. While I am not competent to compare the ideals of Hinduism with other religions, I believe Hinduism stands for the universal good of mankind and nature. But in present-day India, we can see the use of violence every day on TV.

It's ironic that Gandhian legacy and Hinduism to some extent have been reduced to mere talking points and we witness rigidity, dogma, and scenes of people taking the law into their own on the slightest pretext and openly indulging in violence to serve justice to their fellow citizens.

Re: "Vietnam requests Netflix remove K-drama over war 'distortion'," (Life, Oct 5).

Vietnam has asked Netflix to stop showing the South Korean drama Little Women, alleging the series distorted events of the Vietnam War. So outright fiction pretending to be entertainment is a serious threat to despotic ideologies founded on unquestioning forced faith in their tall tales. Who could have expected that? Imagine the outrage were Netflix to float an Asean version of The Crown, a great piece of entertainment that has not in fact overthrown my former queen's genuinely loved institution.