The recent public outcry about the unethical act by the Highways Department - which removed so many large trees in order to widen the road to Khao Yai just to satisfy the needs of a few politicians and resort operators - has raised many questions that need to be answered.
First of all, don't they realise that Khao Yai is a national park, a world heritage site, and not a theme park like Disneyland?
And why, in the first place, would a park of this nature be allowed to hold a concert that will attract so many cars, which will create pollution and traffic jams?
I am of the opinion that, besides money and politics, the reason behind this shameful act by a few politicians and business people, is our own trait of not knowing or caring what is appropriate and what is not. This is why we always see large groups of people drinking and shouting and singing to loud music in the parks all over the country.
This trait has been ingrained into every facet of our lives because we still see dangerous jet-skis operating in swimming areas off the beaches in Pattaya and Bang Saen, noisy paragliders flying very low close to Bang Phra civil airport, and motorcycles going against the traffic on every highway in the country. None of this will stop unless and until we as a nation get our act together.
Vichit Phanumphai
Bangkok
---------------
Give farmers a fair cut of export proceeds
Re: "Thailand needs more than a quick fix to inequality", Editorial, June 4.
Your editorial suggests that the rural problems are mainly ones of education and job opportunities. While improvements in these areas are undoubtedly welcome, there are areas where immediate action would see a significant reduction in societal imbalances.
Thai farmers work hard and produce products that not only feed the country but are also valuable export commodities. However, I would suggest that farmers do not get a fair share of the value of their exported crops. For example, in the case of rice, there is a law that gives the Thai Rice Exporters Association the sole right to export rice from Thailand. This group receives approximately Bt3,500 per tonne for exporting rice, but they have comparatively small costs. This is a significant portion of the profitable value of the crop, and at 8 million tonnes gives them a huge amount of money each year. Simply changing the law and encouraging farmers cooperatives to export (with government assistance) would ensure that more of the wealth generated was given to the poor farmers whose efforts produce the rice, rather than the rich middlemen in Bangkok.
A similar situation exists for other agricultural products. Thailand can either address fair prices for farmers and reform agricultural policies, or the rural population, with its large voting base, will always be a pool of disaffected citizens.
Ian Brookes
Bangkok
-------------------------
Pill 'revolution' was a false dawn
Last month saw the 50th anniversary of the contraceptive "pill". In the 1960s the pill was heralded as a development that would liberate women from male dominance and lead to fewer divorces, fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions. It is now clear, however, that things did not turn out that way.
As the pill became more widespread, the number of divorces and abortions soared. We saw a lowering of moral standards and a rise in infidelity and promiscuity. In addition, the well-being of children declined by a variety of measures, from depression to diet to the number living in poverty and the number experiencing child abuse or neglect. Although women now have access to places and positions that once belonged to men, they have never been seen more as sex objects than they are today.
The major disconnect caused by the arrival of the pill has been a loss of the idea that men and women make babies. As technological advances in artificial reproduction are made, the idea that God plays a role in procreation has increasingly been lost.
Sadly, the horizon does not look promising for the family. With the rapid increase of activist judges with a proclivity to elitist social engineering, we will soon be seeing countless forms of sexually bonded groups that are not only unstable but seriously harmful to children.
Frank Henderson
Bangkok
Good luck on balanced opinion
I echo the views of Simon Wood, Melbourne (June 11), who bravely dares to suggest that the red shirts have any legitimacy or rights at all, and although "The Nation welcomes views from all sides" how is that possible when the red shirts have been already found guilty of terrorism in the media in Thailand? If I am too much a defender of the red shirts, might I also be considered condoning or supporting terrorism? What if I say, put up a memorial to the red shirts who died for truth in Thailand, might I be hauled into court for that? Personally I believe the rights of the opposition parties have been brutally violated and the terrorism charges are, purely politically-motivated nonsense. Unarmed people were killed, most likely by the military, and buildings were burnt, probably, but not proven to have been, by the red shirts. Does that add up to terrorism? Not by a long shot. By the way, in the international media the red shirts are referred to as "terrorists" in quotation marks and we all know what that means: the international media are not buying the government spin from Thailand.
Guy Baker
Bangkok