• 
• 

Published on February 14, 2008

I was heartened by the above news stories which, for a change, I consider as something good about this government.

First, despite pressure from some self-serving economists calling for abolition of the 30 per cent capital reserve - which has been neutralising the baht's strength for 14 months - the country's treasurer has decided to delay his decision. It is a sign of maturity in getting sufficient background information prior to a conclusion. A monetary measurement of this nature should never be swayed by the demands of some academics or decided in accordance with speculators' expectations.

Putting the brakes on the appointment of a wayward son (who may or may not have reformed) to a government position has uplifted the credibility of this government immeasurably. To date, the appointments of some ministers have reached an incredulous level. One current minister did not disappoint the critics when she opined that "Wood will soon replace fossil fuels".

Songdej Praditsmanont

BANGKOK

.............................

State must keep its hands off the media

I support PM Samak when he says, "This government does not want its own TV station to speak for the government. I want it to present news in a straightforward manner and present both sides of an issue." However, given the Hong Kong puppet master's penchant for interference with freedom of the press, and PM Samak's insistence that only one person died in the October 6 uprising, I wonder how credible his words are.

More importantly, I see no reason for the state to control all, or even most, TV stations. As Walter Lippman said: "If there is a monopoly of the means of communications … it follows that society is by definition and in fact deprived of freedom."

TV stations are the media most used by the masses, which is why they, above all, should be free.

State control of TV stations deprives the people of benefiting from a wide variety of opinions from society's leaders - so that we can make up our own minds. Freedom of the press will allow us to gain from constructive, in-depth investigative journalism, such as when iTV aired traffic cops taking bribes. The needs of national security can be met through laws permitting instantaneous takeover of airwaves upon Cabinet declaration of an emergency, or in the case of natural disaster, as in the US. Having a robust justice system, with libel and slander laws and penalties that fit the crime (rather than being so heavy as to annihilate) should be sufficient to keep speakers honest.

Having a Thai Public Broadcasting System, if indeed PM Samak and Minister Jakrapob allow it to be free, is a tiny step in the right direction. PM Samak should show by his actions, not just words, that he supports a free press by keeping his government's hands off the selection of all station executives and station policies, and promoting private ownership and listing of TV stations.

Burin Kantabutra

BANGKOK

.............................

Give no ground in the South

It was reported that the Thai government is considering giving autonomy to the southern states to appease the Muslims there. This is based on an inability to solve the violence.

At the same time, Thaicom in Thailand has aired the broadcasts of Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV. This service has been banned in Europe and is considered terrorist material by the US, as it is anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic and anti-American. It spreads Hezbollah and Iranian values of radical Islam.

I have seen documents from the South giving detailed plans on how the six southern provinces are to be claimed and taken under Islam, as a start of the process to convert and take the whole of Thailand. Giving any kind of autonomy to the South will simply speed up this process and will not stop the violence there.

I urge the government to do some more detailed research on this issue before giving away any of the country and instead consider stopping any further broadcasts that encourage violence in that region.

Christian Lloyd

BANGKOK

.............................

Article highlights Western hypocrisy

Re: "Declaring war on tolerance", Opinion, February 8.

Ian Buruma has tried to explain the qualifications of tolerance mainly defined by Geert Wilder, the leader of the right-wing, anti-Muslim Freedom Party in the Dutch parliament. Both are afraid of "Islamisation" in Europe and want to hamper this phenomenon by hook or by crook. It is not strange that they put all their efforts into measuring Islamic tolerance, as Wilder's recent short film demonstrates. Clearly they deliberately accuse Islam of being intolerant. In turn, the Dutch have to take extra security measures for an expected violent response.

There is a historical perspective in measuring the tolerance level of Muslims, especially in Europe. This went wrong when a Dutch filmmaker was murdered by a Muslim for insulting the Islamic verses.

One can be surprised that the right of free speech is always studded with disrespect towards Islam, but not often to other religions. Perhaps Ian Buruma has learned to judge human rights from one angle, the so-called intellectual angle of the West, and is only willing to see the world from that one angle rather than the real facts.

The author should not forget the case of David Irving, a British historian who was jailed for three years in 2005 in Austria for Holocaust denial - an "opinion-crime" he had committed in 1989. Irving was sentenced only for commenting on [his version of] the reality of the Holocaust; he did not criticise or denounce the religious values of Jews. He was the victim of "free speech" and was forced to learn the lesson by Christians. Was that real tolerance? Will Wilder be denounced, if not sentenced, by the Dutch government for  his disgusting remarks and activities against Muslims? Simply, no.

Interestingly, Buruma claimed the Dutch are "the most tolerant people on earth". But the Dutch could also learn the meaning of tolerance from Muslims. Despite their sometimes antagonistic behaviour, Muslims are tolerant and they never show aversion towards others' religious beliefs and values. Islam teaches us to respect the values of other religions. We can observe this situation in Islamic countries where religious minorities enjoy harmony and peace without the fear of humiliation of their religious values.

Westerners are often quick to define Muslims as "radical Islamists" or "Islamic extremists" if Muslims raise their voices or protest against criticism of Islamic values. If this is radicalism, then what should we call Wilder and Buruma? Are they "radical Christians" who are not only intolerant but also responsible for instigating radicalism among Christians?

Sajjad Khan Niazi

BANGKOk

Send us your views in an instant

E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to

the Editor' in the subject box, to:

letters@nationgroup.com

The Nation