• 
• 

Published on October 14, 2007

I find much to agree with in Peter Moseley's letter but feel that pressuring China to force change in Burma is the approach most likely to succeed. Threatening to boycott or disrupt the Olympics is a course of action with a possible downside. Whereas loss of face is a huge embarrassment to the Chinese people, to threaten loss of face is regarded as being contemptible.

Gentle murmuring about an Olympic boycott may get attention. However, another technique is more likely to succeed. China knows that in spite of its economic might it is not regarded as a superpower, not regarded as a world leader. Just stating the obvious is most likely to work.

Burma's regime is unacceptable to the world community. The West is powerless to enforce change. China can enforce change if it chooses to do so. If China does so it will show itself to be a world leader.

If you want to push China forward, a pat on the back is more likely to work than a kick up the behind.

Michael Clowes

Bangkok

Tourism in Burma not an issue with junta in power

Re: "Tourism helps Burmese poor, not ruling junta", Letters, October 9.

Please allow me to challenge Han Win's logic in pleading for the return of tourists to the beautiful and captivating Burma.

First, he says that boycotting the country does not hurt the junta's pockets but hurts those poor Burmese involved in tourism. That is definitely correct, since the junta has been pocketing the national wealth without giving to the poor. But even with "busloads of tourists" in Rangoon and Mandalay, the world's insensitivity to the cruelty of the generals will perpetuate their rule.

Second, he says that more tourists' with "cameras clicking" would serve as the eyes and ears of the rest of the world. Yes, thank you for the advice. One Japanese journalist did just that and got shot by a soldier at point-blank range, as captured on video.

Third, he argues that savvy travellers could use their money to help needy people, including those at monasteries. I doubt whether I could even get near some of the temples to make a donation. The last time I was in Rangoon as a tourist, the guide told me that we had just passed Aung San Suu Kyi's house. He did not even allow me to see the house. He explained his fear of pointing out the house because soldiers guarding it could arrest him just for pointing. By doing so he could have possibly faced charges of violating the country's security law.

Fourth, he says, "despite the recent crackdown, Burma remains a very safe country for tourists to visit". That was not a crackdown, but more like murder of the innocents.

Finally, he argues that not visiting Burma would penalise the Burmese poor. Sir, you should not direct us to visit your country while it is fraught with fear and cruelty and ruled by bullies with no sense of human decency. Rather you should direct your attention to ways of getting rid of the junta and their cronies, and preventing them from robbing your nation and depriving the poor of their rightful ownership of their country. That is the only way to help not only the tourism industry but to return your entire nation to its previous glory and prosperity.

Songdej Praditsmanont

Bangkok

Try junta for its crimes, but keep army intact

Re: "The Burmese army has no rightful role to play", Letters, October 13.

In his letter, Dr John Patterson wrote: "To promote the Burmese army as having any role in the future of a democratic Burma is as ridiculous as it is obscene."

In my letter ("Defending the right to a standing army" October 12) I clearly distinguished between "the military" and "the military-junta leaders". I advocated that the junta leaders must be dealt with according to their crimes, but the military must be kept intact to act as the country's defence mechanism and to prevent civil war from breaking out as is happening in Iraq. As to how that would be possible (dealing with the junta), I don't know. I only believe in good things winning over bad things eventually.

At least I offered a way out to resolve the ongoing problems in Burma, which is challenging and calls for all members of the world community to step in and give it a try.

Yet it was obvious that Dr Patterson did not offer any alternative solution to the problem. I hate to say that there has been a lot of nit-picking in his opinions about my aforementioned letter.

Chavalit Van

Chiang Mai

Expensive domains hurt Thailand's Net presence

I am running a business in Thailand. Currently my Web presence is a .com domain.

I wanted to register a ".th" domain, which would let people know that I am proud and happy to be based in Thailand. This is something I am sure would help Thailand in terms of a world presence and the resultant benefits of being more visible.

I was astonished when my webmaster came back to me with the costs and requirements for doing so. Not only do I have to virtually give my DNA to do this but the costs when compared to say a ".com" domain are outrageous. For instance a .com registration would cost me around Bt500 per year but a .th domain would cost Bt2,000 for the first year and then Bt1,000 a year from then on. This is much cheaper than the advertised rates of Bt7,000 to Bt10,000 a year I have seen advertised elsewhere, but I have a good webmaster.

For the average Thai entrepreneur, this cost would not be far off from what they would spend setting up a basic website to promote their business, so no wonder many people do not bother to get a .th domain name. In the end everyone loses out - Thailand, its people and a world business identity.

Can anyone justify or explain this situation? I am sure there has to be reasonable justification for this situation and I really want to know what it is.

Reader

Bangkok

Loosen work visa laws to for volunteer teachers

The current debate on the need to upgrade the level of conversational English among Thais should include the potential benefit of using volunteers amongst the expatriate community, especially retirees and spouses of employees. These two groups represent a huge pool of talent and experience that could be harnessed with a modicum of imagination from Thailand's government.

Conversational English with learners who have little chance to practice their English would be a golden opportunity for many idle Westerners, but red tape gets in the way. They would have to sacrifice their current visas to undergo the tortuous process of applying for a work permit, even if the work were unpaid.

I suggest a system be set up by the Thai government to allow potential expatriate volunteers to be registered and appropriately screened so they can be called on by schools in need to work on a casual basis, with or without a maximum salary, without the need for a change of immigration status.

Peter Moseley

Bangkok