OPINION

Deadly indifference

Re: "Penal system gets it wrong", (Editorial, Dec 19).

"Overcrowded prisons" has been a constant refrain of the Corrections Department for several years now, and it wouldn't surprise me if, unconsciously at least, they decided to let a serial killer loose to finally get our attention. This government has had no problem spending huge amounts of money to protect us from who-knows-what while it is apparently unwilling to spend what it takes to protect us from the bogeymen among us, like this serial killer.

Frankly, I see this as just another example of how poorly we are being governed by rich old men stuck in the past who have little or no idea and probably don't care about the real threats to the lives of ordinary people.

The Volunteer Network's claim that the information used to support the chemical ban is based on "poor sources" is ludicrous (BP, Dec 18). The idea of "safe levels" is actually poorly sourced while the exposure rate is merely a distortion derived from industry propaganda to support sales.

Organophosphates such as chlorpyrifos and glyphosate are toxic at low levels and listed as suspected carcinogens. There is no truly "safe" exposure level, just levels that are tolerated for corporate gain by chemical companies.

I challenge the Volunteer Network to produce any peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate human exposure to such chemicals has any benefit. If they can produce such research, then maybe there is room for debate on the ban. The chance of this occurring though is nearly impossible. Is the health and well-being of both farmers and consumers really worth a few baht? If the network coordinator is making allegations of poor sources, where are the better sources?

Recent letters by the Chinese ambassador, (ie, "Xinjiang China's affair", Dec 14) and his office would have us believe that Xinjiang and Hong Kong are affairs internal to China and the communist government alone. The underlying message is that everyone else in the world should mind their own business.

Nonetheless, it should be pointed out that even though the UK gave up control of Hong Kong in 1997, it still has decision-making powers and influence over the region until the year 2047. Hence, it is incorrect for the Chinese government to imply that no outside forces have the right to meddle in Hong Kong's affairs; the Middle Kingdom's leaders would have more credibility if they stated that no forces besides the UK should be interfering in Hong Kong.

Furthermore, the boundaries of present-day China have only been in existence for about 100 years. Before this, Xinjiang did not exist, and the Muslim inhabitants living there were not bound to the Middle Kingdom. The people of Xinjiang never voted to become a member-state of China, and nor did the inhabitants of Tibet or Taiwan.

I note with interest a report about proposed bridge to Samui (BP, Dec 11). This is long overdue. Sooner the better. The tourism industry in Thailand in general is suffering because of the strong baht, but in Samui it is being crippled by Bangkok Airways. They are killing the island with their ludicrously extortionate fares. It is outrageous that they have been allowed to get away with their monopoly for so long, and businesses on the island are now suffering badly because of it.