Soft power gem
Re: "Alarm sounds over haze: Urgent govt moves include bus subsidies", (BP, Jan 25).
As an increasingly mobility-challenged octogenarian, I'm nevertheless relatively sanguine about spending the rest of my days in salubrious Bang Bua Thong. For me and many others, the extension of the MRT to Nonthaburi has been a game changer. Yet, although it offers a convenient and safe linkage with downtown Bangkok, I nevertheless approach such excursions with decreasing frequency and increasing trepidation.
Earlier this week, I set out by MRT for a day in central Bangkok. I was amazed, not for the first time, at the unsolicited but almost overwhelmingly helpful, efficient and effective assistance I received from station security and other staff. My only regret is that I could [not] later find an address on the MRT website to which I could express my thanks and appreciation. In the wider context of official efforts to develop and promote Thai soft power to stimulate the Thai economy, this MRT style of assistance epitomises a soft power gem at a corporate level. It perhaps also suggests that the soft power image of Thailand might be more usefully encouraged, and similar gems harvested by a bottom-up approach rather than a top-down strategy.
Perry Whalley
Rayong is choking
Re: "BMA to step up haze fight", (BP, Jan 30).
Bangkok is not the only place with unacceptable levels of air pollution. Forest fires in Khao Chom Hae have enveloped Rayong in a PM2.5 haze for the past several days.
If that was not bad enough, an IRPC chimney stack early this morning was belching huge clouds of thick black smoke over the city, adding to the distress of local people, particularly those with asthma and other respiratory problems.
The stack was flaring before dawn. Was IRPC doing this in the dark in the hope that it would not be noticed?
In other civilised countries, any company that caused pollution like this would be fined millions, if not tens of millions, of dollars. Why in Thailand are companies allowed to get away with such wanton behaviour?
David Brown
Media stirs the pot
Re: "Trump foreign-aid freeze leaves millions without essential drugs", (World, Jan 30) & "Trump freezes federal aid to Americans, triggering fury", (World, Jan 30).
The White House and the Office of Management and Budget rescinded the order freezing federal grants on Wednesday, according to The Washington Post. Reuters and AFP, two anti-Trump news services, ran with the articles anyway since they possessed copious fear-inciting value for them.
The White House was quick to issue the order to reverse course in response to feedback from various sources. The problem of gross inefficiencies, policy adherence, and corruption will subsequently be tackled in a more nuanced way that also addresses some of the criticisms outlined in the above-mentioned articles.
Noteworthy is the easily drawn distinction between the perspectives of Reuters and AFP, which exclusively employ politicised point of view and divisive rhetoric when reporting the news, and the responsive "We the People" point of view demonstrated by the White House.
If corporate media fails in its responsibility to be unbiased when reporting the news, it only serves to amplify societal disharmony and economic uncertainty.
Michael Setter
