• 
• 

Published on August 25, 2007

The main reason for the United States assisting the multitudes of Laotians was the Vietnam War. Why are we turning a blind eye now? I find this heartbreaking. These people would have preferred to stay in their own region; however, they no longer have a region. We failed in Vietnam, and now we're failing those people who helped to protect our sons survive that horrible war.

Now we find ourselves in another senseless and pointless war. Will we turn our backs on the innocent people of Iraq after having created havoc in their country? Is there a plan to attend to this issue before it occurs, or will we for decades endure heartbreaking stories of people who have lost everything because our government chose to spread "democracy"? Our failure in Iraq certainly points in that direction!

Finally, the people Laos served our country well in a time of need. As Thailand appears as if it is ready to deport the Hmong in the remainder of its refugee camps, camps in which the occupants live in horrendous conditions, emigration seems the only solution. I find it ironic that our government chooses to do nothing about the extreme immigration problem with Mexico, involving thousands of people who illegally live here and avail themselves of the services of our great country and yet does not seem able to hold up the agreement or promise we made to the Hmong. The Hmong people have tried to do the right thing while they've waited for us to hold true to our promise.

Please save these people from certain death.

Judy Welhouse

USA

AHRC open letter to the UN on Burmese situation

Dear Mr Ban Ki-moon,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is writing to you with regard to your statement of August 23 concerning the consequences of the August 15 increase of fuel prices in Burma and repeated protests in the former capital that are now reported to be spreading to other parts of the country.

First, you express concern that arrests have been carried out by "the authorities". In fact, most of the protests are being blocked and persons taken away by gangs of thugs mobilised as proxies for the police and military. These are not "pro-government" groups as reported in many news items over the last few days, nor do they have any legal basis. They are an unofficial arm of the state that has been systematically organised through township and ward councils and the government's mass body, the Union Solidarity and Development Association, for some years now, including for the purposes of the lethal attack on a convoy carrying the opposition party leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters at Depayin in 2003.

Secondly, you encourage "all parties to avoid any provocative action". In fact, this is an offensive and completely inappropriate remark. Was the unannounced doubling of charges for diesel fuel and quintupling of those for compressed natural gas not an enormous provocation of millions in Burma who for years have been struggling to survive day by day?

If not protest, then what should the people of Burma do? In short, do you deny them the right to take to the streets and assert that they won't be parties to their own impoverishment and degradation any longer?

Thirdly, the notion of "constructive dialogue" is anyhow spurious. Surprisingly, the United Nations continues to pretend that such a thing exists in dealing with the Burma, perhaps for want of anything else.

Why is it that after a remarkable week in which people in Burma have taken to the streets in the sincere hope of support and interest from abroad they have obtained only three sentences from the UN secretary-general, through a spokesperson?

Please immediately convene a special meeting with your special envoy on Burma, the UN under-secretary-general for political affairs and concerned  persons to assess the current situation and propose specific responses and strategies. Please also consider how the question of Burma can again be brought before the Security Council. Without your firm resolve, the people of Burma will again find themselves forced to struggle alone, as they have on so many occasions in the past.

Basil Fernando

Executive Director

Asian Human Rights Commission,

Hong Kong

Store's wasteful habits leave customer cold

On a recent rainy evening, I dropped into one of the two dozen major-chain convenience stores in my town. I asked the ladies at the counter why they needed to have the four large ceiling air-conditioning units on full blast while the ambient temperature outside was cool. In the course of our conversation, the manager said the monthly electricity bill for the small shop was around Bt60,000. Part of that was also to power the 109 one-metre light bulbs.

If I had that shop, I would surely find ways to lower a power bill of Bt2,000 per day. For starters, I would get a fan to blow air in when it's cool outside. Does the 7-11 franchise headquarters mandate its shops maintain frigid temperatures round the clock? I, for one, will be using these major-chain convenience stores (and other frigid shops) as little as possible, as a mini-protest against blatant wastefulness of resources. Plus, I enjoy cool more than cold.

Ken Albertsen

Chiang Rai

Old political guard back for an unwanted encore

It's obvious that the next general election will result in a coalition government. Because of last year's coup, Thailand had lost its credibility internationally; however, it has managed to gain back this confidence after last week's referendum, which led to an exact date being given for general elections, tentatively scheduled for December 23.

The political atmosphere shows a decline, rather than development: I refer to Chavalit Yongchaiyudh and Banharn Silapa-archa having hopes to return as the next premier. This is, as the old saying goes, "putting old wine in new bottles". Ever since the coup, there's been a lot of talk on political reformation, or in other words improving politics in this country, but the reality of it is exacerbating. Chavalit is enthusiastic to lead an alternative party, and the 111 executive members of the disbanded Thai Rak Thai are creating new political parties, only for the purpose of having their say in the political sphere.

Most of the new parties, Matchima, Ruam Jai Thai and People Power Party, have Thai Rak Thai connections.

From what I've heard recently, their plan is to isolate the Democrats and hopefully push through a pardon for the 111 Thai Rak Thai executives who were banned from political activity. This is nothing but a strategy to divide and rule.

How can Thai politics develop any further if we still bear this sort of nonsense!

Ronk

Bangkok

Classification of Chiang Rai crawler off base

Re: "Scientific method wins out in 'worm' debate", Letters, August 24.

Regarding Ken Albertsen's assertion that the organisms he "observed" were worms, I'd like to point out several facts. First, Albertsen says that the organisms had "no mouths". I find that difficult to believe.

In fact, worms do have mouths. Regardless if they were amphibians or annelids, they would have had mouths.

Secondly, worms are not "wrinkled". They are segmented. So are some species of legless amphibians.

Also, Albertson notes that his "worms" had no scales. The fact is amphibians don't have scales either. They have skin. Reptiles have scales. So, while it may have been a valid observation; it has no relevance to the discussion.

Albertson goes on to note that the organism he observed "had no hint of appendages". Well, neither do some species of legless amphibians.

He also says: "They are round and symmetrical from end to end". Well, guess what, so are many species of caecilians. So while Albertson's opinion that these organisms were worms may be correct, he offers no valid observational evidence.

Don't get me wrong, Ken Albertson is a wonderful writer. He also makes some good points regarding religious fundamentalists. However, he could use a little help in science.

Rational Ralph

Bangkok