Slippery stuff

re: "Yok as a political pawn" (BP, Editorial, June 19, 2023) 

Dear editor,

In its editorial ostensibly railing against the politicization of the 15-year-old Thanalop "Yok" Phalanchai, who they apparently did not think to contact to directly learn her side, the Bangkok Post concludes with talk of "upholding the moral values expected from most students." Oddly, or typically, there was no discussion of what those moral values might be. There was no discussion of whether those moral values might be decent or not. Even more oddly, or typically, there was no indication of whether the rest of society, for example teachers, parents, national leaders, heads of state, and so on, should uphold the same moral values.

Does the Post think that there is one set of moral values for students and some other set of moral values for other groups? That would be an interesting position to take. Should honesty be expected of doctors and other professionals but not of school children, or vice versa? Should respect for the rights of others be expected of school children but not of social leaders got up in pretty uniforms, or vice versa? Such moral relativism by social group quickly gets weird.

And then there is the issue that the Post's editorial oddly glosses over. At the heart of the issue that the courageous and arguably patriotic Yok has raised is that Thai law criminalizes peaceful, honest speech. That is, after all, the reason that led to Yok being arrested, thereby leading to the just public outrage, including editorials from the Bangkok Post. Exactly what sort of moral value is it that criminalizes peaceful open dialogue on matters of national importance, even to the extreme of arresting children? What sort of society, or group within society, condones law that enshrines that sort of moral value? 

Perhaps the true lesson that the Post failed to draw is that the traditionally upheld moral values forced on others by those preaching rather than following them are in serious need of an update to bring them into line with good morals. Or perhaps the same set of moral values should apply equally to and be upheld equally by all? 

Since open dialogue is a necessary condition for correcting errors and improving our understanding in the moral realm as much as in the scientific, I would suggest that, however offensive some might find honest opinions that are soundly supported, respect for such free speech that critically questions is foundational.  We might not have to change the law to follow the passionately advocated positions some might hold, but unless they are listened to and their arguments addressed, there can be no confident holding that the law or the moral values it purports to uphold are in fact morally decent. 

 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 June 22, 2023, under the title "Slippery stuff" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2597120/slippery-stuff