• 
• 

Published on July 19, 2007

This past weekend, I went to Suvarnabhumi Airport to send off my son. There were two security checkpoints near to the airport - at both, all staff were all sitting on the job (literally), and we were waved through with no inspection whatsoever. There was minimal military or police presence at the disembarking area - just a few guys, again seated. Inside the terminal I saw just one soldier walking a bomb detection dog, but not really sniffing for anything, and no military or police presence to speak of. In short, I could have taken over the departure floor with a bunch of kids with slingshots.

Six months ago, Suvarnabhumi officials acknowledged that the airport's security system was full of holes. At that time, Airports of Thailand chairman General Saprang Kalayanamitr warned the Loxley-ICTS consortium to step up security, and bring it up to international standards within 90 days or face losing the contract.

It's obvious that Loxley-ICTS only gives lip service to the good general, because they know that he's just another paper tiger.

General Saprang should call for new bidding for the airport's security immediately, with Loxley-ICTS barred. We've had enough fiascos at Suvarnabhumi without adding security to the laundry list.

Burin Kantabutra

BANGKOK

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

Write letter to the Editor

Politicians not qualified to lead moral crusades

Re: "TV ratings could be a start down the slippery slope of wider censorship", Letters, July 18.

Why is it that every new government goes on a moral crusade? Surely there are other priorities. The hypocrisy of censorship in this country is so absurd we are fast turning ourselves into an international joke.

Leave us to monitor our own morality and get on with sorting out corruption and other pernicious political behaviour. Honestly, how can most politicians look themselves in the mirror these days? Stop treating us like idiots and get that proverbial coconut shell out for a long good look.

Pim Kemasingki

CHIANG MAI

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

Send us your views in an instant E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to the Editor' in the subject box, to: letters@nationgroup.com

Sonthi should ride off into the sunset

General Sonthi Boonyaratglin must not have watched "The Lone Ranger" on television as a kid. The Lone Ranger entered screen left, saved the town or dog or damsel in distress and exited screen right. People would ask, "who was that masked man?" The show ended. Sonthi should do the same. If the goal of his performance was to make Thailand safe for democracy by slaying the monster Thaksin, then the show is over. Sonthi must exit with dignity. Lower the curtain. Let us shout bravo.

My concern is that Sonthi wants the spotlight to remain on him. And, to accomplish this, The Internal Security Bill is a good way to eliminate his opponents. And as H Walgis pointed out in a letter to The Nation ("TV ratings could be a start down the slippery slope of wider censorship", July 18), further restrictions on television could lead to additional censorship, chilling public dialogue.

We who read and write in The Nation may take this open dialogue for granted. The government may not care, but I care. Perhaps I see "limitless despair", but I have also seen many attempts by men to limit the rights of other men throughout history. Even in a freedom-loving democracy like the United States, men strive for control and unlimited power over other men. And so I write. I want freedom for all. I care.

Tom Fin

BANGKOK

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

Editorial ignored privacy issues of cyber-crime law

Re: "New law takes aim at cyber-criminals", Editorial, July 18.

In your editorial on the new Computer-related Crimes Act, you opine that "Contrary to the fears expressed by some-civil liberty advocates, the law is not intended to give authorities too much power to impose censorship, restrict freedom of expression, or infringe on individual rights and privacy".

Really? Not according to the first sentence of your article on said new law ("Thai police get tough Net laws", News, July 18): "Taking effect today, a new law allows police officers or government inspectors to seize computers on private premises suspected of containing pornographic material..." Wow. Let's consider that: police officers and government agents will have the right to enter your home and confiscate your computer if they suspect it contains pornography! That seems like a pretty good example of imposing censorship, restricting freedom of expression and infringing on one's privacy.

Sure, the main parts of the new law may be aimed at offering tougher measures in dealing with hacking and other cyber-crimes, which is all fine, all good. But what does confiscating pornography have to do with Internet security, hacking and a better business environment, which this law, according to your editorial, is supposed to engender?

I think The Nation was a bit too quick on the draw to sing the praises of the Computer-related Crimes Act without pointing out the rather obvious way it interferes with free expression - which is what pornography is after all, like it or not.

Name Withheld For a Good Reason

BANGKOK

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

Hmong in detention centres abandoned

On November 17, Thai authorities conducted an immigration raid in Bangkok, which targeted a large group of Hmong refugees from Laos. The majority of these people had already been recognised as refugees by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). By the time the refugees had arrived at Suan Phlu Immigration Detention Centre, Lao authorities were already waiting to interrogate the group. The Hmong refugees showed their UNHCR paperwork to the Thai and Lao authorities, but that did not seem to matter.

On the evening of December 7, Suan Phlu Immigration Detention Centre authorities told the group that they would be released to their homes in Bangkok. Instead, the authorities sent the group of 152 refugees straight to Nong Khai, almost deporting them upon their arrival there. Less than two weeks later, on December 19, the Thai-Lao border committee made an official agreement to deport these refugees. The fact that this goes against international law did not seem to matter to the Thai and Lao governments, who conveniently want to fictitiously label the group as "economic migrants".

On January 30, the Hmong refugees were miraculously able to stop a forced deportation attempt by desperately barricading themselves in their cell. The refugees reported that Lao authorities on the scene had used some type of chemical spray, trying to disable the group so that they could enter the cell (Over six months later, about five of these refugees are still suffering the after-effects of this unidentified chemical agent).

Immediately following the failed deportation attempt, the UNHCR and foreign diplomatic community became actively involved. Within a short time, all of the 152 had been officially recognised as refugees ("people of concern") by the UNHCR and all had been accepted for third country resettlement. On February 1, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont even publicly announced that the group would be allowed to resettle in third countries.

Not long after this, during Thai-Lao border committee talks, the Lao government basically blackmailed the Thai government, saying that it would agree to accept the 7000 plus Hmong from Huay Nam Khao only if the Thais in turn deported the group of 152 detained at Nong Khai.

Then on June 9, Thai authorities forcibly deported a group of 160 to 163 Hmong refugees detained at four facilities in Phetchabun province. This really scared the group of refugees at Nong Khai Immigration Detention Centre and led to two escapes on June 12 and June 29. The five refugees who remain on the run only fled the Nong Khai facility because they feared they would be killed if deported to Laos.

As of June 30, due to the recent escapes, the Nong Khai authorities have put the remaining group of Hmong refugees under lockdown in their tiny cell.

How long will it take for the Thai government, UNHCR, and diplomatic community to solve this problem? It should have been solved months ago, when the prime minister stated that they would not be deported. These Hmong refugees don't have any government to protect them and so they should be protected under international law.

Are the Thai government, UNHCR, and foreign diplomatic community just going to wait for these refugees to die in their cell?

Joe Davy

CHICAGO

Send us your views in an instant E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to the Editor' in the subject box, to: letters@nationgroup.com