Thaksin's PPP

POSTBAG

Thaksin's PPP

E-mail: postbag@bangkokpost.co.th / Snail mail: 136 Na Ranong Road, Klong Toey, Bangkok 10110, Thailand

"Is this also an indicator that all the elected officials of PPP are taking orders from Thaksin?" asks contributor Tom Ross in his letter, "Puppet government" (Postbag, Jan 3). Yup, I guess you can say just that, Tom. Samak has openly and publicly bragged many times that Thaksin, his mentor and true boss of the PPP, will be welcome back. Thaksin has also openly declared that he would be happy to act as an adviser to the PPP.

ALBERT RIDGEBACK

-----------

Hocus-pocus

The Outlook section of Dec 31, sporting a huge "Horoscope 2008" report, prompted me to ask myself, "What era are we living in?" Surely it can't be the 21st century, where scientific and rational arguments are the norm, and evidence is required to support any claim. It must be the Sukhothai era, where science wasn't invented yet and superstition ruled the day.

The horoscope (or made-up predictions, in other words) is an ancient superstition with no rational basis whatsoever. To call the horoscope nonsense would be an affront to the word "nonsense". Why can't those who presume to know the future predict something useful, like anti-global warming measures or medical advances, instead of dreary, same old pedestrian lives?

At best, horoscopes are a waste of space and at worst, they promote a viewpoint based on wishful thinking. To put faith in them is to delude ourselves about the nature of reality. Our lives are much too precious to waste on such delusions.

PAWIN SIRITANARATKUL

-----------

Air quality and people's health

The Jan 2 Commentary by Khun Boonsong, "Countering the 'Nimby' syndrome", does not seem to be up to his usual high standards, containing some items that I rather take issue with.

Concerning "which is more important, the common good or individual rights" - both; it is not a zero sum game.

Concerning the import of natural gas from Burma, we are dependent for 20% of our natural gas on an unelected regime, which does not enjoy full control of its territory, and which has in the past year beaten Buddhist monks in the streets.

There are three possible outcomes. 1) The regime hangs on and we continue to implicitly support their wrongdoing. 2) The country collapses and our gas supply along with it. 3) The Burmese people achieve their rights and we have to explain to them why we did what we did.

I know this rather misses the original point. For the record, if we must transport natural gas, a pipeline is probably the least bad way.

Concerning the building of new coal-fired power stations: surely, when it concerns carbon-consuming power stations, they are in the whole world's backyard. The generated greenhouse gases will harm us all. The question should not be: should this power station be built here or there, but should it be built or not? I agree, of course, there may be benefits in building to replace older, less efficient plants, although retro-fitting older plants may be a more cost-effective option.

Concerning "comprehensive air pollution mitigation measures": Scrubbing 90% of the sulphur dioxide means discharging 10% of the sulphur dioxide, some proportion of the nitrogen oxides, some solid particulates and inevitably all of the carbon dioxide. Comprehensive? You decide.

Comparing Mae Moh's sulphur dioxide burden with Bangkok's? This particular comparison is grossly misleading; the valid comparison is with Mae Moh before the power station. Although it does lead any thinking person to question why the residents of Bangkok don't put their "Nimby" hat on to protest this sulphur dioxide burden, mitigation would cut damage to public and private property and your body, benefiting both common good and individual rights, neatly illustrating the first point above.

Concerning the statement, "The Nimby sentiment is dangerously driving Thailand toward dependence on imported energy..." Come on, what is driving Thailand toward dangerous dependence on imported energy is dependence on imported energy, be it oil, coal or gas.

I agree with Khun Boonsong that education is the way forward. However, he and I might disagree about the direction of that education.

Could I suggest that we consider the concept of decreasing our dependence on power generation from fossil fuels, by cutting unnecessary and wasteful consumption, by improving efficiency of industrial and domestic equipment, and by investing large amounts in renewable sources (not necessarily as large amounts as new power stations, obviously). And finally encourage Bangkok residents to become Nimbies, to protest air quality. I'll even suggest a slogan: "It's Our Infrastructure, It's My Health."

IAN CLARKE

Hua Hin