LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Was elephant deal an effort to improve upon Night Safari's sagging fortunes?
Re: "Activists protest shipment of elephants", News, July 31.
Frequently, we hear about the government trying to catch criminals attempting to smuggle endangered animals out of the Kingdom. This time round, the news that animal-rights activists tried to block the shipment of eight young elephants to Australia on Saturday night by the Thaksin government came as a jolt. The wildlife activists had reason to suspect the eight animals might have been born in the wild and not in captivity, which could render the shipment in contravention of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. Thus, the Thaksin government's pachyderm shipment risked being condemned as trading in endangered wildlife. Worse, the elephants are alleged to have been part of an exchange for Australia's koala bears to be put on display at the Chiang Mai Night Safari, PM Thaksin's multi-billion-baht brainchild project, which is getting deeper and deeper into the red, due to poor attendance. Can we rightly say the Thaksin government resorted to shipping these animals out of the Kingdom unlawfully in order to shore up its leader's loss-prone scheme? Chavalit Van Chiang Mai ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Administration oversteps the bounds of a caretaker govt
One sees that this "caretaker government" continues to make policy and engage in regional and international politics. So what is the difference? I had imagined the term "caretaker" would mean the government would deal with issues like flood prevention, disaster relief and other domestic emergencies, not the approval of infrastructure projects and visits abroad. In the current situation, a government could be "caretaker" forever. And what about that golden word, "democracy"? By having a "caretaker" government run by an accident-prone leader, this expression of government by the people lies in suspense. Only a general election will restore this constitutional norm. David Prescott UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Thai politics, the guilty doth protest too much
The extraordinary events of the last five months have all stemmed from Thaksin Shinawatra's decision to dissolve the House of Representatives, in order to save himself from having to answer questions about his business activities in Parliament. Since then, the courts have made two dramatic interventions: the first to annul the April 2 elections and the second to remove the entire Election Commission (EC) from office. Not only have these decisions helped clean up the mess, they have also established precedents that will make it less likely such a crisis will occur again in the future. The most important precedent that has been established is so simple that it is often overlooked. In a genuine democracy, including a constitutional one like our own, no one is above the rule of law - and that means absolutely no one! Our prime minister is slow to grasp this fact. When he protests over and over again that he does everything "according to the rules", he is forgetting he only escaped a five-year ban from politics because a number of Constitution Court judges argued that, yes, he did break the rules, but so what when you're that popular! And it's this reasoning that the recent rulings have addressed. The most conspicuous example of this faulty reasoning was exposed in the case against the EC. Indeed, the only voices that have protested "We follow the rules!" as loudly as Thaksin himself have been the three ex-commissioners. And they still don't get it! They still believe that compromising the secrecy of the ballot, for example, was justified, because so many voters chose Thaksin. It was as simple as that to the EC - the rules don't apply when electoral power's on your side! Thaksin broke the rules when he hid his assets in 1991 and should have been punished for it just like anyone else. Ditto the hiding of Ample Rich. Ditto so many other fiddles and shenanigans that could only have escaped exposure with the crass connivance of public servants who had been suborned. "I follow the rules!" indeed - the countdown to yet another lonely figure abjectly begging for bail has begun! Lung Kip Chiang Mai ------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM's reasons for supporting Surakiart are questionable
Re: "Surakiart should shelve UN bid", Editorial, July 27. For the past two years, caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has touted caretaker Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai as a possible successor to Kofi Annan as United Nations secretary-general when Annan's term expires in December. Thaksin pressed Thai Foreign Ministry officials to back Surakiart, a career civil servant and foreign-service official. He also got numerous journalists to build up Surakiart, who is a dull, humourless bureaucrat, and had Asean make Surakiart its top candidate for the post. But many foreign and Thai officials and many members of the public maintain that Surakiart has no chance of getting the top UN post. The main complaint about Surakiart has been his support of the hated Burmese junta. Another common complaint is Surakiart does not measure up to great Asian statesmen like U Thant of Burma, who has been the only Asian to hold the top UN post. The public and most journalists and editors proclaimed Surakiart's bid for the UN post dead and buried long ago. But Surakiart seems to believe he can still get the job. Since Surakiart never merited the top UN job, why does Thaksin continue to tout him for it? Does Thaksin mean to impress his business and political cronies with his ability to build up and mentor a loyal follower? Does Thaksin mean to demonstrate he could successfully take on the UN, which was critical of his flagrant abuses of human rights, and even take control of it? Suriya Newin Bangkok ------------------------------------------------------------------------- English teachers appalled at recent destruction in Qana
Re: "Israel's undefined borders long the cause of area strife", Letters, August 2. The letter-writer asks, "Can any lasting peace ever be achieved through violence?" The generals think it can. Those of us who have worked as educators in that region, teaching English to young Palestinians and Palestinian Israelis, are appalled by the present carnage, among its innocent victims so many kids. A number of my associates in the educators' network Teaching English for Palestinian Purposes have just issued a statement that should be listened to: "As English teachers, teacher trainers and materials-writers who have worked in Palestine, Lebanon or neighbouring countries, we want to express our outrage at the recent killing and destruction of infrastructure in Gaza and Lebanon. "For years we have worked with our Palestinian colleagues - in often-unbearable conditions - to educate their students to be responsible, rounded members of society. These patient attempts have been smashed by the indiscriminate killing of hundreds of Palestinian children and their parents over the past weeks, culminating in the massacre of 37 children in Qana on July 30. Those who survive will learn only one thing: how to hate." Bill Templer Phitsanulok ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Redefining borders would not appease Israel's neighbours
Re: "Israel's undefined borders long the cause of area strife", Letters, August 2. I appreciate Paul Kokoski's wish for peace in the Middle East and the way he expresses his view without demonising Israel. Yet his letter regarding Israeli settlements contains some common misconceptions. While one can legitimately debate the wisdom of building settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, virtually every one of these settlements was built on land that was not being used by Palestinians. For example, Gilo, the second-largest "settlement" was used by Jordan as a radar station. Additionally, Israel never intended to build extensive settlements. A little-known fact is that Israel offered to return all of the conquered land from the 1967 war in exchange for peace with its neighbours. The Arab countries met in Khartoum, Sudan, to discuss Israel's offer and the prospect of peace. The Arab response became known as the "three no's": no to negotiation, no to peace and no to recognition of Israel. Finally, since no Arab country recognised Israel's right to exist while Israel existed within the pre-1967 borders, it does not make sense that if Israel returned to those borders, the Arabs would suddenly accept Israel. Israel withdrew from Lebanon and Gaza, and attacks on Israel from those areas have not stopped. Josh Baker Bangkok ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Civilian deaths necessary in waging war against Hizbollah
Re: "War in Lebanon must be stopped", Editorial, August 2. The message is out there for all to see. The high number of what the Lebanese government calls "civilian" casualties are to a large extent Hizbollah terrorists who are dressed in civilian clothing and hide behind the skirts of women and the innocent children being cynically used as human shields. There were several videos showing rocket attacks being launched from within densely built-in village areas and photographs clearly representing civilians surrounding a rocket launcher as if it were some family picnic. A great injustice is meted out by worldwide criticism of Israel, which does its utmost to limit civilian victims and pays a price in soldiers' lives. But how do you fight an enemy that is disguised in this way and bombs your towns indiscriminately with thousands of rockets? The Israeli top brass repeatedly apologises for real civilian deaths, both Lebanese and indeed Palestinian. The world is yet to hear a similar apology from any Arab leader in a similar situation in 48 years of conflict. Andy Leitner Haifa, Israel
Send us your views in an instant E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to the Editor' in the subject box, to: letters@nationgroup.com
|
