Stains on Thai image

re: "Profane protesters" (BP, PostBag, November 26, 2020)

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.

The text as edited was published in PostBag on November 27, 2020, under the title "Stains on Thai image" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2026219/time-to-test-prayut-
  

Failures of Thainess

Re: "Red shirts join protest with temple fair atmosphere", (BP, November 22, 2020)

It is good to see that the unity PM Prayuth promised, along with many other lies when he overthrew the rule of law to make himself PM back in May 2014, is finally coming to pass. Naturally, the Red Shirts who also protested for a more just society will support the younger generation doing the same. Hopefully, the better informed youngsters will also be able to teach the former Red Shirts a deeper understanding of the failures of many decades that Thaksin, for his purely selfish reasons, began to address. Thaksin's failure was to accept too much of the old myth: he did not go far enough to fix the root failures of Thainess.

_______________________________

The above is the text that was actually posted as a quick comment on the article by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text of that quick comment as edited was published in PostBag on November 24, 2020, under the title "Failures of Thainess" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2024375/vaccine-no-panacea

  

Parental pride

re: "Two high schoolers face protest charges" (BP, November 20, 2020)

Dear editor,

What parent, what teacher, what school, what family would not be proud of the intelligence, the studiousness, the articulateness, the critical thinking skills, and the moral understanding of these two patriotic students being legally hounded by the law? Thailand should be praising them. Yet as the evangelist Luke tells us, Jesus warns that "No prophet is accepted in his own country" (Bible, KJV, Luke 4:24).
 
Thai law replicates too well the status quo that Jesus indicted throughout his ministry. The accounts of the Bible's other gospel writers confirm the Christ's criticism of the conservative failure to honour those who deserve it for bravely speaking truths that need to be heard. Rather than being a cause of patriotic young Thais protesting its injustice, surely the law should heed ancient wisdom that in fact comports with good morals.
 
It is not too late to listen to the words of those on the streets who see a better future for their country. Do not repeat the wrongs of the false preachers of law-and-order of ancient Judea who, in the name of maintaining their peace and their social order, crucified according to the law the street activist who dared teach a better society founded on such values as justice, honesty, compassion and acceptance.

 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 November 23, 2020, under the title "Parental pride" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2024007/parental-pride
  

Only a pustule

re: "Vandalizing Our Democracy" (The New York Times, November 22, 2020)

As the reality hit over recent decades that the American dream was for many a pretty tale that could never come true, it has been sad watching how the growing social divide enabled Trump to smash so much of the American ideals of political, economic, social and moral greatness.

The underlying problems are real, urgent and deep. Trump is the symptom, not the solution his supporters think, but unless the disease is treated without obsessing solely on them, the ugly symptoms can only worsen. I hope for America's sake that Biden has some radical therapies to rejuvenate the sad state he inherits.

_______________________________

The above comment was submitted by Felix Qui to The New York Times article.

It is published there at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/22/opinion/trump-election-democracy.html#commentsContainer&permid=110273633:110273633

  

Our right to offend

re: "Sacre bleu!" (BP, PostBag, November 21, 2020)

Dear editor,

Ray Ban, whilst I agree that it's polite to let people get on with their personal beliefs, however fantastic, provided they not seek to inflict their incredible notions on others with laws about alcohol sales and use, abortion restrictions, marriage limitations, or whatever, I'm afraid that democracy is not so gentle as I am.

A commitment to democracy requires, absolutely, that the law not only tolerate but actively protect things that we personally find deeply offensive. This is necessary to meet the foundational democratic principle that all members of the society have an equal right to a voice in determining not only their government and the laws it makes on their behalf, but also an equal voice in determining the form of the society from which that government and those laws arise. Merely allowing all an equal vote is not enough to meet the demands of democracy. To silence a voice merely because it offends some, no matter how great a majority, is contrary to the most basic democratic principle.

Yes, it is more polite not to gratuitously mock revered beliefs, but others will and do have equally revered beliefs to the contrary. To give one example, I and most people (I sincerely hope) happen to find the vile expressions of opinion of such groups as the Westboro Baptist Church repugnant as they spew such filth as "God hates fags," and worse. But their legal right to so pollute society must be protected if we are to respect democratic principle. I don't like it. I wish they would not do it. But the US Supreme Court is right to uphold the legal right of those religious zealots to grossly offend the more decent majority. Democracy is far more than majority rule.

 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 November 22, 2020, under the title "Our right to offend" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2023615/protesters-losing-their-way
  

Imperfect preaching

Re: "Govt ethics must be clear", (BP, Editorial, November 18, 2020)

Yes, the PM "often preaches about upholding the highest moral standards".

But no one believes he has any interest in practising what he preaches any more than those who preach sufficiency economic principles for the peasants actually practise what they preach. In fact, the PM and his luxury encrusted deputy love to preach sufficiency, whilst practising only super-sufficient extravagance. Expecting this PM to practise any actually moral moral value is like expecting someone who has overthrown the nation's supreme law to respect the rule of law. You might as well expect him to make the constitutionally required oath of allegiance as written.

_______________________________

The above is the text that was actually posted as a quick comment on the article by Felix Qui to the Bangkok Post.

The text of that quick comment as edited was published in PostBag on NOvember 19, 2020, under the title "Imperfect preaching" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2022079/imperfect-preaching

  

Exit chased

re: "Why the 2020 Election Makes It Hard to Be Optimistic About the Future" (The New York Times, November 16, 2020)

We can't even solve our own personal obesity and related health issues because of how mindless evolution, blind mother nature that is, made us. What chance of solving more complex problems involving human persons actually pulling together?

The outlook is perhaps even grimmer than Mr. Krugman outlines.

On a cheerier note, the Earth and life do not need us. If we pass into the same oblivion where the dinosaurs now stomp, another species will get a chance to be top dog, not necessarily our canine creations. The cockroaches have waited a long time to scurry out for a turn in the sun.

_______________________________

The above comment was submitted by Felix Qui to The New York Times article.

It is published there at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/opinion/coronavirus-climate.html#commentsContainer&permid=110181390:110181390

  

Nothing is sacred

re: "France's failings a lesson for Thailand" (BP, Editorial, November 15, 2020)

Dear editor,

France is absolutely right to protect speech that mocks religions and motley other sacred cows, whether that bovinity be Islam, Christianity, Pastafarianism, communism, Nazism, Olympianism, or some other kooky and morally suspect ideology that deems itself infallible, perfect and generally gospel truth, all perfectly fake claims most truly worthy of being mocked in a choice cartoon or other work of art.

Every purely human institution and ideal should be open to mockery. If it can't withstand some healthy critical abuse, it's not worth respecting. The US presidency does perfectly well while being mocked daily. Obama did not shrivel up and die because of some biting cartoons. The absolute righteousness of the Gay pride movement protected it from the mocking barbs of unholy traditionalists. The ideal of democracy has no need to hit back at mocking critics with draconian criminal sentences when it is laughed at.

Thailand has much to learn from France. In Thailand, too many absurd claims of being sacred, what the hell ever that even means, are taken to be sacred claims that may not be ridiculed. Ridiculous!

 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 November 17, 2020, under the title "Nothing is sacred" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2020771/sickening-betrayal
  

Nutters on loose?

re: "Using force is no way to defend the monarchy" (BP, November 10, 2020)

Dear editor,

Thank you Atiya Achakulwisut for another constructive, lucidly argued piece. The use of force has ever been a reliable indicator that there are no good reasons that can provide a rational, moral defence of faith-based ideology, whether religious or political, or both.

The ultra-loyalist political zealots do have much in common with the more fanatical religious nutters on holy jihad to seek out and suppress by any means they can get away with idolaters, infidels, blasphemers, heretics, philosophers, historians, scientists and any others, such as intelligent, informed, inquisitive students displaying healthy critical thinking skills, who might oppose their sacred faith with fact, reason, or moral decency.

 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 November 12, 2020, under the title "Nutters on loose?" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2018239/nutters-on-loose-
  

End the addiction to insanity

re: "Republicans and Democrats Agree: End the War on Drugs" (The New York Times, November 7, 2020)

It is not only that the drug war has been a proven failure for many decades, which only the insane would continue repeating expecting different outcomes; it has actively worsened drug harms to society.

If all drugs from marijuana to heroin were decriminalized, better still legalized, for sale and use by adults, there would be immediate reductions in drug-related harms to society, as shown by statistics for Portugal before and after 2000, when it decriminalized personal drug use. Some benefits of legalization: tax is collected on the thriving drug industry, which funds can be used for education and rehabilitation; a fortune is saved in police and legal resources, which can be diverted to actual crimes like murder, rape, theft, fraud and so on; a powerful temptation to mafia gangs and corrupt officials is knocked out; decent people who have harmed none save themselves do not get criminal records for choosing the unpopular drug (and let's not forget: while heroin and crack cocaine beat out alcohol for being most harmful to the user, alcohol is by far the most harmful drug for others and society, from road kills to domestic abuse); and of course, the war on drugs has not reduced drug use or addiction rates, which do not rise sharply after legalization.

More importantly, the war on drugs is profoundly unAmerican: it contradicts absolutely the founding principle that adults have the liberty to pursue their lives as they see fit provided that they not harm others in doing so.

_______________________________

The above comment was submitted by Felix Qui to The New York Times article.

It is published there at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/07/opinion/sunday/election-marijuana-legalization.html#commentsContainer&permid=110021358:110021358

  

'Morals' a blight on freedom

re: "Putting virtue first" (BP, PostBag, November 5, 2020)

Dear editor,

Steven Young's "Putting virtue first" is a poorly disguised wolf in sheep's clothing. The apparent intent was to prioritize virtue. The actual intent seemed to be to entrench the status quo that has made Thailand the divided nation it is today, where questionable law rules without regard to good morals whilst piously preaching "good morals" in the very constitution itself.

First the obvious: the current, and previous, version of the constitution of the Thai nation already has multiple references to "good morals." In sections 28, for example, the phrase "good morals" undermines the right to human dignity. In section  37, that pernicious phrase weakens the right to religious freedom. In section 36, the words "good morals" effectively void the right to free speech; and in section 50, the same morally indefensible insertion opposes academic freedom. Such a  constitutional plethora of talk about good morals is never a good thing in the law. A sound constitution and subordinate law are clearly and precisely written, the very antithesis of such murky vagaries as "good morals", which phrase fails absolutely to comport with the good moral principles of just law.  

A more telling suggestion made by Mr. Young was that "The Supreme Patriarch or the Chief Brahmin may from time to time provide guidance for the application of such Principles." This flatly contradicts democratic principle. It also contradicts the Buddha's teaching, but perhaps Mr. Young holds the local supreme patriarch, duly appointed by the Thai state no less, to exceed in wisdom even the Buddha himself, who explicitly taught that ideas are never right merely because of who said them, but emphasises instead that what matters is the soundness of the reasoning and the accuracy of the facts cited.

Mr Young, like too much Thai tradition, attaches too much importance to titles, positions and such pompery. Similarly, in the West, we still study Plato, but with the critical approach that Plato himself asks of us: nothing is true or good merely because Plato says it. His ideas about democracy are spectacularly wrong in every way, almost as awful as his beloved notion of rule by philosopher kings. Philosophers might be vastly preferable to religious leaders as sources of moral insight, but they can nonetheless also be as completely wrong as religious leaders have historically proven themselves to be. Perhaps thankfully, philosophers have rarely been listened to by politicians so avidly as religious purveyors too often are, one encouraging exception being that the Founding Fathers of the United States shared a healthy respect for reason as a more reliable guide to healthy politics and sound moral principle.

Every Thai person is perfectly capable of discussing, for example, what constitutes good morals or virtue. Plato might have been of the old Athenian aristocracy, but his teacher, Socrates, was a stonemason, a simple manual labourer. That annoyingly insightful Socrates helped the West onto the path of reason, justice, and the life of virtue. Like that ancient Athenian stonemason, every Thai rice farmer, doctor, factory worker, lawyer (yes, even the lawyers), cook, student, teacher and cleaner can and should contribute to discussions about what constitutes good morals, what is just, what the law should be, and what their society should value. Taking an active role in your nation's affairs, contributing to the national discussion, does not require any qualification above being a member of your society with a voice.

 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 November 8, 2020, under the title "'Morals' a blight on freedom" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2015903/who-will-lend-an-ear
  

Decency on trial

re: "A Guaranteed Monthly Check Changed His Life. Now He Sends Out 650." (The New York Times, November 7, 2020)

There is plenty of national wealth to go around in every developed nation, and guaranteeing all citizens a basic income would seem to have great potential to resolve a lot of divisive social problems.

Ensuring that all had basic security free of conditions other than being a citizen would allow them to seek other opportunities, to improve their skill set for employment, to pursue education, to risk starting a business, to pay to join the cultural or other social events that they deem worth supporting, to enter into relationships with a degree of basic equality rather than financial desperation, and so on.

Yes, it would require some rejigging of the tax and other distributive justice systems, but it certainly seems an experiment worth pursuing to test whether the promised benefits are truly delivered or not.

Who knows, perhaps people who were freed from chronic stress and demeaning poverty would be less likely to abuse alcohol and other drugs, and more likely to fashion themselves into responsible members of society able to contribute productively as they expressed their voice in a fashion consistent with basic democratic principle.

How could this not be worth putting to the test?

And no, compassionate caring for and sharing with others in your community is not communism. It's human decency.

_______________________________

The above comment was submitted by Felix Qui to The New York Times article.

It is published there at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/06/world/europe/bohmeyer-berlin-basic-income.html#commentsContainer&permid=110007606:110007606