Published on June 24, 2005

I refer to the story “Anti-government websites shut down” [News, June 22]: “Two websites with content deemed strongly critical of the Thaksin government have been shut down, allegedly on orders from the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Ministry.”

It’s telling that both of Bangkok’s dailies gave this story prominent coverage – and, of course, it’s also no secret that the government has insidiously been attempting to clip the wings of these two fine publications in the last few years, ie, by the selective allocation of advertising to only those English language and Thai language publications that are pro-government and generally deemed as being friendly to the government; through the tactical acquisition of shares in these two companies; and through the removal of a fine editor at the Bangkok Post a year or two ago come to mind.

It’s no secret among the members of the international community based here in Thailand that this country is plagued by unprecedented cronyism, corruption and the self-serving interest of ruling MP’s and their families and associates. The scale of this self-enrichment by these individuals is simply staggering, and the theft of millions of dollars by Marcos and Suharto from their respective peoples simply pales in comparison to what powerful politicians and their toadies are up to these days. They are robbing the country blind – and what’s more, in general, with some exceptions, the people don’t care!

If truth be known, what rankled and upset the government was that these forums of discussion highlighted and brought to ordinary people’s attention the rampant abuse of state power, which nowadays manifests itself through corruption on an unprecedented scale. But more importantly, ordinary people contributing to and reading these forums saw the real picture in the South: a security force that thinks nothing of attacking innocent Muslim bystanders who had the “gall and temerity” to gather and associate and protest peacefully for a local matter that concerned them greatly. They had absolutely no reason to die for what was after all their right to free assembly at Tak Bai.

Even now the abduction, kidnapping, intimidation, torture and assassination of innocent Muslim people in the South by the security services appears to be continuing! The present “insurgency” in the South has very little to do, in general, with the sweeping wave of Islamic fundamentalism and militancy in the world nowadays, though it will indisputably have its supporters and sympathisers from the worldwide brethren of agitated Muslims. No – the troubles in the South are all about the government’s iron-fisted methods.

Peter Marshall

Bangkok

----------------------------------

Show some compassion and move for ambulances

I have been living in Thailand for the last 10 years and on the whole don’t classify myself as one of those “moaning farangs”. However, I feel the need to write this letter more out of concern than complaint. It is apparent that health and safety do not take a front seat in Thailand, and I am becoming increasingly disturbed that nothing is being done to correct this.

I am forever amazed at the lack of common sense I see while driving around Bangkok. I really cannot understand why drivers refuse to move their vehicles out of the way if there is an ambulance behind them with sirens and lights on. I have travelled extensively in and out of Asia and this is the only country I have visited where that has been such a lack of compassion. Even in third world countries where education standards are not up to Thai standards, people still have the common sense to move. There is no excuse, even in the worst traffic jam there is always enough room to get out of the way.

The only solution I can suggest is to build into one of the many Thai soap operas a story in which a popular actor or actress dies in the back of an ambulance while someone sits picking their nose in the car in front without moving aside. Even the prime minister watches soaps, so with any luck the message could go right to the top. Follow up the soap with a two-minute health and safety announcement (along the lines of the PM’s save-energy speeches).

How many more mothers, fathers, husbands, wives and children need to die while stuck in a traffic jam?

David Brent

Bangkok

----------------------------------

Article on Lee Kuan Yew School misquoted dean

I refer to the article “High hopes for Lee Kuan Yew School” published in The Nation on June 18 [Local/Regional].

While the article accurately captured some of my comments about the school, I fear that the reporter interspersed some of his own comments, which could be mistakenly attributed to me.

First, I did not make the statement “despite the city-state being notorious for its Confucian way of governance”. Second, I did not say that naming the school after Lee Kuan Yew “was not a problem”. Third, the school does not “promote Singapore’s style of governance”. Its curriculum has been worked out in close consultation with the Kennedy School of Government of Harvard University and is similar to those found in other public policy schools.

Kishore Mahbubani, dean,

Lee Kuan Yew School

Singapore

----------------------------------

The UN must look closely at reform proposals

The article “Regional Perspective: Thailand’s ambivalence to UN reform” by Kavi Chongkittavorn [Opinion, June 20] was very topical given the strong determination of some countries to become permanent members of the UN Security Council. Indeed, in a world of vulnerability, growing fear and suspicion, it is crucial that UN reform be carried out under the widest consensus possible. However, any realistic approach should make it perfectly clear that according to the UN charter, any candidate wishing to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council needs to be unanimously supported by all of its present five permanent members (the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia and China). That requirement is valid irrespective of the name of the candidate or how it justifies its aspiration to hold a permanent or non-permanent status in an enlarged Security Council.

There is naturally much scepticism surrounding the issue of reforming the Security Council due to the political complexity and ambiguity of expansion. There is, however, some moderate optimism that the debate over the issue of reform will be stimulated by the report submitted by the UN secretary-general’s High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change chaired by Anand Panyarachun, former prime minister of Thailand, as well as by the report “In Larger Freedom” submitted by the UN secretary-general himself entitled.

The latter report has been described as the most comprehensive and cohesive proposal to strengthen the UN since the birth of the world organisation in 1945.The UN General Assembly can act on the existing recommendations or take other decisions on the matter. Yet, nobody can say for sure whether reform will continue to evade us. What is certain is that all these topics are in the hands of member states, and additional positive work can be done until September 2005 to convince them to inject more energy and celerity into their deliberations on UN reform.

As Ambassador Jan Eliasson (Sweden), president of the 60th session of the UN General Assembly, recently emphasised, member states must consider a draft declaration and heads of state and government must consider adopting it at the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly on September 14-16. It is incumbent upon all member states to look over the proposed declaration thoroughly, creatively and with a commitment to accepting global responsibility, as they are facing a real test of multilateralism.

Ioan Voicu

Bangkok

----------------------------------

Why the inaction on global warming?

Is the unprecedented heatwave in India, as a result of which about 200 people have already died, a symptom of global warming? Or is it another isolated anomaly? A string of such anomalies – last year, Europe, this year, South Asia, next year, wherever – would seem to confirm scientific observations and measurements that global warming is a fact.

Greater experts than I suggest global warming is indeed taking place, and the main cause is that people have rapidly been increasing the oxidation of carbon-based chemicals like oil, coal and methane. Obviously we need to worry about the effects of economic expansion, industrial growth and growing energy consumption in developing countries like China and India, but the United States remains the worst offender so far. The last I heard, the US is still emitting more carbon dioxide per capita than any other nation – 10 to 30 times more.

Not only is that unfair, it is homicidal: many people are dying every year because of excess heat. Yet the Bush administration’s attitude is “Duh, global warming? We don’t know nothing about that.” Can the US somehow be prosecuted for the negligence of its corporations and government? If they are not committing negligent homicide, strictly speaking, they are certainly committing malicious stupidity.

Countries like Thailand assault their own environments, while the murders of community activists who try to defend their forests go unsolved. How can the world expect or demand better decision-making and planning to restore the ecological balance by developing countries when the so-called “leader of the free world” cannot even admit there’s a problem? By now we should be implementing solutions on a massive scale (like rapidly substituting bicycles and fuel-efficient mass transit for automobiles, building solar energy plants, planting forests), but we are still arguing over incentives. Isn’t saving life incentive enough?

Do the movers and shakers of industry actually believe they cannot make a buck without destroying the environment? Entrepreneurs and politicians must stop grabbing the easy profits and start behaving intelligently and responsibly.

Robert Uplee

Bangkok

Post your comment to this story here