Pages

Tuesday, 22 December 2020

Naughty fake claims

re: "Govt responds to UN fears over lese majeste law" (BP, December 20, 2020)


Dear editor,

In responding to United Nations concerns that the recent use of Thailand's infamously undemocratic  lèse majesté law violates basic democratic rights of good Thai citizens, when the Foreign Ministry loyally claims that, "This type of law exists in many countries to protect the dignity of royal families in a similar way a libel law does for any Thai citizen," some support really is needed. Merely claiming something is so does not make that claim credible or true, nor does it make it a relevant defence.

The claim will have some merit, not enough to justify the use of such abusive law, but at least to substantiate the insinuated accusation that Thailand merely follows international norms, if and only if the necessary supporting examples are given of other nations in the habit of imprisoning people for 15 years, or that similarly arrest 16-year-old children for wearing clothing with the wrong slogan.

When, for example, did the UK last imprison for years anyone who said much the same as Thai citizens are now saying? When did other countries impose prison sentences of years for similar acts? Absent such support, rational people will suspect that the Ministry, in doing its job of trying to make Thailand seem less stained by the acts of Thai authorities, has been tempted into promoting an arguably fake claim. And that is naughty.

 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 December 22, 2020, under the title "Naughty fake claims" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2039227/no-tests-no-problem
  

Friday, 18 December 2020

The death penalty: naturally abhorrent

re: "The Man I Saw Them Kill" (The New York Times, December 18, 2020)


It is natural to feel that some people deserve death. As I read Ms Bruenig's description of the child killer, his own child no less, Mr. Bourgeois, I thought it seemed reasonable that he should die.

But then, a majority pretty well everywhere once thought it reasonable, only natural, as it in fact is, to hold some humans to be owned property. In living memory, a majority everywhere thought it an unnatural abomination that men love men sexually, and that it was OK to imprison, torture or kill loving humans who practised such ungodly abominations.

And that's the problem. Being natural or godly sounds so reasonable, but when dig just a very little deeper, the moral bankruptcy of such facile belief systems is apparent. Murder, rape and the rest are also very natural - ask those who eagerly went along with pogroms against Jews in Europe, with lynchings of Black people in the US: they and the rest likely believed in all sincerity that they were doing god's work to cleanse society. They were wrong.

Killing for vengeance, which is all the death penalty ever is, is indefensibly wrong. That Trump is keen to set records as the killer president is the true moral abomination here. That his fans cheer on the legal killings under the law and order slogan but proves the moral failure of that ideological mindset.

_______________________________


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

It is published there at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/17/opinion/federal-executions-trump-alfred-bourgeois.html#commentsContainer&permid=110661836:110661836
  

All hail the moonshot

re: "Moon mission moonshine?" (BP, Editorial, December 17, 2020)


Dear editor,

Let no doubters cast republican skepticism on its noble aspirations: Thailand is sufficiently set for a lunar mission thanks to its eternal lunar divinities whose ineffable foresight now proves a sufficient foundation. 

The yet free aircraft carrier can be repurposed as a launch pad. The famous blimp will provide useful lift, or possibly ballast, in the early stages of the glorious ascent. Naturally, those ever trusty GT200s will serve as the perfect guidance system to the moon and back. 

Who could dare doubt the super-sufficiency of constitutional glory most immanent?

 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 December 18, 2020, under the title "All hail the moonshot" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2037335/all-hail-the-moonshot
  

Thursday, 17 December 2020

Let's hear it for kids

re: "Education 'reform' is an utter failure" (BP, December 14, 2020)


Dear editor,

Like those preaching sufficiency from plush luxury, the well fed Ministry of Education does what decades of enforced Thai tradition made up from the 1950s designed it to do.

We know what happens if Thai students start reading, especially if they start reading English, if they become informed, and worst of all if they catch the habit of thinking critically as mathematics teaches, or of thinking honestly, as science teaches: students whose education enables insight into reality protest at the shameful failure in education among much else that the Thai nation has been made by decade after decade of coup after coup after coup. All of those coups have been committed for one primary reason: to prop up a status quo that enables the traditional corruptions whilst enforcing ignorance of Thai affairs behind veils of forced adulation for big heads got up in uniforms that, whether actual or actively aping it, consistently symbolize the militaristic face of the calculated repression of the Thai nation to protect the unelected political players battening from behind the veils.

Thai students are as intelligent and eager to learn as any. If they do not, it's because such learning is prevented. Happily, there are young Thais who are well educated. For these  students the veil has been well rent. These educated, aware, morally informed students critically aware of the Thai reality are those protesting on the streets.  These brave, brilliant children, their future and the future of the Thai nation, deserve their parents' and Thai society's full support.

 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 December 17, 2020, under the title "Let's hear it for kids" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2036763/not-a-republic-fan
  

Sunday, 13 December 2020

UK model could be comfy fit

re: "We need mockery" (BP, December 12, 2020)


Dear editor,

In his reply to former Democrat Party MP Warong Dechkitvigrom, Karl Reichstetter (PostBag, "We need mockery", Dec. 12) acknowledges that laws similar to Thailand's internationally famous lèse majesté law, section 112 of the criminal code, also exist in other nations, who also feel the need to offer some protection to their heads of state. But rather than take the example of what logically follows from a republic such as the US, would it not be more respectfully fitting for Thailand to emulate the legal practices of another democracy with a constitutional monarchy? With its ancient monarchy that remains an anciently respected pillar of the Kingdom, surely England provides more appropriate lessons than the United States, entertaining though US late night shows having a go at the president be.

Thai TV could, for example, introduce Thai history and culture to the world, whilst making a tidy profit and garnering much reverent renown, by producing a Thai equivalent of NetFlix's international hit series "The Crown", regarding which it is worth noting that there has been not a whisper of a hint of a rumour of any prosecution for lèse majesté for offence caused to the majesty of my own dear Queen Elizabeth II, herself now verging on venerable ancientness, and the senior and more sundry members of her family. Yes, by all means give Thailand's monarchy the same legal protections under lèse majesté laws that are extended to other heads of state, including the head of the Commonwealth nations such as my own country. Who, what nation, could not fully support such perfectly adequate legal protection consistent with democratic principle?

 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 December 13, 2020, under the title "UK model could be comfy fit" at URL
  

Saturday, 12 December 2020

Trump's wound staunched

re: "The Republicans Who Embraced Nihilism" (The New York Times, December 11, 2020)


Trump and those who supported his legal assault on American democracy show perfectly the fruits of blind faith in the mindless worship of law (and order) above any sense of justice, of decency or of moral right.  

Brutish authoritarians everywhere raise the same alters of strict law and order, typically draped in ultra-nationalistic rhetoric, on which to sacrifice the rights of human citizens who threaten their grasp on power.  

Thankfully, the US judiciary has demonstrated the decency and independence to repel the attack from the Trumpian administration aided and abetted by wayward elements of the Republican Party.

_______________________________


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

It is published there at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/11/opinion/republican-election-trump-supreme-court.html#commentsContainer&permid=110568016:110568016
  

Friday, 11 December 2020

Defining patriotism

re: "New charter may not be democratic" (BP, December 10, 2020)


Dear editor,

As Constitution Day again rolls around, what do Thailand's constitutions tell us about the kingdom? The current and previous permanent constitutions of the Thai nation explicitly define Thailand as having "a democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State" (sect. 2 of the 2017 constitution). This fact tells us that those who make up these constitutions, or at whose behest they are made up, feel the need to at least pay lip service to the democratic aspirations of the Thai nation, which is the Thai people, to whom, so it is written, "Sovereign power belongs" (sect. 3 of the 2017 constitution).

Since it is acknowledged in its supreme rule of law that the Kingdom of Thailand is and desires to be a democracy, "one and indivisible" (sect. 1 of the current constitution), those who would claim the mantle of patriot must, at a very minimum, respect these primary principles explicitly set out at the head of each Thai constitution.

The protestors bravely taking a stand on the streets qualify as Thai patriots: there is no doubt that they share the Thai nation's aspirations for the justice that comes only from democracy.

Conversely, could anyone who sees democracy as inimical to their own selfish interests, even to thwarting or colluding to thwart the Thai nation's just aspirations for democracy, qualify as a Thai patriot? you cannot overthrow the defining rule of law of a nation and pretend to respect its highest ideals as written in that constitution.

Well, perhaps you can so violate the nation's deepest wishes whilst loudly protesting loyal friendship, but can such a claim be credited where honest reason is permitted? Only in the land of 2+2=5 could such a deceit thrive. You might as rationally hold that suppressing free speech is a cure for corruption.

 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 December 11, 2020, under the title "Defining patriotism" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2033515/defining-patriotism
  

Thursday, 10 December 2020

A Many Gendered Thing

re: "'This climate of fear serves nobody well,' says J.K. Rowling" (The Sydney Morning Herald, 2020, December 10)


People who menstruate do tend to be women, although it ain't necessarily so, especially with the rise of modern science that can do so much better than blind, mindless nature, who wantonly created us human beings along with our relatives, from roses and rats to eels and Covid-19.

Tables, as Latin famously tells us, are female (mensa), while although they also sound female (nauta), sailors are in fact male in the Latin world; horns (cornu), meanwhile, which really do look as though they should be male, are in fact neutral. But that is never necessarily so. The gender of tables seems what it is: an arbitrary, or at best accidental, assignment of sex; less obviously and far more fun, the same is true of sailors, as the healthily increasing number of sexually female sailors attests. And why should a bull's proud horns have to be neutral? Could it be blamed were that proud animal to take offense at such a rude human designation of one of his prides and joys?  Neutral! Bah, humbug.

We have our underlying biology, which makes most, but by no means all of us either an XX female or an XY male, but nature often enough mixes things up, with results that clearly show that even at the most basic biological level not all humans, or other animals, can be neatly fit into a black and white male or female pigeon hole.

More to the point, our personalities, our persons, that is, need not be subject to the tyranny of our natural biology. Yes, people who menstruate do tend to be women, and it's not unreasonable to use the term women provided we acknowledge that that is merely a convenient short hand,  one that must increasingly prove dodgy as science enables ever more humans than those who start life with a traditional XX built body to also share in the joys of menstruating. If a table can be comfortably female gendered, why can't a menstruating person be male or whatever gendered? If the context requires it, we can focus on the biology, noting that they are XX or XY or XXY or XYY or something more exotic, but their being  a person is something that, being them, should be for them to decide, including what label best fits their evolving conception of themselves as  gendered entity: male, female, transgender, neutral, non-binary, or whatever. Perhaps we should stop making such a fuss about the gender by which a person in part defines themselves as a person, letting them get on with being the person they are and are becoming, as get on with our person-driven lives.

Ms Rowling is surely right that less of the climate of fear would be a good thing, but is that the natural way for human beings? Sadly, the devotees of nature, naturalness and all things natural will continue to follow that "red in tooth and claw" essence of the nature of the natural. Persons really can do so much better.

_______________________________


The above comment was submitted by Felix Qui to The Sydney Morning Herald article.

It is published there at https://www.smh.com.au/culture/books/this-climate-of-fear-serves-nobody-well-says-j-k-rowling-20201210-p56ma0.html#comments
  

Tuesday, 8 December 2020

Veera dodges Paine

re: "Push for a republic a pipe dream" (BP, December 6, 2020)


Dear editor,

Veera Prateepchaikul's latest, "Push for a republic a pipe dream", is the usual Veera mishmash. His talk of talk of a push for a republic is a school-boyish distraction: espousing the sentiments of respected  republicans such as Thomas Paine does not preclude supporting a just constitutional monarchy. Does Veera think that Thomas Paine is wrong to argue, as he quotes him, that "all men are born equal" and "no man has the right since birth to enjoy privileges over other men forever"? Veera dodges answering this, but he really should. Does Veera Prateepchaikul agree or disagree with Thomas Paine on the question of human equality?

The undertow against democracy continues. The republic issue is a childish distraction, but so what if some want to advocate for a republic? Democracy does in fact demand that such voices be heard, that the law protect their right to be heard. This raises another question: does Veera in fact support this most basic principle of democracy?

And then the seemingly xenophobic dismissal of the US Senate's recent vote supporting the Thai nation's quest for democracy. I'm sure that Veera is not in fact as prejudiced as he might be interpreted,  but the facile dismissal of the US Senate's support for the protestors on the grounds that they can't understand Thailand is something of a whopper, to use the apt vernacular. The reality is very much the contrary. It is only those who access foreign sources who can in fact be well informed on Thai politics, society and history. Those who rely on legal domestic sources cannot have an informed understanding of the issues that those petitioning for reform have raised for discussion. As a journalist himself, presumably aware of what the Thai media never say, it's hard to imagine that Veera is not well aware of this pertinent fact.

And that such issues have been raised, that Veera could write his opinion piece as it is, already constitutes a massive contribution by the students to moving Thailand forward. Just a few short months ago, such an opinion piece would not have been imaginable. That so much has changed so quickly is both a testament to the students' effectiveness and also to the popular support that they have tapped into.

Finally, Veera needs to grow up and get over his delicateness-related offense at the students' language and their use of entertainment. That offence is another lame effort to hobble the discourse.  Entertainment has ever been a powerful voice for getting a message across, especially humour. The students have demonstrated a sound command of marketing. They have rapidly evolved since the Harry Potter themed exorcism. Who could not smile at those  masterful food coupons? Humour is a good thing, whatever dour traditionalists condemning all natural human pleasures, save of course their own indulgences in secret, drearily preach. And whilst rude words (the horror!) might be inappropriate in a court hearing or academic seminar, and whilst I can't do such language myself, it is the language of the people, it is the language of the streets. It is the robust Thai language we hear when out and about every day. Has Veera never walked around a Thai market with his ears open? The students speak the way Thais speak on the street, and whilst we might not speak that way in the office or the lecture theatre, it is a pragmatic, honest, and appropriate way to get a serious message across at a street rally.

 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 MonthDate, 2020, under the title "Veera dodges Paine" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2031643/veera-dodges-paine
  

Saturday, 5 December 2020

Preachers' hypocrisy

re: "Is this the end for reckless populism?" (BP, December 4, 2020)


Dear editor,

What a joy to read Gwynne Dyer's piece setting out some honest truths about  authoritarian, law-and-order types. Such populist brutes are, by their very natures, morally suspect. They are often little more than brutish dictators dressed up in militaresque uniforms even if supposedly civil servants. And as the example of  Jozsef Szajer, the "ultra-nationalist, populist, authoritarian grouping that defends 'family values' and condemns homosexuality" shows us, such people are often remarkable for personal lives that flatly contradict their morally stunted preaching  about how others should live their lives. They offer simplistic solutions to complex problems, and in doing so not only lie about reality, but outlaw real solutions that are good for society. Naturally, vicious censorship is needed to protect the public myth from the threat of just exposure by the reality of the grossly self-indulgent lifestyles of such  preachers of chastity, simplicity, sufficiency, monogamy, marital fidelity, and like from becoming known and discussed as reality really should be.

As the protestors on its streets well know, exactly the same mismatch is all too common in Thailand. Look at the chasm between the pious preaching of monks who live in literally gilded temples whilst preaching sufficiency. And the sex lives of Thai monks are far too uncomfortably similar to that of Catholic priests and bishops preaching abstinence as they abuse children and the powerless under their control. But this is merely in the ostensibly sacred realm.

In the avowedly secular realm,  there is the regularly repeated Thai example of those who preach law and order, despite having overthrown the supreme rule of law, and in the current case, then having failed and persistently refused to make the oath of allegiance to "also uphold and observe the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand in every respect” (Thai Constitution, sect. 161). But in the land of no compromise, why would blatant hypocrisy stand out? Modern Thai history of the past 70 years at least teaches that such deceits, protected by unjust law made up for that purpose, are the normal superficial gloss of preaching good morals by those who would not know a good moral if it bit them.

To take one specific Thai example, look at Thaksin Shinawatra's ultra-nationalist excuses for his law-and-order authoritarian killing of thousands of Thai citizens. His drug war killings were evil that many others were complicit in. In fact, it is such things as his populist drug war  killings, with support from the morally compromised, that show Thaksin to have had and to still have today far more in common with the current Thai prime minister, who staged a coup to make himself PM, than he does with such eminently new people as Thanatorn, Move Forward and the protestors on the streets, who would no more want the authoritarian old-style Thaksin than they do his replacement in Prayuth. Naturally, those who ousted Thaksin did not care to press the charges of killing thousands in morally indefensible drug wars but instead made up silly political charges for which no nation will extradite. It's all most convenient and too traditionally Thai.

To conclude on a lighter note, as many Thais know every bit as well as healthy human beings everywhere, sex is a good thing. Enjoying sex with whoever and however is perfectly good. It is a morally sound way to enjoy life, provided only that all the parties concerned are adults, or at least mature teens, freely consenting to the joys being shared and no promise to another is being violated. It is the anti-pleasure, uptight religionists and other zealots who are morally wrong to condemn such natural pleasures as sex. But then, such morally and factually stunted types usually are wrong about almost everything, in heaven as on Earth, which they make hell. The more fervently they preach what they often decline to practice, the most morally rotten they are. As with Hungary's rightly embarrassed ultra-nationalist authoritarian, the gross contradictions between their preaching and their personal lives should be publicly exposed. In this regard, the Thai media has much to learn from the media of more developed, successful nations.

 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 December 5, 2020, under the title "Preachers' hypocrisy" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2030419/pm-is-in-denial
  

Wednesday, 2 December 2020

Protection pretence

re: "Section 112's return adds fuel to protest fire" (BP, December 1, 2020)


Dear editor,

Atiya Achakulwisut rightly points out how the application of any such law as section 112 of Thailand's criminal code can only undermine the institutions it deceitfully claims to protect. The logically certain reality is more deeply corrosive.

Since undemocratic laws such as sect. 112 place an unspeakable veil around whatever is placed off limits, they make it impossible to know whether and to what extent the carefully crafted image matches the reality. No matter how many perfectly true and verifiable details paint in a rosy picture, legally forced censorship entails the certain possibility that the rosiness is in reality a cover for something concealed by the law that prejudicially favours image over reality. By so dictating that appearance trumps truth, that law can only undermine the very possibility of informed, rational respect for whatever it makes unknowable, what it cloaks in mystery.

Mystery is an excellent thing to have in an Agatha Christie mystery. There, the worth of the mystery comes from its resolution by the truth being laid out clearly in the end. Until the annoying Poirot or nosey Miss Marple lay out the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, with rigorous analysis connecting the dots that show how each detail contributes to the correctly seen overall picture, the mystery enables false perceptions to run riot, with the guilty appearing good and the good guilty. 

It is as irrational as it is immoral to have any feeling save a desire to discover the reality behind every mystery, mystery being always an admission of ignorance. When mystery is made legally sacrosanct, the healthy response by rational, moral individuals must be suspicion that something not entirely nice is being protected from just exposure.

Thus does  section 112 necessarily prove itself, and those who resort to it, the enemies of informed respect, thereby undermining what it falsely pretends to protect.

 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 MonthDate, 2020, under the title "Protection pretence" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2028655/protection-pretence