• 
• 

Published on October 19, 2007

The above article is remarkable by the deliberate attempt to ignore the fact that, in accordance with the official communique, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al Gore for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.

It is a prize for peace, not for science. In the Nobel Committee's opinion, because of climate change there may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states. The Nobel Committee estimated that Al Gore is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted.

Success always generates a great variety of reactions. The fact that Al Gore is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate makes some people and political circles feel uncomfortable. On the other hand, the decision of the Nobel Committee might help to re-energise multilateral diplomacy in the process of preparation for the United Nations Conference on Climate Change and during its deliberations and negotiations scheduled in Bali in December this year.

This conference is expected to find consensus solutions to problems created by global warming. The success of the conference would offer the best and most convincing reply to Al Gore's critics, who are fulminating against the wise decision of the Nobel Committee.

Ioan Voicu

Bangkok

----------------

Minority languages more than just communication

Re: "Formative teaching in Thai leads to a proven bilingual population", Letters, August 18.

There is an ongoing and somewhat acrimonious debate about the benefits and costs of bilingual education. The experience of Roger Aslin's wife appears to show how a Thai-only education in the Thai-Cambodian borderlands can enable citizens without having a negative effect on their community language and identity. However, the fact is that monolingual education has an unfortunate association historically with forced assimilation of minorities all over the world  of the Welsh, the Bretons, the Maoris and of course many Aboriginal Australian groups, to mention just four examples.

In China, where about 9 per cent of the population are non-Han, the government actually encourages bilingual education for minority people, as a route to the mastery of "Putonghua" or standard Chinese. The argument is roughly that literacy in a native language develops skills necessary for literacy in the national language, and there is therefore a double whammy educational effect. I think that similar arguments are used in Canada, where there is a lot of positive experience of bilingual education.

In Burma since 1962, minority languages have been essentially banished from schools and publications, even though a quarter of the population speaks of non-Burman languages. Where there is civil strife and a policy of vigorous assimilation, as in Burma, minorities feel seriously threatened, and their language takes on a heightened role as an important symbol of a group's continuing existence and resistance. This is true of many minority groups in Burma, and it is also possibly true of the Pattani Malays in southern Thailand. In such an atmosphere it becomes hard to hold a rational discussion about language, and indeed the issue of language gets mixed up with other social issues such as the sharing of resources between different groups, and questions of who has the power to make decisions and who is excluded.

Unfortunately language, so tied up with identity, is prey to nationalistic manipulation, as we have seen recently in Thailand.

Richard Sproat

Bangkok

----------------

Better to protest than stay silent

Re: "What practical alternative for Burma", Letters, October 17.

I find it truly amazing that anyone could take issue with criticisms that have been made against the military dictatorship in Burma. William seems to suggest that because there are other countries in the world where bad things happen, the Burmese junta should be given a pass to commit murder and strangle an entire nation. Fortunately, many of us are capable of focusing on more than one issue at a time and avoid such a myopic and linear approach to world affairs.

Unfortunately, this is not the first occasion to hear the specious analogy to the former Yugoslavia, which, if accepted, gives licence to every tin-pot dictator with an ethnic minority to commit egregious human rights abuses.

Perhaps rather than follow the path of Yugoslavia, Burma will follow that of Romania after the fall of Ceaucescu. While no one can say for certain, it is nevertheless sufficient to protest the murder of innocent people without need to propose what their alternative should be. Rather, it would also be obnoxious for any outside force to impose what form of democracy post-junta Burma should follow.

The future of Burma should be left to the Burmese. In the meantime, protest.

David Fawcett

Nonthaburi

----------------

China can't complain about Tibetan leader

Ultra-sensitive China has no right in the current climate regarding Burma to get upset about the Dalai Lama visiting the US. China is doing nothing to prevent the persecution of monks and a host of human rights abuses. China needs to grow up and join the world. Being a good influence on Burma would be a good place to start. The Beijing Olympics will not be a happy games unless China stops the tantrums.

Stuart

Australia

----------------

US-style debates needed before the election

One of the most effective ways to inform voters of the virtues of one's policies and the shortcomings of a competitor's is through an orderly, free and open debate. An informed electorate is vital to a stable, vibrant democracy, for "a popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps, both…. A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives" (James Madison).

Thus, I propose a series of one-on-one live debates between the composite Cabinet that the Democrats and its alliance would put forth if it won, and the People Power Party's would-be Cabinet. In the first meeting, Abhisit would take on Samak; the second would see the competing Interior Minister candidates face off, and so on, for all key ministries.

Debates could take place at Bitec or the Impact arena, aired live, and focus on policy and the implementation thereof. Each side would have ample time to comment on the other side's proposals. The moderator(s) would be neutral person(s) agreeable to both sides, but if no agreement was reached, then the choice of the Council of University Rectors would be binding. If either side declined or didn't show up, its time would be given to its opponent. If there were insufficient commercial sponsors for a given debate, it should be aired by the Public Relations Department as a public service.

These debates would help the people see the pros and cons of alternative goals and who could deliver on his promises, and give our upcoming election the best chance of giving us a government that will not disappoint.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

Send us your views in an instant

E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to the Editor' in the subject box, to:

letters@nationgroup.com

The Nation