OPINION

An unlikely solution

Re: "Redressing Lipe's wrongs," (Editorial, Dec 21).

Your editorial on land problems on Lipe island that local ethnic people in Urak Lawoi are having to face was certainly a subject that needs attention but expecting the Interior Minister to have a good grasp of the subject is rather hopeful. Protected from the vagaries of the outside world by his position, he is unlikely to empathise with a people who for years have been looked down upon by the Thai elite and who now find themselves robbed of their homeland. I find it rather ironic that a man who thought it perfectly reasonable to take power from an elected government by armed force to suggest "everything must proceed in accordance with the law".

As most of us understand, wealthy landlords and corrupt officials are synonymous with most of the illegal land disputes that hit the headlines and it's unlikely that the present government, deeply rooted in this country's corruption, will do the right thing and undo the wrongs committed.

Demand answers

Re: "Chaicharn grilled over deadly shipwreck," (BP, Dec 23).

Deputy Defence Minister Gen Chaicharn Changmongkol was woefully unprepared to answer even the most basic questions when grilled by MPs in parliament about why the HTMS Sukhothai sank this week, with six dead and dozens missing.

It seems that he was either unwilling or unable to answer key questions like: (1) If the RTN had assessed the Meteorological Department's forecast before sailing, was the forecast far off? If so, perhaps the weather department needs reform. If not, why did the ship sail anyway? (2) Gen Chaicharn stresses that the crew regularly carried out emergency drills. To what extent did the drills simulate abandoning ship during severe weather? (3) The ship was carrying crew plus 30% more people -- evidently without adding life-saving equipment. Why did the captain decide to take them on regardless?

Given the magnitude of this tragedy, all MPs should have demanded answers from Gen Chaicharn. Why were only the Move Forward Party's questions worth reporting on?

Moving to Chiang Rai

Re: "Masks vs helmets," (PostBag, Dec 16).

There has been much ado in this space about masks and vaccines. Recently I read one letter about motorbike riders wearing masks but not helmets. As I look out the coffee shop window now on Sukhumvit Road I see the vast majority of motorbike riders wearing both helmets and masks -- good! Getting in an accident not wearing a helmet can cause severe head trauma and death. Not only is the rider affected, but so is the national healthcare system which then has to care for surviving victims -- something we also need to keep in mind.

At the end of the month my wife and I are moving to Chiang Rai. We won't have to worry so much about this.

But what about rabies?

Re: "Fudged figures?," (PostBag, Dec 21).

Postbag's resident quack Eric Bahrt needs new reading glasses. Diane says immune systems remain strong (against known infection) without the need for constant exercise. Generally true. Exposure to new infection is the point of vaccines, to mitigate the effects of otherwise more unpleasant symptoms. This is why the world has flu jabs, polio sugar cubes, amongst a myriad of other vaccines dosed as a child or periodically. I assume from his frequently printed diatribes that Bahrt would not go to a hospital for a rabies course after being bitten by a soi dog?

Echoing the impacts

Re: "Kids bear brunt of climate change," (Opinion, Dec 20).

I echo Roland Angerer's description of the serious impacts of climate change on children and youth -- with one caveat. Evidence is accumulating of the especially severe impact of climate change on very young children, particularly during the first 1000 days of their development (from conception to the age of 3).

The impacts of climate-related disasters that Mr Angerer describes -- ill-health, malnutrition, emotional stress, and physical violence -- affect both expectant mothers and young children with serious consequences for physical, social, and cognitive/brain development. And community-based early childhood development programmes which are meant to make up for the lack of nurturing care in many poor, disadvantaged families, are more likely to suffer -- both their availability and quality -- due to the impacts of climate change.

Thus, my amendment to Mr Angerer's statement: "Young children are the least responsible for climate change and environmental degradation but will bear the greatest brunt."