Dear editor,
In "Profane protesters" (PostBag, Nov. 26), Jack Gilead makes a point worth some reflection. It must be conceded that the language used by some of the protestors is not the sort that Jack and I would use either at home or at the office. But the students are not at home or at the office. Thai, like English and every other language, uses vocabulary and grammar not only to express ideas, but also to signal the register, and the language appropriate to and expected of a street protest is not that of an academic seminar. It would be as inappropriately silly to use the language of a funeral at a rousing celebration in the local pub.
But this also suggests the obvious constructive solution: get the students discussing their points in public in the national media. The students, for example, could pen an essay for publication on one (one at a time is good) of their petitions for reform, setting out the relevant facts and reasons. The following day, the PM or someone in his government could respond to the points the students had raised. Responses from the public, also moderated for polite language, could help to further the debate. This would seem to be a win-win situation for all, with all opinions to be freely stated for confirmation or rebuttal. The only rule is that any and all ideas may be stated, but only in polite language. No rude comments demeaning to lizards or to the sexual behaviours of healthy women and men.
As a start, the
Bangkok Post could seek permission to reprint, say, today's opinion piece by the Editorial Board of
The New York Times (Nov. 25). This opinion piece accurately reflects the international feeling regarding the current protests that stem from Thailand's official failure, refusal in fact, to respect the good morals of democratic principle. Alternatively, this week's edition of
The Economist has a lengthy article setting out relevant facts to support its analysis of the current malaise forged by decade after decade of coup after coup. I can assure Mr. Gilead that
The Economist, like
The New York Times, uses only the most polite language, albeit with a slightly academic flavour in vocabulary and grammar, but that, too, sets the good example to be emulated.
It would be highly useful, and an excellent exercise in honesty that showed his sincere willingness, for the Thai PM to respond to such international commentary. Indeed, given the horror that members of his government expressed a few days ago that Thailand's image was being stained because a young citizen raising the issue of abuse of girls in Thai schools, it is hard to see how the Thai PM could fail to respond to the much deeper and very real stain that Thailand's image is suffering with such reports in leading global publications. They really must be responded to point by point. In fact, the PM should have every word translated into Thai so that he can concede or rebut as honesty dictates each reported fact and piece of analysis. Again, a win-win response that can only benefit the Thai nation.
But what am I thinking? Far too much such honest, open discussion of affairs central to the Thai nation is criminalized by Thai law. It is precisely because issues of the gravest importance to the Thai people cannot be honestly discussed in classrooms, lecture theatres, cafes, newspaper columns, Thai history books, the august halls of parliament, and so on that the students have been forced to protest on the streets. This unfortunate situation that leads of necessity to such unhappy language could, however, be corrected by the PM. He could demonstrate a sincere willingness to listen to all sides by the simple expedient of actually listening and responding to all sides. Is it really that difficult to do what is right by the Thai people?
Felix Qui
_______________________________
The above letter to the editor is the text as submitted by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.
