Street protests can be both law-abiding and effective

I thank Veharachan for saying that "street protests around the world always take place on the street", and that therefore my suggestion that the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) move indoors was like asking Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej to stop using foul language. He then says: "This is not to say that PAD can break the law. They have honoured the court injunction against them … and have shown themselves to be non-violent and peaceful…"

I agree with him that PAD won't move indoors, because like a spoiled kid throwing a tantrum in public, it's their ill-mannered public behaviour that attracts the attention of many TV viewers. I suggest, however, that instead of breaking the law and stopping only reluctantly when ordered to do so by a court, the PAD protest within the law to begin with, using clean language and not fouling the streets and air with their excreta.

For example, during the 1960s, I was a picket in the fight against segregation in the US, which was then legal and to which Thais were subject to at one time or another as well. Pickets rigorously kept at least 1.5 yards apart from each other, so that any restaurant patrons could pass through freely. We marched silently, and our signs carried no offensive language. We were constructive, offering solutions. We complied with all laws and were protected by the law. Only one policeman on site was enough to ensure that all was peaceful. We gained massive favourable media coverage, and the faculty at my university in the deep South signed a full-newspaper page statement of support for us, paying for the ad themselves.

Veharachan, should PAD's adult leaders respect democracy and rule of law enough to do what students young enough to be their children did then?

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

Clearing up inaccuracies

in Nam Theun II article

While we applaud The Nation's coverage of the Nam Theun II dam, I would like to point out inaccuracies in the "Nam Theun dam reservoir set to be flooded" article, published on June 19, and provide clarifications.

First, the Nam Theun II power company planned to clear 3,000 hectares of biomass but was not "required" to do so. Second, the number of downstream villagers that will be affected by Nam Theun II ranges from 75,000 (the company's estimate) to more than 120,000 (estimates based on independent research). Third, the figure I provided to the reporter regarding the costs of the downstream program (US$80 million [Bt2.7 billion] to $100 million) was incorrect - that figure is a rough estimate of the cost of socio-economic development for the surrounding region, not the cost of mitigating Nam Theun II's impacts. Fourth, the statement that "a scheme allowing the development to take people's land before replacing it is against World Bank's regulations" should be clarified. Taking people's land before at least compensating them - which the company failed to do in many cases - is a violation of World Bank policy. Fifth, the 37 affected villages living downstream of the dam along the Nam Theun and its tributaries do qualify for compensation, but the Nam Theun II power company was late to initiate the consultation and compensation programme for them.

Finally, the article misquoted passages from Nam Theun II's International Social and Environmental Panel of Experts' reports, which can be found online.

     send us your views in an instant!

E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to the Editor' in

the subject box, to:

letters@nationgroup.com