Asian nations must help save migrants at sea: US

[steven100]

give them some food, water & fuel ... enough to get back and send them on their way ...

Word will soon get around that smuggling is finished ... hence .. no more boats as no more customers.

[samran]

Why is it that although most of the so called refugees on the Mediteranean Sea and elsewhere are Muslim, no predominately Muslim country seems willing to take them? Saudi is fabulously wealthy and could easily support all the so called refugees, whether in Saudi or elsewhere, but they are nowhere to be seen on this problem. Why is it seemingly always western countries that are called on to take these cultural aliens, when most are economic migrants looking for a better life?

Seemingly....the operative word as the world revolves around us of course...

Take a look at this link to see where the largest refugee camps are located....it isn't that they just hang out there for a few days. They can be there years.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/where-are-50-most-populous-refugee-camps-180947916/?no-ist

[boomerangutang]

Why is it that although most of the so called refugees on the Mediteranean Sea and elsewhere are Muslim, no predominately Muslim country seems willing to take them? Saudi is fabulously wealthy and could easily support all the so called refugees, whether in Saudi or elsewhere, but they are nowhere to be seen on this problem. Why is it seemingly always western countries that are called on to take these cultural aliens, when most are economic migrants looking for a better life?

To answer your initial Q: It's because westerners are more genuinely compassionate. Middle Easterners and Asians can talk the talk about being compassionate, but it only applies to their immediate clan, and only if their clan members adhere strictly to the required doctrine.

One of many proofs: How many philanthropic (or a wide scale) do-good groups stem from the M.East or Asia? Do they have Hope Ship, MSF, or even a Peace Corps sorts of organizations? M.Easterners have Red Crescent, which is good, but what does Asia and, more particularly China offer to the world? Unless I'm mistaken: nada.

There is no need for the Thai, Malaysian or Indonesian military to enter their waters without permission. They only have to tow the boats to the international border and give them just enough fuel to reach the shore.

Trouble is, the boat skippers/smugglers, once set free, might try again to go south. There's also the dynamic where the smugglers and skeleton crew are paid and/or taking money to move people from A to B. They always take money in advance and would never provide any sort of refund. They're also out-numbered by passengers, though the smugglers probably have weapons. The scenario could turn ugly quickly if passengers want money back (and are close enough to land so they don't think they'll drown). Then add the dynamic of one or two military groups, whether they be semi-corrupt or fully-corrupt, and it's a nasty mix.

[JockPieandBeans]

Seemingly....the operative word as the world revolves around us of course...

Take a look at this link to see where the largest refugee camps are located....it isn't that they just hang out there for a few days. They can be there years.

http://www.smithsoni...0947916/?no-ist

Very rare that I agree with much you say.

Well done for providing a great article on the plight of genuine '' Refugees ''

Those that take the time to read the link will see that in all but one of these camps. The Refugees come from the Country immediately next door to where the camp is located.

Not one of them paid for a boat journey from hell.

People, for whatever reason, that pay others to smuggle / traffic them to another Country are anything but refugees.

[harryfrompattaya]

He's wasting his breath. Southeast Asian countries have yet to grow up and join humanity. They are not going to lift a finger to help these people.

Southeast Countries are takers and claim they are number 1

Well America England and EU should not give aid them

Make them aid themselves

[Rhys]

Why is it that although most of the so called refugees on the Mediteranean Sea and elsewhere are Muslim, no predominately Muslim country seems willing to take them? Saudi is fabulously wealthy and could easily support all the so called refugees, whether in Saudi or elsewhere, but they are nowhere to be seen on this problem. Why is it seemingly always western countries that are called on to take these cultural aliens, when most are economic migrants looking for a better life?

To answer your initial Q: It's because westerners are more genuinely compassionate. Middle Easterners and Asians can talk the talk about being compassionate, but it only applies to their immediate clan, and only if their clan members adhere strictly to the required doctrine.

One of many proofs: How many philanthropic (or a wide scale) do-good groups stem from the M.East or Asia? Do they have Hope Ship, MSF, or even a Peace Corps sorts of organizations? M.Easterners have Red Crescent, which is good, but what does Asia and, more particularly China offer to the world? Unless I'm mistaken: nada.

There is no need for the Thai, Malaysian or Indonesian military to enter their waters without permission. They only have to tow the boats to the international border and give them just enough fuel to reach the shore.

Trouble is, the boat skippers/smugglers, once set free, might try again to go south. There's also the dynamic where the smugglers and skeleton crew are paid and/or taking money to move people from A to B. They always take money in advance and would never provide any sort of refund. They're also out-numbered by passengers, though the smugglers probably have weapons. The scenario could turn ugly quickly if passengers want money back (and are close enough to land so they don't think they'll drown). Then add the dynamic of one or two military groups, whether they be semi-corrupt or fully-corrupt, and it's a nasty mix.

An interesting post... We have national behavior and boat captain behavior..

Do agree a nasty mix..

[thaibeachlovers]

Why is it that although most of the so called refugees on the Mediteranean Sea and elsewhere are Muslim, no predominately Muslim country seems willing to take them? Saudi is fabulously wealthy and could easily support all the so called refugees, whether in Saudi or elsewhere, but they are nowhere to be seen on this problem. Why is it seemingly always western countries that are called on to take these cultural aliens, when most are economic migrants looking for a better life?

To answer your initial Q: It's because westerners are more genuinely compassionate. Middle Easterners and Asians can talk the talk about being compassionate, but it only applies to their immediate clan, and only if their clan members adhere strictly to the required doctrine.

One of many proofs: How many philanthropic (or a wide scale) do-good groups stem from the M.East or Asia? Do they have Hope Ship, MSF, or even a Peace Corps sorts of organizations? M.Easterners have Red Crescent, which is good, but what does Asia and, more particularly China offer to the world? Unless I'm mistaken: nada.

There is no need for the Thai, Malaysian or Indonesian military to enter their waters without permission. They only have to tow the boats to the international border and give them just enough fuel to reach the shore.

Trouble is, the boat skippers/smugglers, once set free, might try again to go south. There's also the dynamic where the smugglers and skeleton crew are paid and/or taking money to move people from A to B. They always take money in advance and would never provide any sort of refund. They're also out-numbered by passengers, though the smugglers probably have weapons. The scenario could turn ugly quickly if passengers want money back (and are close enough to land so they don't think they'll drown). Then add the dynamic of one or two military groups, whether they be semi-corrupt or fully-corrupt, and it's a nasty mix.

The smugglers should have been arrested and removed from the boats before being towed back. Now it seems they have voluntarily abandoned the boats anyway.

[harryfrompattaya]

Southeast Asian countries have enough to do to support themselves and their own people , without having to take in Thousands , uneducated , illiterate , unskilled people , of a strict muslim sect , that will never integrate and will be dependent on the state for support .

The UN and Human Rights officials should send ships to rescue these people and repatriate them to Mayanmar .

Huge waves of illegal migrants invading other countries has got to be stopped . Decent people in civilized countries will not tollerate their countries being swamped by unwanted humanity , that will not integrate , that will try to impose their primitive customs and sharia law .

With whose money

Once again you must be looking for evil America to pay shame on you

Edited May 16, 2015 by harryfrompattaya

[harryfrompattaya]

can somebody tell me why the issue with migrants in Andaman sea is the business of US?!

who the hell they think they are to trying to force independent governments to do something that is against people's interest?!

You are right just beg America to pay

[Scott]

Those who think that towing the boats back to where they came from is an option might want to think again. If you want a major incident that is one way to do it. You are talking about the military of one country entering the waters of another country with boat loads of people. The people may or may not come from that country.

Let's just imagine what would happen if Australia, for example towed a few boat loads of people back to Iran and tried to put them off on the beach and then sink the boat.

How many western countries would tolerate another countries military entering their waters? I think not many, especially if they were doing something questionable.

[manarak]

yes, but the lives at stake are the lives of people who are a threat to Thai national security.

Also, the situation in Burma can be easily understood by reading the Wikipedia page about the Rohingya:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_people

They are an ethnic group with different culture, different language and different religion that expands very fast due to an uncontrolled birth rate. It is understandable that Burma doesn't want to see whole regions being taken over by what effectively is a foreign nationality.

So... once they have been rescued... where to disembark them?

Interesting to see you're repeating the mime of Myanmar Buddhist nationalism, perhaps more accurately fascist ideology.

Where is the proof of rapid Rohingya population growth? It's been refuted by a number of sources, in any case there is no recent census that includes Rohingya ethnicity.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/myanmar/131011/rohingya-demographics-population-boom-myth

On the issue of national security threat posed by Rohingya, people may like to read the content below.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/96423/are-the-rohingya-involved-in-the-violence-in-thailands-deep-south/

the first article you link does not reference any sources for its claim that Rohingya population is not expanding as fast as shown in the Wikipedia article, the latter shows sources for its figures.

your second article does not show that there is no threat from Rohingya.

I don't claim Rohingya are now significantly taking part in the Southern Thailand insurgency - the number of "free" Rohingya currently in Thailand is low anyway.

What I say is that if they are allowed in, they might play a role in future, not just because they are poor and will be loyal to insurgents in exchange of food, shelter or even money - but my main concern is that they would reinforce what could be called "the Muslim side" in general, both in numbers and politically. Many Rohingya follow fundamentalist Islam because they got no other education.

[steven100]

Those who think that towing the boats back to where they came from is an option might want to think again. If you want a major incident that is one way to do it. You are talking about the military of one country entering the waters of another country with boat loads of people. The people may or may not come from that country.

Let's just imagine what would happen if Australia, for example towed a few boat loads of people back to Iran and tried to put them off on the beach and then sink the boat.

How many western countries would tolerate another countries military entering their waters? I think not many, especially if they were doing something questionable.

Scott, not tow the boats back, just provide food, water, fuel & medicine and tow them back in the direction of Myanmar, say to the international water border line, then they can return under their own engine power as they have sufficient supplies to reach Myanmar.

[manarak]

Those who think that towing the boats back to where they came from is an option might want to think again. If you want a major incident that is one way to do it. You are talking about the military of one country entering the waters of another country with boat loads of people. The people may or may not come from that country.

Let's just imagine what would happen if Australia, for example towed a few boat loads of people back to Iran and tried to put them off on the beach and then sink the boat.

How many western countries would tolerate another countries military entering their waters? I think not many, especially if they were doing something questionable.

Scott, not tow the boats back, just provide food, water, fuel & medicine and tow them back in the direction of Myanmar, say to the international water border line, then they can return under their own engine power as they have sufficient supplies to reach Myanmar.

555

you mean they got enough supplies to make the same way back to Thailand/Indonesia/Malaysia again?

[KarenBravo]

It doesn't help that ethnic Indians are disliked in all SE Asian countries. Just listen to any local talk about them.

[simple1]

yes, but the lives at stake are the lives of people who are a threat to Thai national security.

Also, the situation in Burma can be easily understood by reading the Wikipedia page about the Rohingya:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_people

They are an ethnic group with different culture, different language and different religion that expands very fast due to an uncontrolled birth rate. It is understandable that Burma doesn't want to see whole regions being taken over by what effectively is a foreign nationality.

So... once they have been rescued... where to disembark them?

Interesting to see you're repeating the mime of Myanmar Buddhist nationalism, perhaps more accurately fascist ideology.

Where is the proof of rapid Rohingya population growth? It's been refuted by a number of sources, in any case there is no recent census that includes Rohingya ethnicity.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/myanmar/131011/rohingya-demographics-population-boom-myth

On the issue of national security threat posed by Rohingya, people may like to read the content below.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/96423/are-the-rohingya-involved-in-the-violence-in-thailands-deep-south/

the first article you link does not reference any sources for its claim that Rohingya population is not expanding as fast as shown in the Wikipedia article, the latter shows sources for its figures.

your second article does not show that there is no threat from Rohingya.

I don't claim Rohingya are now significantly taking part in the Southern Thailand insurgency - the number of "free" Rohingya currently in Thailand is low anyway.

What I say is that if they are allowed in, they might play a role in future, not just because they are poor and will be loyal to insurgents in exchange of food, shelter or even money - but my main concern is that they would reinforce what could be called "the Muslim side" in general, both in numbers and politically. Many Rohingya follow fundamentalist Islam because they got no other education.

I clicked through on the first Wiki reference to birth rates it linked to The Arakan Project; may have missed it, but doesn't talk to high birth rates, but does talk about very high mortality rates for young children and the State dictate of no more than two children per family.

http://www.oxfordburmaalliance.org/uploads/9/1/8/4/9184764/arakan_project_report_2012.pdf

From my original link...

Rakhine State — home to roughly 800,000 Rohingya Muslims, according to the United Nations — has one of Myanmar’s lowest population growth rates.

[Scott]

Those who think that towing the boats back to where they came from is an option might want to think again. If you want a major incident that is one way to do it. You are talking about the military of one country entering the waters of another country with boat loads of people. The people may or may not come from that country.

Let's just imagine what would happen if Australia, for example towed a few boat loads of people back to Iran and tried to put them off on the beach and then sink the boat.

How many western countries would tolerate another countries military entering their waters? I think not many, especially if they were doing something questionable.

Scott, not tow the boats back, just provide food, water, fuel & medicine and tow them back in the direction of Myanmar, say to the international water border line, then they can return under their own engine power as they have sufficient supplies to reach Myanmar.

And Myanmar will most likely tow them right back out to sea. They are not citizens of Myanmar.

[simple1]

Those who think that towing the boats back to where they came from is an option might want to think again. If you want a major incident that is one way to do it. You are talking about the military of one country entering the waters of another country with boat loads of people. The people may or may not come from that country.

Let's just imagine what would happen if Australia, for example towed a few boat loads of people back to Iran and tried to put them off on the beach and then sink the boat.

How many western countries would tolerate another countries military entering their waters? I think not many, especially if they were doing something questionable.

Scott, not tow the boats back, just provide food, water, fuel & medicine and tow them back in the direction of Myanmar, say to the international water border line, then they can return under their own engine power as they have sufficient supplies to reach Myanmar.

And Myanmar will most likely tow them right back out to sea. They are not citizens of Myanmar.

It's been previously reported Myanmar will not accept Rohingya returnees.

[Jeffreyake]

and do you know why?

because they are guest in Rakhine state of Burma. The crossed the border from times of British rule and by law of 1982 Bangladesh cancelled there citizenship.

wikipedia:

The 2012 Rakhine State riots were a series of conflicts between Rohingya Muslims who are majority in the northern Rakhine and ethnic Rakhines who are majority in the south. The riots finally came after weeks of sectarian disputes including a gang rape and murder of a Rakhine woman by Rohingyas

they are invaders in Burma. the invaded another country, steal the land and now claim that Rakhine state of Burma was Muslim for 1000 years. Would you be happy if Muslim immigrants in Congress will claim that New York was Muslim for 1000 years and Mohammed flew there when he was a child?

Rohingyas are parasites with medieval extremist Islamic beliefs.

The most dangerous people in the world, and they multiply very quickly.

Once US helped Albanians (Muslim) to steal Kosovo (where they were relocated 40 years before) from Serbia (Christian). May be they are going to do the same trick with Myanmar.

[manarak]

I clicked through on the first Wiki reference to birth rates it linked to The Arakan Project; may have missed it, but doesn't talk to high birth rates, but does talk about very high mortality rates for young children and the State dictate of no more than two children per family.

http://www.oxfordburmaalliance.org/uploads/9/1/8/4/9184764/arakan_project_report_2012.pdf

From my original link...

Rakhine State — home to roughly 800,000 Rohingya Muslims, according to the United Nations — has one of Myanmar’s lowest population growth rates.

yes, you missed it - here is what is said about Rohingya demographics:

Those who identify as Rohingyas typically reside in the northernmost townships of Arakan bordering Bangladesh where they form 80–98% of the population. A typical Rohingya family has four or five surviving children but the numbers up to twenty eight have been recorded in rare cases.^[2][82] According to David Price of Harvard University, Rohingyas have 37% more children between 0 and 9 years old than Burma's national average.^[2] As of 2014, about 800,000 Rohingyas live in Burma and an estimated 1 million overseas. They form 21% of Rakhine State's population or 60% if overseas population is included.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_people

Sorry, I don't consider the "Arakan Project" to be a realiable source of information, since they are an advocate of Rohingya.

Maybe they don't go as far as publishing fake data, but we can be reasonably sure they will withhold any information negative to their agenda, as any lobby tends to do, it's basic PR.

[manarak]

I clicked through on the first Wiki reference to birth rates it linked to The Arakan Project; may have missed it, but doesn't talk to high birth rates, but does talk about very high mortality rates for young children and the State dictate of no more than two children per family.

http://www.oxfordburmaalliance.org/uploads/9/1/8/4/9184764/arakan_project_report_2012.pdf

From my original link...

Rakhine State — home to roughly 800,000 Rohingya Muslims, according to the United Nations — has one of Myanmar’s lowest population growth rates.

My thoughts developed further about birth rates and what I said earlier about withholding information.

I was unable to find any direct serious source of figures for Rohingya birth rates - of course, the publications are all supporting Rohingya rights and don't want to publish any uncomfortable data.

The Arakan Project however, couldn't help but publish some figures in the chapter on education, and the figures are shocking.

http://www.oxfordburmaalliance.org/uploads/9/1/8/4/9184764/arakan_project_report_2012.pdf

On page 11, the report say that the figure of 124.600 children represent 36% of children of school age in northern Rakhine state in the year 2005, i.e. aged between 5 and 17 years...

what can we infer ?

=> there were approx. 360.000 children aged between 5 and 17 in northern Rakhine in the year 2005

I have problems to find sources to relate this figure to any population figures for northern Rakhine, but it still seems to me as there is a lot of children there.

So... if Rohingya explosive demographics are just a myths, why isn't the myth debunked?

The data about schooling certainly suggests there is no myth.

[Thongkorn]

can somebody tell me why the issue with migrants in Andaman sea is the business of US?!

who the hell they think they are to trying to force independent governments to do something that is against people's interest?!

Its called humanity, I am not a particular lover of America but its every humans problem

[manarak]

can somebody tell me why the issue with migrants in Andaman sea is the business of US?!

who the hell they think they are to trying to force independent governments to do something that is against people's interest?!

Its called humanity, I am not a particular lover of America but its every humans problem

So I guess you donate money to the NGO helping Rohingya ?

[Old Man River]

He's wasting his breath. Southeast Asian countries have yet to grow up and join humanity. They are not going to lift a finger to help these people.

The same could be said for some European countries as well.

[boomerangutang]

He's wasting his breath. Southeast Asian countries have yet to grow up and join humanity. They are not going to lift a finger to help these people.

The same could be said for some European countries as well.

Not so. European countries are taking in thousands of uninvited migrants - even though, for the most part, it's a burden on their societies and taxpayers. There are other large issues: For example, children of migrants often have trouble adjusting to their alien environs - forming a disproportionate share of law-breakers. If they're adherents to Islam, as most migrants to Europe and to SE Asia are, then there's the thorny issue of them eventually imposing Sharia law in regions which don't want to have archaic and cruel laws imposed, ....not to mention genital mutilation on little girls.

[Oziex1]

Southeast Asian countries have enough to do to support themselves and their own people , without having to take in Thousands , uneducated , illiterate , unskilled people , of a strict muslim sect , that will never integrate and will be dependent on the state for support .

The UN and Human Rights officials should send ships to rescue these people and repatriate them to Mayanmar .

Huge waves of illegal migrants invading other countries has got to be stopped . Decent people in civilized countries will not tollerate their countries being swamped by unwanted humanity , that will not integrate , that will try to impose their primitive customs and sharia law .

People are dying, women, children they need help. Not talk and inaction!

[boomerangutang]

People are dying, women, children they need help. Not talk and inaction!

I agree. See my lead letter in today's Bkk Post.

[simple1]

I clicked through on the first Wiki reference to birth rates it linked to The Arakan Project; may have missed it, but doesn't talk to high birth rates, but does talk about very high mortality rates for young children and the State dictate of no more than two children per family.

http://www.oxfordburmaalliance.org/uploads/9/1/8/4/9184764/arakan_project_report_2012.pdf

From my original link...

Rakhine State — home to roughly 800,000 Rohingya Muslims, according to the United Nations — has one of Myanmar’s lowest population growth rates.

My thoughts developed further about birth rates and what I said earlier about withholding information.

I was unable to find any direct serious source of figures for Rohingya birth rates - of course, the publications are all supporting Rohingya rights and don't want to publish any uncomfortable data.

The Arakan Project however, couldn't help but publish some figures in the chapter on education, and the figures are shocking.

http://www.oxfordburmaalliance.org/uploads/9/1/8/4/9184764/arakan_project_report_2012.pdf

On page 11, the report say that the figure of 124.600 children represent 36% of children of school age in northern Rakhine state in the year 2005, i.e. aged between 5 and 17 years...

what can we infer ?

=> there were approx. 360.000 children aged between 5 and 17 in northern Rakhine in the year 2005

I have problems to find sources to relate this figure to any population figures for northern Rakhine, but it still seems to me as there is a lot of children there.

So... if Rohingya explosive demographics are just a myths, why isn't the myth debunked?

The data about schooling certainly suggests there is no myth.

Other reports estimate the overall Muslim population in Myanmar has not significantly increased. e.g. A report that extracts population numbers from prior Burmese census claims:

“This also shows up in the national Muslim population share which was no higher in 1983 than in 1953 – more recent and reliable data are not available.

http://www.networkmyanmar.org/images/stories/PDF16/Ash-Center-Appendix.pdf

The bottom line so far as I’m concerned is the claims of very high birth rates are being used as one of the basis for aggressive disenfranchisement of the Muslim population.

As of now we will not know the true numbers as Rohingya are no longer an ethnicity captured in the census; yet another nail in the coffin for Rohingya human rights.

[thaibeachlovers]

Those who think that towing the boats back to where they came from is an option might want to think again. If you want a major incident that is one way to do it. You are talking about the military of one country entering the waters of another country with boat loads of people. The people may or may not come from that country.

Let's just imagine what would happen if Australia, for example towed a few boat loads of people back to Iran and tried to put them off on the beach and then sink the boat.

How many western countries would tolerate another countries military entering their waters? I think not many, especially if they were doing something questionable.

Scott, not tow the boats back, just provide food, water, fuel & medicine and tow them back in the direction of Myanmar, say to the international water border line, then they can return under their own engine power as they have sufficient supplies to reach Myanmar.

555

you mean they got enough supplies to make the same way back to Thailand/Indonesia/Malaysia again?

Tow them back to the international border and give them enough fuel to make land.

[thaibeachlovers]

Southeast Asian countries have enough to do to support themselves and their own people , without having to take in Thousands , uneducated , illiterate , unskilled people , of a strict muslim sect , that will never integrate and will be dependent on the state for support .

The UN and Human Rights officials should send ships to rescue these people and repatriate them to Mayanmar .

Huge waves of illegal migrants invading other countries has got to be stopped . Decent people in civilized countries will not tollerate their countries being swamped by unwanted humanity , that will not integrate , that will try to impose their primitive customs and sharia law .

People are dying, women, children they need help. Not talk and inaction!

So, start an NGO to support them. I'm sure you and your friends have enough money to rescue lots of them, or do you expect OTHER people to do the rescuing?

[boomerangutang]

Southeast Asian countries have enough to do to support themselves and their own people , without having to take in Thousands , uneducated , illiterate , unskilled people , of a strict muslim sect , that will never integrate and will be dependent on the state for support .

The UN and Human Rights officials should send ships to rescue these people and repatriate them to Mayanmar .

Huge waves of illegal migrants invading other countries has got to be stopped . Decent people in civilized countries will not tollerate their countries being swamped by unwanted humanity , that will not integrate , that will try to impose their primitive customs and sharia law .

People are dying, women, children they need help. Not talk and inaction!

So, start an NGO to support them. I'm sure you and your friends have enough money to rescue lots of them, or do you expect OTHER people to do the rescuing?

That's a flippant response. It's like saying, if a crowd sees someone drowning nearby; 'start a swimming class, so graduates will be able to save people, next time they see someone drowning.'

There are already humanitarian groups extant. Each hour / each day we discuss the issue, more people are dying. Private boat owners could stock up on water bottles and motor out there. Of course there are other essentials needed, such as food and petrol (assuming the boats return to where they came from), but water is probably #1, if facing death.

I'm in northernmost Thailand, am low income, and have no boat. However, I would seriously consider doing what I outlined if logistics were feasible. Water wouldn't even have to be purchased. Barring a commercial water supplier donating 2,000 liter bottles of water (not likely), someone with a clean well could supply it for free, and there are thousands of empty liter bottles at re-cycle places. The bottles don't even need to be properly cleaned. If you're facing death from dehydration, are you going to worry if unknown lips had touched a bottle?

Rice cakes cost 5 baht for 5 or 6 in a package. 5,000 baht could buy 5,000 rice cakes - enough to enable a few hundred people on the edge - to limp through another day or two.

Send me a message if you can do something like that. I'll donate a modest amount.