• 
• 

Published on October 13, 2007

Where is Khun Abhisit, the Democrat Party leader? If he is the "real deal" leader of the party, he should have made all of the party's announcements or have his name upfront, including in the news on "Democrat politicking targets the Northeast" on October 10.  Also see "PPP to kick off campaign in Isaan" on September 25, in which Samak led the charge. 

Abhisit wants to be the next prime minister, but where was he when the North and Northeast was flooded? He should lead the charge in helping less fortunate people. That would have been a start, but it's another opportunity lost. He cannot sit in his air-conditioned office in Bangkok and wait for "phu yai" to tell him which way to go and what to say. He may be good looking and well educated at a prestigious college in England, but those qualities will not make him a "real" leader. It is ludicrous to compare him to John F Kennedy when he cannot even be compared to Barack Obama. 

Khun Chuan said Abhisit is the "real deal" and "should be allowed to ripen on the tree, rather than be aged artificially". No, Abhisit is "groomed" and "moulded" to fit a certain image, and has certainly been "aged artificially" so far.

Abhisit, take charge, please. Exert your own ideas and take them to the less fortunate people in the North and Northeast. Then you may gain respect or trust from them.

Manas Thananant

California

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

Teachers: keep quiet and let students speak

Re: "English language usage a springboard to learning", Letters, October 11.

As a teacher of English as a foreign language I found the letter from Pat arrogant, grammatically garbled and, to say the least, utter nonsense. Who is he/she to make the profound claims that, "EFL students have a slim chance of using English on the outside of the class" and "Five of such classes in a week are equivalent to five minutes of talking time"?

Where does he/she get any facts from to make such statements? I'm sure it's not from any reputable source.

Also, it is clear also from the letter that he/she has absolutely no knowledge of the teaching of English as a foreign language. Anyone acquainted with EFL training would know that the cornerstone of the teaching method is based on the teacher encouraging and allowing students to speak more than the teacher in the EFL class. It also continues outside the class with students actively encouraged to expose themselves to the use of English in everyday situations by talking, reading the English language (newspapers), watching TV and even listening to music. Group visits to city locations such as restaurants, shopping malls and supermarkets further enhance the learning experience outside the class.

So to try and make a claim that only the ESL and not the EFL student has any chance of improving outside is absolute nonsense as well lacking any basis for its foundation. The letter also shows a clear lack of respect for the genuine desire that most students have in their hope to develop their English language skills.

R Richards

Bangkok

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

The Burmese army has no rightful role to play

Re: "Defending the right to a standing army" Letters, October 12.

It would appear that my letter "Does a strong military really protect us" has touched a raw nerve with Chavalit Van, who amongst other things, suggests that I did not read the whole of his letter. I can assure him that I read the entire text, twice. I had no useful comment to make about the first three paragraphs of his letter, which reflect views that are compliant to my own. However, what I wished to take issue with, and believe I advanced a clear coherent and diverse opinion, was his comment in reference to the Burmese military: "To solve its [Burma] problem the Burmese military must be kept alive, but well within its assigned duty".

But just who, or what does Chavalit Van believe will be able to do this? Perhaps Asean with its non-interference in internal affairs policy, or monks, or civilians, or perhaps world opinion or even a very strict UN. Moreover, what I wonder, is the Thai military's "assigned duty" and who keeps it within that purview, and is it discharging its "assigned duty" now?

If one takes as correct, and there is no reason to doubt it, the statement in James Groveway's letter "Using force against Burma is simply not a viable option". Hla Win the defecting Burmese military officer said: "Thousands of monks have been executed in recent days and their bodies dumped in the jungle". To then promote the Burmese Army as having any role in the future of a democratic Burma is as ridiculous as it is obscene.

The army is guilty through its officers and men, to greater or lesser degrees, of crimes against humanity and must, if the civilised world is to maintain any moral credibility, be brought to account.

What keeps countries' borders in the developed world safe has little to do with armies but with organisations, treaties, politics and an entirely non-military approach. The days of bellicose sabre-rattling behaviour in the developed world have long gone. Sadly, not so in Africa, where a recent report on armed conflict has shown that the cost to the continent's development over a 15-year period was nearly $300 billion and millions upon millions of lives, no doubt to uphold someone's perception of sovereignty.

And finally, I am unsure as to what Chavalit Van is asking about me, and/or its relevance, when he asks how democratic I am. 

Dr John Patterson

Bangkok

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

Dissent within the ranks in Rangoon

The Irrawaddy in its October 8 article, "The drama behind the decision to use deadly force", disclosed that General Maung Aye, who opposed Than Shwe's decision to shoot Buddhist monks, "ordered additional soldiers stationed in front of Aung San Suu Kyi's house to protect her in case of plots against her by hardliners".

The First Post in its October 10 issue stated that General Maung Aye "increased the guard on Aung San Suu Kyi's home to protect her from armed government thugs who roamed Rangoon during the crackdown".

The US has privately warned the Burmese military junta that targeted military action similar to President Reagan's bombing of Libyan President Ghadaffi's residence in the 1980s will be considered if Aung San Suu Kyi is harmed by Than Shwe's thugs.

UN envoy Gambari should open an office in Rangoon and stay there until the UN Security Council mandated mission either succeeds or fails. It should be a full time, not part-time, job.

Myint Thein

Bangkok

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

Olympic boycott would achieve little or nothing

I have enormous respect and sympathy for the people of Burma and have resisted visiting that country for the last 15 years in response to Aung San Suu Kyi's call for a boycott of the country by tourists.

However, the calls for a boycott of the Olympics in China would be ineffective because China would simply not give in to such pressure. Why should it? Firstly, it has far more to gain financially from long-term trade with the current regime in Burma than the short-term profits from the Olympics. Secondly, by caving into political pressure it would lose face, both internationally and from its own people. Although a general boycott of visitors to the Olympics may show China how ordinary people feel about its support for the regime in Burma, a boycott by Western governments would only deprive sportsmen from all over the world, including Burma, of a chance to compete on the world stage, and nothing else.

The American-led boycott of the 1980 Olympics in Moscow and the retaliatory response against the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles, achieved absolutely nothing. There will always be political problems in the world, and if these lead to ineffective government-led boycotts of instruments of understanding then no one gains, least of all, in this case, the people of Burma.

Peter Moseley

Bangkok

The Nation

Send us your views in an instant

E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to

the Editor' in the subject box, to:

letters@nationgroup.com