OPINION

Why racial labels?

Re: "Indian man 'kills delivery man'", (BP, Jan 23).

I recall reading an enlightened editorial in the Bangkok Post edition of Nov 10, 2024 ("Ending the Thai Citizenship Limbo"), which stated that "Thailand's education system has long promoted the notion of the Thai race as the rightful custodian of the nation, fostering a sense of superiority and relegating ethnic groups, hill tribe members, and Thai-born migrants to a secondary tier. This view ignores Thailand's inherently multicultural history, enriched by its diverse communities".

I wholeheartedly agree with this, and therefore find it regrettable to see the headline "Indian Man Kills Delivery Man" plastered on the front page of the Jan 23 edition of the Post. From reading the article, it is clear the accused "Indian man" appears to be a Thai of Indian heritage. Should we now expect headlines such as "Chinese iCon leaders arrested for pyramid scheme"?

A tragic lesson

Re: "Indian man 'kills delivery man'", (BP, Jan 23) and "Apology falls short", (PostBag, Jan 24).

Without a doubt, with this Greek tragedy, one has learnt never to engage in road rage and that one is better off being a loser because in engaging, one loses one's reasoning. Your reporter, Wassayos Ngamkham, narrated the incident in such a balanced way that one can learn a lesson. The suspect will forever regret the attack, damaging to himself and his family.

The report has caused me to cite this incident to all my close ones. Don't go into a rage about anything.

Climate blind spots

Re: "What climate spending really costs the globe", (Opinion, Jan 24).

Bjorn Lomborg once again glosses over important facts regarding climate change in his haste to belittle efforts to combat climate change. In so doing, he omits key findings from the meta-studies by Tol and Nordhaus. For example, Richard S J Tol states that poorer countries are much more vulnerable than richer countries, and, more ominously, Tol writes that "The central estimate of the economic impact of global warming is always negative." In his paper, William Nordhaus finds the net present value of economic benefits realised from pursuing an optimal cost-benefit policy aimed at zero emissions to be $120 trillion. Tol and Nordhaus make many other important points that Lomborg ignores, but people who are interested can read those for themselves.

Two weaknesses in Lomborg's column are readily apparent. First, Lomborg asserts that due to climate change, "the average person" will be 435-440% as rich as today in comparison to the 450% when there was no climate change, suggesting it's not worth spending money to curtail climate change. Perhaps this is true, but it is misleading because the wealthy have been grabbing a larger chunk of wealth than everyone else. It would be far more enlightening to know how much richer, if at all, would be the people who are in the bottom half of wealth distribution. Second, as Tol notes, poorer countries will disproportionately be impacted by climate change, yet neither Tol nor Nordhaus nor Lomborg attempt to quantify the social impact of climate change, which could result in hundreds of millions of people attempting to migrate to areas less adversely impacted by a warming climate. Where will they go? Europe doesn't want them, America doesn't want them, and it's probably not too far-fetched to say that neither China nor Russia will open their borders to climate refugees. There will be a cost to pay if hundreds of millions of people can no longer work in their fields due to climate change and try to force their way into rich countries.

In short, it appears that Lomborg is only concerned about the wealthiest people on the globe (Europeans and Americans) in berating efforts to address climate change. While that may appeal today to many Europeans and Americans, their children and grandchildren may ultimately face unpleasant consequences visited on them by the people most harmed by climate change.

State-run Buddhism

Re: "Monk accused of raping retreat participant", (BP, Jan 18).

There is nothing new in the latest scandal to hit the version of state-sponsored religion called Thai Buddhism under the supervision of the National Office of Buddhism (NOB). This state Buddhism rarely follows any of the Buddha's wise teachings. The aims of those who imposed it on the nation have always been political, which is why it needs to be administered by the state.

Were Thai Buddhism to follow the principles of the Buddha, free of state control, it would be a very different, a vastly more respectable example to the world of Buddhism. Alas, those decking themselves out in amulets, forced kowtowing, and legalised impunity will not readily give up those accoutrements their unbridled egos demand.

Fair scrutiny needed

Re: Selective criticism in "Roosevelt revisited?", (PostBag, Jan 23).

I am writing in response to Songdej Praditsmanont's letter, "Roosevelt revisited?" (PostBag, Jan 23), which criticizes President Trump for granting mass pardons and other controversial actions. While I am no fan of President Trump, I find it troubling that the letter selectively calls out his actions while ignoring similar behaviour from President Biden.

President Biden, who promised to uphold the rule of law and avoid interference in judicial matters, has also been accused of pardoning individuals, including his son Hunter Biden, under the pretext of addressing what he called a "political witch hunt". Such actions have sparked widespread criticism and raised concerns about double standards in leadership.

If we are to evaluate leaders on their commitment to principles such as "no one is above the law," as quoted from Theodore Roosevelt, it is only fair to apply the same scrutiny across the political spectrum. Singling out President Trump while turning a blind eye to recent events under President Biden's administration reeks of hypocrisy and undermines the credibility of such critiques.

A balanced and consistent approach to political commentary is vital for fostering productive discourse. Let us hold all leaders accountable, regardless of their political affiliations, for actions that affect public trust and the democratic process.

Our green future

Re: "Regulator launches green tariff", (Business, Jan 24) and "Excise tax on cars set to be rejigged: Update to aid transition to future mobility technologies", (Business, Jan 4).

Two related world-changing events are unfolding before our eyes that the Thai government must take into account in its long-term development plan: the reduction of fossil fuel usage and the end of internal combustion as the power source of transportation.

Trend number 1: The adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) in Thailand presents significant potential for reducing the country's carbon footprint and reliance on fossil fuel imports.

As an early adopter of EV, my experience resonates with other consumers collectively influencing this market shift. These advantages include lower purchase prices than equivalent fossil fuel vehicles, zero maintenance costs over the three years of ownership, and significantly reduced operating expenses.

My vehicle's operating costs break down as follows. My EV consumes 0.14 kWh per kilometre, while my gasoline SUV consumes 1/14 of a litre per kilometre. With electricity costing 4 baht per kWh and gasoline costing 34 baht per litre, my cost to drive 1km in my EV is approximately 0.56 baht, whereas the cost to drive 1km in the gasoline SUV is around 2.36 baht. My EV operation cost is less than 25% of the cost to operate my gasoline car.

These small personal savings can translate into larger savings that can benefit consumers and the nation as a whole.

Thailand consumes approximately 155 million litres of gasoline per day as car fuel. At 34 baht per litre, this daily consumption accrues to a staggering 1.9 trillion baht in fuel costs annually. By converting to EVs, each 1% increase in EVs among the cars on the road in Thailand will lead to a corresponding reduction in consumer spending on fuel, resulting in a saving of 75% over using gasoline.

Trend number 2: The rapid rise of renewables as a sustainable long-term energy solution -- and perhaps the key to humanity's survival.

In recent years, global coal usage has plateaued and is projected to decline sharply. This trend is not surprising, given the well-established negative health impacts associated with coal use. Currently, Thailand's fuel policy focuses on the use of liquefied natural gas (LNG). While burning natural gas is generally less harmful than coal or oil, it is important to note that accidental releases of natural gas into the atmosphere have a global warming potential (GWP) that is 84 times greater than that of CO₂. The recent destruction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, termed one of the most destructive manmade global warming disasters to date, illustrates the extreme risks associated with fossil fuel usage, as humans often act in self-interest without considering the long-term climate consequences of their actions.

For Thailand, our green solution may well lie in hydroelectricity, which beautifully combines both storage and generation capabilities. We don't need to look far for practical examples; this proven source of energy is already under EGAT's long-term contract from our easterly neighbour. Laos is already a major hydroelectric producer, while the Salaween River basin to our west remains undeveloped. Both areas hold significant potential for hydroelectric power generation, with estimates suggesting that Laos could double its current hydroelectric capacity. These two situations offer Thailand a unique chance to swiftly implement more green energy projects, strengthening its relationships with Laos and Myanmar while supporting and participating in our neighbours' economic development.

English test flaws

Re: "Mandatory English tests for uni students", (BP, Jan 26).

I wish to raise the issue surrounding the substandard quality of English language tests being given to Thai students.

I have been an ESL teacher in Thailand for 20 years, having taught every grade from kindergarten to university faculty members. As such, I have been aware of the poor standard of English used in tests given for examinations such as O-NET.

The persistent issues include:

As a parent of Thai children who are navigating their way through the Thai education system, we have often marvelled and sometimes cried in frustration at the abysmal standard of English used in Thai national tests.

To this point, my son (14, grade 8) has paid to take part in a national English test, along with several thousand other Thai students. In reviewing previous test papers, I was aghast but unsurprised to find at least 10 errors -- errors that make getting the answer correct a simple "lucky dip".

I am sure many of your readers are aware of this phenomenon.

It remains a mystery why these so-called academic institutions persist in not using foreign native speakers to proofread their tests. Is it a "face" issue?

It is a problem that requires looking at and one that can easily be solved. It would go a small way to improving the image and integrity of Thailand's oft- beleaguered English learning system. After all, they would never allow an arithmetic question to have a wrong answer, surely?

It is my hope that bringing this topic to the fore will create awareness and discourse at the MoE, leading to a positive change and impact.

CONTACT: