• 
• 

Published on July 24, 2007

As long as the United States ignores the current communist Lao government's human-rights violations against their old ally, the Hmong, the rest of the world will be given a green light to turn their backs on the Hmong who have been persecuted in Laos for the past 30 years.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the Hmong served as the shield against communism for not only Laos but also Thailand. In retribution for their effectiveness in fending off the communist advances in the 1960s and early 1970s, the communist Lao government has continually sought to exterminate the Hmong through such inhumane tactics as forced starvation, torture, rape and executions. Hmong seeking refugee status in Thailand and asylum from the oppressive Lao government are now under threat of being forcibly repatriated back to certain death.

If a picture says 1,000 words, one should not simply refer to Stephff's cartoons but to the pictures on YouTube or on German filmmaker Rebecca Sommer's documentary of the Hmong, "Hunted Like Animals", where one can find vivid images of the communist Lao government's atrocities and abuses. Protecting these Hmong refugees from a return to brutality and death should be the priority of all compassionate people.

James Chang

Wisconsin

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

DAAD's disruptive tactics denigrate their cause

While I fully support the Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship's (DAAD) right to protest against Privy Council President Prem Tinsulanonda, accusing him of supporting the military coup last September, the means they use sullies democracy and is anything but democratic. They seem to think that the end justifies the means, that they're right, and so they have a right to force others to act the way they want. DAAD, how are your actions any different from General Sonthi Boonyaratglin's taking over power at gunpoint?

Look at how DAAD protesters acted, throwing rocks and water bottles, and assaulting a garbage truck driver who blocked their way. How are they different from a mob? General Prem's resignation under such circumstances would be a victory for mob rule - not for democracy, as DAAD leader Veera Musikapong claims.

DAAD rallied 10,000 people to seek General Prem's resignation. Why did they feel they needed 10,000 rowdies to persuade one man old enough to be their father? Their bravery underwhelms me.

DAAD leaders should show more leadership by bringing their troops under their command. You'd win much more support by showing the rationale behind your protest, collecting signatures for a petition, etc.

DAAD, if you feel that you must break the law to get your point across, then do so in a disciplined manner that fully respects the rights of others. Also, rather than vanishing when the police move in, the protest leaders should show accountability and respect for rule of law by being among the first to be arrested, and peacefully. Show that you heed Martin Luther King's words: "I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law."

DAAD, show us that you respect democracy more than those you oppose.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

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

Abstention should also be an option in charter vote

I will not vote. I am a Thai citizen by choice. As a naturalised Thai I am grateful to have received Thai citizenship and am determined to live by Thai laws and to conform to Thai customs. But I also subscribe to international treaties of human rights to which Thailand has already acceded.

However, my current occupation is with the referendum on a new constitution for Thailand. May I question the legitimacy of the authorities who propose this referendum? You propose a referendum. I do not accept your reasons. May we respond? It seems not!

The voting form you propose has two choices, yes or no. Whichever way I vote you will announce it as an acceptance of legitimacy. If I leave the voting form blank, you are likely to discount it in the percentage of favourable votes.

So, I will not vote. It is the first time in my life that I have refused to exercise my right to vote.

This too is my right.

Danthong Breen

Bangkok

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

MR Pridiyathorn's take on baht crisis a 'must read'

MR Pridiyathorn Devakula's article, "Who did what to curb stronger baht?" (Opinion, July 23) is a must read for businessmen, stock investors and economics students. It is an insight into the thoughts of a man who could be viewed both as a saviour of our baht and also a villain of our stock market.

It also serves as a tool to help understand the thoughts of the current central bank governor. It was wonderful and educational to read this natural economist's open and frank rationales especially on the pre-2006 baht, which was relatively weak when compared with our neighbouring competitors.

The situation then did not give exporters incentive to lay down a foundation to improve their productivity.

However, in my humble view, his laudable suggestions that state enterprises pre-pay US$2.2 billion (Bt73.94 billion), possibly with penalties, and encouraging importers to pay on sight rather than taking 180-day credit, are not easily achievable. Most executives of state enterprises and in the private sector still have a secret belief that the measures are not sufficient to put a sustainable brake on the inflow of hot money when Thailand's equity situation is so ripe for making a double-dip of capital and exchange gains. So, why should dollar debtors pay now when there is a chance that one will pay a lesser baht to the dollar amount in the future?

I simply hope that I am wrong in my estimation. However, I would like to ask those who are now in an unenviable position of managing the baht whether their risk-management plans cover the event that the hedge funds have an upper hand in breaking the Bt33 threshold. All we need is a positive answer to that question to put our minds at rest. Currently, it is too jumpy for our liking.

Songdej Praditsmanont

Bangkok

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

Taiwan short-changed by exclusion from UN

Re: "Taiwan launches fresh UN membership bid," World, July 21.

According to a poll conducted by Taiwan's Mainland (China) Affairs Council in April 2007, more than 77 per cent of respondents support using the name Taiwan to apply for membership in international organisations, including the United Nations. In the face of such clear-cut public opinion, Chen Shui-bian, the popularly elected President of Taiwan, has the duty to express to the world the earnest will of the 23 million people of Taiwan to join the United Nations under the name of Taiwan.

In his letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon delivered on July 19, President Chen has the following to say: "The international community of today chooses to disregard the efforts of Taiwan's 23 million people in their pursuit of dignity and peace. It would rather ask a country that advocates the universal values of freedom, democracy, human rights, and peace to submissively remain silent when its identity is denied and security threatened. Whereas globalisation draws nations and peoples around the world closer under shared interests and concerns, the United Nations has long excluded Taiwan from participation, erecting a wall against it and placing it in political apartheid. Such unfair treatment towards Taiwan is incomprehensible and unbearable."

There is no doubt that Taiwan has become an important player in the international community. In this era of globalisation, when all countries highly depend on each other, the United Nations, as the most important forum dealing with global issues, should accept Taiwan as a full member in order to avoid creating a weak link in the global collaborative network.

The international community has short-changed Taiwan for quite a long time. The continued exclusion of Taiwan from the UN violates the basic human rights and harms the dignity of the 23 million people of Taiwan, and thus poses a moral and legal challenge to the international community. It is high time the UN seriously ponders the common wish of the 23 million people of Taiwan.

David Tzou

Bangkok