Views on past PMs

re: "Prem probe must be fair" (BP, Editorial, December 29, 2022) 

Dear editor,

The Bangkok Post's editorial on the hyped reactions to a teacher's comments about former Prime Minister Prem Tinsulanonda appears to lack in a couple of aspects that very nuance that it calls for.  

Contrary to what the Post's editor appears to presume, there is nothing wrong with being gay, nor is there anything wrong with having multiple consenting sex partners. There can, therefore, be nothing wrong with pointing out such facts about a public figure if they are indeed facts. It is, on the contrary, healthy for young people who might be LGBTQ, or even those of mixed-sex tendencies, to have strong role models who share that characteristic and whose personal lives reflect the reality of being a good human being and member of society. Whilst there is everything wrong with forcing people or minors into sexual relationships, there should be no reason to hide a range unusual but perfectly decent behaviours that the prejudiced in society, even though they be a large majority, find shocking or offensive. Such bigots should be offended by being confronted with the errors of their thinking. This is why sports stars and similar figures who come out as gay, lesbian or gender-different deserve praise for doing so. 

More important, if Gen. Prem or any other figure is held up to the public as a model to be followed, then their personal life is something that should be open to public discussion. This is why people are rightly interested in the personal lives of sports stars, religious leaders, TV stars, and similar, and rightly outraged when the reality falls markedly below the myth projected. In this regard, a constructive amendment to the current Thai constitution would be to delete from Section 34 the intentionally vague and undemocratic words: "maintaining public order or good morals," and replace them with the very precise and democratic: "parliament shall pass no law to specifically protect from public exposure or ridicule any person or institution defined under this constitution of the Thai people." It might be tasteless, ugly, vile and offensive to make allegedly salacious, stupid or mocking comments about public figures, but that is no reason to restrict free speech any more than is required by the usual libel and defamation laws that already provide everyone equal protection under the law. 

The Post also assumes a rather simple definition of what it is to be a dictator, something else in need of free, open public debate. In this regard, the Post's cited example of Anand Panyarachun is instructive. Whilst not elected to the position of prime minister, I have never heard of nor can imagine anyone calling Anand a dictator. Indeed, he is justly famous for having gifted the Thai people a constitution genuinely of the Thai people, which constitution two coups were subsequently committed to negate. Anand rightly stands proud as having served the nation well, not only as a public figure, but also as a model in his personal life, and with no need to threaten weaponized law to silence fair public discussion. 

 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 January 1, 2023, under the title "Views on past PMs" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2472899/a-flawed-tax-policy