Archive for ‘Laos Communist’

October 23, 2012

The Science of Racism: Radiolab’s Treatment of Hmong Experience

 

Click on the link to get more news and video from original source:  http://www.hyphenmagazine.com/blog/archive/2012/10/science-racism-radiolabs-treatment-hmong-experience

Submitted by Kao Kalia Yang on October 22, 2012 – 10:17pm

photo courtesy of author

On September 24, NPR show Radiolab aired a 25-minute segment on Yellow Rain. In the 1960s, most Hmong had sided with America in a secret war against the Pathet Lao and its allies. More than 100,000 Hmong died in this conflict, and when American troops pulled out, the rest were left to face brutal repercussions. Those who survived the perilous journey to Thailand carried horrific stories of an ongoing genocide, among them accounts of chemical warfare. Their stories provoked a scientific controversy that still hasn’t been resolved. In its podcast, Radiolab set out to find the “fact of the matter”. Yet its relentless badgering of Hmong refugee Eng Yang and his niece, award-winning author and activist Kao Kalia Yang, provoked an outcry among its listeners, and its ongoing callous, racist handling of the issue has since been criticized in several places, including Hyphen. When Hyphen’s R.J. Lozada reached out to Kao Kalia Yang, she graciously agreed to share her side of the story for the first time. What follows are her words, and those of her uncle.

***

I was pregnant.

In early spring, a dear friend of mine, noted Hmong scholar and historian, Paul Hillmer contacted me to see if I knew anyone who would be willing to speak to Radiolab, an NPR show with 1.8 million listeners worldwide. On April 26, 2012 I received an email from Pat Walters, a producer at Radiolab, saying the show was looking for the Hmong perspective on Yellow Rain for a podcast. Pat wrote, “I’d love to speak with your uncle. And no, I don’t have a single specific question; I’d be delighted to hear him speak at length.” There were two New Yorker stories on Yellow Rain, and neither of them contained a Hmong voice, so Radiolab wanted to do better, to include Hmong experience. This seemed like an important opportunity to give the adults in my life a voice to share stories of what happened to them after the Americans left the jungles of Laos in 1975. I asked Uncle Eng to see if he would be interested. He was. I agreed to serve as interpreter. Before the date of the interview with Pat and Robert Krulwich, one of the show’s main hosts, I wrote Pat to ensure that the Radiolab team would respect my uncle’s story, his perspective, and the Hmong experience. I asked for questions. Pat submitted questions about Yellow Rain.

On the date of the interview, Wednesday May 16th, 2012 at 10 in the morning, Marisa Helms (a Minnesota-based sound producer sent by Radiolab), my husband, and I met with Uncle Eng’s family at their house in Brooklyn Center. In customary Hmong tradition, my uncle had laid out a feast of fruits and fruit drinks from the local Asian grocery store. He had risen early, went through old notebooks where he’d documented in Lao, Thai, Hmong, and a smattering of French and English, recollections of Hmong history, gathered thoughts, and written down facts of the time. The phone lines were connected to WNYC studios.

Pat and Robert introduced themselves and asked us for our introductions. The questions began. They wanted to know where my uncle was during the war, what happened after the Americans left, why the Hmong ran into the jungles, what happened in the jungles, what was his experience of Yellow Rain. Uncle Eng responded to each question. The questions took a turn. The interview became an interrogation. A Harvard scientist said the Yellow Rain Hmong people experienced was nothing more than bee defecation.

My uncle explained Hmong knowledge of the bees in the mountains of Laos, said we had harvested honey for centuries, and explained that the chemical attacks were strategic; they happened far away from established bee colonies, they happened where there were heavy concentrations of Hmong.  Robert grew increasingly harsh, “Did you, with your own eyes, see the yellow powder fall from the airplanes?” My uncle said that there were planes flying all the time and bombs being dropped, day and night. Hmong people did not wait around to look up as bombs fell. We came out in the aftermath to survey the damage. He said what he saw, “Animals dying, yellow that could eat through leaves, grass, yellow that could kill people — the likes of which bee poop has never done.”

My uncle explained that he was serving as documenter of the Hmong experience for the Thai government, a country that helped us during the genocide. With his radio and notebooks, he journeyed to the sites where the attacks had happened, watched with his eyes what had happened to the Hmong, knew that what was happening to the Hmong were not the result of dysentery, lack of food, the environment we had been living in or its natural conditions. Robert crossed the line. He said that what my uncle was saying was “hearsay.”

I had been trying valiantly to interpret everything my uncle was saying, carry meaning across the chasm of English and Hmong, but I could no longer listen to Robert’s harsh dismissal of my uncle’s experience. After two hours, I cried,

“My uncle says for the last twenty years he didn’t know that anyone was interested in the deaths of the Hmong people. He agreed to do this interview because you were interested. What happened to the Hmong happened, and the world has been uninterested for the last twenty years. He agreed because you were interested. That the story would be heard and the Hmong deaths would be documented and recognized. That’s why he agreed to the interview, that the Hmong heart is broken and our leaders have been silenced, and what we know has been questioned again and again is not a surprise to him, or to me. I agreed to the interview for the same reason, that Radiolab was interested in the Hmong story, that they were interested in documenting the deaths that happened. There was so much that was not told.  Everybody knows that chemical warfare was being used. How do you create bombs if not with chemicals? We can play the semantics game, we can, but I’m not interested, my uncle is not interested. We have lost too much heart, and too many people in the process. I, I think the interview is done.”

Before we hung up the phone, I asked for copies of the full interview. Robert told me that I would need a court order. I offered resources I have on Yellow Rain, news articles and medical texts that a doctor from Columbia University had sent my way, resources that would offer Radiolab a fuller perspective of the situation in Laos and the conditions of the Hmong exposed to the chemicals. My uncle gave Marisa a copy of a DVD he had recorded of a Hmong woman named Pa Ma, speaking of her experiences in the jungles of Laos after the Americans left, so that the Radiolab team would understand the fullness of what happened to the Hmong. After we hung up the phone, there was silence from the Radiolab team.

On May 18, I emailed Pat:

I can’t say that the experience of the interview was pleasant, but it is over now. I’ve had a day and some hours into the night to think about the content of the interview. My heart hurts for what transpired. Our dead will not rise into life. The bombs fell. The yellow powder covered the leaves and the grass, and the people suffered and died. We can only speak to what we experienced, what we saw.” I followed up on my offer of resources, “I said that I had old newspaper clippings that a doctor from Columbia sent me. I do not want it aired that I offered material I did not follow up on. If you want them, let me know. I will make photocopies and send. If you’ve no time to look through them before the completion of your show, then please also let me know so I don’t waste more heart in the effort.

On May 21st, Pat wrote back, “I’m editing our piece now and I will certainly send it to you when it’s finished. Unfortunately, I don’t think time will allow me to review the articles you mentioned.” He ended the email with a request for me to listen to an attached song to identify whether it was Hmong or not.

On August 3rd, 2012 my husband and I went in for our first ultrasound. Our baby was 19 weeks old.  The black screen flickered to life. I saw a baby huddled in a ball, feet planted on either side, face turned away. The room was very silent. I prodded my baby to move. I thought the volume hadn’t been turned on. The technician was quiet. She did her measurements. She left the room. The monitor was on. I tapped my belly, asked my baby to move, so I could see if it was a boy or a girl. Two doctors came into the room. The younger one held onto my feet. The older one said, “I’m sorry to tell you. Your baby is dead.” On August 4th, after 26 hours of induced labor, listening to the cries of mothers in pain and then the cries of babies being born, I gave birth to a little boy, six inches long, head swollen with liquid, eyes closed, and his mouth open like a little bird.

On August 6th my cell phone rang. It was Pat, and he wanted me to call into an automated line at Radiolab reading the credits for the segment in Hmong. I told him I had just lost my baby. I told him I didn’t want to. He said, “If you feel better, you can call in.” I didn’t feel better.

On September 24, 2012 Radiolab aired their Yellow Rain segment in an episode titled “The Fact of the Matter.” Everybody in the show had a name, a profession, institutional affiliation except Eng Yang, who was identified as “Hmong guy,” and me, “his niece.” The fact that I am an award-winning writer was ignored. The fact that my uncle was an official radio man and documenter of the Hmong experience to the Thai government during the war was absent.  In the interview, the Hmong knowledge of bees or the mountains of Laos were completely edited out.

The aired story goes something like this: Hmong people say they were exposed to Yellow Rain, one Harvard scientist and ex-CIA American man believe that’s hogwash; Ronald Reagan used Yellow Rain and Hmong testimony to blame the Soviets for chemical warfare and thus justified America’s own production of chemical warfare. Uncle Eng and I were featured as the Hmong people who were unwilling to accept the “Truth.” My cry at the end was interpreted by Robert as an effort to “monopolize” the story. They leave a moment of silence. Then the team talks about how we may have shown them how war causes pain, how Reagan’s justification for chemical warfare was a hugely important issue to the world — if not for “the woman” — because clearly she doesn’t care. There was no acknowledgement that Agent Orange and other chemicals had long been produced by the US government and used in Southeast Asia. The team left no room for science that questioned their own aims. Instead, they chose to end the show with hushed laughter.

The day after the show aired, critical feedback began streaming in on the Radiolab website. People from around the world began questioning the segment, particularly Robert’s interrogation of a man who survived a genocidal regime. My cry had awakened something that was “painful,” and made people “uncomfortable.” Pat wrote me to ask me to write a public response to the show so Radiolab could publish it in the wake of the critical response and the concern of its audience.  I wrote one.  My response was,

There is a great imbalance of power at play. From the get-go you got to ask the questions. I sent an email inquiring about the direction the interview would go, where you were headed — expressing to you my concern about the treatment of my uncle and the respect with which his story deserves. You never responded to the email. I have it and I can forward it to you if you’d like. During the course of the interview, my uncle spent a long time explaining Hmong knowledge of bees in the mountains of Laos, not the hills of Thailand, but the mountains of Laos. You all edited it out. Robert Krulwich has the gall to say that I “monopolize” — he who gets to ask the questions, has control over editing, and in the end: the final word. Only an imperialist white man can say that to a woman of color and call it objectivity or science. I am not lost on the fact that I am the only female voice in that story, and in the end, that it is my uncle and I who cry…as you all laugh on.

Pat did not publish my response.

Instead, on September 26th, Jad Abumrad, the other main host of Radiolab, wrote a public letter offering more “context” to the Yellow Rain segment. There was no mention of the fact that they did not take up my offer to look at additional resources that would complicate their assumptions. My friend Paul Hillmer had offered academic research by another Ivy-league scientist that called into question the Harvard professor’s conclusions, which the team had refused to look at. Jad wrote about journalism and integrity and how Radiolab stands by Robert’s “robust” approach to Truth, the “science” of the matter.

Radiolab went into the original podcast and altered it. In Jad’s words, he “inserted a line in the story that puts our ending conversation in a bit more context.”

Many Radiolab listeners used the Jad response as a platform to dialogue and critique the show further.

On September 30th, Robert wrote a response to address concerns about the Yellow Rain segment.  He wrote, “My intent is to question, listen, and explore.” He apologized for the “harshness” of his tone.  He stated,

In this segment, our subject was President Reagan’s 1982 announcement that he believed the Soviets had manufactured chemical weapons and were using them on Hmong people in Laos — and a subsequent announcement by scientists at Harvard and Yale that the President was wrong, that the so-called ‘weapons’ were not weapons at all, but bees relieving themselves in the forest. While there had been previous accounts of this controversy, very few journalists had asked the Hmong refugees hiding in that forest what happened, what they’d seen. That’s why we wanted to speak with Mr. Yang and his niece, Ms. Yang.

Robert did not mention the research they did not look at. He did not mention the Hmong knowledge of bees. He did not mention the racism at work, the privileging of Western education over indigenous knowledge, or the fact that he is a white man in power calling from the safety of Time, his class, and popular position — to brand the Hmong experience of chemical warfare one founded on ignorance.

The tides of audience response shifted. Whereas the majority of listeners were “uncomfortable” with what transpired, and had called fervently for apologies to be issued to Uncle Eng and the Hmong community, some of them were beginning to say, “Robert is a journalist in search of truth.” Others wrote, “At least the Hmong story was heard.” Few questioned the fullness of what had transpired; many took the “research” of Radiolab to be thorough and comprehensive, despite the fact that sound research by respected scholars and scientists believing that Yellow Rain was a chemical agent used against the Hmong was not discussed or investigated. Dr. C.J. Mirocha, the scientist who conducted the first tests on Yellow Rain samples and found toxins, and whose work has never been scientifically refuted, was not interviewed. The work of researchers who argued against Meselson’s bee dung theory was also never mentioned.

On October 3rd, my husband and I had a spirit releasing ceremony for Baby Jules. The day was cold. The wind bit hard. The ground was dry without the autumn rains. We buried the memory box from the hospital beneath a tall tree, much older than us, an old tree on a small island. We wrote letters to Baby Jules on pink balloons and released them into the sky. I wrote, “Baby Jules, there is no need to be scared. You have been so brave already.”

On October 7th, I received an email from Dean Cappello, the Chief Content Officer at WNYC, notifying me that Radiolab had once more “amended” the Yellow Rain podcast so that Robert could apologize at the end, specifically to Uncle Eng for the harshness of his tone and to me for saying that I was trying to “monopolize” the conversation. I listened to the doctored version. In addition to Robert’s apologies — which completely failed to acknowledge the dismissal of our voices and the racism that transpired/s — Radiolab had simply re-contextualized their position, taken out the laughter at the end, and “cleaned” away incriminating evidence.

On October 8, I wrote Mr. Cappello back:

Dear Mr. Cappello,

Thank you for writing me directly. I appreciate the gesture. When I lived in New York for several years, I became a fan of your radio station, and grew to believe in the work you all do there in furthering understanding.

I just listened to the amended podcast this morning. I am struck by how many times a podcast on truth can (be) doctored, to protect itself. I don’t know how much you are aware of in regards to this matter, but I believe there are certain things you should know very directly from me:

My uncle and I were contacted by Radiolab because they said they wanted to know the Hmong experience of Yellow Rain. Ronald Reagan and American politics were not at all mentioned in any of the correspondences between me and Radiolab. For the show to say that we were not “ambushed” and that they have been completely honest with us from the beginning is a falsehood.

Before the interview, I wrote Pat specifically to tell him that I wanted to make sure Radiolab would respect what my uncle had to share about the Hmong experience of Yellow Rain.

During the course of the entire, unedited interview — which I really hope that you have listened to — Pat and Robert dismissed my uncle’s experiences again and again for two hours, thus in the edited version: you hear me cry. Robert argues this was because my uncle and I got angry and couldn’t buy the “truth” of what the scientists were saying, but that is not what happened.

During the interview, I told Pat and Robert that I had additional resources about what happened in Laos, that complicate the “bee crap” theory, and that I would be happy to share them. After the interview, despite the fact that it left us feeling horribly, I honored my words and wrote Pat offering the additional resources. Pat wrote back saying that Radiolab didn’t have enough time.

When the show aired, I was distraught to hear all that had been edited out: particularly, my uncle’s deep knowledge of bees and the mountains of Laos, as well as his official role as documenter for the Thai government on with the Hmong during this time. As well, I was shocked to hear my uncle reduced to “Hmong guy” and me to “his niece” while everyone else on the show was introduced with their titles and official affiliations. This, amongst other aspects of this show, showed a side of Radiolab and a clear privileging of Western knowledge that was far from the truth.

After the show aired, as criticism appeared on their site, Pat wrote me asking me for a public statement of how I received the show. I did so and he refused to publish it, instead Jad’s further “contextualization” was put up. Not only was this disrespectful but it was a complete dismissal of my voice on the matter. *I reiterate what I wrote to Pat, only a white man can say a woman of color is trying to “monopolize” a conversation he has full power of in the asking of questions, the editing, and the contextualizing and dares to call it “objectivity” and science.

My uncle and I agreed to an interview on the Hmong experience of Yellow Rain. We spoke honestly and authentically from where we were positioned. We did not try to convince anybody of what we lived through, merely, we wanted to share it. Our treatment by Radiolab has been humiliating and hurtful not only during the interview, the editing process, and the airing of the original podcast, but in the continued public letters by Jad and Robert to their audience, and revisions to the original segment — that continue to dismiss the validity of our voices and perspectives, and in fact, silences them.

While I will not presume to know the intentions of the hosts, I am responding to you very directly about what transpired, and what they continue to do. While I respect the work of journalism, I believe that journalistic integrity was lost in the ways Radiolab handled my uncle and the Hmong story.

I appreciate what you have to say about the role of journalism and the fact that many of your colleagues are now interested in pursuing more of the Hmong story. I have a proposition for you: that one of your colleagues do a story on the Hmong experience of what happened in Laos after the Americans left, a story that will respect the Hmong voices, and redeem all of our faith in good journalism that transcends cultures and revives history so that our shared realities become more whole. I am happy to help in any way I can. I cannot afford to give in to cynicism.

For Radiolab specifically, my uncle has put together a small message in English for the many listeners who have responded to him compassionately and kindly. I want Radiolab to air his message to their audiences, so that his voice can be heard and his message of love and human rights can be delivered. It is short, and it is a clear reflection of where he is positioned in all of this…as he has said to me throughout this whole travesty, “Me Naib, bullets didn’t kill me, so how can words uttered on airwaves I cannot see hurt me?” — even as he suffers before me.

I await your response to this email.

There has yet to be a response.

I am no longer pregnant. I am no longer scared. I, like my baby, have been so brave already.

***

Introduction by Hyphen columnist Kirti Kamboj

Tags: , ,
October 12, 2012

Laos Ready for WTO

Click on the link to get more news and video from original source: http://thediplomat.com/asean-beat/2012/10/12/laos-ready-for-wto/

By Luke Hunt

October 12, 2012

Vientiane_LaosFifteen years ago Laos lodged its application for membership to the World Trade Organization (WTO). It then embarked on a process of sometimes painful economic reforms, designed to make a one-party communist state feel a little more acceptable for the overwhelmingly capitalist classes who founded and run the world trading bloc.

Vientiane followed a path chartered by the likes of China, Vietnam and to a much lesser extent Cambodia. Their work is about to pay off and Laos is expected to become the last member of ASEAN to join the 157-member WTO at meeting slated for later this month.

Industry and Commerce Minister Nam Viyaketh has described the process as long and tedious, but necessary if his country is to push itself beyond the ranks of the world’s least developed by 2020.

Membership should also provide some sense of relief for the rest of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) whose 10 members remain hopeful that their cherished dream of forging a fully integrated economic community will be achieved by 2015.

Landlocked Laos remains dirt poor, but has managed to pull together more than seven percent annual growth over recent years, which for a least developed country is reasonable, but still a far cry from the dizzying double digit growth that some countries had recorded over the past decade.

But whether Laos can maximize its potential through the WTO will not be solely driven by economic growth. Much will depend on enforcing the rules and as increased foreign investment arrives at its door, keeping corruption to a minimum will become increasingly important.

Laws governing investment, intellectual property, food safety and animal health and trade have been introduced while the government has been leaning on the bureaucracy to improve efficiency and raise standards amid claims it remains bloated and stuck in outdated communist traditions.

Corruption is an issue that countries with a similar communist past in the region have struggled to deal with. On the Corruptions Perception Index, compiled by Transparency International last year, China is ranked 75th, Vietnam is 112th and Cambodia is a lowly 164th. Laos held the 154th spot.

The Laos Package will go before the WTO General Council for approval on October 26, and was expected to be approved by the Laos Parliament in December. In November, Vientiane will host the ASEM summit of Asian and European leaders, a meeting held every two years.

The ASEM meeting will be the biggest diplomatic event staged by Laos since the communist takeover in 1975 and with WTO membership all but approved the region could see a very different country emerging going into the New Year.

Image credit: Wikicommons

Tags: , ,
August 20, 2012

A Macau-based company is suing the Laotian Government, claiming it illegally took 400 million dollars intended for investment

Laos government sued over investment ‘misconduct’

Click on the link to get more news and video from original source:  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-17/an-lao-govt-sued-over-investment-misconduct/4206256

Updated Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:56pm AEST

A Macau-based company is suing the Laotian Government, claiming it illegally took 400 million dollars intended for investment.

Sanum Investments is behind several hotel and casino projects in Laos, including Savan Vegas in Savannakhet.

The company says it invested in Laos in good faith and accuses the government of breaking its promise to protect foreign investors against “greed and exploitation.”

Sanum says the government is guilty of misconduct for allowing a well-connected Laotian family and their companies to seize control of Sanum’s prize asset, the Thanaleng Slot Machine Club near the capital Vientiane.

Further accusations centre on a retroactive 23 million dollars tax bill, and the arbitrary revoking of licences and concessions worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

The claims will be handled by the World Bank’s International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes using treaties signed by Laos.

Sanum’s president Jody Jordahl said the company had been left with no other option, after taking “every possible step” within Laos to negotiate a settlement.

“We’ve met with our minority partners, we’ve met with the government, we’ve gone through the office of economic dispute resolution, which is what’s called for in the dispute resolution clause, and we’ve gone through the courts and unfortunately have gotten nowhere,” he told Radio Australia’s Connect Asia program.

Mr Jordhal said he was confident the World Bank’s tribunal would return a favourable verdict, but hopes an agreement can still be reached without arbitration.

“We hope the government steps up and recognises its responsibility and helps us fix the issues that have come up in Laos,” he said. “If not, we’ll certainly pursue these arbitrations to their final settlement phase.”

“This (is) really a key issue for all investors throughout the region, because if this is the way that our government treats foreign investors and honours its international obligation, then it’s not a safe environment for the international investment community, so it’s an important topic for everyone.”

Laos’ government has declined Connect Asia’s request for an interview or statement on the matter.

July 18, 2012

All Dams are destroying environments, how are dams will protect environment?

Consultants say Lao dam’s redesign will protect environment

Click on the link to get more news and video from original source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/Consultants-say-Lao-dams-redesign-will-protect-en-30186333.html

Vientiane – A redesign of the much-criticised Xayaburi damon the Mekong River will ensure the project has no negative impact on the environment, foreign consultants told a delegation Tuesday.

A Bangkok-based environmentalist group insisted that the technology involved had never been tested on a South-East Asian river.

The 3.5-billion-dollar project in northern Laos will be the region’s first dam to employ fish ladders, which have been used on dam sites in northern Europe.

Consulting firms Poyry of Finland and the French Compagnie Nationale du Rhone said a redesign will ensure that fish can travel up and down the river, the Vientiane Times reported.

“From our perspective the fisheries issue has not been addressed,”said Kirk Herbertson, Southeast Asia policy coordinator of the International Rivers organisation.

“Scientists have said there is simply not enough known about all of these migratory fish species in the Mekong, in order to make a conclusion right now that such technology will work,” he said.

Technicians from a multi-governmental organisation and from donors including the Asian Development Bank, World Bank and embassies of Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam were scheduled to visit the project Tuesday.

It was the first time that Laos has allowed an official visit to the project that has been criticised by environmentalists and neighbouring governments for its potential impact on downstream fisheries and the flow of sediments.//DPA

July 18, 2012

CK shrugs off dam report

Click on the link to get more news and video from original source:  http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/economics/302993/ck-shrugs-off-dam-report

Ch. Karnchang Plc (CK), Thailand’s third-largest contractor by market capitalisation, remains optimistic the Xayaburi hydroelectric dam will be completed on schedule despite last week’s announcement by the Lao government postponing the project.

Chairman Aswin Kongsiri played down media reports about the announcement made by Lao Foreign Minister Thongloun Sisoulith that the project would be suspended pending further environmental studies.

“We’ve worked closely with the Lao government, and I think we must wait for official word that the project will be postponed,” he said.

“We’ve scheduled time for possible delays. If the project does become postponed for no more than a few months, then I think it will remain on course to finish on schedule in 2020.”

Mr Aswin reiterated that Ch. Karnchang has yet to begin construction of the US$3.8-billion run-off river dam but rather has only built an access road to the site.

“Road development will continue, as this will benefit Laos, which remains in need of public transport routes,” Mr Aswin said.

Banks remain committed to helping fund the 1,260-megawatt power project, while the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand has confirmed its intention to purchase electricity from Xayaburi, the cheapest of the utility projects it has signed agreements for, said Mr Aswin.

The environmental group International Rivers welcomed the Lao announcement.

However, it pointed out that Ch. Karnchang will still be allowed to continue its scheduled activities at the dam site including the resettlement of affected villages.

Mekong River Commission member countries have still not decided whether to proceed with the project.

“Laos’s promise to suspend the Xayaburi dam is welcome,” said Kirk Herbertson, International Rivers’ coordinator for Southeast Asian policy.

“However, Laos has been saying for months that it has agreed to suspend the dam while at the same time allowing Ch. Karnchang to continue to move forward with construction activities on everything but the dam itself.”

The group called on the Lao government to order the immediate halt by Ch. Karnchang of all construction-related activities at the Xayaburi site and cancel plans to resettle more villagers until a regional agreement has been reached.

CK shares closed yesterday on the SET at 7.30 baht, unchanged, in trade worth 20.6 million baht.

About the author

columnist
Writer: Nareerat Wiriyapong
Position: Business Reporter
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 232 other followers

%d bloggers like this: