Kavi Chongkittavorn in his April 24 article, "Five priorities at the 32nd Asean summit" offers an adequate opportunity to remind people of the significance of having a permanent diplomatic priority on Asean's agenda.
The United Nations General Assembly, which comprises 193 member states, adopted in 2017 by consensus a resolution which specifically recognised Asean's role as a regional organisation that promotes multilateralism and regional peace, stability and prosperity, including through the regional architecture led by it, and emphasised the importance of the centrality and unity of Asean in further strengthening the regional security system.
The diplomatic value of this document is illustrated also by the fact that it was sponsored by the 10 Asean member states, on behalf of 645 million people, representing almost 9% of the world population, together with 57 UN member states, including Asean Dialogue Partners, members of the European Union and partners from Asia-Pacific, Africa, the Americas and the Caribbean.
In many ways, Asean is a strong bastion of multilateralism and it helps to shape common answers to the global threats facing the world community of nations.
By continuing to promote and develop a robust, effective and results-oriented multilateralism, Asean brings a valuable contribution to a peaceful and fruitful global cooperation.
Ioan Voicu
Happiness of the 1%
A recent poll has apparently shown that our workers, when combined with farmers, make up 60% of the population, and are now suffering under the worst level of household debt in 10 years. This must be one of the reasons why alcohol consumption is so high, leading to the carnage on Thai highways.
This government deserves credit for bringing peace to our country, but the last two polls I have seen show that it has not brought happiness and prosperity to the majority of the population. But I guess that as long as the 1% who own 60% of the country's assets are happy, then everything's good, right?
A Reader
Chinese buying logic
Re: "Shoddy goods on way", (Postbag, April 27).
Yes, buying a brand new replacement for your Chinese appliance is cheaper than the cost of repairing it. In a well-known supermarket, for example, a small rice cooker or coffee maker is priced at 299 baht and I believe, as they are sold at such outlets, they must meet at least Thai safety standards. Therefore, I always buy two at a time, one for immediate use and another as a replacement. It happens that they last more than a year, so it costs me less than 1 baht a day and that is cheaper than getting a repair man to fix them.
These appliances are price-friendly though I always feel guilty when buying them, because it is a great waste of the earth's resources.
RH Suga
Immigration overhaul
The Royal Thai Police Act is about to be overhauled (BP, April 25). How about overhauling the Immigration Bureau as well? This department is overstaffed, most of the work is duplicated, and most immigration police tend to be difficult to deal with because of some power trip. If any police section needs to be desperately reformed, this would be it. They operate under archaic rules, lack imagination, and worse, interpret the immigration laws as they see fit, not as the laws are written.
To put it delicately, many immigration officers tend to be more accommodating if there is a small envelope tucked below one's passport.
Moocher Mango
Worst of America
A recent survey by The New York Times of presidential historians has already collectively rated Donald Trump as America's worst president. Even the Republican experts rated him among the worst five.
I'll admit that sometimes I strongly disagree with how the historians have rated some of our presidents. But that disagreement is due to the fact that they tend to be too generous in their assessments. For example, when they give Lyndon Johnson high ratings they act as though the Vietnam War never happened.
So when these historians who are wimps say that Trump is doing such a horrible job, that is good reason for us to be worried.
Eric Bahrt
Lion City blinkered
Re: "Singapore strives for a closer Asean", (BP, April 25).
Chua Siew San, Singapore's Ambassador to Thailand, obviously doesn't see any need to address rural communities because they simply don't exist in her country. They are not a part of her inherent knowledge and thus, can be ignored to focus on the main and obvious prize -- Bangkok.
Yet, how can an ambassador who seems to know so little about the country in which she is stationed be effective in furthering an agenda that ignores so much of that country's population and problems?
Dave Proulx
Cold War redux
In his April 25 article, "What Kim 3rd craves above all else", Gwynne Dyer attempted to look at the Korean problem from both sides and understand why the North Koreans have been forced to develop a nuclear arsenal to protect themselves from the United States. His underlying argument was that the problem is, in reality, a microcosm of the Cold War situation which has existed since World War II. I'm old enough to recall the problems the UK faced in the years following the war.
Having spent five years reading front-page headlines about the heroic exploits of ordinary Russians in the face of a common and unscrupulous enemy, who were, after all holding down vast German land forces, people gave vent to warm and friendly feelings toward them.
People were very much aware of the appalling suffering the Russians endured, with 20 million dead, mostly civilians. They were forced to torch their own homes and crops, and kill their livestock under the "scorched earth policy" that was necessary to deny supplies to the advancing enemy.
After the war, most Europeans understood that the Russians' devastated country faced a gigantic hurdle just to get back to normal living conditions, mainly food and shelter. It really wasn't such a big issue that they were Communist. Young Europeans had some interest in the writings of Karl Marx. The underlying tenet of Marxism, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" seemed an ideal basis for them to deal with the dilemma, albeit as a "stepping stone" to some improved system at a later date.
American-style capitalism, based on an "every man for himself", "dog eat dog approach" was not possible, let alone desirable.
The Americans saw it differently: Communists were atheists, whose objective was to take over the world and force the same philosophy on them. Fat chance of that!
This from a country where all the civilian population knew about the war was what they read in the newspapers and saw in newsreels at the movies. In fact, the US economy benefited enormously from it in financial terms. Providing and selling arms to favoured participants was a massive boon to their economy.
This was all building up to the now infamous "Un-American Activities Committee", where you could be regarded with suspicion just for joining a trade union!
This steady demonisation continued over the years, including the outbreak of the 1950-53 Korean War. It was not met with much enthusiasm by the other participants, which finally led to the current imbroglio. Unfortunately, recent world events seem to have shown that nothing much has changed over the years!
Tony Ash
Cha-Am
Promoting paraquat
Re: "Pork protectionism", (PostBag, April 25).
We should be grateful that the Thai government has had the sense to ban American pork because of concerns that it contains ractopamine.
Farmers in the US have for years been dosing animals intended for human consumption with a cocktail of antibiotics, growth enhancers, etc. with profit being a key factor. The net results speak for themselves. They're having to contend with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, requiring higher and higher dose rates. Additionally, it's difficult to believe there is no link between what is fed into the meat and the humans who eat it, when North America has one of the highest obesity rates in the Western world.
Comparing the danger of ractopamine-fed animals with a herbicide such as paraquat is rather akin to comparing apples with coal. One is designed to be eaten by humans, the other is not. For sure, both paraquat/diquat are potentially poisonous to humans. So is petrol or common household bleach, if you drink them, which is the most likely risk. To minimise this risk, paraquat is formulated with a powerful blue dye and a strong emetic, making it visually obvious and distastefully unpalatable.
When it is used, paraquat is applied in a highly diluted form and is inactivated immediately on contact with most soil. It has proven to be one of the most effective long-term methods of weed control in farming, and is used throughout the developed world for this purpose, with no evidence of resistance such as has been observed with another herbicide, glyphosate.
In response to the April 23 editorial, "A swinish proposal", Mr Corrigan states that paraquat is banned in most countries. It most certainly is not, having been approved for use in Australia, the US and the EU. This most certainly would not be the case were the risks as bad as he claims.
Conversely, it is American imports of ractopamine-fed animals that are banned from import into the EU, Russia, China and over 160 other countries.
The Thai government is to be applauded for its decision not to expose the public to meat produced using chemicals with known risks to children and those with cardiovascular disease.
Mr John
CONTACT: BANGKOK POST BUILDING
136 Na Ranong Road Klong Toey, Bangkok 10110
Fax: +02 6164000 email: postbag@bangkokpost.co.th
All letter writers must provide full name and address.
All published correspondence is subject to editing at our discretion.
