Back to the Future

re: "Future Forward Party wins new Chiang Mai election" and "PPRP to offer tie-up with 'kingmakers'" (BP, May 27)

Dear editor,

A tale of two cities in articles in Monday's Bangkok Post tells a story of sad decline and hopeful rejuvenation. In this classic good versus evil tale, we learn in "Future Forward Party wins new Chiang Mai election" that the good people of Chiangmai have reiterated the Thai nation's strong support for the much needed reforms that are the main platform of the Future Forward Party.

But while Future Forward was being judged good by the Thai electorate in the north, we read in stark contrast, in "PPRP to offer tie-up with 'kingmakers'," that the Bangkok-bound Democrat Party is planning to solemnize its marriage as an obedient minor wife to the Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP), thereby confirming the wisdom of the Thai nation to consign the "hilariously misnamed" (Time, November 2013) Democrat Party to the oblivion it so richly deserves for its sustained betrayal of democratic principle and process.

On March 24, the Thai nation made clear that it desires the new ways of democracy over yet more of the traditional cycle of dictatorship repeated over decades that has made Thai society the bitterly divided mess it is today, socially, politically and morally. In the unfolding tale, the Thai people recognize that Future Forward is on the right side of history. Let us hope that future chapters may lead do happier conclusions for Thailand.

 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 May 28, 2019, under the title "Back to the Future" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1684960/shame-on-democrats
  

Coups not the answer

re: "Regime is here to stay" (Editorial, May 22)

Dear editor,

Whilst the Post's editorial "Regime is here to stay" correctly points out that the "many Thais who initially backed the regime, … should have come to realise now that a military coup can never be a real solution to a flawed or corrupt government," the reality betrays an even deeper failure to understand Thai affairs by those Thai citizens who supported the coup. The piously unfilled promises made up to justify the latest overthrow of the supreme legal pillar of the Thai nation, the constitution that defines every other official Thai institution, should never have been credible to anyone given the decades long history of coups that have served only to prevent the evolution of healthy democratic solutions to Thailand's endemic corruption and other political ills.

The repeated coups that have undermined Thailand's political development, have also corrupted the social and moral well-being of the nation, thereby creating the desperation that led the nation to repeatedly vote for Thaksin, who despite his failings, including an extremely dubious commitment to democracy, appeared to not only promise, but to deliver real reforms long overdue to correct long traditional injustice and inequality. Naturally, those traditionally against democracy cast him as a villain, but the Thai people had awoken enough to see that this was but a shallow and false accusation, of no more worth than the promises of happiness from a coup leader: the nation sensibly continued to support Thaksin. Dubious political charges were pressed against him, while the real crimes of his drug war killings, which mainly harmed the poor who had voted for him, were conspicuously ignored, along with other very real capital crimes that occurred under Thaksin's watch.

It is this same desire of the Thai nation for real reform that led to the stunning success of Future Forward, the only party that has admitted to accurately learning the lessons of eight decades of Thai history. Correctly understanding the causes, Future Forward offered what millions of Thai citizens do now know to be the solutions that their nation desperately needs. Naturally, this is anathema to the forces against democracy,  who blatantly abuse the rule of law made up for that purpose to attack the leaders of Future Forward, whom millions of Thai people judged good on March 24.

The true wonder is that any Thai could ever have so failed to understand Thai history as to believe that yet another coup could end the coup-driven cycle of political, social and moral failures of decades.  Flawed though democracy be, it remains far better than every alternative, as Thai history since 1932 too amply attests.

 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 May 23, 2019, under the title "Coups not the answer" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1682352/coups-not-the-answer
  

A Thai nightmare

re: "Facebook opens way to nightmare" (Editorial, May 12)

Dear editor,

In "Facebook opens way to nightmare," The Post's editorial makes points so important that they cannot too often be bluntly stated. Whilst private publishers are rightly not bound by such legal restraints as the First Amendment to that bulwark of a relatively healthy democracy, the well-proven US Constitution, those who pretend to be a place for public discussion in the manner of a street corner should not be banning anything save outright incitement to violence against others. This is why, whilst Fox News is free to pollute the airwaves with its amazing partisan support for all things Trump along with looney religious zealotry, or The New York Times is free to take the opposite approach in deciding what to publish or not, Facebook should not be making such censorious decisions, however popular they might be. It is true that the blocked purveyors of filth, unreason and hate will find other outlets, but it would be better to allow them a voice in the more frequented public squares so that their ideas can be heard and rebutted, or not, by a wider public. It is healthy to be exposed to ideas you find repugnant.

What the Post less happily glossed over in this editorial is Thailand's grave failure to respect the basic right to free speech of Thai citizens. Although the current and previous permanent constitutions of the Thai nation, all enacted with much pageantry, explicitly state that: "A  person  shall  enjoy  the  liberty  to  express  opinions, make speeches, write, print, publicise and express by other means" (sect. 34), this pious sounding respect for basic rights is promptly rendered null and void by the following clauses. The result is seen not only in the frequent red warnings underlining many articles in the Post, which  belie the claim that Thai law respects the right to free speech of Thai citizens. More seriously in breach of respecting the basic civil liberties of Thai citizens is the fact that Thai criminal and other law infamously suppresses the free speech of Thai citizens, deeming criminal and making fugitives of patriotic citizens whose only "crime" is to seek or to speak an informed understanding of Thai affairs, which the rule of law strictly prohibits along with critical thinking. This failure of basic critical thinking is blatant in section 34 of the current constitution. So deep is the darkness dictated by this rejection of the right to free speech that it is not even known what the Thai nation thinks of such censorship, although the stunning approval of Future Forward by the good citizens of Thailand in the poll of public opinion on March 24 is suggestive.

 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 May 14, 2019, under the title "A Thai nightmare" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1677164/vox-regimen
  

Lawmaking generals

re: "Senate post for PM brother not a problem, says Prawit" (BP, May 11)

Dear editor,

Having kept careful watch over such matters, Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon is of course perfectly correct that "the younger brother of Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha ... has experience as a lawmaker."

To give such people from Thailand's vast army of army generals experience as lawmakers was, after all, the obvious purpose of the latest coup by army generals eager to serve as politicians. How else could such people aspiring to high political office become politicians? Are they expected to run for election like any civil politician bound by a constitutional rule of law to at least make a show of respect for the nation, its institutions and 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 May 12, 2019, under the title "Lawmaking generals" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1676112/lawmaking-generals
  

Immoral intrusion

re: "The state has no business in people's sexual lives" (Opinion, May 4)

Dear editor,

Ploenpote Atthakor lucidly sets out why the state has no business in people's sex lives, although it is worth adding, as I am sure she would agree, that this is true except to prevent non-consenting harm to others, which is what justifies laws against rape and the abuse of minors.

Exactly the same arguments and similar facts entail that the state has no business interfering in any citizen's personal affairs except to protect others from direct harm. This is John Stuart Mill's famous harm principle in the opening chapter of "On Liberty" (1859), a moral principle that the rule of law too often fails to respect. This moral principle is why it is wrong to criminalize sex toys, wrong to ban the sale or use of drugs such as alcohol, yaa baa and marijuana, wrong to punish heterodox religious beliefs, wrong to suppress the free expression of deeply offensive and unpopular opinions that are not incitements to harm others, and wrong to stop adults enjoying pornography, and so on.

Of course, state interference in the private lives of citizens is a great boon to corruption, as the US experiment with alcohol prohibition in the 1920s proved every bit as well as did the earlier Chinese experiment with banning opium, and the more recent Thai experience with banning prostitution. With such profits to be made by criminalizing personal decisions that do not harm others, it is understandable why the corrupt favour such intrusive laws that treat most citizens as the property of others or of the state.

We might not like some people's personal decisions, we might even think them, with good reason, to be both extremely foolish and deeply immoral, but that cannot justify the state intruding into those decisions with the force of law to force the prejudices of some, even a large majority, on all. The state's role is to enable free citizens to live their lives as they see fit, not to turn some into the tools or playthings for the prejudices of others.

 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 May 5, 2019, under the title "Immoral intrusion" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1672168/poisonous-billionaires
  

Weaponising the law

re: "Targeting FFP boss sets bad precedent" (Opinion, May 2)

Dear editor,

Just as Thai Buddhism, showing sincere loyalty to gold images, extravagant temples and the entrenched patriarchy of power hungry old men, deploys the letter of the Buddha's wise teachings to overlook the "honest mistakes" of those whose desires for tasty animal flesh lead them, citing the letter of the rule, to order paid underlings to commit a needless mass slaughter of animals every day in clear contradiction of the intent of the First Precept of Buddhism, so too is Surasak Glahan right to point out the bad morals in the official 'stubbornness in citing "the letter of the law"' as a means to attack political opponents whom the Thai people deemed good on March 24.

I seem to recall others, conspicuously silent when now faced with the real thing, insisting that reform was needed to heal the deep divides and injustices in Thai society. What we instead see is, as Mr Glahan notes, the seeming loyal abuse of the rule of law by the Electoral Commission and others to attack the politicians of Future Forward with genuinely good policies for long overdue reforms of Thai society and politics. This assault by weaponized rule of law on the sensibly good choice of the Thai nation is most unlikely to return any happiness to the Thai people. It is, however,  perfectly consistent with the undemocratic intent of the those who annulled the Thai nation's democratic form of government with a constitutional monarchy, which act looks more double plus ungood than obviously respectful of the nation, its institutions defined under the constitution so annulled, or fundamental teachings of the Buddhist religion: you cannot credibly claim to respect what your known acts contradict.

The truly weird thing defying all comprehension is, however, that some still credit the protestations their the actors put out that such acts signify good. But the upstart Winston duly dealt with by the strict rule of law, O'Brien must be happy.

 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 May 3, 2019, under the title "Weaponising the law" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/1671164/weaponising-the-law