Published on May 23, 2005
Questionnaire on the telecoms sector could not have been very useful
Last week, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) appointed consultants (Ericsson and Baker & McKenzie) to monitor public opinion of the Telecommunications Business Licensing Framework in Thailand issued on May 13. The survey started on May 16. The responses were due on Friday.
It is strange that the consultants were asked to measure public opinion of 60 pages of complicated technical and legal jargon in just a few days. How could anyone come up with an opinion in such a short time? As an additional punishment, the paper and the questionnaire were in English, making it difficult for the general member of the public to understand everything. The language barrier surely made it difficult for people to share their comments. Even Thai telecom technicians proficient in English found it difficult to properly comment on the paper. The consultants also use terms such as “interconnection” and “access”, and use both terms in dealing with a number of sensitive issues. Some operators feared that the use of English instead of Thai might have marked an attempt disguise the imposition of interconnection charges in addition to the controversial access charges, (which burden some telecom operators with higher operating costs. These are sometimes, called interconnection charges. The consultants defined “Access” as “access to fixed . . . network, in particular for roaming”. I have not been able to find anyone who can explain to me how roaming on a fixed line network is possible. Is this a hidden agenda cloaked by a foreign language, or only a misunderstanding arising out from the misuse of language? Would the use of the Thai language clarify all the doubts in the people’s minds? To make things worse, the paper referred to Thai laws that had been translated into English. Confusion arises when other people use different English terms for the same legal term. Thailand’s laws are written in Thai language and the interpretation thereof must be based on the Thai language. There is no 100-per-cent correct translation of one language into another. Thai legal terms (based on civil law) are notoriously unclear when translated into English terms (typically based on the common law system). It is odd that English translations of Thai laws were used to generate discussion among the Thais in English, in order to, when finished, translate the whole thing back into Thai for use in the telecom licenses. This was how they drafted Thai laws during the Extra-territorial Jurisdiction almost 100 years ago. If the consultants wanted to listen to the public, they should have done it in Thai to avoid confusion (after the consultation, they could then translate the whole things into English if needed). If the consultants were to claim that their client wanted English, then the taxpayers ought to question why the consultants were paid with tax money. The consultants should have advised their client on the best language to use to measure public opinion. Or were they hired as mindless robots to carry out whatever instructions were given by the client? And if the consultants wanted sensible opinions, they should have given the readers sufficient time to read this important and complicated document. It looks like the consultants were not that interested in hearing the public opinion. Athueck Asvanund Bangkok ------------------------------- ‘Accurate’ may be accurate, but that’s good enough Re: “Scanner scandal: US Embassy says GE letter is accurate”, News, May 21. This story does not at all convince me that no Thai government official(s) was involved in InVision Technologies’ misconduct. Although, I believe that the letter sent by GE Infrastructure to PM Thaksin was “accurate”. It is “accurate” because it was approved by the US Justice Department (DOJ) before it was sent, to comply with the SEC and GE InVision Inc settlement out of court, thus the confirmation from your US Embassy source. It was also “accurate” because the letter that GE Infrastructure sent, with approval from the US DOJ, was at best rather vague and at worst ambiguous. Although, GE Infrastructure said that it had found no evidence to indicate that any Thai government official(s) received any bribes, it failed to elaborate how they came to this conclusion. For example, did GE Infrastructure undertake an investigation once the case initiated by the US SEC had been filed. If so, what were the findings? Are they willing to share them? Furthermore, I found the letter to be ambiguous because it failed to make any “concrete” statement to clear any Thai government officials from receiving bribes, presumably because such a “concrete” statement would put GE Infrastructure in breach of condition(s) agreed in the out of court settlement with the US SEC. For me, it is simply not enough to say that “we found no evidence”. I need something more concrete, like “GE Infrastructure can say with absolute certainty that no Thai government official(s) has directly or indirectly received – or ever will receive – bribes from this sale transaction, to the best of our knowledge”, plus further information to support this statement. Such information in this case would be anything arising from investigations undertaken since the filing of the US SEC’s case against GE InVision that led to their conclusion. Sadly, PM Thaksin failed to understand that the US SEC’s case against GE InVision Inc was not based on evidence that GE InVision Inc had or was planning to pay bribes. The case was based on evidence that GE InVision Inc knew that the companies they were dealing with were likely to ask for bribes, meaning GE InVision Inc was not likely to know who they were going to or not going to bribe, since there was another company acting as middleman. Further still, for GE InVision Inc to be found guilty, the US SEC does not need to prove that any bribes were ever paid to any Thai government official, thus it is unlikely that the US SEC or DOJ or GE InVision Inc or GE Infrastructure would have found “any evidence” to indicate that any Thai government official(s) had received any bribes, since such evidence was never required. Thanut Tosanguan Bangkok ------------------------------- The lessons of Buddhism are there for all to learn Re: “Buddhism for the modern Thai”, Opinion, May 21. I agree that there has been a decline in morality among Thais. I am not surprised, though, that we are so concerned about our young since they are our future. As we all should know, the young rarely follow advice, but they do follow examples. A few comments: l As for Buddhism’s five precepts, they are very clear. What more interpretation do you need? “You should not slaughter animals” means what it means. It is not the same as consuming their meat. As for eating meat or not, you should make your own decision. Buddha taught and showed you the wisdom. With the wisdom, you should be competent enough to make your own choice. l On the subject of meditation being a form of social apathy, Khun Pravit really misses the boat. Buddha taught numerous guidelines that pertain to ethical living within a society. For example, he made right livelihood an integral part of the Noble Eight Fold Path. Buddha also taught the four social attitudes; kindness (mettha), compassion (karuna), altruistic joy (mutthita) and equanimity (ubekkha). Let’s also look at the Buddha’s life. He spent more than forty years travelling in remote areas so he could teach us the ultimate truth that he had discovered. l Khun Pravit’s comment: “Buddhism in Thailand was never pure”. This point of view is too extreme. Theravada Buddhism, in Thailand, is a school of Buddhism that strictly follows the teaching of Buddha in the Pali cannon. In my opinion, this is Buddhism in its purest form. It seems to me that Khun Pravit wants changes, but does not offer any logical solutions. After reading this article, it occurred to me that we need to be more than just Buddhist by birth. It is not necessary that we know all the monk’s sermons, but we need to really understand the basic teachings of Buddha. After all, the more things change, the more they remain the same. A Valyasevi Bangkok ------------------------------- Tsunami survivors still need our help Our empathy goes out to Nai Piyawat Suksrikaew, the 18-year old dispirited youth who was the third reported tsunami survivor to commit suicide. Having lost his mother and younger sister during the tsunami disaster, he seems to have also lost any sense of trusting faith that the hopeless conditions currently prevailing in Takua Paa might eventually improve. The phrase “traumatic aftershock” refers both to unsettling external and discomforting internal waves of distrust affecting people who have lost family members, suffer from survival guilt, have haunting flashbacks and experience restless insomnia and stress-related anxiety. Learning how best to cope with an inexplicable, unforeseen sense of loss requires strict attention to one’s emotional and psychological needs. Contending with shock and sorrow requires identifying trusted friends and extended family members while also establishing a supportive assistance network. Trained good listeners can encourage open expression of honest feelings, allowing people to talk about the particulars of their personal story and discover some meaningful way to start the healing and closure process, be it through relating to a cherished memento of a lost loved one or some kind of significant ritual. Recovery will be long and difficult. Deep wounds and scarred psyches are difficult to heal. One recommendation is to train a school psychologist or guidance counsellor for every school in the Kingdom. Treating traumatic depression, feelings of grief, irrational guilt and psychological wounds as they are encountered would be a most worthy and cost-effective measure. The most pressing immediate need for now is understanding the patients and an affectionate embracing hug from a caring friend! Dr Chanchai Prasertson Bangkok
Post your comment to this story here