Published on July 29, 2005
Thaksin’s decree is not as draconian as many of our neighbours’ dubious actions
I think Thailand’s state-of-emergency decree is less severe compared with Malaysia’s Internal Security Act, or ISA. The ISA is applied to all ethnicities – Malay, Chinese, Indian and others, including Thai. There is an outcry from time to time over the severity of this law by several groups, mostly from opposition parties and human-rights groups, some of whom were detained and imprisoned without trial under this law. However, the ISA remains in force.
Therefore, critics should not bother much about Thailand’s decree, as it applies only to the three restive southern provinces where ethnic Malays predominate, because of some key separatists who used to live in Malaysia’s Kelantan and other states where the ISA is applied. They cannot operate under the ISA there and consequently have turned to terrorism in southern Thailand, where they feel free to commit unlawful acts, and where it’s also easy to flee to the neighbouring states in northern Malaysia. I think editors of Thai papers should conduct a detailed study of the ISA and make a comparison, publishing both the pros and the cons for the public’s education. They should also study and publicise differences between separatists in the restive South and those in Kashmir, India, whose majority population is ethnic Pashtun, the same as in Pakistan, and who have long been fighting for separation there. I think the case of separatists in Kashmir is very similar to those in the restive South. Min Krachai Bangkok -------------------- Speak up for your right to be listened to I support freedom of speech. The public must become involved with the topic of violence in the South. It is their country, and politicians are supposed to represent the people, not dictate to the people. Alannah Bangkok -------------------- Don’t condemn an entire people for leaders’ failings Re: “Press censorship a sign of an insecure leader”, Letters, July 24. The anonymous (and most likely foreign) author of the recent letter faulted PM Thaksin for his trademark thin skin and wondered whether a leader can really be strong if he cannot handle some criticism. So far, so good. As someone who is no fan of Thaksin, his policies or leadership style, I couldn’t agree more. However, the author also chided Thais with the comment, “If [they] cannot see through Thaksin, then they deserve all that is coming.” That is both rude and completely off base. First of all, you cannot condemn an entire group of people for the choices some in that group make, like electing a particular party or leader. Second, even those who make an election choice that others disagree with do not wilfully elect someone they know would trample on their rights. In a democracy, people have the right to choose whomever they want and expect those elected officials to play by certain rules. If they don’t, they should be held accountable. However, to say an entire nation deserves punishment for the failings of its leaders is snotty, arrogant and condescending; it is ignorant of the basic rules of democracy; and it’s a kind of destructive comment that serves no purpose other than to make some foreigners feel better about themselves by insulting those who they think are not quite as smart as they are. Criticise Thaksin all you want, I say. But don’t condemn the people because you disagree with their choice – that’s as much of an intolerance as the one you criticise! Farang rak Thai Bangkok -------------------- Burma has had enough time to straighten up Re: “Burma to skip being chairman of Asean”, News, July 27. It is amazing that Burma has been given another five years to clean up its act. It has been 15 years since it disregarded the results of a bona fide election. How does Asean expect Burma to do this in five years when it has done nothing for 15? Truly amazing. Don Beers Bangkok -------------------- Don’t slack off exerting pressure on the junta Some comments on the Asean meeting: 1. A political settlement in Cambodia was possible only after the Chinese supported it. This is why the Chinese foreign minister’s unscheduled visit to Burma on Wednesday may have some significance. 2. Slorc, or the SPDC, may have committed diplomatic suicide when their foreign minister refused to meet with UN envoy Razali. 3. The [Burmese] generals have no interest in genuine political reform unless you effectively confront them. There is no charity in politics. RY Bangkok -------------------- It’s the message, not the medium, that counts Re: “Death or a new beginning for newspapers?” Opinion, July 27. I am writing to mitigate your new editor’s pessimistic view of the future of The Nation’s readership. As an urban, Internet-dependent and international 20-something reader who is also a Thai national, the main reason I recently renewed my subscription to The Nation and do not read it on the Internet is that your newspaper provides a diversity of local and international news, analyses and criticises institutional establishments and promotes intellectual and cultural diversity and human rights. Newspaper reporting embodies the roles of analysing, informing about and recommending policies to promote and implement the common values of human rights and democracy; balancing power between the different establishments in society; and most importantly, promoting progress, which is measured in terms of political, economic, intellectual and artistic development. In contrast to your view of the diminishing demand for quality news, I strongly believe that the more developed a nation’s population, the greater the demand for in-depth analytical information. In regard to the perception that the Internet will replace hard-copy newspapers, I think that all forms of media can be used to advantage and disadvantage. When used correctly, the Internet will reduce the education gap between rich and poor in society. Internet use is widespread and varied and not just for news content, so newspapers and news magazines will continue to have a dominating presence in the market. It is thus the quality of news reporting that will determine the strength of a newspaper’s market share. The approach should therefore be to differentiate oneself by focusing on in-depth analytical news, especially now that Thai media are moving towards pop journalism. I can attest to my frustration with this trend. Should the time come for The Nation to cease its role as media watchdog and bend to pressure from advertisers, you can be sure that you will lose one subscriber who is currently writing to you. In any case, I support you and hope that you will continue to provide your readers with an independent voice with which to inform, analyse and critique. Natajitr Cindhuchao Bangkok -------------------- It’s true, we’ll rake anyone over the coals Re: “Unique stories will attract a larger readership”, Letters, July 28. I’d just like to echo Tom Sherman’s comments in his letter concerning the opportunity that The Nation has to effectively corner a niche market as a news provider that addresses the needs of people who still have the wherewithal not to toe the official line. I have always regarded your newspaper as far more progressive than the alternatives in the region. Having recently been to the UK, I was appalled at the lack of objective coverage in almost all of the so-called respectable papers over there, highlighting for me the valuable role that The Nation plays over here in Thailand. If it were not for your newspaper, I would be forced to obtain information exclusively from the Internet. I feel – although it’s easy for me to say, because no pressure can be brought to bear on me as a reader as it can with your editorial staff – that The Nation stands in a unique position at this time to be able to capitalise on its reputation as the only English-language newspaper locally that backs up its claims of being independent in its editorial stance. James Martin Bangkok -------------------- Public deserves answers to some hard questions Any truth in the government’s assertions that those responsible for the airport scanner procurement had acted in the best interests of the Thai public has finally been proved wrong beyond any doubt. It has been reported that two scanners are being shipped to Thailand by airfreight. The scanners were ordered long ago, certainly long enough to permit shipping by much less expensive sea freight. One assumes that the remaining 24 scanners will also be shipped by airfreight. Who is responsible for this poor planning and massive waste of taxpayers’ money? A bureaucrat, Transport Minister Suriya Jungrungreangkit or the prime minister? Someone must be responsible, and it’s not the supplier. While we wait for an answer from the government, perhaps the prime minister can explain to his deputy, on behalf of the NBIA, why the scanner direct-purchase price remained unchanged from the brokered price. While he’s at it, he might care to explain that to the Thais, as well. Sibeymai Bangkok
Post your comment to this story here