S1R,—In his article 'Malayan Independence' published in your issue of
August 30, George Edinger wrote of 'British correspondents whose qualification appears to be an ignorance of any of the local Asian lan- guages. .. .' May I wholeheartedly endorse his views.
This applies particularly to my country—Thailand (or Siam). At present most of the Western-educated Thais, who speak English well and frequently speak to British correspondents, are against the government of Field-Marshal Pibul. The many others, who are neutral, the correspondents do not sec. Leading mem- bers of the government are Thai-educated or else had a short period in Europe as senior students, so they do not speak English so fluently. The result is that correspondents mostly send reports based on informa- tion given by the opponents of the government, and given with those brilliant touches of humour charac- teristic of the Thai people. By contrast, badly trans- lated statements by the government naturally seem rather dull to the correspondents. Thus readers in this country read almost only of the alleged misdeeds of the government, and little or nothing of their con- structive work.
The Times alone, as far as I know, has a local Thai-speaking permanent correspondent, hence the impiartial and almost entirely accurate reports pub- lished in that newspaper.—Yours faithfully, a-1mA Tredethy, Bodmin, Cornwall
Previous page
