Being legal doesn't mean it's just

re: "Regime must forget 'face' and do right thing" (BP, Opinion, April 28)

Dear editor,

In "Regime must forget 'face' and do right thing" (Opinion, April 28), Wasant Techawongtham soundly makes his point that their reliance on strict adherence to the rule of law cannot justify a judiciary who have allowed a natural treasure to be defaced in their name.

It would have been useful to also remind readers that being perfectly legal is not the same as being just, that merely following the rule of law is not at all the same as following good morals. As the last four years have shown, in the tradition of decades of such bad law, a morally corrupt rule of law that rejects justice is a very useful tool to wield over a subject nation whose people are unjustly denied a voice in their own government and society at the behest of a self-serving oligarchy.

It is as easy to imagine the regime allowing a promised election as acceding to Wasant's call to "do the right thing."

 Felix Qui

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on April 29, 2018, under the title "Being legal doesn't mean it's just" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1454513/being-legal-doesnt-mean-its-just
  

This isn't Buddhism

re: "Time to stop the torture" (BP, Editorial, April 25)

Dear editor,

Meanwhile, Thai officials acting with legal impunity continue their shameful pretence of following the teachings of the Buddha. Buddhists do not condone, let alone practice, such evil against fellow citizens. But then, how many Thais are actually Buddhists? Many are Thai Buddhists, but that national religion made up by and for self-serving elites, complete with gaudy temples to their own magnificence, bears no close resemblance to the wise teachings of the more modest  Buddha, whose honesty, were he to arrive in Thailand today, would have him promptly thrown into prison next to Jatupat Boonpatararaksa, the exemplary Pai Dao Din, and other victims of Thai rule of law that has been made up over decades to serve coup makers and their cronies lording it over the unfree Thai people.

 Felix Qui

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on April 27, 2018, under the title "This isn't Buddhism" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1453453/cram-jam-and-pass
  

Brutality inexcusable

re: "Inmate 'choked to death'" (BP, April 21)

Dear editor,

The facts already known and admitted by the responsible Thai officials as reported in "Inmate 'choked to death'"(Bangkok Post, April 21) reveal deep moral failures in traditional Thai morals, at least in the morals of civil servants and the Thai military, but perhaps more widely shared by the Thai society excessively influenced by such institutions.

First, there is the seeming acceptance that it might indeed be acceptable for officials to engage in sadistic acts of abuse against those under their care. This is apparent in the admission that "10 prison officials ordered a military-like disciplinary session," a brutal period of abuse lasting a full morning, and involving the sadists beating the dead man with batons, forcing him to roll bare-skinned on concrete, forcing him to sit in the sun, all the while with his hands tied. These are the actions of psychopaths. But if asked, one suspects that they would describe themselves as Buddhists. They probably also think themselves decent citizens. Possibly their family and work colleagues share the same mistaken beliefs about what constitutes morally acceptable behaviour towards those over whom you in a position of power.

Second, the very fact that this brutal assault is described as "a military-like disciplinary session," tells us much about the moral state of the Thai military, where it is implied that such abuse is standard practice. But perhaps the Thai military will rebut this sullying of its reputation.

Finally, there is, as expected, the lame excuses of those apparently responsible for the death, albeit probably not intended since it has caused much inconvenient publicity, seeking to avoid the justice that they deserve. Even if official Thai regulations do not have in place strict procedures to screen out psychopathic sadists from employment, there can be no excuse for such brutal physical abuse as has already been admitted: those responsible, from the person or persons in charge who allowed or ordered it to those who carried it out, are guilty of heinous criminal offences and should be under arrest while the evidence is gathered for their trial. The crimes leading to a man's death after torture demand a stiff prison sentence, though perhaps not the sick abuse they inflicted on a petty criminal under their own care.

 Felix Qui

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on April 23, 2018, under the title "Brutality inexcusable" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1450671/brutality-inexcusable
  

Morality of our rights

re: "The circle of life" (BP Postbag, April 12)

Dear editor,

I enjoyed Michael Setter's thoughtful contribution to the discussion on animal rights. In a Buddhist nation, it is presumably accepted that animals do have rights. What is less certain is the degree of respect that those rights demand.

Even more interesting is how reflecting on animal rights strengthens our understanding of human rights. One hundred years ago, it was "obvious" that women were in many ways inferior to men. If asked, "Why can't women vote?" men, and even many women, thought it reasonable to answer, "Because they're women." Similarly, in 1950s America, when asked, "Why can't black people sit where they like on buses?" whites and perhaps some African Americans thought it sufficient to answer, "Because they're black." And today there are still some who honestly think that "Because they're gay" is a sufficient reason to discriminate against men who love men when it comes to legal rights regarding marriage, employment and freedom to enjoy life as they choose. These prejudices inherited from our morally less evolved ancestors teach us that what might seem "obvious" is often as irrational as it is morally wrong.

The same applies to animals. When asked, "Why is it OK to eat pigs, kill street dogs, gobble turkey, or wage chemical warfare on cockroaches?" it is no answer at all to lamely insist, "Because they're not human." Rather, we have to give relevant reasons that distinguish human animals from other animals, just as it is necessary to give relevant reasons if we want to justly discriminate between men and women, between white people and others, or between gay and straight men. In the absence of any relevant reason, such discrimination is nothing but morally indefensible prejudice, however hoary its dogmatic antiquity.

The Buddha realized this in his first precept: "Abstain from causing death." Sadly, his wise teaching is largely rejected by the religion known as Thai Buddhism, which uses legalistic dodging worthy of a Thai politician or influential magnate to subvert the plain intent. The lame response that the pork eater did not herself kill the pig that provides the tasty chop has all the force of a mafia don piously insisting that he did not pull the trigger: if you order paid servants to kill on your behalf, you cause the killing. When we buy chicken at the market or order a juicy steak at a restaurant, we are paying others to kill on our command.

This is where reflecting on animal rights intersects with Mr. Setter's comments to deepen our understanding of human rights. We don't have human rights because we are human; rather, we have human rights because of characteristics we have. I agree with the Australian philosopher Peter Singer that the salient characteristic is the capacity to suffer. But this comes in degrees. In the case of ants, their biology limits how much pain they can feel, and there is little reason to suspect them of deep emotional attachments, so killing an ant is much less worse than killing a pig. Pigs do, however, have the same intelligence and other abilities as a new born human baby, so reason really does suggest that a pig deserves the same respect as a new born human baby: if the biological abilities, including reasoning ability and emotional attachments are the same, it is not enough to repeat the prejudice that "the baby is human."

More importantly, as we mature as human animals, our abilities increase, which the law sensibly recognizes when it discriminates between minors and adults. Four-year-old children, for example, are not given drivers' licenses for highly relevant reasons: neither their bodies nor their minds are well-enough developed to safely control a vehicle on the roads. Nor do we treat a twelve-year-old murderer the same way as we treat an adult of normal mental and emotional competence.

Finally, humans have preferences which they can choose as individuals, and we suffer when these preferences are violated. This seems to me a solid basis for respecting human rights. A just state must accordingly allow each individual citizen to exercise his or her unique preferences, with state interference justified only to stop actual harm to others. It follows that free speech must be given strong legal protection, and that, for example, laws against personal drug use, however harmful such use is to the user, are immoral violations of the rights that come with being an adult human being. We might think with good reason that using alcohol or heroin is foolish, but the individual human being has the same rights as we do to form and exercise their own preferences in making such decisions: many choose to enjoy red wine or puff opium, and there can be no justification for state interference in either decision unless the user proceeds to get behind the wheel of a car or engage in some other activity that directly harms or threatens others, something that the vast majority of drug users do not do.

And eating meat? If an animal has a life free of inflicted suffering, for example freedom to move around and enjoy its animal pleasures, before it is painlessly killed, then it seems OK to enjoy that animal's tasty flesh. But exactly the same considerations make painless abortion acceptable at any stage in a pregnancy and dictate that just law allow female humans to make such decisions according to their own preferences.

The moral issues raised by eating meat or dealing with street dogs give us much to chew on.

 Felix Qui

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on April 16, 2018, under the title "Morality of our rights" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1446710/morality-of-our-rights
  

New use for learning

re: "Army chief: Turn Doi Suthep complex into learning centre" (BP, April 11)

Dear editor,

I like army chief Chalermchai Sitthisad's suggestion that the "housing project for judicial officials at the foot of Chiang Mai's Doi Suthep … be turned into learning centres."

The most appropriate such learning centre is one devoted to teaching the history of the supreme pillar of the Thai nation from which all other laws and institutions derive their legitimacy, the constitution, and the sad history thereof at the hands of those opposed to the Thai people determining the form of Thai society and its government as though they were a free people.

 Felix Qui

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on April 12, 2018, under the title "New use for learning" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1445067/new-use-for-learning
  

War on drugs

re: "11 drug plants 'churn out 20m pills a day'" (BP, April 9)

Dear editor,

The evidence of decades is as consistent as it is compelling: the only reason to criminalize the personal decisions of adults that do not harm others is to profit mafia scum and their loyally corrupt officials, judges and law makers. Thailand's wilful persistence in known failures is proof only that the law makers and officials find it highly rewarding to pursue drug policies disastrous to Thai society with no concern for that society beyond their own purely self-serving interests.

The notable exception has been General Paiboon Koomchaya, who was promptly side-lined out of his post as Justice Minister when he proposed sensible reforms that are long overdue. This sensible man gave the ruling junta an opportunity to actually introduce solid reforms to benefit the Thai nation: it was rejected, presumably for the usual reasons so that the mafia cartels could continue reaping billions from the monopoly kindly granted them by Thai law makers. Meanwhile, Thai families continue to bear the appalling cost of the indefensible policies inflicted on them by Thai politicians, and since the military also has vested interests in the suppression of Thai adults regarding recreational choices specifically, being paid by the state to engage in costly Ramboesque escapades, along with suppression of freedom of Thai adults to decide their own lives generally, it is not credible that the recurring military coups bear a large part of the responsibility for the harm that addictive drugs continue to inflict.

 Felix Qui

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on April 10, 2018, under the title "War on drugs" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1443859/war-on-drugs
  

Campaign of terror

re: "Walls close in on free press" (BP, Editorial, April 6)

Dear editor,

Blasphemous? When hoary myths are elevated to forced ideology worthy of the most zealous cult of fanatics intent on protecting their sacred dogmas from generously perceived insult, they threaten both reason and good morals. The Chiangmai governor, like the terrorizing law he uses to attack reasonable social use of their cultural heritage by citizens who are equally members of society, needs to grow up. If he dislikes healthy satire, he should not watch it. Better yet, he should respond in kind to correct what believes are misunderstandings or unjust uses of cultural relics. But to be fair, it is precisely because the facts and reason often fail to support any such cheerful rebuttal that suppression absent reason must be resorted to.

To use the law to silence different opinions proves only that the law is profoundly anti-democratic in its moral corruption. But this has always been the way of self-anointing dictators, who cannot survive if their dubious myths are subject to honest truth seeking and speaking, and who must therefore suppress honest critical reasoning that might inconveniently expose naked truths to social awareness. Its abuses consistent with the very etymology of the word show, however much it might pretend to care for good morals and reason, the ugly reality that the office of dictator is as morally corrupt in principle as it typically is in practice: it has never been otherwise.

 Felix Qui

_______________________________

The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on April 7, 2018, under the title "Campaign of terror" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1442186/campaign-of-terror