LOCAL
Call to action
The public is asked to save on energy,
but tougher measures will likely be needed
Hundreds of cars sit parked by their owners using the BTS.
A rise in oil prices has helped reduce the number of vehicles
on the road in the Thai capital. — AFP |
Don’t
forget. Tomorrow evening at 8:45, turn off a light and keep
it off for five minutes. That is the request Prime Minister
Thaksin Shinawatra made last Saturday as part of his government’s
new energy-saving campaign to help reduce Thailand’s growing
trade deficit.
Better
yet, keep that light out for an hour each day and the country
could save up to 2 billion baht a year if everyone follows
suit. Shutting off air-conditioners during the lunch period
could save another 800 million and driving no more than 90 kilometres
per hour could save a whopping 15 billion baht more.
That
comes to about 18 billion baht a year in savings. The only problem
is that Thailand’s trade deficit for the first quarter
alone was about 118 billion baht. That is why many experts say
that voluntary energy-saving measures like the ones the
government is suggesting will not be very successful.
What
is needed, they say, is to price energy more realistically.
Fuel prices in Thailand are actually much lower than in many
other countries and the government is not helping matters by
continuing to subsidise the cost of diesel. And if the
government really wants to cut domestic consumption,
says Prasert Bumsumpun, PTT president,
it should raise excise taxes on oil products.
Most
knowledgable observers believe the elimination of the
diesel subsidy is inevitable some time this year. Whether
the government dares to impose more painful measures
remains to be seen.
|
deficit
the amount by which money spent is more than money received
follow suit
to do the same
whopping
extremely large
|
first quarter
the first three months of the year
voluntary
done willingly without being forced or required
subsidise
to pay part of the cost of something
|
domestic
within a country
excise taxes
taxes make by a government on some goods produced
or used within the country
|
elimination
ending; getting rid of
inevitable
that which is certain to happen
impose
to
officially require that a rule, tax, punishment, etc.
by obeyed
|
INTERNATIONAL
Eye on Europe
French and Dutch voters determine whether
the new EU constitution is still alive
The
results of Sunday’s referendum in France on the proposed
European Union constitution are now in. Turn to today’s front
section to see if a majority voted to ratify the charter
or to reject it as most opinion polls indicated they would.
The
constitution itself is designed to be a sort of rulebook for the
European Union, defining both its powers and its limits and making
it clear for the first time what decision-making authority its
25 members are giving to the EU and what powers they retain.
As
you might expect, just agreeing on a text acceptable to all 25
countries was an extremely delicate and complex task and
it required more than two years of often-heated negotiations.
The charter was finally signed in October of last year and must
now be ratified by all member states by October 2006.
Thus
far, nine EU countries have formally endorsed the charter.
All but one of them, however, has done so through votes in their
parliaments. Only Spain has given its approval through a popular
referendum.
Interestingly,
French President Jacques Chirac, a strong supporter of the constitution,
could have taken the parliamentary option where a “yes” vote would
have been all but certain. Instead, he opted for
a referendum, a decision he now probably regrets.
Giving
the final say to the French people was certainly the democratic
thing to do, but it also opened the process to the emotions of
French politics. Indeed, it appears that many people may have
voted “no” based on how they felt about Mr Chirac and his government
rather than the contents of the constitution.
Mr
Chirac is not a popular president and with unemployment at 10-percent
of the workforce, there is a lot of dissatisfaction with his government’s
economic policy. Read to find out if this had an effect on Sunday’s
vote.
Many
French people were also worried that the new EU constitution would
create a European free market in which some French companies might
relocate to countries were wages are lower. They
also worried that French business and workers might lose some
of the government protections they had long enjoyed. Read to find
out if these anxieties increased the number of those voting “no”.
Now
that the French have voted, the focus will quickly shift to what
the vote means for the European Union as a whole. If the opinion
polls were wrong and the majority voted “yes”, then the EU constitution
process remains on track.
If
the vote was “no”, however, then you can expect considerable confusion.
Will the constitution be declared dead and have to be renegotiated
from scratch? Will parts of the charter be passed by other
means, perhaps as special agreements between countries? Will the
French president try to win ratification again, either through
another referendum or by taking the issue to parliament? We just
don’t know.
Tomorrow,
the Netherlands holds its referendum. There, opinion polls indicate
a “no” vote is likely too. Two key issues for the Dutch are worries
about immigration and the possible admission of Turkey, a Muslim
country. The vote is expected to be close, however, and it could
be influenced by the vote in France. Watch to see what happens.
|
referendum
a vote in which the people of a country are asked to give
an opinion or decide an issue
ratify
to make an agreement official
retain
to keep
|
delicate
of a matter or situation that needs to be treated very carefully
in order to avoid trouble or dissatisfaction
heated
angry or emotional
endorsed
approved; ratified
|
popular
involving ordinary people
all
be certain
almost
completely sure
opted
chose; decided
relocate
to move elsewhere
|
wages
money paid for work done
on track
making progress and likely to succeed
from scratch
from the beginning, i.e., without anything having been done
or decided
|
Courtroom drama
An Australian woman is convicted on drug
charges as viewers a continent away watch live
Australian Schapelle Corby holds her breath during the reading
of her verdict in her trial at State Court, Denpasar, Bali
province, Indonesia. — EPA |
You
can just imagine what young Shapelle Corby was thinking in the
Bali courtroom as Indonesian judge Linton Sirait read the verdict
in her drug case.
Innocent or guilty, it must have felt like the ultimate nightmare.
Judge Sirait had tried more than 500 drug trials without a single
acquittal. The evidence against her was strong since Indonesian
customs officials at the Bali had found 4.1 kilogrammes of marijuana
in her bag – more than enough to warrant a sentence
of life in prison or death. Still, it looked like the 27-year-old
beauty therapist was holding out hope that she might somehow
be freed.
It
was not to be. Corby escaped the ultimate punishment, but
she still received a harsh 20 years in prison. She immediately
burst into tears, but the reaction was much angrier from her mother
and sister who loudly protested the verdict. Their complaints
were echoed throughout much of Australia where the case
has received huge media attention. Indeed the final verdict was
even broadcast live by Australian television.
There
is more to come. Corby’s lawyers have promised an appeal,
saying the Bali court unfairly dismissed evidence that cast doubt
on her guilt. That could be risky. Prosecutors, too, say
they may appeal and seek a sentence of life in prison. Watch to
see what happens. Watch also for more reaction from ordinary Australians.
There have been threats of a boycott of Indonesian products
and some angry travelers have cancelled their planned vacations
to Bali.
|
convicted
proven
to be guilty of a crime by a court of law
verdict
a court decision
ultimate
most extreme
nightmare
a very bad or frightening dream
|
acquittal
a court decision that someone is not guilty of a crime
warrant
to allow or require
sentence
a punishment given by a court
therapist
a person who gives treatments to make people feel or look
better
|
first quarter
the first three months of the year
voluntary
done willingly without being forced or required
subsidise
to pay part of the cost of something
ultimate
punishment
a death
sentence
echoed
repeated
|
appeal
to formal request that a court decision by changed by a
higher court
prosecutors
government lawyers who attempt to prove in court that a
crime has been committed
boycott
to refuse to do business with a person, company or country
|
