อ่านข่าวจากกรมประชาสัมพันธ์...
23bn-THB warplane deal oncourse for Cabinet approval
BANGKOK, 25 January 2010 (NNT) – The Royal Thai Air Force has passed a procurement request for new F16 jets worth 23 billion Baht to the Defense Ministry to be proposed to the Cabinet tomorrow.
Air Force Spokesperson, Gp Capt Monthon Sutchukorn disclosed today that the air force's 23 billion Baht deal, which includes the purchase of 6 Swedish-made Gripen fighters and upgraded F16 aircrafts was recently approved within the force itself. The plan will be proposed to the government ministers tomorrow for approval.
The Air Force's earlier order of 6 Gripens is expected be delivered in March 2010. The planes will be used for operations in the deep south.
News ID: 255301250006
Reporter : Rungkarn Rujiwarangkul
News Date : 25 January 2010
http://thainews.prd.go.th/en/news.php?id=255301250006
...แล้วไปเจอบทความใน New York Times...
January 7, 2010
Op-Ed Columnist
The Happiest People
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
SAN JOSÉ, Costa Rica
Hmmm. You think it’s a coincidence? Costa Rica is one of the very few countries to have abolished its army, and it’s also arguably the happiest nation on earth.
There are several ways of measuring happiness in countries, all inexact, but this pearl of Central America does stunningly well by whatever system is used. For example, the World Database of Happiness, compiled by a Dutch sociologist on the basis of answers to surveys by Gallup and others, lists Costa Rica in the top spot out of 148 nations.
That’s because Costa Ricans, asked to rate their own happiness on a 10-point scale, average 8.5. Denmark is next at 8.3, the United States ranks 20th at 7.4 and Togo and Tanzania bring up the caboose at 2.6.
Scholars also calculate happiness by determining “happy life years.” This figure results from merging average self-reported happiness, as above, with life expectancy. Using this system, Costa Rica again easily tops the list. The United States is 19th, and Zimbabwe comes in last.
A third approach is the “happy planet index,” devised by the New Economics Foundation, a liberal think tank. This combines happiness and longevity but adjusts for environmental impact — such as the carbon that countries spew.
Here again, Costa Rica wins the day, for achieving contentment and longevity in an environmentally sustainable way. The Dominican Republic ranks second, the United States 114th (because of its huge ecological footprint) and Zimbabwe is last.
Maybe Costa Rican contentment has something to do with the chance to explore dazzling beaches on both sides of the country, when one isn’t admiring the sloths in the jungle (sloths truly are slothful, I discovered; they are the tortoises of the trees). Costa Rica has done an unusually good job preserving nature, and it’s surely easier to be happy while basking in sunshine and greenery than while shivering up north and suffering “nature deficit disorder.”
After dragging my 12-year-old daughter through Honduran slums and Nicaraguan villages on this trip, she was delighted to see a Costa Rican beach and stroll through a national park. Among her favorite animals now: iguanas and sloths.
(Note to boss: Maybe we should have a columnist based in Costa Rica?)
What sets Costa Rica apart is its remarkable decision in 1949 to dissolve its armed forces and invest instead in education. Increased schooling created a more stable society, less prone to the conflicts that have raged elsewhere in Central America. Education also boosted the economy, enabling the country to become a major exporter of computer chips and improving English-language skills so as to attract American eco-tourists.
I’m not antimilitary. But the evidence is strong that education is often a far better investment than artillery.
In Costa Rica, rising education levels also fostered impressive gender equality so that it ranks higher than the United States in the World Economic Forum gender gap index. This allows Costa Rica to use its female population more productively than is true in most of the region. Likewise, education nurtured improvements in health care, with life expectancy now about the same as in the United States — a bit longer in some data sets, a bit shorter in others.
Rising education levels also led the country to preserve its lush environment as an economic asset. Costa Rica is an ecological pioneer, introducing a carbon tax in 1997. The Environmental Performance Index, a collaboration of Yale and Columbia Universities, ranks Costa Rica at No. 5 in the world, the best outside Europe.
This emphasis on the environment hasn’t sabotaged Costa Rica’s economy but has bolstered it. Indeed, Costa Rica is one of the few countries that is seeing migration from the United States: Yankees are moving here to enjoy a low-cost retirement. My hunch is that in 25 years, we’ll see large numbers of English-speaking retirement communities along the Costa Rican coast.
Latin countries generally do well in happiness surveys. Mexico and Colombia rank higher than the United States in self-reported contentment. Perhaps one reason is a cultural emphasis on family and friends, on social capital over financial capital — but then again, Mexicans sometimes slip into the United States, presumably in pursuit of both happiness and assets.
Cross-country comparisons of happiness are controversial and uncertain. But what does seem quite clear is that Costa Rica’s national decision to invest in education rather than arms has paid rich dividends. Maybe the lesson for the United States is that we should devote fewer resources to shoring up foreign armies and more to bolstering schools both at home and abroad.
In the meantime, I encourage you to conduct your own research in Costa Rica, exploring those magnificent beaches or admiring those slothful sloths. It’ll surely make you happy.
...ก็เลยอยากรู้เหมือนกันว่าที่เมืองไทยล้าหลังดักดานอยู่ทุกวันนี้เป็นเพราะอะไร
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Sunday, December 20, 2009
ขนาดหนังสือพิมพ์ยังไม่เข้าใจประเด็นแล้วนับประสาอะไร...
เชื่อบ้านเมืองวุ่นเพราะความเห็นแตก
เดลินิวส์
วันอาทิตย์ ที่ 20 ธันวาคม 2552 เวลา 13:24 น
'นิคม'เปิดสัมมนา เผยสังคมมีความแตกแยกทางด้านความคิด ต้นเหตุทำบ้านเมืองวุ่นวาย
วันนี้(20 ธ.ค.) ที่รัฐสภา สถาบันพระปกเกล้าร่วมกับ รัฐสภา กระทรวงศึกษาธิการ จัดโครงการสัมมนาเรื่อง การเสริมสร้างและเผยแพร่ความรู้ ความเข้าใจทางการเมือง การปกครองในระบอบประชาธิปไตยอันมีพระมหากษัตย์ทรงเป็นประมุข ให้แก่ผู้บริหารสถานศึกษาในสังกัดคณะกรรมการ การศึกษาขั้นพื้นที่ฐาน รุ่นที่ 4 โดยมีนายนิคม ไวยรัชพานิช รองประธานวุฒิสภาคนที่ 2 เป็นประธานพร้อมกล่าวเปิดงานตอนหนึ่งว่า รัฐสภา มีความคาดหวังว่า ผู้บริหารสถานศึกษาจะนำหลักการเรื่องประชาธิปไตยไปเผยแพร่ให้กับเด็กนักเรียนได้เข้าใจ ว่า ความแตกต่างทางความคิดเห็นทางสังคม ถือเป็นเรื่องปกติในระบอบประชาธิปไตย ทั้งนี้ขณะสังคมมีความแตกแยกทางด้านความคิด และการเมือง ตรงนี้ถือเป็นความสวยงามในระบอบประชาธิปไตย แต่ปรากฏว่าวันนี้ สังคมไทยไม่ยอมรับความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่าง จึงเป็นต้นเหตุทำให้บ้านเมืองวุ่นวาย.
--------------------
คนพูดๆ อย่าง แต่นักข่าวพาดหัวอีกอย่าง
ความจริงเขาบอกว่าการไม่ยอมรับความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่างต่างหากที่เป็นปัญหา
เฮ้อ
เดลินิวส์
วันอาทิตย์ ที่ 20 ธันวาคม 2552 เวลา 13:24 น
'นิคม'เปิดสัมมนา เผยสังคมมีความแตกแยกทางด้านความคิด ต้นเหตุทำบ้านเมืองวุ่นวาย
วันนี้(20 ธ.ค.) ที่รัฐสภา สถาบันพระปกเกล้าร่วมกับ รัฐสภา กระทรวงศึกษาธิการ จัดโครงการสัมมนาเรื่อง การเสริมสร้างและเผยแพร่ความรู้ ความเข้าใจทางการเมือง การปกครองในระบอบประชาธิปไตยอันมีพระมหากษัตย์ทรงเป็นประมุข ให้แก่ผู้บริหารสถานศึกษาในสังกัดคณะกรรมการ การศึกษาขั้นพื้นที่ฐาน รุ่นที่ 4 โดยมีนายนิคม ไวยรัชพานิช รองประธานวุฒิสภาคนที่ 2 เป็นประธานพร้อมกล่าวเปิดงานตอนหนึ่งว่า รัฐสภา มีความคาดหวังว่า ผู้บริหารสถานศึกษาจะนำหลักการเรื่องประชาธิปไตยไปเผยแพร่ให้กับเด็กนักเรียนได้เข้าใจ ว่า ความแตกต่างทางความคิดเห็นทางสังคม ถือเป็นเรื่องปกติในระบอบประชาธิปไตย ทั้งนี้ขณะสังคมมีความแตกแยกทางด้านความคิด และการเมือง ตรงนี้ถือเป็นความสวยงามในระบอบประชาธิปไตย แต่ปรากฏว่าวันนี้ สังคมไทยไม่ยอมรับความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่าง จึงเป็นต้นเหตุทำให้บ้านเมืองวุ่นวาย.
--------------------
คนพูดๆ อย่าง แต่นักข่าวพาดหัวอีกอย่าง
ความจริงเขาบอกว่าการไม่ยอมรับความคิดเห็นที่แตกต่างต่างหากที่เป็นปัญหา
เฮ้อ
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Dwindling into insignificance
For one brief shining moment, it seemed as if Thailand would actually assume the mantle of regional leadership to which it had so openly aspired in its declarations of the country as a hub for this or hub for that. Now that moment of hope has receded into distant memory and the immediate challenge is how to prevent Thailand from a downward spiral into insignificance and irrelevance. Other countries in the region used to admire Thailand for its stability and progressiveness. Now they look upon Thailand with a mix of schadenfreude and fear of what might happen if they followed our example. Looks like we might be in for a lost decade until we sort out our domestic political problems.
Conflicts could hurt Thai role in Asean
By WICHIT CHAITRONG
THE NATION ON SUNDAY
Pattaya
Published on November 8, 2009
Thailand could lose its leadership role in Asean due to sour relations with neighbouring countries and internal political conflicts, experts have warned.
Speaking at the "Thailand Second Lecture" hosted by Nida Business School, former finance minister Somkid Jatusripitak expressed his concern about the country's image in both international politics and economic affairs.
"Our efforts should not be at a daily retaliation," said Somkid referring to the current sour relationship with Cambodia.
He said the country runs a high risk of losing credibility in the eyes of the world because of its self-defeating politics.
He lamented that while street politics had strengthened and caused deep social divisions, formal politics had weakened. "Nobody can guarantee that the next street protests will not lead to more violence," he said. Public confidence in the administration also has declined as people were starting to wonder how long the government would stay in power, he said.
The coalition government, led by the Democrats, has failed to centralise command and direct the path of development. Its efforts are aimed at day-to-day survival. So the government has no strategic plan for long-term development. Nor could it put the right people in the right jobs, he noted.
The government has to reinforce public confidence in the administration or it could plunge further, he warned.
He was concerned that the country could lose its leadership role in Asean and in the international community. He suggested that Thailand should stay close to emerging economic superpowers such as China, India and Australia. The country also needs to deepen its relationship with the United States.
"While global geopolitics have changed with the G-20 emerging as the new mechanism for global cooperation, Thailand has to position itself to fit into the new landscape, he suggested.
Somkid voiced concern about the long-term economic development of the country as the government was more preoccupied with short-term economic recovery. He said that though the government had no clear plan for economic restructuring, it planned to borrow a massive Bt800 billion. He warned that such large borrowings could destabilise the fiscal position due to the sharp rise in public debt.
Meanwhile, former foreign minister Surakiat Sathirathai shared Somkid's view that Thailand did not have a good relationship with its neighbours Burma, Laos and Cambodia. "When public opinion embraces nationalism, it is very difficult for the government to manage foreign policy," warned Surakiat.
He said that Thailand had a long history of being a friendly country and had many times been chosen as a venue for peace negotiations between conflicting outside parties.
He said that now foreigners, Thais and academics are confused about what is happening in the country. He pointed to an obscure legal system, such as laws and regulations related to the environment, which had led to conflict between local people and investors at the Map Ta Phut Eastern Seaboard industrial complex. While investors insist that they follow the rules for reducing pollution emission, local people do suffer from aggregate pollution. "We should ask how to develop our country without any harmful impact on the health of the local people, instead of engaging in a dispute on who does or does not follow the environment rules," said Surakiat.
Conflicts could hurt Thai role in Asean
By WICHIT CHAITRONG
THE NATION ON SUNDAY
Pattaya
Published on November 8, 2009
Thailand could lose its leadership role in Asean due to sour relations with neighbouring countries and internal political conflicts, experts have warned.
Speaking at the "Thailand Second Lecture" hosted by Nida Business School, former finance minister Somkid Jatusripitak expressed his concern about the country's image in both international politics and economic affairs.
"Our efforts should not be at a daily retaliation," said Somkid referring to the current sour relationship with Cambodia.
He said the country runs a high risk of losing credibility in the eyes of the world because of its self-defeating politics.
He lamented that while street politics had strengthened and caused deep social divisions, formal politics had weakened. "Nobody can guarantee that the next street protests will not lead to more violence," he said. Public confidence in the administration also has declined as people were starting to wonder how long the government would stay in power, he said.
The coalition government, led by the Democrats, has failed to centralise command and direct the path of development. Its efforts are aimed at day-to-day survival. So the government has no strategic plan for long-term development. Nor could it put the right people in the right jobs, he noted.
The government has to reinforce public confidence in the administration or it could plunge further, he warned.
He was concerned that the country could lose its leadership role in Asean and in the international community. He suggested that Thailand should stay close to emerging economic superpowers such as China, India and Australia. The country also needs to deepen its relationship with the United States.
"While global geopolitics have changed with the G-20 emerging as the new mechanism for global cooperation, Thailand has to position itself to fit into the new landscape, he suggested.
Somkid voiced concern about the long-term economic development of the country as the government was more preoccupied with short-term economic recovery. He said that though the government had no clear plan for economic restructuring, it planned to borrow a massive Bt800 billion. He warned that such large borrowings could destabilise the fiscal position due to the sharp rise in public debt.
Meanwhile, former foreign minister Surakiat Sathirathai shared Somkid's view that Thailand did not have a good relationship with its neighbours Burma, Laos and Cambodia. "When public opinion embraces nationalism, it is very difficult for the government to manage foreign policy," warned Surakiat.
He said that Thailand had a long history of being a friendly country and had many times been chosen as a venue for peace negotiations between conflicting outside parties.
He said that now foreigners, Thais and academics are confused about what is happening in the country. He pointed to an obscure legal system, such as laws and regulations related to the environment, which had led to conflict between local people and investors at the Map Ta Phut Eastern Seaboard industrial complex. While investors insist that they follow the rules for reducing pollution emission, local people do suffer from aggregate pollution. "We should ask how to develop our country without any harmful impact on the health of the local people, instead of engaging in a dispute on who does or does not follow the environment rules," said Surakiat.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
คนบ้าที่ว่ายน้ำหาอองซานซูจีชื่ออะไร
เขาชื่อ John Yettaw แต่คนไทยออกเสียงเป็น Yittaw ทั้งๆ ที่นามสกุลเขาไม่มีสระ i ในนั้นสักกะหน่อย ไม่ทราบเหมือนกันครับว่าทำไม
ไม่ใช่อะไรหรอกครับ ผมกลัวว่าถ้าคุณเจอคนถามว่า Have you eaten? = คุณรับประทานอาหารหรือยัง (กินข้าวหรือยังวะ) ถ้าคุณยึดหลักเดียวกับที่ใช้ในการออกเสียงนามสกุลของนาย Yettaw แล้ว คุณอาจจะตอบว่า Not yit. ซึ่งจะทำให้ผู้ถามงงเปล่าๆ
Sunday, March 29, 2009
หยุดทำลายประเทศ
ประโยคที่ผมได้ยินเมื่อเร็วๆ นี้และสะดุดหูคือ “หยุดทำลายประเทศ”
ที่สะดุดหูเพราะมันเป็นประโยคที่แรง แต่ถ้าพิจารณาดีๆ แล้วความหมายคลุมเครือเป็นอย่างยิ่ง
เพราะเราไม่อาจทราบได้ว่าการทำลายประเทศในความหมายที่ตั้งใจนั้นคืออะไรถ้าเราไม่ดูว่าใครเป็นผู้พูด
อย่างที่ฝรั่งเขาว่านั่นแหละครับ Where you stand depends on where you sit. = ท่าทีของคุณขึ้นอยู่กับว่าคุณนั่งอยู่ตรงไหน
ถ้าเราเป็นฝ่ายที่อยู่ในอำนาจก็อาจมองว่าพวกที่ต่อต้านเราเป็นพวกทำลายประเทศ
แต่ถ้าเราเป็นฝ่ายต่อต้านเสียเองก็อาจมองว่าพวกที่อยู่ในอำนาจนั่นแหละเป็นตัวทำลายประเทศ
หาคำตอบอันปราศจากอคติได้ยากยิ่ง
แล้วก็ทำให้ผมคิดต่อว่าจริงๆ แล้วพวกเราทุกคนก็คงมีส่วนทำลายประเทศคนละนิดคนละหน่อยแหละ
ทุกครั้งที่เราฝ่าไฟแดง
ทุกครั้งที่เราใช้เส้นฝากลูกเข้าโรงเรียนและตัดโอกาสเด็กที่เรียนเก่งกว่าแต่ไร้เส้น
ทุกครั้งที่เรามุ่งกำไรจนไม่สนใจว่าสินค้าของเราจะเป็นภัยต่อสุขภาพลูกค้าเราแค่ไหน
ทุกครั้งที่เรามองว่าคนที่มีความเห็นไม่ตรงกับเราเป็นศัตรู ต้องทำลายล้างให้ได้
สิ่งเหล่านี้และอื่นๆ อีกมากมาย นับเป็นการทำลายประเทศทีละนิดๆ ทำให้ประเทศเราตายช้าๆ ในลักษณะที่เรียกว่า death by a thousand cuts = การตายโดยกรีด (หรือตัด) หนึ่งพันแผล
แต่ในขณะเดียวกันพวกเราทุกคนก็คงมีส่วนช่วยสร้างความเจริญให้กับประเทศคนละนิดคนละหน่อยเหมือนกัน
ทุกครั้งที่เราเอื้อเฟื้อเผื่อแผ่
ทุกครั้งที่เราใจกว้างยอมรับฟังความคิดเห็นของคนอื่น
ทุกครั้งที่เราห่วงใยเพื่อนคนไทยด้วยกัน เอาใจเขามาใส่ใจเรา ไม่ว่าเขาจะแตกต่างจากเราแค่ไหน
การทำลายประเทศหรือสร้างความเจริญให้กับประเทศเป็นสิ่งที่พวกเราทำกันทุกวันอยู่แล้ว ไม่ว่าจะโดยตั้งใจหรือไม่
เราลองมาดูกันสิครับว่าในแต่ละวัน การกระทำของเราเข้าข่ายไหนมากกว่ากัน
แล้วมาดูซิว่าเราจะเลิกทำลายประเทศและหันมาตั้งหน้ืาตั้งตาสร้างความเจริญให้กับประเทศกันได้ไหม
ที่สะดุดหูเพราะมันเป็นประโยคที่แรง แต่ถ้าพิจารณาดีๆ แล้วความหมายคลุมเครือเป็นอย่างยิ่ง
เพราะเราไม่อาจทราบได้ว่าการทำลายประเทศในความหมายที่ตั้งใจนั้นคืออะไรถ้าเราไม่ดูว่าใครเป็นผู้พูด
อย่างที่ฝรั่งเขาว่านั่นแหละครับ Where you stand depends on where you sit. = ท่าทีของคุณขึ้นอยู่กับว่าคุณนั่งอยู่ตรงไหน
ถ้าเราเป็นฝ่ายที่อยู่ในอำนาจก็อาจมองว่าพวกที่ต่อต้านเราเป็นพวกทำลายประเทศ
แต่ถ้าเราเป็นฝ่ายต่อต้านเสียเองก็อาจมองว่าพวกที่อยู่ในอำนาจนั่นแหละเป็นตัวทำลายประเทศ
หาคำตอบอันปราศจากอคติได้ยากยิ่ง
แล้วก็ทำให้ผมคิดต่อว่าจริงๆ แล้วพวกเราทุกคนก็คงมีส่วนทำลายประเทศคนละนิดคนละหน่อยแหละ
ทุกครั้งที่เราฝ่าไฟแดง
ทุกครั้งที่เราใช้เส้นฝากลูกเข้าโรงเรียนและตัดโอกาสเด็กที่เรียนเก่งกว่าแต่ไร้เส้น
ทุกครั้งที่เรามุ่งกำไรจนไม่สนใจว่าสินค้าของเราจะเป็นภัยต่อสุขภาพลูกค้าเราแค่ไหน
ทุกครั้งที่เรามองว่าคนที่มีความเห็นไม่ตรงกับเราเป็นศัตรู ต้องทำลายล้างให้ได้
สิ่งเหล่านี้และอื่นๆ อีกมากมาย นับเป็นการทำลายประเทศทีละนิดๆ ทำให้ประเทศเราตายช้าๆ ในลักษณะที่เรียกว่า death by a thousand cuts = การตายโดยกรีด (หรือตัด) หนึ่งพันแผล
แต่ในขณะเดียวกันพวกเราทุกคนก็คงมีส่วนช่วยสร้างความเจริญให้กับประเทศคนละนิดคนละหน่อยเหมือนกัน
ทุกครั้งที่เราเอื้อเฟื้อเผื่อแผ่
ทุกครั้งที่เราใจกว้างยอมรับฟังความคิดเห็นของคนอื่น
ทุกครั้งที่เราห่วงใยเพื่อนคนไทยด้วยกัน เอาใจเขามาใส่ใจเรา ไม่ว่าเขาจะแตกต่างจากเราแค่ไหน
การทำลายประเทศหรือสร้างความเจริญให้กับประเทศเป็นสิ่งที่พวกเราทำกันทุกวันอยู่แล้ว ไม่ว่าจะโดยตั้งใจหรือไม่
เราลองมาดูกันสิครับว่าในแต่ละวัน การกระทำของเราเข้าข่ายไหนมากกว่ากัน
แล้วมาดูซิว่าเราจะเลิกทำลายประเทศและหันมาตั้งหน้ืาตั้งตาสร้างความเจริญให้กับประเทศกันได้ไหม
Friday, February 13, 2009
Explanation on "hazardous" herbs doesn't wash
Officials back off herb listings
By: BangkokPost.com
Published: 12/02/2009
The Department of Agriculture chief Somchai Charnarongkul held a press conference Thursday to apologise public for causing confusion after the Industry Ministry listed 13 widely used herbal plants as hazardous substances.
Mr Somchai insisted that the announcement on listing the plants as "hazardous substances type 1" under the 1992 Hazardous Substances Act was aimed at controling the commercialisation of the plants.
Why does commercialisation of the plants need to be controlled? And why does the control require that the plants be branded as hazardous? This doesn't compute.
Production of the plants for consumption in household or in local communities is not prohibited, he said.
The objective of the announcement is to prevent farmers from being fooled into buying products manufactured from the herbal plants that are sub-standard, he added.
Are farmers really that stupid? Once they buy a substandard organic pesticide, they're not likely to buy it again. The word gets around and substandard products get weeded out by the market. And even if they really are that stupid, what harm is there except they lose money and can't effectively eliminate pests? Where is the hazard?
He insisted that there is no motive behind the announcement, and that it is not meant to benefit any private or international companies.
Don't believe anything until you hear an official denial.
He also said that he has proposed the hazardous substances committee to amend the announcement.
On Wednesday, organic farming advocates threatened to take the Industry Ministry to court if it refuses to revoke its decision to list the 13 herbs as hazardous plants.
The herbs include chili, lemon grass, turmeric, ginger and neem.
By: BangkokPost.com
Published: 12/02/2009
The Department of Agriculture chief Somchai Charnarongkul held a press conference Thursday to apologise public for causing confusion after the Industry Ministry listed 13 widely used herbal plants as hazardous substances.
Mr Somchai insisted that the announcement on listing the plants as "hazardous substances type 1" under the 1992 Hazardous Substances Act was aimed at controling the commercialisation of the plants.
Why does commercialisation of the plants need to be controlled? And why does the control require that the plants be branded as hazardous? This doesn't compute.
Production of the plants for consumption in household or in local communities is not prohibited, he said.
The objective of the announcement is to prevent farmers from being fooled into buying products manufactured from the herbal plants that are sub-standard, he added.
Are farmers really that stupid? Once they buy a substandard organic pesticide, they're not likely to buy it again. The word gets around and substandard products get weeded out by the market. And even if they really are that stupid, what harm is there except they lose money and can't effectively eliminate pests? Where is the hazard?
He insisted that there is no motive behind the announcement, and that it is not meant to benefit any private or international companies.
Don't believe anything until you hear an official denial.
He also said that he has proposed the hazardous substances committee to amend the announcement.
On Wednesday, organic farming advocates threatened to take the Industry Ministry to court if it refuses to revoke its decision to list the 13 herbs as hazardous plants.
The herbs include chili, lemon grass, turmeric, ginger and neem.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
เงาปีศาจเกษตร
เห็นข่าวนี้แล้วก็อยากจะอุทานว่า Jesus Christ = แม่เจ้าโว้ย เพราะทำกันโจ่งแจ้ง ขัดต่อสามัญสำนึกเหลือเกิน
จะอธิบายข้างๆ คูๆ ว่าต้องการจะควบคุมคุณภาพเพื่อความปลอดภัยของผู้บริโภคยังไงก็ฟังไม่ขึ้น
เป้าหมายของการทำอย่างนี้ตีความได้อย่างเดียวว่าต้องการจะสร้างความลำบากและความกลัวให้เกษตรกรรายย่อย จะได้ไม่กล้าใช้สมุนไพรพื้นบ้านเหล่านี้ ต้องหันมาใช้สารเคมีของบริษัทเกษตรยักษ์ใหญ่แทน คล้ายๆ กับที่บริษัทเกษตรยักษ์ใหญ่ของต่างประเทศพยายามเป็นเจ้าของพืชเกษตรทั้งหมดโดยการพัฒนา GMO ขึ้นมา
ถ้าพฤติกรรมอย่างนี้ไม่เรียกว่า disgraceful (ดิสเกร๊สฝุ่ล) = อัปยศ ก็ไม่ทราบว่าจะเรียกว่าอะไรแล้วครับ
Farmers up in arms at herb listing
Chilli, turmeric, ginger branded 'hazardous'
By: KULTIDA SAMABUDDHI and APIRADEE TREERUTKUARKUL
Bangkok Post, 11 February 2009
Farmers and traditional medicine experts have reacted angrily to the listing of 13 widely used herbal plants as hazardous substances, suggesting there is a hidden agenda that favours chemical companies.
The Industry Ministry listed the 13 plants as hazardous substances to control production and commercialisation.
The plants are widely used among farmers as alternatives for expensive and toxic farm chemicals, pesticides and herbicides.
The announcement on listing the plants as "hazardous substances type 1" under the 1992 Hazardous Substances Act was approved by Industry Minister Charnchai Chairungruang last month. It took effect on Feb 3.
Proposed by the Department of Agriculture, which is a member of the hazardous substances committee, the announcement requires growers, manufacturers, importers and exporters of pesticides, herbicides and plant disease control substances made from the 13 herbal plants to follow safety and quality control regulations issued by the committee. Otherwise they will face six months in jail and/or a fine of 50,000 baht.
Farmer advocates yesterday said putting the herbal plants on the controlled list would hurt growers as they could no longer produce, trade and use botanical pesticides and herbicides freely.
Farmers and producers of the organic substances might have to pay more for registration, packaging and testing as required by the law, said Witoon Lianchamroon, of Biothai, a non-government organisation working on organic farming.
He suspected the motive behind the listing.
Multinational chemical companies are expected to benefit once production and commercialisation of the alternative substances is curbed, he said.
Large numbers of farmers have switched recently from imported chemicals to botanical substances as they are much cheaper and safer, he said.
"Instead of tightening controls on these farmer-friendly herbal plants, the committee should crack down on multinational companies who exploit Thai farmers by luring them into buying their highly toxic and costly products," Mr Witoon said.
Tussanee Verakan, coordinator of the Alternative Agriculture Network, said the committee produced the list in secret without consulting farmers who would be the hardest-hit.
"The government keeps promoting organic farming and reduction of chemical use," she said.
"Why did they put such heavy restrictions on organic substances which are the heart of organic farming?"
Department deputy chief Jirakorn Kosaisevi insisted the listing was aimed at protecting benefits for farmers.
"The announcement is not intended to protect chemical producers," Mr Jirakorn said.
"These botanical pesticides are widely used and traded. They should be controlled to ensure they are up to standard."
The new regulation would help promote herbal products, he said.
Department for Development of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine deputy director-general Prapot Paetrakas said the 13 plants were core materials in herbal medicines. Controlling their manufacture and trade could affect the herbal medicine industry, he said.
The department will discuss the issue with legal experts and others on Friday.
จะอธิบายข้างๆ คูๆ ว่าต้องการจะควบคุมคุณภาพเพื่อความปลอดภัยของผู้บริโภคยังไงก็ฟังไม่ขึ้น
เป้าหมายของการทำอย่างนี้ตีความได้อย่างเดียวว่าต้องการจะสร้างความลำบากและความกลัวให้เกษตรกรรายย่อย จะได้ไม่กล้าใช้สมุนไพรพื้นบ้านเหล่านี้ ต้องหันมาใช้สารเคมีของบริษัทเกษตรยักษ์ใหญ่แทน คล้ายๆ กับที่บริษัทเกษตรยักษ์ใหญ่ของต่างประเทศพยายามเป็นเจ้าของพืชเกษตรทั้งหมดโดยการพัฒนา GMO ขึ้นมา
ถ้าพฤติกรรมอย่างนี้ไม่เรียกว่า disgraceful (ดิสเกร๊สฝุ่ล) = อัปยศ ก็ไม่ทราบว่าจะเรียกว่าอะไรแล้วครับ
Farmers up in arms at herb listing
Chilli, turmeric, ginger branded 'hazardous'
By: KULTIDA SAMABUDDHI and APIRADEE TREERUTKUARKUL
Bangkok Post, 11 February 2009
Farmers and traditional medicine experts have reacted angrily to the listing of 13 widely used herbal plants as hazardous substances, suggesting there is a hidden agenda that favours chemical companies.
The Industry Ministry listed the 13 plants as hazardous substances to control production and commercialisation.
The plants are widely used among farmers as alternatives for expensive and toxic farm chemicals, pesticides and herbicides.
The announcement on listing the plants as "hazardous substances type 1" under the 1992 Hazardous Substances Act was approved by Industry Minister Charnchai Chairungruang last month. It took effect on Feb 3.
Proposed by the Department of Agriculture, which is a member of the hazardous substances committee, the announcement requires growers, manufacturers, importers and exporters of pesticides, herbicides and plant disease control substances made from the 13 herbal plants to follow safety and quality control regulations issued by the committee. Otherwise they will face six months in jail and/or a fine of 50,000 baht.
Farmer advocates yesterday said putting the herbal plants on the controlled list would hurt growers as they could no longer produce, trade and use botanical pesticides and herbicides freely.
Farmers and producers of the organic substances might have to pay more for registration, packaging and testing as required by the law, said Witoon Lianchamroon, of Biothai, a non-government organisation working on organic farming.
He suspected the motive behind the listing.
Multinational chemical companies are expected to benefit once production and commercialisation of the alternative substances is curbed, he said.
Large numbers of farmers have switched recently from imported chemicals to botanical substances as they are much cheaper and safer, he said.
"Instead of tightening controls on these farmer-friendly herbal plants, the committee should crack down on multinational companies who exploit Thai farmers by luring them into buying their highly toxic and costly products," Mr Witoon said.
Tussanee Verakan, coordinator of the Alternative Agriculture Network, said the committee produced the list in secret without consulting farmers who would be the hardest-hit.
"The government keeps promoting organic farming and reduction of chemical use," she said.
"Why did they put such heavy restrictions on organic substances which are the heart of organic farming?"
Department deputy chief Jirakorn Kosaisevi insisted the listing was aimed at protecting benefits for farmers.
"The announcement is not intended to protect chemical producers," Mr Jirakorn said.
"These botanical pesticides are widely used and traded. They should be controlled to ensure they are up to standard."
The new regulation would help promote herbal products, he said.
Department for Development of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine deputy director-general Prapot Paetrakas said the 13 plants were core materials in herbal medicines. Controlling their manufacture and trade could affect the herbal medicine industry, he said.
The department will discuss the issue with legal experts and others on Friday.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
ภาษาอังกฤษบิดๆ เบี้ยวๆ
การใช้ภาษาอังกฤษโดยไม่มีพื้นฐานเลย อาศัยแต่การเปิดดิก เป็นสิ่งที่อันตรายยิ่ง เพราะมีความเป็นไปได้สูงว่าจะเข้ารกเข้าพงชนิดกู่ไม่กลับ
เช่นป้ายร้านอาหารที่เชียงรายแห่งนี้ เราเป็นคนไทยอ่านแล้วอาจจะคิดว่าไม่มีอะไรแปลก แต่ฝรั่งจะต้องเกาหัว
(ภาพถ่ายโดย William Adams)
เพราะว่าอย่าง "ปลาหมึกย่างหนวดเล็ก" เนี่ย เขาดันแปลว่า The moustache is tiny squid roasts
เรารู้ภาษาไทยอยู่แล้วก็สามารถแปลกลับเป็นไทยได้อย่างง่ายดาย แต่ในภาษาอังกฤษ moustache แปลว่า หนวด (ของคน) น่ะครับ ถ้าเขียนแบบนี้ก็จะนึกถึงภาพปลาหมึกมีหนวดเรียวงามเหนือริมฝีปากบน เพียงแต่ว่าเราไม่รู้ว่าริมฝีปากบนของมันอยู่ตรงไหน
หนวดปลาหมึก ต้องเรียกว่า tentacle(s) ครับ (กรุณาอย่าสับสนกับ testicle(s) ซึ่งแปลว่า อัณฑะ)
และถ้าเราจะพูดว่า "ปลาหมึกหนวดเล็ก" ก็ควรใช้เป็น small-tentacled squid จะตรงกว่า เพราะ tiny แปลว่า ขนาดจิ๋ว (แล้วก็ไม่ต้องพยายามแต่งเป็นประโยคโดยมีกริยา to be เรียบร้อยล่ะครับ อย่างนั้นเรียกว่าเกินพอดี)
ปลาหมึกย่างหนวดยักษ์ก็ทำนองเดียวกันครับ ไม่ควรใช้คำว่า moustache แต่ที่ซ้ำร้ายคือแปลคำว่า "ยักษ์" เป็น demon สงสัยจะเคยอ่านหนังสือนำเที่ยวที่กล่าวถึงยักษ์วัดพระแก้วว่าเป็น demons
จริงๆ แล้ว demon แปลว่า ปีศาจ ครับ ถ้าเราจะพูดว่าอะไรมีขนาดใหญ่ยักษ์ควรใช้คำว่า giant มากกว่า เช่น giant-tentacled squid = ปลาหมึกหนวดยักษ์
และสิ่งที่ลืมไม่ได้คือภาษาอังกฤษโดยทั่วไปควรให้วิเศษณ์นำหน้านาม เช่นแทนที่จะเป็น squid roast ก็ควรเป็น roast squid
และในที่นี้ควรใช้กริยา grilled มากกว่า roast เพราะเป็นการย่างถ่าน ไม่ใช่ย่างแบบอบ
เฮ้อ แค่คอลัมน์ซ้ายมือก็เหนื่อยแล้ว คอลัมน์ขวามือก็ยังมีผิดอีกเพียบ คุณผู้อ่านลองดูซิครับว่าควรเขียนแก้อย่างไรถึงจะสื่อความหมายให้ตรงตามเจตนาเจ้าของร้าน
เช่นป้ายร้านอาหารที่เชียงรายแห่งนี้ เราเป็นคนไทยอ่านแล้วอาจจะคิดว่าไม่มีอะไรแปลก แต่ฝรั่งจะต้องเกาหัว
(ภาพถ่ายโดย William Adams)เพราะว่าอย่าง "ปลาหมึกย่างหนวดเล็ก" เนี่ย เขาดันแปลว่า The moustache is tiny squid roasts
เรารู้ภาษาไทยอยู่แล้วก็สามารถแปลกลับเป็นไทยได้อย่างง่ายดาย แต่ในภาษาอังกฤษ moustache แปลว่า หนวด (ของคน) น่ะครับ ถ้าเขียนแบบนี้ก็จะนึกถึงภาพปลาหมึกมีหนวดเรียวงามเหนือริมฝีปากบน เพียงแต่ว่าเราไม่รู้ว่าริมฝีปากบนของมันอยู่ตรงไหน
หนวดปลาหมึก ต้องเรียกว่า tentacle(s) ครับ (กรุณาอย่าสับสนกับ testicle(s) ซึ่งแปลว่า อัณฑะ)
และถ้าเราจะพูดว่า "ปลาหมึกหนวดเล็ก" ก็ควรใช้เป็น small-tentacled squid จะตรงกว่า เพราะ tiny แปลว่า ขนาดจิ๋ว (แล้วก็ไม่ต้องพยายามแต่งเป็นประโยคโดยมีกริยา to be เรียบร้อยล่ะครับ อย่างนั้นเรียกว่าเกินพอดี)
ปลาหมึกย่างหนวดยักษ์ก็ทำนองเดียวกันครับ ไม่ควรใช้คำว่า moustache แต่ที่ซ้ำร้ายคือแปลคำว่า "ยักษ์" เป็น demon สงสัยจะเคยอ่านหนังสือนำเที่ยวที่กล่าวถึงยักษ์วัดพระแก้วว่าเป็น demons
จริงๆ แล้ว demon แปลว่า ปีศาจ ครับ ถ้าเราจะพูดว่าอะไรมีขนาดใหญ่ยักษ์ควรใช้คำว่า giant มากกว่า เช่น giant-tentacled squid = ปลาหมึกหนวดยักษ์
และสิ่งที่ลืมไม่ได้คือภาษาอังกฤษโดยทั่วไปควรให้วิเศษณ์นำหน้านาม เช่นแทนที่จะเป็น squid roast ก็ควรเป็น roast squid
และในที่นี้ควรใช้กริยา grilled มากกว่า roast เพราะเป็นการย่างถ่าน ไม่ใช่ย่างแบบอบ
เฮ้อ แค่คอลัมน์ซ้ายมือก็เหนื่อยแล้ว คอลัมน์ขวามือก็ยังมีผิดอีกเพียบ คุณผู้อ่านลองดูซิครับว่าควรเขียนแก้อย่างไรถึงจะสื่อความหมายให้ตรงตามเจตนาเจ้าของร้าน
Friday, February 06, 2009
Juxtaposition
เห็นข่าวในเว็บก็เลยมีคำที่น่ารู้จักโผล่ขึ้นมาแว๊บในสมอง
คำนั้นคือ juxtaposition (จั๊กสตาผะซิฉึ่น) แปลว่า การวางตำแหน่งเคียงข้างเพื่อการเปรียบเทียบ
เช่น The juxtaposition of the news articles suggest that the government gives greater importance to the military than to the country's children. = การวางบทข่าวเคียงข้างกันเพื่อเปรียบเทียบเช่นนั้นบ่งบอกว่ารัฐบาลให้ความสำคัญกับทหารมากกว่าเด็กๆ ของประเทศ
คำนั้นคือ juxtaposition (จั๊กสตาผะซิฉึ่น) แปลว่า การวางตำแหน่งเคียงข้างเพื่อการเปรียบเทียบ
เช่น The juxtaposition of the news articles suggest that the government gives greater importance to the military than to the country's children. = การวางบทข่าวเคียงข้างกันเพื่อเปรียบเทียบเช่นนั้นบ่งบอกว่ารัฐบาลให้ความสำคัญกับทหารมากกว่าเด็กๆ ของประเทศ
ไม่เข้าใจ
โดยมากเราจะเห็นนักการเมืองที่ไม่เข้าใจอะไรเลยทำทีเหมือนกับว่าตัวเองรู้ไปทุกเรื่อง แต่ช่วงนี้แปลก คือนักการเมืองไทยที่น่าจะเข้าใจเรื่องราวต่างๆ ดีกลับทำทีราวกับว่าตัวเองไม่เข้าใจอะไรเลย
เรื่องผู้อพยพโรฮิงญาเป็นที่สนใจของโลกในส่วนที่เกี่ยวกับไทยเพราะว่า 1) มีการกล่าวอ้างว่าถูกทหารไทยทารุณกรรม 2) มีหลักฐานภาพถ่ายว่าการกล่าวอ้างดังกล่าวมีมูล 3) การทารุณกรรมที่กล่าวอ้างดังกล่าวนั้นหากเป็นจริงได้ทำให้คนตายราว 500 คน 4) รัฐบาลไทยที่อ้างว่าเชิดชูสิทธิมนุษยชนกลับปฏิเสธก่อนที่จะสอบสวนข้อเท็จจริง
ไม่มีใครตั้งข้อกังขากับนโยบายผลักดันผู้อพยพ เพราะหลายประเทศก็มีนโยบายทำนองเดียวกัน แต่ที่กังขาคือทำไมการผลักดันจึงทำด้วยความไร้มนุษยธรรมเช่นนั้น (คือลากออกไปในน่านน้ำสากลโดยไม่ให้อาหารและน้ำเพียงพอแล้วปล่อยให้ลอยเท้งเต้งตามยถากรรม)
นักการเมืองบางคนพยายาม spin ว่าสื่อต่างชาติสมคบร่วมคิดกันทำลายประเทศไทย สงสัยจะเป็นเพราะมีคนไทยบางกลุ่ม (จะใครซะอีกถ้าไม่ใช่ทักษิณ) จ้างให้เขียนเพื่อทำลายประเทศ
แต่อย่าลืมนะครับว่าตอนที่ทักษิณเป็นนายกรัฐมนตรี สื่อต่างชาติก็เป็นไม้เบื่อไม้เมากับรัฐบาลเหมือนกัน ถึงกับมีการไล่นักข่าว Far Eastern Economic Review สองนายออกนอกประเทศ
สมัยทักษิณเป็นนายกก็มีกรณีที่ทหารปฏิบัติต่อผู้คนราวกับไม่ใช่มนุษย์เช่นกัน นั่นคือการผูกมือไพล่หลังชาวไทยมุสลิมแล้วจับนอนคว่ำหน้าเรียงซ้อนกันเหมือนท่อนฟืนในรถบรรทุก จนหลายสิบคนตายเพราะถูกกดทับจนหายใจไม่ออกและขยับตัวไม่ได้
ตอนนั้นสื่อต่างชาติก็โจมตีรัฐบาลทักษิณในกรณีนี้และอีกหลายกรณี แต่สงสัยคนไทยที่หาว่าสื่อต่างขาติมีอคติไม่ได้อ่าน แบบเดียวกับเรื่องโรฮิงญานี่แหละครับ ต้องรอให้มีคนแปลให้อ่านเสียก่อน
ข้อเท็จจริงก็คือสื่อต่างชาติถือว่าเป็นหน้าที่ที่จะต้องจับตาสอดส่องดูพฤติกรรมของรัฐบาลที่อยู่ในอำนาจ ไม่ว่ารัฐบาลนั้นจะเป็นทักษิณหรืออภิสิทธิ์หรือใครก็แล้วแต่
ความจริงถ้ารัฐบาลสนใจชื่อเสียงของประเทศในสายตาประชาคมโลกก็ง่ายนิดเดียว คือแทนที่จะแกล้งโง่และคิดว่าคนไทยโง่พอที่จะหลงเชื่อไปด้วย ก็ให้มีการสอบสวนเหตุการณ์ที่เกิดขึ้นอย่างเที่ยงธรรมและโปร่งใส ซึ่งหมายความว่าอย่ามอบหมาย (หรือยอม) ให้ทหารสอบสวนกันเอง แต่ให้กรรมการที่เป็นกลางและไม่มีส่วนได้ส่วนเสียเป็นผู้ดำเนินการสอบสวน แค่นั้นก็เรียบร้อย
จะยากอยู่นิดเดียวก็ตรงที่เมืองไทยสมัยนี้หาคนที่เป็นกลางและไม่มีส่วนได้ส่วนเสียยากเต็มที
เรื่องผู้อพยพโรฮิงญาเป็นที่สนใจของโลกในส่วนที่เกี่ยวกับไทยเพราะว่า 1) มีการกล่าวอ้างว่าถูกทหารไทยทารุณกรรม 2) มีหลักฐานภาพถ่ายว่าการกล่าวอ้างดังกล่าวมีมูล 3) การทารุณกรรมที่กล่าวอ้างดังกล่าวนั้นหากเป็นจริงได้ทำให้คนตายราว 500 คน 4) รัฐบาลไทยที่อ้างว่าเชิดชูสิทธิมนุษยชนกลับปฏิเสธก่อนที่จะสอบสวนข้อเท็จจริง
ไม่มีใครตั้งข้อกังขากับนโยบายผลักดันผู้อพยพ เพราะหลายประเทศก็มีนโยบายทำนองเดียวกัน แต่ที่กังขาคือทำไมการผลักดันจึงทำด้วยความไร้มนุษยธรรมเช่นนั้น (คือลากออกไปในน่านน้ำสากลโดยไม่ให้อาหารและน้ำเพียงพอแล้วปล่อยให้ลอยเท้งเต้งตามยถากรรม)
นักการเมืองบางคนพยายาม spin ว่าสื่อต่างชาติสมคบร่วมคิดกันทำลายประเทศไทย สงสัยจะเป็นเพราะมีคนไทยบางกลุ่ม (จะใครซะอีกถ้าไม่ใช่ทักษิณ) จ้างให้เขียนเพื่อทำลายประเทศ
แต่อย่าลืมนะครับว่าตอนที่ทักษิณเป็นนายกรัฐมนตรี สื่อต่างชาติก็เป็นไม้เบื่อไม้เมากับรัฐบาลเหมือนกัน ถึงกับมีการไล่นักข่าว Far Eastern Economic Review สองนายออกนอกประเทศ
สมัยทักษิณเป็นนายกก็มีกรณีที่ทหารปฏิบัติต่อผู้คนราวกับไม่ใช่มนุษย์เช่นกัน นั่นคือการผูกมือไพล่หลังชาวไทยมุสลิมแล้วจับนอนคว่ำหน้าเรียงซ้อนกันเหมือนท่อนฟืนในรถบรรทุก จนหลายสิบคนตายเพราะถูกกดทับจนหายใจไม่ออกและขยับตัวไม่ได้
ตอนนั้นสื่อต่างชาติก็โจมตีรัฐบาลทักษิณในกรณีนี้และอีกหลายกรณี แต่สงสัยคนไทยที่หาว่าสื่อต่างขาติมีอคติไม่ได้อ่าน แบบเดียวกับเรื่องโรฮิงญานี่แหละครับ ต้องรอให้มีคนแปลให้อ่านเสียก่อน
ข้อเท็จจริงก็คือสื่อต่างชาติถือว่าเป็นหน้าที่ที่จะต้องจับตาสอดส่องดูพฤติกรรมของรัฐบาลที่อยู่ในอำนาจ ไม่ว่ารัฐบาลนั้นจะเป็นทักษิณหรืออภิสิทธิ์หรือใครก็แล้วแต่
ความจริงถ้ารัฐบาลสนใจชื่อเสียงของประเทศในสายตาประชาคมโลกก็ง่ายนิดเดียว คือแทนที่จะแกล้งโง่และคิดว่าคนไทยโง่พอที่จะหลงเชื่อไปด้วย ก็ให้มีการสอบสวนเหตุการณ์ที่เกิดขึ้นอย่างเที่ยงธรรมและโปร่งใส ซึ่งหมายความว่าอย่ามอบหมาย (หรือยอม) ให้ทหารสอบสวนกันเอง แต่ให้กรรมการที่เป็นกลางและไม่มีส่วนได้ส่วนเสียเป็นผู้ดำเนินการสอบสวน แค่นั้นก็เรียบร้อย
จะยากอยู่นิดเดียวก็ตรงที่เมืองไทยสมัยนี้หาคนที่เป็นกลางและไม่มีส่วนได้ส่วนเสียยากเต็มที
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Bye Bye Bush
ในที่สุดสหรัฐอเมริกาก็ได้ยินดีปรีดากับประธานาธิบดีคนใหม่ แต่ก่อนที่อดีตประธานาธิบดีบุชจะถูกกวาดลงถังขยะแห่งประวัติศาสตร์ในฐานะประธานาธิบดีที่แย่ที่สุด (หรืออย่างน้อยก็แย่ที่สุดคนหนึ่ง) ที่สหรัฐฯ เคยมีมา ผมขอเชิญคุณผู้อ่านมาโบกมือลาท่าน (อย่างสุภาพนะครับ อย่าลาท่านว่า Goodbye and good riddance! ล่ะ) ด้วยการย้อนกลับไปดูโวหารที่ท่านเอื้อนเอ่ยออกมาได้ราวกับคนปัญญาอ่อน (ต้องขอโทษคนปัญญาอ่อนจริงๆ ด้วยครับ) แทนที่จะเหมือนกับผู้นำประเทศที่มีอำนาจมากที่สุดในโลก
ครับ ผมหมายถึง Bushisms วาจาจากปากของท่านบุชที่ต้องเรียกอย่างนั้นเพราะท่านเป็นคนที่วางมาตรฐานใหม่ในแง่ของความที่ผู้ฟังๆ แล้วต้องถามว่า “อะไรวะ”
เริ่มจากอมตะวาจาของท่านอันดับที่ 10 นะครับ "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." = ครอบครัวเป็นที่ๆ ชาติของเราพบเจอความหวัง ที่ๆ ปีกติดความฝัน
ความจริงท่านควรพูดว่า where dreams take wing = ที่ๆ ความฝันติดปีก
อันดับที่ 9 ท่านพูดกับประชาชนว่า "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." = ผมรู้ว่ามันยากแค่ไหนที่พวกท่านจะเอาอาหารไปวางไว้บนครอบครัวของท่าน
สิ่งที่ท่านควรพูดคือ to put food on the family table หรือ to put food on the table ก็ได้ แปลว่า เอาอาหารไปวางบนโต๊ะครอบครัว หมายความว่า ทำงานหาเลี้ยงครอบครัว
อันดับที่ 8 ท่านพูดว่า "I hear there’s rumors on the Internets that we’re going to have a draft." = ผมได้ยินว่ามีข่าวลือทางอินเตอร์เน็ตว่าเราจะมีการเกณฑ์ทหาร
ความจริงท่านควรพูดว่า the Internet เพราะอินเตอร์เน็ตมีอยู่อันเดียว แต่ความที่ท่านเป็นคนรุ่นเก่าและหลายคนสังเกตว่าไม่ค่อยสนใจหรือสงสัยอะไร ก็เป็นไปได้ว่าท่านอาจนึกว่าเว็บไซท์เรียกว่าอินเตอร์เน็ต
อันดับที่ 7 ท่านกล่าวว่า "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." = ผมรู้ว่ามนุษย์กับปลาสามารถอยู่ร่วมกันได้อย่างสันติ
ประโยคนี้มีคำตอบได้อย่างเดียว คือ “อะไรวะ?”
อันดับที่ 6 ท่านกล่าวว่า "You work three jobs? Uniquely American, isn’t it? I mean, that is fantastic that you’re doing that." = คุณทำงานสามจ๊อบหรือ เป็นเอกลักษณ์อเมริกันจริงๆ นะ ผมหมายความว่าดีเยี่ยมเลยที่คุณทำอย่างนั้น
ที่ข้อความนี้เป็น Bushism นี้ไม่ใช่เพราะพูดผิดไวยากรณ์หรือสลับคำ แต่เพราะว่าท่านพูดกับหญิงที่หย่าสามีและต้องเลี้ยงลูกสามคน ซึ่งน่าจะเป็นการแสดงความเห็นใจมากกว่าที่จะแสดงความยินดี
อันดับที่ 5 คือ "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." กล่าวที่เมือง Poplar Bluff รัฐ Missouri เมื่อ 6 กันยายน ค.ศ. 2004
แปลว่า "หมอเก่งๆ หลายคนเกินไปเลิกอาชีพนี้ หมอสูตินรีเวชหลายคนเกินไปไม่สามารถฝึกปรือความรักกับผู้หญิงทั่วประเทศนี้ได้" ท่านคงไม่ตั้งใจให้มันออกมาเป็นอย่างนั้น แต่พอออกจากปากแล้วก็กลายเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของประวัติศาสตร์ไป
อันดับที่ 4 คือ "They misunderestimated me." กล่าวที่เมือง Bentonville รัฐ Arkansas (ออกเสียงว่า อ๊าร์ขั่นส่อ) เมื่อ 6 พฤศจิกายน ค.ศ. 2000
เป็นการบัญญัติศัพท์พิลึกกึกกือขึ้นมาซึ่งทุกคนจำได้ว่าเป็นยี่ห้อของประธานาธิบดีคนนี้ โดยสับสนปนเประหว่าง misunderstood = เข้าใจผิด กับ underestimated = ตีค่าต่ำไป
อันดับที่ 3 คือ "Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" กล่าวที่เมือง Florence รัฐ South Carolina เมื่อ 11 มกราคม ค.ศ. 2000
แปลว่า น้อยครั้งจะมีการถามว่า เด็กๆ ของเราเรียนรู้หรือเปล่า แต่เป็นการใช้ไวยากรณ์ที่แสดงว่าคนพูดไม่ได้เรียนรู้ภาษาอังกฤษของตัวเองดีพอ จริงๆ แล้วประโยคควรจะเป็น Are our children learning? เพราะ children เป็นพหูพจน์
อันดับที่ 2 คือ "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." กล่าวที่ Washington, D.C. เมื่อ 5 สิงหาคม ค.ศ. 2004
แปลว่า ศัตรูของเรามีหัวคิดริเริ่มสร้างสรรค์และพลิกแพลงเก่ง เราก็เหมือนกัน พวกเขาไม่เคยหยุดคิดวิธีใหม่ๆ ที่จะทำร้ายประเทศและประชาชนของเรา เราก็เหมือนกัน
ท่านคงจะตั้งใจหมายความว่าเราก็ไม่เคยหยุดคิดที่จะหยุดยั้งการทำร้ายประเทศและประชาชนของเรา แต่กลายเป็นว่าเราเองก็คิดจะทำร้ายประเทศและประชาชนตัวเองเหมือนกัน
และอันดับที่ 1 ซึ่งบ่งบอกถึงสมองที่มีการเดินสายไฟไม่เหมือนประธานาธิบดีที่ควรจะฉลาดกว่าคนทั่วไป คือ "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." กล่าวที่เมือง Nashville รัฐ Tennessee เมื่อ 17 กันยายน ค.ศ. 2002
ผมจะไม่พยายามแปลเพราะเกรงว่าจะทำให้สมองผมกลายเป็นอย่างสมองท่านบุชไปด้วย ขอบอกเพียงว่าความจริงภาษิตที่ท่านพยายามควักจากสมองอันสับสนของท่านคือ Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. = หลอกฉันครั้งหนึ่ง คุณน่าไม่อาย หลอกฉันได้สองครั้ง ฉันน่าไม่อาย
หมายความว่าถ้าคุณหลอกฉันได้ครั้งหนึ่ง คุณเป็นคนที่แย่ แต่ถ้าคุณหลอกฉันได้สองครั้ง แสดงว่าฉันเองเป็นคนที่แย่
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
วิญญาณนักหนังสือพิมพ์
บทความที่สะเทือนใจมากที่สุดบทหนึ่งเท่าที่ผมเคยอ่าน
And Then They Came For Me
Lasantha Wickrematunge
The Sunday Leader (Sri Lanka)
No other profession calls on its practitioners to lay down their lives for their art save the armed forces and, in Sri Lanka, journalism. In the course of the past few years, the independent media have increasingly come under attack. Electronic and print-media institutions have been burnt, bombed, sealed and coerced. Countless journalists have been harassed, threatened and killed. It has been my honour to belong to all those categories and now especially the last.
I have been in the business of journalism a good long time. Indeed, 2009 will be The Sunday Leader's 15th year. Many things have changed in Sri Lanka during that time, and it does not need me to tell you that the greater part of that change has been for the worse. We find ourselves in the midst of a civil war ruthlessly prosecuted by protagonists whose bloodlust knows no bounds. Terror, whether perpetrated by terrorists or the state, has become the order of the day. Indeed, murder has become the primary tool whereby the state seeks to control the organs of liberty. Today it is the journalists, tomorrow it will be the judges. For neither group have the risks ever been higher or the stakes lower.
Why then do we do it? I often wonder that. After all, I too am a husband, and the father of three wonderful children. I too have responsibilities and obligations that transcend my profession, be it the law or journalism. Is it worth the risk? Many people tell me it is not. Friends tell me to revert to the bar, and goodness knows it offers a better and safer livelihood. Others, including political leaders on both sides, have at various times sought to induce me to take to politics, going so far as to offer me ministries of my choice. Diplomats, recognising the risk journalists face in Sri Lanka, have offered me safe passage and the right of residence in their countries. Whatever else I may have been stuck for, I have not been stuck for choice.
But there is a calling that is yet above high office, fame, lucre and security. It is the call of conscience.
The Sunday Leader has been a controversial newspaper because we say it like we see it: whether it be a spade, a thief or a murderer, we call it by that name. We do not hide behind euphemism. The investigative articles we print are supported by documentary evidence thanks to the public-spiritedness of citizens who at great risk to themselves pass on this material to us. We have exposed scandal after scandal, and never once in these 15 years has anyone proved us wrong or successfully prosecuted us.
The free media serve as a mirror in which the public can see itself sans mascara and styling gel. From us you learn the state of your nation, and especially its management by the people you elected to give your children a better future. Sometimes the image you see in that mirror is not a pleasant one. But while you may grumble in the privacy of your armchair, the journalists who hold the mirror up to you do so publicly and at great risk to themselves. That is our calling, and we do not shirk it.
Every newspaper has its angle, and we do not hide the fact that we have ours. Our commitment is to see Sri Lanka as a transparent, secular, liberal democracy. Think about those words, for they each has profound meaning. Transparent because government must be openly accountable to the people and never abuse their trust. Secular because in a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society such as ours, secularism offers the only common ground by which we might all be united. Liberal because we recognise that all human beings are created different, and we need to accept others for what they are and not what we would like them to be. And democratic... well, if you need me to explain why that is important, you'd best stop buying this paper.
The Sunday Leader has never sought safety by unquestioningly articulating the majority view. Let's face it, that is the way to sell newspapers. On the contrary, as our opinion pieces over the years amply demonstrate, we often voice ideas that many people find distasteful. For example, we have consistently espoused the view that while separatist terrorism must be eradicated, it is more important to address the root causes of terrorism, and urged government to view Sri Lanka's ethnic strife in the context of history and not through the telescope of terrorism. We have also agitated against state terrorism in the so-called war against terror, and made no secret of our horror that Sri Lanka is the only country in the world routinely to bomb its own citizens. For these views we have been labelled traitors, and if this be treachery, we wear that label proudly.
Many people suspect that The Sunday Leader has a political agenda: it does not. If we appear more critical of the government than of the opposition it is only because we believe that - pray excuse cricketing argot - there is no point in bowling to the fielding side. Remember that for the few years of our existence in which the UNP was in office, we proved to be the biggest thorn in its flesh, exposing excess and corruption wherever it occurred. Indeed, the steady stream of embarrassing expos‚s we published may well have served to precipitate the downfall of that government.
Neither should our distaste for the war be interpreted to mean that we support the Tigers. The LTTE are among the most ruthless and bloodthirsty organisations ever to have infested the planet. There is no gainsaying that it must be eradicated. But to do so by violating the rights of Tamil citizens, bombing and shooting them mercilessly, is not only wrong but shames the Sinhalese, whose claim to be custodians of the dhamma is forever called into question by this savagery, much of which is unknown to the public because of censorship.
What is more, a military occupation of the country's north and east will require the Tamil people of those regions to live eternally as second-class citizens, deprived of all self respect. Do not imagine that you can placate them by showering "development" and "reconstruction" on them in the post-war era. The wounds of war will scar them forever, and you will also have an even more bitter and hateful Diaspora to contend with. A problem amenable to a political solution will thus become a festering wound that will yield strife for all eternity. If I seem angry and frustrated, it is only because most of my countrymen - and all of the government - cannot see this writing so plainly on the wall.
It is well known that I was on two occasions brutally assaulted, while on another my house was sprayed with machine-gun fire. Despite the government's sanctimonious assurances, there was never a serious police inquiry into the perpetrators of these attacks, and the attackers were never apprehended. In all these cases, I have reason to believe the attacks were inspired by the government. When finally I am killed, it will be the government that kills me.
The irony in this is that, unknown to most of the public, Mahinda and I have been friends for more than a quarter century. Indeed, I suspect that I am one of the few people remaining who routinely addresses him by his first name and uses the familiar Sinhala address oya when talking to him. Although I do not attend the meetings he periodically holds for newspaper editors, hardly a month passes when we do not meet, privately or with a few close friends present, late at night at President's House. There we swap yarns, discuss politics and joke about the good old days. A few remarks to him would therefore be in order here.
Mahinda, when you finally fought your way to the SLFP presidential nomination in 2005, nowhere were you welcomed more warmly than in this column. Indeed, we broke with a decade of tradition by referring to you throughout by your first name. So well known were your commitments to human rights and liberal values that we ushered you in like a breath of fresh air. Then, through an act of folly, you got yourself involved in the Helping Hambantota scandal. It was after a lot of soul-searching that we broke the story, at the same time urging you to return the money. By the time you did so several weeks later, a great blow had been struck to your reputation. It is one you are still trying to live down.
You have told me yourself that you were not greedy for the presidency. You did not have to hanker after it: it fell into your lap. You have told me that your sons are your greatest joy, and that you love spending time with them, leaving your brothers to operate the machinery of state. Now, it is clear to all who will see that that machinery has operated so well that my sons and daughter do not themselves have a father.
In the wake of my death I know you will make all the usual sanctimonious noises and call upon the police to hold a swift and thorough inquiry. But like all the inquiries you have ordered in the past, nothing will come of this one, too. For truth be told, we both know who will be behind my death, but dare not call his name. Not just my life, but yours too, depends on it.
Sadly, for all the dreams you had for our country in your younger days, in just three years you have reduced it to rubble. In the name of patriotism you have trampled on human rights, nurtured unbridled corruption and squandered public money like no other President before you. Indeed, your conduct has been like a small child suddenly let loose in a toyshop. That analogy is perhaps inapt because no child could have caused so much blood to be spilled on this land as you have, or trampled on the rights of its citizens as you do. Although you are now so drunk with power that you cannot see it, you will come to regret your sons having so rich an inheritance of blood. It can only bring tragedy. As for me, it is with a clear conscience that I go to meet my Maker. I wish, when your time finally comes, you could do the same. I wish.
As for me, I have the satisfaction of knowing that I walked tall and bowed to no man. And I have not travelled this journey alone. Fellow journalists in other branches of the media walked with me: most of them are now dead, imprisoned without trial or exiled in far-off lands. Others walk in the shadow of death that your Presidency has cast on the freedoms for which you once fought so hard. You will never be allowed to forget that my death took place under your watch. As anguished as I know you will be, I also know that you will have no choice but to protect my killers: you will see to it that the guilty one is never convicted. You have no choice. I feel sorry for you, and Shiranthi will have a long time to spend on her knees when next she goes for Confession for it is not just her owns sins which she must confess, but those of her extended family that keeps you in office.
As for the readers of The Sunday Leader, what can I say but Thank You for supporting our mission. We have espoused unpopular causes, stood up for those too feeble to stand up for themselves, locked horns with the high and mighty so swollen with power that they have forgotten their roots, exposed corruption and the waste of your hard-earned tax rupees, and made sure that whatever the propaganda of the day, you were allowed to hear a contrary view. For this I - and my family - have now paid the price that I have long known I will one day have to pay. I am - and have always been - ready for that. I have done nothing to prevent this outcome: no security, no precautions. I want my murderer to know that I am not a coward like he is, hiding behind human shields while condemning thousands of innocents to death. What am I among so many? It has long been written that my life would be taken, and by whom. All that remains to be written is when.
That The Sunday Leader will continue fighting the good fight, too, is written. For I did not fight this fight alone. Many more of us have to be - and will be - killed before The Leader is laid to rest. I hope my assassination will be seen not as a defeat of freedom but an inspiration for those who survive to step up their efforts. Indeed, I hope that it will help galvanise forces that will usher in a new era of human liberty in our beloved motherland. I also hope it will open the eyes of your President to the fact that however many are slaughtered in the name of patriotism, the human spirit will endure and flourish. Not all the Rajapakses combined can kill that.
People often ask me why I take such risks and tell me it is a matter of time before I am bumped off. Of course I know that: it is inevitable. But if we do not speak out now, there will be no one left to speak for those who cannot, whether they be ethnic minorities, the disadvantaged or the persecuted. An example that has inspired me throughout my career in journalism has been that of the German theologian, Martin Niem”ller. In his youth he was an anti-Semite and an admirer of Hitler. As Nazism took hold in Germany, however, he saw Nazism for what it was: it was not just the Jews Hitler sought to extirpate, it was just about anyone with an alternate point of view. Niem”ller spoke out, and for his trouble was incarcerated in the Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps from 1937 to 1945, and very nearly executed. While incarcerated, Niem”ller wrote a poem that, from the first time I read it in my teenage years, stuck hauntingly in my mind:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
If you remember nothing else, remember this: The Leader is there for you, be you Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim, low-caste, homosexual, dissident or disabled. Its staff will fight on, unbowed and unafraid, with the courage to which you have become accustomed. Do not take that commitment for granted. Let there be no doubt that whatever sacrifices we journalists make, they are not made for our own glory or enrichment: they are made for you. Whether you deserve their sacrifice is another matter. As for me, God knows I tried.
And Then They Came For Me
Lasantha Wickrematunge
The Sunday Leader (Sri Lanka)
No other profession calls on its practitioners to lay down their lives for their art save the armed forces and, in Sri Lanka, journalism. In the course of the past few years, the independent media have increasingly come under attack. Electronic and print-media institutions have been burnt, bombed, sealed and coerced. Countless journalists have been harassed, threatened and killed. It has been my honour to belong to all those categories and now especially the last.
I have been in the business of journalism a good long time. Indeed, 2009 will be The Sunday Leader's 15th year. Many things have changed in Sri Lanka during that time, and it does not need me to tell you that the greater part of that change has been for the worse. We find ourselves in the midst of a civil war ruthlessly prosecuted by protagonists whose bloodlust knows no bounds. Terror, whether perpetrated by terrorists or the state, has become the order of the day. Indeed, murder has become the primary tool whereby the state seeks to control the organs of liberty. Today it is the journalists, tomorrow it will be the judges. For neither group have the risks ever been higher or the stakes lower.
Why then do we do it? I often wonder that. After all, I too am a husband, and the father of three wonderful children. I too have responsibilities and obligations that transcend my profession, be it the law or journalism. Is it worth the risk? Many people tell me it is not. Friends tell me to revert to the bar, and goodness knows it offers a better and safer livelihood. Others, including political leaders on both sides, have at various times sought to induce me to take to politics, going so far as to offer me ministries of my choice. Diplomats, recognising the risk journalists face in Sri Lanka, have offered me safe passage and the right of residence in their countries. Whatever else I may have been stuck for, I have not been stuck for choice.
But there is a calling that is yet above high office, fame, lucre and security. It is the call of conscience.
The Sunday Leader has been a controversial newspaper because we say it like we see it: whether it be a spade, a thief or a murderer, we call it by that name. We do not hide behind euphemism. The investigative articles we print are supported by documentary evidence thanks to the public-spiritedness of citizens who at great risk to themselves pass on this material to us. We have exposed scandal after scandal, and never once in these 15 years has anyone proved us wrong or successfully prosecuted us.
The free media serve as a mirror in which the public can see itself sans mascara and styling gel. From us you learn the state of your nation, and especially its management by the people you elected to give your children a better future. Sometimes the image you see in that mirror is not a pleasant one. But while you may grumble in the privacy of your armchair, the journalists who hold the mirror up to you do so publicly and at great risk to themselves. That is our calling, and we do not shirk it.
Every newspaper has its angle, and we do not hide the fact that we have ours. Our commitment is to see Sri Lanka as a transparent, secular, liberal democracy. Think about those words, for they each has profound meaning. Transparent because government must be openly accountable to the people and never abuse their trust. Secular because in a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society such as ours, secularism offers the only common ground by which we might all be united. Liberal because we recognise that all human beings are created different, and we need to accept others for what they are and not what we would like them to be. And democratic... well, if you need me to explain why that is important, you'd best stop buying this paper.
The Sunday Leader has never sought safety by unquestioningly articulating the majority view. Let's face it, that is the way to sell newspapers. On the contrary, as our opinion pieces over the years amply demonstrate, we often voice ideas that many people find distasteful. For example, we have consistently espoused the view that while separatist terrorism must be eradicated, it is more important to address the root causes of terrorism, and urged government to view Sri Lanka's ethnic strife in the context of history and not through the telescope of terrorism. We have also agitated against state terrorism in the so-called war against terror, and made no secret of our horror that Sri Lanka is the only country in the world routinely to bomb its own citizens. For these views we have been labelled traitors, and if this be treachery, we wear that label proudly.
Many people suspect that The Sunday Leader has a political agenda: it does not. If we appear more critical of the government than of the opposition it is only because we believe that - pray excuse cricketing argot - there is no point in bowling to the fielding side. Remember that for the few years of our existence in which the UNP was in office, we proved to be the biggest thorn in its flesh, exposing excess and corruption wherever it occurred. Indeed, the steady stream of embarrassing expos‚s we published may well have served to precipitate the downfall of that government.
Neither should our distaste for the war be interpreted to mean that we support the Tigers. The LTTE are among the most ruthless and bloodthirsty organisations ever to have infested the planet. There is no gainsaying that it must be eradicated. But to do so by violating the rights of Tamil citizens, bombing and shooting them mercilessly, is not only wrong but shames the Sinhalese, whose claim to be custodians of the dhamma is forever called into question by this savagery, much of which is unknown to the public because of censorship.
What is more, a military occupation of the country's north and east will require the Tamil people of those regions to live eternally as second-class citizens, deprived of all self respect. Do not imagine that you can placate them by showering "development" and "reconstruction" on them in the post-war era. The wounds of war will scar them forever, and you will also have an even more bitter and hateful Diaspora to contend with. A problem amenable to a political solution will thus become a festering wound that will yield strife for all eternity. If I seem angry and frustrated, it is only because most of my countrymen - and all of the government - cannot see this writing so plainly on the wall.
It is well known that I was on two occasions brutally assaulted, while on another my house was sprayed with machine-gun fire. Despite the government's sanctimonious assurances, there was never a serious police inquiry into the perpetrators of these attacks, and the attackers were never apprehended. In all these cases, I have reason to believe the attacks were inspired by the government. When finally I am killed, it will be the government that kills me.
The irony in this is that, unknown to most of the public, Mahinda and I have been friends for more than a quarter century. Indeed, I suspect that I am one of the few people remaining who routinely addresses him by his first name and uses the familiar Sinhala address oya when talking to him. Although I do not attend the meetings he periodically holds for newspaper editors, hardly a month passes when we do not meet, privately or with a few close friends present, late at night at President's House. There we swap yarns, discuss politics and joke about the good old days. A few remarks to him would therefore be in order here.
Mahinda, when you finally fought your way to the SLFP presidential nomination in 2005, nowhere were you welcomed more warmly than in this column. Indeed, we broke with a decade of tradition by referring to you throughout by your first name. So well known were your commitments to human rights and liberal values that we ushered you in like a breath of fresh air. Then, through an act of folly, you got yourself involved in the Helping Hambantota scandal. It was after a lot of soul-searching that we broke the story, at the same time urging you to return the money. By the time you did so several weeks later, a great blow had been struck to your reputation. It is one you are still trying to live down.
You have told me yourself that you were not greedy for the presidency. You did not have to hanker after it: it fell into your lap. You have told me that your sons are your greatest joy, and that you love spending time with them, leaving your brothers to operate the machinery of state. Now, it is clear to all who will see that that machinery has operated so well that my sons and daughter do not themselves have a father.
In the wake of my death I know you will make all the usual sanctimonious noises and call upon the police to hold a swift and thorough inquiry. But like all the inquiries you have ordered in the past, nothing will come of this one, too. For truth be told, we both know who will be behind my death, but dare not call his name. Not just my life, but yours too, depends on it.
Sadly, for all the dreams you had for our country in your younger days, in just three years you have reduced it to rubble. In the name of patriotism you have trampled on human rights, nurtured unbridled corruption and squandered public money like no other President before you. Indeed, your conduct has been like a small child suddenly let loose in a toyshop. That analogy is perhaps inapt because no child could have caused so much blood to be spilled on this land as you have, or trampled on the rights of its citizens as you do. Although you are now so drunk with power that you cannot see it, you will come to regret your sons having so rich an inheritance of blood. It can only bring tragedy. As for me, it is with a clear conscience that I go to meet my Maker. I wish, when your time finally comes, you could do the same. I wish.
As for me, I have the satisfaction of knowing that I walked tall and bowed to no man. And I have not travelled this journey alone. Fellow journalists in other branches of the media walked with me: most of them are now dead, imprisoned without trial or exiled in far-off lands. Others walk in the shadow of death that your Presidency has cast on the freedoms for which you once fought so hard. You will never be allowed to forget that my death took place under your watch. As anguished as I know you will be, I also know that you will have no choice but to protect my killers: you will see to it that the guilty one is never convicted. You have no choice. I feel sorry for you, and Shiranthi will have a long time to spend on her knees when next she goes for Confession for it is not just her owns sins which she must confess, but those of her extended family that keeps you in office.
As for the readers of The Sunday Leader, what can I say but Thank You for supporting our mission. We have espoused unpopular causes, stood up for those too feeble to stand up for themselves, locked horns with the high and mighty so swollen with power that they have forgotten their roots, exposed corruption and the waste of your hard-earned tax rupees, and made sure that whatever the propaganda of the day, you were allowed to hear a contrary view. For this I - and my family - have now paid the price that I have long known I will one day have to pay. I am - and have always been - ready for that. I have done nothing to prevent this outcome: no security, no precautions. I want my murderer to know that I am not a coward like he is, hiding behind human shields while condemning thousands of innocents to death. What am I among so many? It has long been written that my life would be taken, and by whom. All that remains to be written is when.
That The Sunday Leader will continue fighting the good fight, too, is written. For I did not fight this fight alone. Many more of us have to be - and will be - killed before The Leader is laid to rest. I hope my assassination will be seen not as a defeat of freedom but an inspiration for those who survive to step up their efforts. Indeed, I hope that it will help galvanise forces that will usher in a new era of human liberty in our beloved motherland. I also hope it will open the eyes of your President to the fact that however many are slaughtered in the name of patriotism, the human spirit will endure and flourish. Not all the Rajapakses combined can kill that.
People often ask me why I take such risks and tell me it is a matter of time before I am bumped off. Of course I know that: it is inevitable. But if we do not speak out now, there will be no one left to speak for those who cannot, whether they be ethnic minorities, the disadvantaged or the persecuted. An example that has inspired me throughout my career in journalism has been that of the German theologian, Martin Niem”ller. In his youth he was an anti-Semite and an admirer of Hitler. As Nazism took hold in Germany, however, he saw Nazism for what it was: it was not just the Jews Hitler sought to extirpate, it was just about anyone with an alternate point of view. Niem”ller spoke out, and for his trouble was incarcerated in the Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps from 1937 to 1945, and very nearly executed. While incarcerated, Niem”ller wrote a poem that, from the first time I read it in my teenage years, stuck hauntingly in my mind:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
If you remember nothing else, remember this: The Leader is there for you, be you Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim, low-caste, homosexual, dissident or disabled. Its staff will fight on, unbowed and unafraid, with the courage to which you have become accustomed. Do not take that commitment for granted. Let there be no doubt that whatever sacrifices we journalists make, they are not made for our own glory or enrichment: they are made for you. Whether you deserve their sacrifice is another matter. As for me, God knows I tried.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
The Thing with Two Heads
In 1972, movie audiences were stunned by The Thing with Two Heads, an experiment in which a bigot and a black man inhabited the same body.
Today, on the other side of the world, a similar experiment is being carried out in a political laboratory known as Thailand.
Will the two heads be able to survive in the same body? Will each rather kill the other and by extension himself than accept the differences? Stay tuned.
Today, on the other side of the world, a similar experiment is being carried out in a political laboratory known as Thailand.
Will the two heads be able to survive in the same body? Will each rather kill the other and by extension himself than accept the differences? Stay tuned.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Random Thoughts
Haven't updated this blog in a while, but the political situation has gotten to the point that I have to let off some steam.
The ASEAN Summit
Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar have asked Thailand to postpone the Summit. My first reaction was: what gall! My second was: this wasn't totally unexpected; the worsening political situation was steadily increasing the likelihood of postponement anyway. The decent thing, I thought, should have been to take the initiative to announce the postponement, so that our ASEAN friends could change their plans. And the decent thing for our ASEAN friends to do would have been to say nothing in public and quietly apply pressure on Thailand to reconsider. Goes to show ASEAN still has a long way to go.
PAD Zombies
Saw a news segment where PAD members occupying Bangkok International Airport were interviewed was was flabbergasted at the surreality of it all. A young couple, asked whether they were concerned for the safety of their two small children, whom they had brought along, said that was why they brought them. WTF? They wouldn't have been safer at home? This goes to show what a complete hold the PAD leaders have on the minds of their followers. Another interviewee, asked why he was there, said he was repaying his debt to the nation. This makes absolutely no sense. Paying his debt by destroying the economy and the country's reputation? The PAD leadership has fed their followers simple but powerful narratives, to the point that they are absolutely convinced of the rightness of their cause (whatever that may be; the goalposts have been moved so often). It seems the PAD leadership has made these people feel like their otherwise empty lives have meaning, a cause worth fighting and dying for, little knowing that they are merely pawns in a much bigger game.
Peaceful Means
Saw a young academic and supposed expert on non-violence expound on what the govt should and should not do in dealing with the PAD protesters. Why can't the Thai police deal with the protesters peacefully, like in Korea. WTF? The student riots in Korea were pretty violent, with deaths and hundreds of injuries. Where do they find these self-styled experts?
PAD Tactics
I must give credit to the PAD leadership for turning around their game so effectively. They were on the verge of collapsing into irrelevance. The barbarity of their security guards and their arrogance in not clearing Rajdamnoen Ave. was exposing a side of them that they had carefully shielded from the public eye. The evasive tactics of the govt and steadfast refusal to be provoked was sapping morale and making a laughingstock of the PAD. The only move they could make was to up the stakes. Since seizing Govt House was not enough to drive out the govt, they had to seize a higher-value asset, something that the govt would have no choice but to respond to. A colleague of mine some weeks ago, when I raised the possibility of a takeover of Suvarnabhumi Airport, had opined that the PAD wouldn't dare go that far. Man, I hate to be proven right on shit like this. But really, what other course did the PAD leaders have? Sonthi is legally bankrupt and deep in debt. He has made many enemies, and should he retreat they'd make mincemeat of him. The messianic Chamlong is ready to be a martyr, and I'm sure Sonthi is willing to sacrifice him and his followers as well. Talk about make or break. And so, since it has been demonstrated time and again that the country's legal apparatus is willing to contort itself into impossible positions to support the PAD and its actions, which in any other country would be considered illegal, the PAD leadership is upping the ante. They're betting that the Thai people, given a choice, would rather have peace and quiet than law and order. And the most expeditious route to peace and quiet would be a coup or the govt's resignation. But it is to PM Somchai's credit that he's not going quietly. Softspoken and mild-mannered as he is, he's got some balls. He knows the law (and probably the majority of public opinion) is on his side. Now he just has to walk that thin line of restoring law and order without excessive brutality. Not an easy line to walk. But the alternative would be to set a precedent that would make a mockery of the rule of law, and a laughingstock of Thailand in the region and the world.
The ASEAN Summit
Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar have asked Thailand to postpone the Summit. My first reaction was: what gall! My second was: this wasn't totally unexpected; the worsening political situation was steadily increasing the likelihood of postponement anyway. The decent thing, I thought, should have been to take the initiative to announce the postponement, so that our ASEAN friends could change their plans. And the decent thing for our ASEAN friends to do would have been to say nothing in public and quietly apply pressure on Thailand to reconsider. Goes to show ASEAN still has a long way to go.
PAD Zombies
Saw a news segment where PAD members occupying Bangkok International Airport were interviewed was was flabbergasted at the surreality of it all. A young couple, asked whether they were concerned for the safety of their two small children, whom they had brought along, said that was why they brought them. WTF? They wouldn't have been safer at home? This goes to show what a complete hold the PAD leaders have on the minds of their followers. Another interviewee, asked why he was there, said he was repaying his debt to the nation. This makes absolutely no sense. Paying his debt by destroying the economy and the country's reputation? The PAD leadership has fed their followers simple but powerful narratives, to the point that they are absolutely convinced of the rightness of their cause (whatever that may be; the goalposts have been moved so often). It seems the PAD leadership has made these people feel like their otherwise empty lives have meaning, a cause worth fighting and dying for, little knowing that they are merely pawns in a much bigger game.
Peaceful Means
Saw a young academic and supposed expert on non-violence expound on what the govt should and should not do in dealing with the PAD protesters. Why can't the Thai police deal with the protesters peacefully, like in Korea. WTF? The student riots in Korea were pretty violent, with deaths and hundreds of injuries. Where do they find these self-styled experts?
PAD Tactics
I must give credit to the PAD leadership for turning around their game so effectively. They were on the verge of collapsing into irrelevance. The barbarity of their security guards and their arrogance in not clearing Rajdamnoen Ave. was exposing a side of them that they had carefully shielded from the public eye. The evasive tactics of the govt and steadfast refusal to be provoked was sapping morale and making a laughingstock of the PAD. The only move they could make was to up the stakes. Since seizing Govt House was not enough to drive out the govt, they had to seize a higher-value asset, something that the govt would have no choice but to respond to. A colleague of mine some weeks ago, when I raised the possibility of a takeover of Suvarnabhumi Airport, had opined that the PAD wouldn't dare go that far. Man, I hate to be proven right on shit like this. But really, what other course did the PAD leaders have? Sonthi is legally bankrupt and deep in debt. He has made many enemies, and should he retreat they'd make mincemeat of him. The messianic Chamlong is ready to be a martyr, and I'm sure Sonthi is willing to sacrifice him and his followers as well. Talk about make or break. And so, since it has been demonstrated time and again that the country's legal apparatus is willing to contort itself into impossible positions to support the PAD and its actions, which in any other country would be considered illegal, the PAD leadership is upping the ante. They're betting that the Thai people, given a choice, would rather have peace and quiet than law and order. And the most expeditious route to peace and quiet would be a coup or the govt's resignation. But it is to PM Somchai's credit that he's not going quietly. Softspoken and mild-mannered as he is, he's got some balls. He knows the law (and probably the majority of public opinion) is on his side. Now he just has to walk that thin line of restoring law and order without excessive brutality. Not an easy line to walk. But the alternative would be to set a precedent that would make a mockery of the rule of law, and a laughingstock of Thailand in the region and the world.
Friday, November 21, 2008
“So long as man remains free he strives for nothing so incessantly and so painfully as to find some one to worship.”
ตราบใดที่มนุษย์ยังคงเสรี เขาจะไม่เลิกทนทุกข์ทรมานเพื่อไขว่คว้าหาใครสักคนมาเทอดทูนบูชา
Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamozov
ตราบใดที่มนุษย์ยังคงเสรี เขาจะไม่เลิกทนทุกข์ทรมานเพื่อไขว่คว้าหาใครสักคนมาเทอดทูนบูชา
Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamozov
Monday, June 23, 2008
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
All men are created equal
ในคอลัมน์ของผมประจำวันที่ 3 เมษายน 2551 ผมเบลอไปหน่อย ดันเขียนว่ารัฐธรรมนูญสหรัฐฯ เขียนไว้ว่า All men are created equal. ความจริงแล้วอมตวาทะนี้มาจากคำประกาศเอกราช (Declaration of Independence) ของสหรัฐฯ ครับ แฟนๆ คอลัมน์โปรดทราบตามนี้นะครับ
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Obama's presidential mettle
After being subjected to the crude and nauseating thoughts of Thailand's "democratically elected" Prime Minister, listening to Barack Obama is like a salve to the spirit. Taking on subjects most American politicians wouldn't touch with a twelve-foot pole, Obama shows he has what it takes to be a great American president. Read his speech and weep. Or watch it here. Let's hope the American people are smart enough to recognize this opportunity to make their country a great nation once again.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Revising History the Samak Way
Just when Thailand needs to get back the respect of the world, we get Samak as Prime Minister. When will this curse on Thailand be lifted?
INTERVIEW / SAMAK SUNDARAVEJ
New prime minister speaks his mind
Tells CNN only one person died in 1976 student uprising at Thammasat University
The following are portions of a recent interview of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej by CNN Talk Asia correspondent Dan Rivers.
The conversation was edited for length and clarity.
The two met at Mr Samak’s residence in Bangkok.
Dan Rivers: Prime Minister Khun Samak… you came to power really on the back, many would say, of Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister, who was exiled in the coup a year and a half ago. You haven’t really hidden your allegiance to him. Explain now how you intend to go forward. Will Thaksin play a role in your government?
Samak Sundaravej: He ran the country for five years very successfully and then there was a coup. It’s okay. They say a coup is a coup. And then they want to destroy Thaksin. It’s okay, it’s up to them. But he says that the party is killed. He just asked me if it was possible to set up a party and bring leftover MPs to enroll in the party.
Rivers: So Thaksin asked you to set up your People Power party?
Samak: He said is it possible or not? I said I can do it because I lost my opportunity, too. I was in the senate, five months, and the coup d’etat group kicked me out.
Rivers: What kind of role will Thaksin play now that you are in power?
Samak: Oh, he’s the owner of the former party. He might give some support by giving ideas to this or that. Five years, such a success, so why not give some advice?
Rivers: So you will take advice from Thaksin?
Samak: Not myself, but others, especially the economic group. They might consult, and I think there’s nothing wrong with this.
Rivers: Because people say you’re merely a puppet of Thaksin.
Samak: You can say anybody is a puppet of anybody.
Rivers: So you deny that you’re a puppet?
Samak: I am myself. I’m the leader of the party. I run this country; it’s me, I have my own thinking.
Rivers: Not Thaksin?
Samak: Not Thaksin.
Rivers: (As defence minister) how can you guarantee there’s going to be no more coups in Thailand?
Samak: I cannot guarantee. Last time when they staged a coup, there was no reason. Rebel without a cause.
Rivers: Well, the reason they gave was that Thaksin was hugely corrupt.
Samak: Sixteen months, there is no proof. Not a single case. They set up a committee to see to it, and until now just two cases have gone to the prosecutor, not to the court yet.
Rivers: Do you think he’s guilty?
Samak: Oh, anyone can be guilty of something if it can be proved.
Rivers: You don’t think he’s guilty?
Samak: I don’t think anyone can do something wrong if they don’t think it is wrong… So ask Thaksin, or ask his wife; they don’t think they ever committed anything wrong.
Rivers: But should prime ministers be allowed to make money? Shouldn’t they be concentrating on the job of prime minister?
Samak: It’s his business. He did the business and got rid of the shares he held. To be or not to be right or wrong is up to him.
Rivers: Well, is it right or wrong?
Samak: I think it’s right because it draws investors to come, that you can own 49%… so you can run the company.
Rivers: Will Thaksin come back and, if so, when?
Samak: It’s up to him. His wife just mentioned in court that he will come in May. He will come or not, it’s up to him. But one thing is that he must come back to face the charges. It’s not dangerous for him.
Rivers: How much damage was done do you think to Thailand by the coup?
Samak: Oh, I cannot say. It can’t be measured by figures. It comes through the feelings of the people. I’m not an economic expert, but from the grassroots to the top, they have problems. Restaurants say business is down by 50%.
Rivers: If the country was so damaged by the coup, what will you do to those who led the coup? Should they not be punished?
Samak: No, no, no.
Rivers: Why not?
Samak: Do believe me. We can call for revenge, for reprisals. We have no need to do that. They must feel ashamed of themselves, that is enough.
In October 1976, soldiers killed dozens of left-wing students during a frenzy of anti-communist fervor. Mr Samak was at the scene, as deputy interior minister. His enemies accused him of playing a role to provoke the violence.
Rivers: Some people are very critical of your past in Thailand.
Some people have even said you’ve got blood on your hands. What would you say to that?
Samak: Oh, I deny the whole thing. I had nothing to do with that at all. I was an outsider at that time.
Rivers: Would you like to take the opportunity now to condemn what happened in 1976?
Samak: Actually it was a movement of some students. They didn’t like the government.
Rivers: But dozens of people, maybe hundreds of people, died.
Samak: No, just one died. There are 3,000 students in the Thammasat University.
Rivers: The official death toll was 46, and many people say it was much higher than that.
Samak: No. For me, no deaths; one unlucky guy being beaten and being burned in Sanam Luang. Only one guy died that day.
Rivers: So there was no massacre?
Samak: No, not at all, but taking pictures, 3,000 students, boys and girls lined up, they say that is the death toll: 3,000.
Rivers: People say that your very right-wing rhetoric inflamed the situation.
Samak: What’s wrong to be right wing? The right wing is with the King. The left wing is communist.
Rivers: So do you think Thailand was in danger of falling to communism in 1976?
Samak: Well, a guy called Lomax, he wrote a book called Thailand: The War That Is, The War That Will Be. And he said that this is a domino theory. He said that there will be 10 dominoes in this area. So if Cambodia will be, Vietnam will be, Laos will be and Thailand will be number four domino. And from Thailand, it will be Burma, it will be Malaysia, Singapore. Small islands like Singapore. So many islands like Indonesia and later big islands like Australia and even two tiny islands down under. Ten countries will be communist. We are domino number four.
Rivers: Do you think it’s excusable to kill innocent students in the name of defending the country from communism?
Samak: Oh, who kill the students? If the fighting is between the military, the military is to defend for the country. Somebody tried to bring communism into our country, it’s up to (the military). The casualties… you must go to check what happened.
In 1992, an estimated 200,000 people took to the streets of Bangkok to protest against the appointment of a military coup leader as prime minister. Unrest escalated - a state of emergency was declared and troops opened fire on crowds.
Dozens of people were killed, and thousands arrested. Mr Samak was deputy prime minister at the time. The army eventually retreated, ushering in a period of civilian rule, but the event is forever known as “Black May”.
Rivers: Again protest against the military government, again your name is linked to the bloodshed that followed. What would you say to that?
Samak: I was deputy prime minister three times. When I resigned, I ran as governor of Bangkok. (People say) “oh, it’s a murderer with blood on his hands. You cannot be governor.” So I brought the case to court. And when the vote come, I got one million-something votes. Why?
Rivers: But that doesn’t answer the question. Were you involved in 1992?
Samak: No. Not at any time. I had no involvement.
Rivers: Your conscience is clear?
Samak: If I do something wrong, I cannot come this far. I think my hands are clean and I can live with it. The people of this country know me, who I am, so I am not afraid. But why do they put a stamp on me? Because I don’t like the press. I don’t like the media. I think actually when they talk good to me, I talk good to them. When they slash out at me, I just slash back at them. When you punch me, I punch back. There is no written document that says the prime minister should be a good guy, should talk soft.
Rivers: I mean, are you a good guy? How would you describe yourself?
Samak: Somebody must describe me, I cannot describe myself. But for me, if I have done something wrong, I cannot come this far. But some people hate me, yes, but I don’t hate them. I just feel pity that they have ill feeling for me.
Indulging in a lifelong passion, cooking, Mr Samak became a celebrity chef with his show Tasting While Grumbling in 2000, extolling the virtues of Thai cuisine and trips to the local market. He immersed himself in the show after losing office in the 2006 coup but it’s currently off-air after its broadcaster was taken over by the previous military-appointed government.
Rivers: You have a lot of passions in life, not only politics. Cooking is one of your great passions, interests.
Samak: Actually I have a normal life. I started with a little bit of difficulty. I cannot say we were poor. We managed, but my father and mother had nine children. I’m number seven.
Rivers: So you had a poor background to start with?
Samak: I did the cooking at seven years old. That’s why I cook, from that time on, and I think it’s right. And I think cooking is an art. So for the family first, and then for my own family afterward, and then now. Ten years ago, when I was an MP, they gave one hour on Saturday evening just to talk politics. I did that for two years. It’s a bore, politics is a bore. I said politics is a bore, why not talk about cooking? So I just start talking about cooking.
Rivers: Your image is very much a man of the people, very down-to-earth, very outspoken, some would say acerbic. Would you agree with that?
Samak: I always say that a man who speaks his mind, you can go along with him.
Rivers: I want to ask you one last question because we’re running out of time. The kind of central theme of much of the criticism against you is simply that you are not statesman material, that there would be better leaders of Thailand than you. For example, Khun Abhisit, the leader of the Democrat party here. How would you respond to people who say you’re simply not diplomatic enough to be prime minister?
Samak: No. No. Why did the ambassador come to see me? Ten ambassadors came to see me - I had no position then. Ten came already, then the American ambassador. Why? The American embassy here must report who I am. He can come to talk to me.
Rivers: And would you say that the people like you?
Samak: The people, one million voted for me. Why? Because they know who I am. When I became leader of PPP, they said it was because of Thaksin. It might be for some reason, but you cannot make anyone the leader. What would happen to the PPP? So it’s a combination, the best of everything that I have done and how they performed five years ago. But it must be a quality leader, like myself, who can lead the party, who can come this far. So I was accepted by the people everywhere, but not the media. This is okay, it’s up to you. You do your duty, I will do mine.
Rivers: So the country is safe with you?
Samak: It must be and this is my opportunity. Actually, to run the country there are all the permanent secretaries of all the military. They have done their job. We (the government) just to drive the engine. Now we know how to do that. But one good thing is there is no corruption. For me, if I am corrupt, I cannot come this far. If Thaksin did it, he must go to the court, and you must prove.
Rivers: What will you say will be your top priority in government?
Samak: Just bring the country back to normal. When they staged the coup, the United States turned their back to us, the EC turned its back to us, China turned by the side, Japan turned by the side. So now, when we have an elected government, so they must turn back and then everything will come back to normal.
(Bangkok Post, 11 February 2008)
INTERVIEW / SAMAK SUNDARAVEJ
New prime minister speaks his mind
Tells CNN only one person died in 1976 student uprising at Thammasat University
The following are portions of a recent interview of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej by CNN Talk Asia correspondent Dan Rivers.
The conversation was edited for length and clarity.
The two met at Mr Samak’s residence in Bangkok.
Dan Rivers: Prime Minister Khun Samak… you came to power really on the back, many would say, of Thaksin Shinawatra, the former prime minister, who was exiled in the coup a year and a half ago. You haven’t really hidden your allegiance to him. Explain now how you intend to go forward. Will Thaksin play a role in your government?
Samak Sundaravej: He ran the country for five years very successfully and then there was a coup. It’s okay. They say a coup is a coup. And then they want to destroy Thaksin. It’s okay, it’s up to them. But he says that the party is killed. He just asked me if it was possible to set up a party and bring leftover MPs to enroll in the party.
Rivers: So Thaksin asked you to set up your People Power party?
Samak: He said is it possible or not? I said I can do it because I lost my opportunity, too. I was in the senate, five months, and the coup d’etat group kicked me out.
Rivers: What kind of role will Thaksin play now that you are in power?
Samak: Oh, he’s the owner of the former party. He might give some support by giving ideas to this or that. Five years, such a success, so why not give some advice?
Rivers: So you will take advice from Thaksin?
Samak: Not myself, but others, especially the economic group. They might consult, and I think there’s nothing wrong with this.
Rivers: Because people say you’re merely a puppet of Thaksin.
Samak: You can say anybody is a puppet of anybody.
Rivers: So you deny that you’re a puppet?
Samak: I am myself. I’m the leader of the party. I run this country; it’s me, I have my own thinking.
Rivers: Not Thaksin?
Samak: Not Thaksin.
Rivers: (As defence minister) how can you guarantee there’s going to be no more coups in Thailand?
Samak: I cannot guarantee. Last time when they staged a coup, there was no reason. Rebel without a cause.
Rivers: Well, the reason they gave was that Thaksin was hugely corrupt.
Samak: Sixteen months, there is no proof. Not a single case. They set up a committee to see to it, and until now just two cases have gone to the prosecutor, not to the court yet.
Rivers: Do you think he’s guilty?
Samak: Oh, anyone can be guilty of something if it can be proved.
Rivers: You don’t think he’s guilty?
Samak: I don’t think anyone can do something wrong if they don’t think it is wrong… So ask Thaksin, or ask his wife; they don’t think they ever committed anything wrong.
Rivers: But should prime ministers be allowed to make money? Shouldn’t they be concentrating on the job of prime minister?
Samak: It’s his business. He did the business and got rid of the shares he held. To be or not to be right or wrong is up to him.
Rivers: Well, is it right or wrong?
Samak: I think it’s right because it draws investors to come, that you can own 49%… so you can run the company.
Rivers: Will Thaksin come back and, if so, when?
Samak: It’s up to him. His wife just mentioned in court that he will come in May. He will come or not, it’s up to him. But one thing is that he must come back to face the charges. It’s not dangerous for him.
Rivers: How much damage was done do you think to Thailand by the coup?
Samak: Oh, I cannot say. It can’t be measured by figures. It comes through the feelings of the people. I’m not an economic expert, but from the grassroots to the top, they have problems. Restaurants say business is down by 50%.
Rivers: If the country was so damaged by the coup, what will you do to those who led the coup? Should they not be punished?
Samak: No, no, no.
Rivers: Why not?
Samak: Do believe me. We can call for revenge, for reprisals. We have no need to do that. They must feel ashamed of themselves, that is enough.
In October 1976, soldiers killed dozens of left-wing students during a frenzy of anti-communist fervor. Mr Samak was at the scene, as deputy interior minister. His enemies accused him of playing a role to provoke the violence.
Rivers: Some people are very critical of your past in Thailand.
Some people have even said you’ve got blood on your hands. What would you say to that?
Samak: Oh, I deny the whole thing. I had nothing to do with that at all. I was an outsider at that time.
Rivers: Would you like to take the opportunity now to condemn what happened in 1976?
Samak: Actually it was a movement of some students. They didn’t like the government.
Rivers: But dozens of people, maybe hundreds of people, died.
Samak: No, just one died. There are 3,000 students in the Thammasat University.
Rivers: The official death toll was 46, and many people say it was much higher than that.
Samak: No. For me, no deaths; one unlucky guy being beaten and being burned in Sanam Luang. Only one guy died that day.
Rivers: So there was no massacre?
Samak: No, not at all, but taking pictures, 3,000 students, boys and girls lined up, they say that is the death toll: 3,000.
Rivers: People say that your very right-wing rhetoric inflamed the situation.
Samak: What’s wrong to be right wing? The right wing is with the King. The left wing is communist.
Rivers: So do you think Thailand was in danger of falling to communism in 1976?
Samak: Well, a guy called Lomax, he wrote a book called Thailand: The War That Is, The War That Will Be. And he said that this is a domino theory. He said that there will be 10 dominoes in this area. So if Cambodia will be, Vietnam will be, Laos will be and Thailand will be number four domino. And from Thailand, it will be Burma, it will be Malaysia, Singapore. Small islands like Singapore. So many islands like Indonesia and later big islands like Australia and even two tiny islands down under. Ten countries will be communist. We are domino number four.
Rivers: Do you think it’s excusable to kill innocent students in the name of defending the country from communism?
Samak: Oh, who kill the students? If the fighting is between the military, the military is to defend for the country. Somebody tried to bring communism into our country, it’s up to (the military). The casualties… you must go to check what happened.
In 1992, an estimated 200,000 people took to the streets of Bangkok to protest against the appointment of a military coup leader as prime minister. Unrest escalated - a state of emergency was declared and troops opened fire on crowds.
Dozens of people were killed, and thousands arrested. Mr Samak was deputy prime minister at the time. The army eventually retreated, ushering in a period of civilian rule, but the event is forever known as “Black May”.
Rivers: Again protest against the military government, again your name is linked to the bloodshed that followed. What would you say to that?
Samak: I was deputy prime minister three times. When I resigned, I ran as governor of Bangkok. (People say) “oh, it’s a murderer with blood on his hands. You cannot be governor.” So I brought the case to court. And when the vote come, I got one million-something votes. Why?
Rivers: But that doesn’t answer the question. Were you involved in 1992?
Samak: No. Not at any time. I had no involvement.
Rivers: Your conscience is clear?
Samak: If I do something wrong, I cannot come this far. I think my hands are clean and I can live with it. The people of this country know me, who I am, so I am not afraid. But why do they put a stamp on me? Because I don’t like the press. I don’t like the media. I think actually when they talk good to me, I talk good to them. When they slash out at me, I just slash back at them. When you punch me, I punch back. There is no written document that says the prime minister should be a good guy, should talk soft.
Rivers: I mean, are you a good guy? How would you describe yourself?
Samak: Somebody must describe me, I cannot describe myself. But for me, if I have done something wrong, I cannot come this far. But some people hate me, yes, but I don’t hate them. I just feel pity that they have ill feeling for me.
Indulging in a lifelong passion, cooking, Mr Samak became a celebrity chef with his show Tasting While Grumbling in 2000, extolling the virtues of Thai cuisine and trips to the local market. He immersed himself in the show after losing office in the 2006 coup but it’s currently off-air after its broadcaster was taken over by the previous military-appointed government.
Rivers: You have a lot of passions in life, not only politics. Cooking is one of your great passions, interests.
Samak: Actually I have a normal life. I started with a little bit of difficulty. I cannot say we were poor. We managed, but my father and mother had nine children. I’m number seven.
Rivers: So you had a poor background to start with?
Samak: I did the cooking at seven years old. That’s why I cook, from that time on, and I think it’s right. And I think cooking is an art. So for the family first, and then for my own family afterward, and then now. Ten years ago, when I was an MP, they gave one hour on Saturday evening just to talk politics. I did that for two years. It’s a bore, politics is a bore. I said politics is a bore, why not talk about cooking? So I just start talking about cooking.
Rivers: Your image is very much a man of the people, very down-to-earth, very outspoken, some would say acerbic. Would you agree with that?
Samak: I always say that a man who speaks his mind, you can go along with him.
Rivers: I want to ask you one last question because we’re running out of time. The kind of central theme of much of the criticism against you is simply that you are not statesman material, that there would be better leaders of Thailand than you. For example, Khun Abhisit, the leader of the Democrat party here. How would you respond to people who say you’re simply not diplomatic enough to be prime minister?
Samak: No. No. Why did the ambassador come to see me? Ten ambassadors came to see me - I had no position then. Ten came already, then the American ambassador. Why? The American embassy here must report who I am. He can come to talk to me.
Rivers: And would you say that the people like you?
Samak: The people, one million voted for me. Why? Because they know who I am. When I became leader of PPP, they said it was because of Thaksin. It might be for some reason, but you cannot make anyone the leader. What would happen to the PPP? So it’s a combination, the best of everything that I have done and how they performed five years ago. But it must be a quality leader, like myself, who can lead the party, who can come this far. So I was accepted by the people everywhere, but not the media. This is okay, it’s up to you. You do your duty, I will do mine.
Rivers: So the country is safe with you?
Samak: It must be and this is my opportunity. Actually, to run the country there are all the permanent secretaries of all the military. They have done their job. We (the government) just to drive the engine. Now we know how to do that. But one good thing is there is no corruption. For me, if I am corrupt, I cannot come this far. If Thaksin did it, he must go to the court, and you must prove.
Rivers: What will you say will be your top priority in government?
Samak: Just bring the country back to normal. When they staged the coup, the United States turned their back to us, the EC turned its back to us, China turned by the side, Japan turned by the side. So now, when we have an elected government, so they must turn back and then everything will come back to normal.
(Bangkok Post, 11 February 2008)
