OPINION

A questionable 'good'

Re: "Thailand's water supplies rated mostly as 'good'", (BP, Jan 15).

It is no surprise that the Pollution Control Department gives most environmental concerns under its purview an acceptable rating. What is rather disturbing is the figure listing the total complaints lodged with the department for the year -- a mere 686!

Apparently the department is hard to reach and very little trickles up from other government entities. Regarding noise pollution, for example, thousands of complaints are made every year in Pattaya to what is obviously the wrong agency which obviously never refers them to the Pollution Control Department.

Garbage is strewn all over the countryside in countless small to medium scale eyesores for which their cumulative effects upon the environment are enormous.

Unfortunately, the department apparently calculates its evaluation in the most forgiving ways possible. Counting the number of rivers and determining a percentage of quality thereby allows a "mostly good" result.

No one living along the Chao Phraya River would drink its extremely polluted water, but that one river may constitute 25% of riverine freshwater resources in all of Thailand!

Seawater in the Gulf of Thailand is so obviously polluted at times as to be hazardous to human health, but the department rarely warns the public about it.

People in the country should be rightly concerned about their natural resources and the general environment in Thailand, and encouraged to take a more participatory role in conserving their value.

Re: "A nightmare of a transition", (PostBag, Jan 15).

It could have been a most balanced and impartial description of president-elect Donald Trump if the writer, "in complete despair," did not mention the winner not having won the popular vote.

Even though it was correct, it was based on a predetermined rule agreed by all contestants and known to the electorate in accordance with the US constitution. Winners of popular votes in each state take all the allocated electoral college votes for that state. One does not move a goal post to fault a winner. However, in also complete despair, the writer did lift up my spirit in describing this winner with so many adjectives that any fair-minded reader would have nodded with agreement. Also his description of Americans as "one of the most intelligent, articulate, mature, kind, sweet, thoughtful and moral men of the world" may not please many, but impartially I could not have agreed more on this general description.

The French government in 2004 banned all "conspicuous" religious symbols, including Buddha amulets, the cross, turban, skull cap and, of course, headscarf, from public institutions such as state schools or town halls. A news agency cunningly said, "France bans headscarf", stirring up rage from Muslims around the world.

The Bangkok Post's opinion page on Jan 11 deceptively entitled a story, "Female monks barred from paying respects". The truth is they were barred from using the palace entrance reserved only for monks. In Thailand there is no Sangha laws upholding the status of female monks, not yet anyway. As a result, female monks are considered lay persons.

They can pay respect to the late King, entering through lay person's entrances; but, they refused, trying to raise the issues of discrimination and misogyny.

Re: "Failure of the system", (PostBag, Jan 15).

Kuldeep Nagi is exaggerating a bit. Thai students who question are not sent for "attitude adjustment". Those who, perhaps, insist on sedition are. Thailand is not North Korea.

Perhaps Mr Nagi would offer up a few solutions instead of pointing out the inequities of the government or the educational system. Thailand has been under worse governance with violence, death and guerrilla warfare.

Nothing lasts forever, Mr Nagi. Governments, like people, come and go. Those who are resilient survive. Those who aren't, well you know. Take a page out of the life of Privy Council president and former prime minister Gen Prem Tinsulanonda. He led, and has outlasted most others.