Pheu Thai tries political ploy for the South

Re: "Who's afraid of an autonomous South?" and "More freedom but not autonomy in the South", Letters, November 5.

The two letters about the possibility of limited autonomy for the Muslim majority South show in startling clarity the difference between a Western mind's approach to this dreadful state of affairs and the mindset of the Thai "thinking class".

Clearly an autonomous Bangkok, which is allowed wide freedom to determine its own destiny, is not a state within a state, nor presumably would Phuket, Chiang Mai and Chon Buri be. But the South, grouped by religion, would, and would clearly be an unacceptable threat to the Kingdom.

Sadly, I believe this mindset permeates the country at every level. This is why the Pheu Thai chairman's proposal is so curious. It may therefore be a tactical master stroke to destroy the Democrats' hold in their heartland by showing them to be anti-autonomy and Pheu Thai to be pro-autonomy.

With a stranglehold on the North and a large share of the South in their pocket, Pheu Thai's future unchallenged control of the country is without question, and thus the triumphant Peronesque return of their exiled and much missed leader.

John Symons

Bangkok

----------

Carnage in N Ireland and the South does not compare

Re : "Who's afraid of an autonomous South?" Letters, November 4.

 First of all, let me remind you that the Good Friday agreement was reached after three decades of "Troubles". A much earlier agreement, the Sunningdale agreement, was signed in 1973 but did nothing to put an end to the "Troubles".

 Second, the situation in southern Thailand is much more complex and violent than in Northern Ireland:

In over 30 years of "Troubles" around 3,500 people were killed. It took only 5 years to reach the same figure in southern Thailand.

Insurgents have not formulated any demand, their leaders are unknown, and their ideology remains unclear - thus rendering any form of negotiation nearly impossible.

In the Northern Ireland conflict, civilian casualties (around 50 per cent of all casualties) were mostly "collateral damage" resulting from bombing being used as the main modus operandi. In southern Thailand, the high level of casualties among civilians (over 60 per cent), both Buddhist and Muslim, clearly shows that they are the prime target of the insurgents, since gun attack is the main modus operandi.

 Third, the Good Friday agreement was the result of years of difficult and secret negotiations. A long cry from the much-trumpeted visit of Chavalit to the South. Wan Kadir Che Man, the leader of Bersatu, is the one who called upon the government for more decentralisation and self-rule in the southern provinces, not Chavalit. While this is not a solution to the South's problems, it could indeed be an important step towards a peaceful resolution. Chavalit's idea of an autonomous "Pattana City" just contributed to undermining this somewhat reasonable request. It was not a diplomatic blunder but a carefully prepared political ploy aimed at scoring a few political points.

 In conclusion, our auto-proclaimed "super prime minister" is no John Hume. John Hume was ready to sacrifice his life to find a peaceful solution to the "Troubles". Even today, he still pays a dire price for his selflessness with his frequent nervous breakdowns. Chavalit is willing to sacrifice peace and stability to satisfy his personal agenda. While he still has nerves of steel, he appears dangerously close to full-fledged treason.

Candide

Bangkok

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

Hun Sen did not initiate genocide tribunal

Re: "Editorial coverage of Hun Sen is unfair", Letters, November 3.

I am offended by Ambassador You Aye of Cambodia's letter. Your Excellency, I believe that it is offensive for a guest in a host country to give an interview supporting a local political faction and a Thai fugitive. I would also be offended if our prime minister behaved similarly in Phnom Penh, say in support of Sam Rainsy.

My corrections to your pious understanding of Prime Minister Hun Sen are as follows:

PM Hun Sen did not bring the Khmer Rouge leaders to the criminal court in Cambodia. It was initiated by the United Nations, which originally wanted an international court outside Cambodia. However, it took Hun Sen five years to agree with the UN on an established court in Phnom Penh in 2003. In November 2009, the case is still going slowly against the former leaders of the Khmer Rouge.

Her Excellency opined that PM Hun Sen has made "great contributions to Asean" since joining in 1999. I cannot recall past contributions but can recall only his interview at Hua Hin, which was not only uncalled-for but also destructive to the Asean cause. Credit for highlighting Asean can hardly go to Her Excellency's prime minister.

Songdej Praditsmanont

Bangkok

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

Not enough profit in malaria drugs to bother

I recently attended a seminar on malaria research and I was astounded by the information that somewhere in this world a child dies from malaria infection every 42 seconds. This is upsetting, given today's medical advancements. Is it because malaria mainly affects the lower-income sector of the population that major drug companies are not interested in malaria research?

 Recently, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation awarded a biotec researcher a malaria research grant to look at tools to suppress the activity of malaria parasite genes. Maybe this will stir up the interest in malaria research.

Ramjitti Indaraprasirt

Pathum Thani

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