OPINION

Good intentions

Re: "MP faces lese majeste claim over 'defamatory' speech," (BP, March 21).

Perhaps unintentionally, Srisuwan Janya points to an important issue in his accusation that Move Forward Party's MP Padipat Santipada defamed the monarchy, when Mr Padipat said "some royally initiated projects were riddled with graft".

Mr Srisuwan says it is "common knowledge that projects royally initiated by His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej the Great and His Majesty the King are intended for the well-being of the people".

I'm sure that neither Mr Padipat, nor anyone else, could possibly doubt the good intentions of His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej the Great or His Majesty the King, but as Mr Srisuwan must certainly know, despite even the best of intentions, any project can experience "challenges" in its execution.

While we would hope that all of those responsible for implementing royally initiated projects would respect the intentions of their Royal Majesties, we cannot assume, as Mr Srisuwan apparently does, that this will be the case in actual practice.

Should any discrepancies be found in their implementation, or even any signs that they are less than perfect, then any evaluator would surely fear that royalist watchdogs such as Mr Srisuwan would pounce.

Short of an effective system for objective review and evaluation of the projects, there is no way that we can verify the comments made by Mr Padipat. But should such an evaluation somehow be possible, and Mr Padipat's comments found to be grounded, would that not be in keeping with the original intentions of their Royal Majesties that projects benefit the people?

Handle with care

Re: "Radioactive caesium missing from power plant," (BP, March 14).

Caesium-137 is entirely man-made, and it is not a by-product of the smelting of steel and should never be disposed of in a steel smelting facility.

The fact that tonnes of caesium-contaminated material was used as landfill in Prachin Buri means there will be widespread contamination from radioactive material carried by groundwater in the province.

One might well ask what was a large disintegrating container of caesium-137 doing in Prachin Buri in the first place? Why was it stored exposed to the elements in an unsecured location? Why was it not managed properly by the Office for Atoms for Peace?

This is just another example of an inept, military-run government failure of responsibility and ensuing cover-up attempts by those responsible, which has placed the public at serious risk. Furthermore, the incident has received substantial international news coverage placing another stain on our national reputation.

Stealing a breath

Re: "Hoping for a breath of fresh air," (BP, March 19).

This article contains no mention of any measures likely to be effective in reducing pollution.

Why is there no mention of banning burning and imposing heavy fines for offenders?

Why no mention of measures to cut traffic pollution, such as charging vehicles for using the roads in cities and spending the money on public transport? All I see is measures guaranteed to increase pollution, such as the construction of more roads into Bangkok.