• 
• 

Published on November 22, 2007

Arguably our armed forces' least-used fuel-guzzler is the aircraft carrier, the Chakri Narubet. We should weigh the costs and benefits we are getting from it, and act accordingly.

Our Navy's pride and joy has been docked for years now, due to lack of funds for fuel - and there's no chance of it setting sail in the near future. Ditto for fuel for its anti-submarine aircraft, including for the many training flights it takes to keep its pilots battle-ready. Last I heard, we could put only two aircraft in the air, far from enough to protect the carrier, let alone carry the fight to an enemy.

Worst of all, is there a need for this vessel? An aircraft carrier's purpose is to protect territory beyond the reach of land-based aircraft, but we have no such far-flung empire to defend.

Lastly, where is the potential enemy with the submarines that the Chakri Narubet's pilots are trained to combat? Presumably we are not going to fight our Asean allies. Who are we thinking of?

We should sell the carrier and let the Navy use the proceeds for smaller, more suitable ships.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

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

Ministry powerless to defend child boxers

Re: "Danger in boxing ring", News, November 21.

According to your front-page report, the social development and human security deputy minister told an audience in a seminar that child boxers were not protected by (boxing) law.

I suppose the ministry cannot do anything about this "child labour" problem until the kids are older than 15.

With this kind of attitude, I am sure, our children will grow up to be brain-damaged adults - so that they can be taken care of by the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security.

If this were a more civilised society, a contact sport such as this wouldn't even be allowed without proper head-protection gear. What a pity.

Vic Phanumphai

Bangkok

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

The failure of the Asean way

Representatives of the Solidarity for Asia People's Advocacies Working Group on Asean condemns Asean for washing its hands of Burma.

"Asean persisted in admitting Burma despite strong opposition from civil society groups in 1997," Charm Tong of the Shan Women's Action Network said during a press conference held in Singapore yesterday.

"Asean is shameful because it washes its hands of Burma and passed on the burden of dealing with Burma to the UN," Charm Tong added.

This Burma activist said that the recent policies and actions of Asean were a clear indication of the failure of the "Asean way". The Burmese military junta has slapped the face of Asean during this summit by insisting that the political turmoil in the country is an internal matter, and preventing a dialogue between Asean leaders and the UN secretary-general's special envoy, Ibrahim Gambari.

Representatives of Southeast Asian civil society groups also expressed disappointment about the human rights elements in the Asean Charter. Rafendi Djamin of the Indonesian Human Rights Working Group argued that "Asean remains non-committal to human rights being an overarching principle of the Charter". Djamin also commented that elements of international human rights law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are absent in the Asean Charter. In addition, Djamin also expressed his pessimism regarding the creation of the Asean Human Rights Body. "From what we have seen in the charter, we cannot really expect that this human rights body will have a protection function."

Southeast Asian civil society groups were also concerned about the lack of attention given by Asean leaders in this summit towards the migration issue. "The bulk of economic flows and economic growth in Southeast Asia are generated by migrant workers, both documented and undocumented, many of whom are women who are abused and exploited," commented William Gois of the Migrant Forum Asia. Consequently, Gois argued that Asean must have labour standards that respect the rights of migrant workers in the region.

 The disappointment about the charter prompted civil society groups to launch the Asean People's Charter campaign. Previously, Singaporean Foreign Minister George Yeo was quoted as saying that "this [the Asean Charter] is a government agreement, but there should be parallel activities among parliamentarians, CSOs, students, graduates, think-tanks and so on".

Reacting to the aforementioned comment, Sinapan Samydorai of the Singapore based Think-Centre argued that civil society must not be relegated to organising parallel activities outside of formal Asean processes, but rather should be an integral part of those processes. "If Asean governments act against the wishes of the people, refusing to listen to the voices of the people, will Asean be legitimate in the eyes of the people?"

The SAPA Working Group on Asean

Singapore

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

Burma's democracy 'roadmap' is a joke

Recently, the Alternative Asean Network on Burma made a public statement as follows:

Since its inception in 1990, the National Convention process has been inherently undemocratic and oppressive:

lNine pro-democracy political parties representing 90.9 per cent of parliamentary seats were excluded from the National Convention.

lThe MPs elected in 1990 represented a meagre 1.11 per cent of the total number of delegates, drastically stripped down from 14 per cent at the first meeting in 1993.

lStacked with handpicked delegates, the notorious Union Solidarity and Development Association made up more than 50 per cent.

lIt is tightly controlled and gagged by military-orchestrated committees.

lThe regime-imposed "104 basic principles" to guarantee military domination of government and dictate the content of proceedings.

lMany ethnic groups boycotted or opposed the convention. Ethnic groups that made alternative proposals were expelled from proceedings or targeted for persecution.

lPolitical debate and free discussion of constitutional proposals were banned at the National Convention. Delegates could speak only from pre-approved scripts.

lQuestioning or criticising the National Convention, as well as communication with the foreign press, are acts criminalised by the junta through order 5/96, which imposes a maximum term of 20 years in jail.

As can be seen, the ball has long been in the junta's court and it is high time it abandoned its unreasonable roadmap and sham national convention and replace it with a pragmatic, workable solution for a win-win outcome for the benefit of the country and its people.

SWS

Hamburg, Germany