How unspeakable

re: "Merciful option?" (BP, PostBag, October 13, 2023) 

Dear editor,

In his letter as published, "Merciful option?", Ilyn Payne appears to argue that if a prison system is unspeakably inhumane, that justifies killing people in order to reduce the net suffering over a prisoner's life. A more moral stance might hold that the nation's prison system be required to meet minimal standards of decency to reflect a healthier set of public morals.

In his eagerness to lop off heads or otherwise kill, Mr Payne also leaves undefined what might constitute "unspeakable crimes" deserving of "the ultimate cost [that] should be paid." He also leaves unspecified what principle justifies killing another human being. Israel thinks it is justified in killing to hold on to land it illegally occupies. Hamas clearly thinks it is justified in killing to reclaim land stolen from the people it claims to stand for. Pro-choice abortion advocates think pregnant women have the right to kill the human being in their womb. Thai law thinks it acceptable to kill people who supply a popular drug of recreation to eager customers — Thaksin Shinawatra's murderous war on drugs was egged on by the morally stunted at every level of Thai society, none of whom have ever been held to account. Uganda thinks it right to kill gay men for the crime of "aggravated homosexuality". Are all or some these unspeakable crimes? 

Does the author think that the Paragon killer has committed an unspeakable crime deserving the death penalty? Did the Royal Thai Police officer who killed 36, mainly children, a year ago at Nong Bua Lamphu commit an unspeakable crime? Did the Royal Thai Army officer who gunned down 29 in Khorat in 2020 commit an unspeakable crime? Do major drug dealers commit unspeakable crimes according to whether the drugs they deal are legal or illegal?  

But those fatal vagaries in Mr Payne's call to kill leave untouched the deeper question:  whether any punishment can ever be justified. Punishment is legalized vengeance. Should the law be inflicting vengeance, or should its just goal be to prevent some committing acts that harm others? If the former, the eye-for-an-eye doctrine encoding the primitive moral notions of despotic societies, then the death penalty is plainly called for. That follows the  ancient mindset that commanded Moses's followers to steal by military invasion the land of Canaan after their reported exodus from servitude in Egypt, thereby beginning the litany of reprisal killings that more than 2,500 years later continue to define the so called Holy Land that Israel's hard-right nationalists, now ascendant, claim as theirs by the will of God with the same fervour shown by Hamas.

Perhaps Ilyn Payne could consider that we may only be justly punished for what we freely choose to do. Since the mounting evidence is that we could never choose other than we in fact do but only ever act as strictly determined by the physio-chemical processes taking place in our brains, this would suggest that the law's sphere of justice is limited to preventing harm to others, never to engaging in crude vengeance of the primitive eye-for-an-eye type for which he advocates.  

 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 October 15, 2023, under the title "How unspeakable" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2664389/how-unspeakable

Drugs or alcohol?

re: "Drug-fueled horrors" and "Reality check" (BP, PostBag, September 27, 2023) 

Dear editor,

In my letters to PostBag to which both Richard Bryant (Drug-fueled horrors) and Christian Reeve (Reality check) respond, an original concluding sentence was: "At the very least, there needs to be more public discussion about what could justify criminalizing some recreational drug use whilst legally blessing the use of other, more socially harmful drugs by adults." I thank the writers for contributing their personal perspectives to this discussion.

In both cases, their evidence is entirely personal anecdote and observation of news reports. As such, they are excellent examples of the problematic nature of such observations and reports. Whilst I do not doubt that they honestly report what they believe they observe, such personal accounts are both extremely limited and inherently, albeit unconsciously, biased, so typically do not reliably represent reality. 

Let me begin by conceding that the claim that alcohol is the most socially harmful drug in popular recreational use is based mainly on research regarding the situation in developed Western countries. Two useful pieces of the published research are: 1) "Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis" (Nutt et al., 2010 The Lancet) and 2) "The Australian drug harms ranking study" (Bonomo et al., 2019, Journal of Psychopharmacology). Both of these are available for free public access. The Australian study is particularly useful. Australians like our beer, wine and other alcohol-laced drinks. The experts, therefore, specifically address the obvious concern, writing in their Results section that: "Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug when harm to users and harm to others was combined. A supplementary analysis took into consideration the prevalence of each substance in Australia. Alcohol was again ranked the most harmful substance overall." Needless to say, this evidence-based conclusion does not go down well with many of my compatriots. 

The situation in Thailand could well be different. I have not been able to find the necessary statistics to say with absolute confidence one way or the other. But what is known suggests that Thailand is not in fact so different to the UK or Australia when it comes to drug harms to society.

As a telling example, it was reported when the Democrat Party's infamous Prinn Panichpakdee's long career of sexual abuse finally came to public light last year that he had been in the habit of plying his victims with alcohol to make them more readily available to his lusts. He typically did this over a meal at a classy restaurant with a few glasses of wine. I am sure that Mr. Panichpakdee saw himself as a responsible social drinker. His mates in the Democrat Party certainly observed nothing to raise any concern worth mentioning to anyone regarding Mr Panichpakdee's social use of alcohol on such occasions.  

We do, however, have some solid statistics for one area where alcohol appears to be the hands down winner in causing harm to others in Thai society: road deaths. Let me quote from a recent, 2023, World Health Organization report that says nothing surprising to anyone who has lived in Thailand for a few years: "Similarly, drunk driving causes 5,529 deaths annually, or roughly 28% of all traffic deaths" (WHO, 2023, "A New Year's resolution 'for life').  

If either Mr Reeve or Mr Bryant has a statistic that shows any such annually repeated drug-fueled horror for cannabis, ya ba, or any other drug in popular recreational use in Thailand, I would very much welcome them to bring it our notice as a valuable contribution to the 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 October 2, 2023, under the title "Drugs or alcohol?" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2655831/current-charter-a-no

re: "Pope’s Remarks on ‘Reactionary’ U.S. Catholics Rankle, and Resonate"

re: "Pope’s Remarks on ‘Reactionary’ U.S. Catholics Rankle, and Resonate" (The New York Times, September 1, 2023)

Francis is rising in my esteem as he seeks to lead his church to some long overdue moral progress. 

Those comfortably ensconced in old ways have never liked that sort of thing. The Biblical account tells us that is why the social conservatives of the time, the high priests of ancient Jerusalem intent on protecting their beloved traditions, used the law to kill Jesus, the upstart radical on the streets. 

Law-and-order authoritarianism has a long history of opposing moral progress. 

_______________________________

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

It is published there at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/01/us/pope-francis-conservative.html#commentsContainer&permid=127452132:127452132

Respect all citizens

re: "‘Pride’ watch seizures challenged in Malaysian court" (BP, August 23, 2023) 

Dear editor,

Whilst not in any cheerful, gay or otherwise happy colours, Malaysia's government paints Malaysians as snow flakes of extra special delicateness. Could it is true, as their government warns, that attractively colourful watches “may harm … the interests of the nation by promoting, supporting and normalising the LGBTQ+ movement that is not accepted by the general public”? 

Perhaps the Malaysian government should worry more about the prevailing bad public morals that fail to respect equally all Malaysian citizens, including the usual percentage who are LGBTQ+. Merely being a majority consensus inherited from less morally developed ancestors does make an ugly prejudice less rotten. 

 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 August 25, 2023, under the title "Respect all citizens" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2635701/rules-for-thee

re: "After Ballot Losses, Where Does the Anti-Abortion Movement Go Next?"

re: "After Ballot Losses, Where Does the Anti-Abortion Movement Go Next?" (The New York Times, August 21, 2023)

Does the radical anti-abortion zealot have any reason for thinking that there is inherently any reason why abortion is intrinsically morally wrong? What qualities is an unborn human baby supposed to have that make it somehow radically different to the unborn baby of  a chimpanzee, pig, dog, rat or any other of our near relatives? So far as I know, there is no such quality. None. 

There is nothing wrong with abortion. 

There is, however, a lot that is wrong with treating the bodies of women as something that others, such as radical zealots running on unreflective, unreasoning, inhuman faith in a blinded and blinding ideology, should control above any right to personal autonomy of a pregnant woman. 

 

_______________________________

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

It is published there at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/21/opinion/kristan-hawkins-abortion-republicans.html#commentsContainer&permid=127171547:127171547 

It's beyond reason

re: "Civic groups press for relocation of bizarre statue" (BP, August 17, 2023) 

Dear editor,

The Artists Council for the Promotion of Buddhism of Thailand demonstrates a flawed understanding of the Buddha's teachings if they think that merely because something "went against Buddhist teachings" could be grounds to abolish or suppress it. Bangkok and the rest of Thailand is full of churches, cathedrals, mosques, meat selling markets and restaurants, and no end of other things that are at least as "against Buddhist teaching" as is the rather ugly, bizarre in fact, statue of the deity Khru Kai Kaeo. The Artists Council for the Promotion of Buddhism of Thailand might find more constructive ways to promote Buddhism than an intolerance that seems itself to contradict the Buddha's ideals of reason and example rather than brute force, including brutish legal force. 

The statue and its prescribed worship are no more superstitious than any other bit of religious teaching or practice touching on supernatural matters. When it comes to the supernatural, every religious claim is, without exception, exactly as well-evidenced as every other such claim. The teachings attendant on Khru Kai Kaeo are as sacred as any and on that score as deserving of the same respect accorded any other equally well substantiated sacredness. Why wouldn't they be? The sacred is, after all, the sacred, however scary of visage and divine command. 

Those who find such things distasteful are free to ignore the crimson manicured Khru Kai Kaeo or point out that it's all a bit beyond reason, but that is as far as their horror may justly go. Those finding it a source of comfort for whatever reason should be allowed to exercise their faith provided they not cause or threaten actual harm to others, including innocent puppies, or pigs, neither of whom appreciate being sacrificed to human desires for blood-soaked self-indulgence. 

Meanwhile, those who are "gripped by fear" should get a grip and take a more rationally informed, more Buddhist, approach  to such nonsensical beliefs as ghosts, spirits, demons, gods and other such perfectly unsubstantiated fantasy. 

But before this latest god on the block is cast into the darkness whence all such derive, what sacrifice does  Khru Kai Kaeo require to deliver Thailand from the curse being cast by Pheu Thai, the senate, UTN and the rest of that most unholy alliance against the will of the Thai people as manifest on May 14 and since? Those gargoyles being gathered into the warm embrace of the Pheu Thai family are the truly scary ones stalking the land. 

 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 August 19, 2023, under the title "It's beyond reason" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2632127/its-beyond-reason

The bigger picture on speech

re: "Limits on speech" (BP, PostBag, August 11, 2023) 

Dear editor,

Eric Bahrt raises an interesting perspective on whether the law of a democratic nation may justly implement "a ban on public Koran burning." His argument does not hold up. The comparison with American Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes's famous dictum that "You can't stand up in a movie theatre and shout 'fire' unless there really is one" is not a valid comparison. Justice Holmes was concerned not with bullying threats of violence from easily offended snowflakes, but with the mayhem that can naturally ensue when people panic.

What Mr Bahrt's argument boils down to is that a threat of violence from some group of zealots inspired by religion, nation, or whatever faith-driven fantasy, is a sufficient reason to deny the right to peaceful free speech. That is not the "slippery slope" Mr Bahrt mentions. It is an open door to banning all speech that offends.

The proper response to faith-driven intimidation is to ensure that those threatened are protected; that is the duty of the state. It is what just governance provides its citizens. Sweden and Denmark would be in the wrong to criminalize the burning of the Koran merely because doing so is deeply offensive to a set of beliefs about sincerely imaged things taken far too seriously by fragile, immature bullies who desperately fear different opinions and critical reasoning.  

 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 August 13, 2023, under the title "The bigger picture on speech" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2628433/learning-that-counts

Free speech in full

re: "Denmark on heightened alert after Koran burnings" (BP, August 4, 2023) 

Dear editor,

Some pieces of inked paper bound together in a book called the Koran have been peacefully burned in Sweden and Denmark under the protection of the laws of those countries. That book is a potent symbol to some, so the deliberate desecration is understandably upsetting, but like those who suffer with mature restraint the burning of their national flag, the $100 bill, the Bible, a revered poster of Barbie or any other cultural emblem, the followers of the Koran now have a chance to prove the true worth of the faith that each paper copy of the Koran symbolizes. By responding to the rude outrage with peaceful, reasoned rebuttal rather than bullying violence or threats thereof, they will show that their religion upholds good morals. They can demonstrate that, being firmly based on reason and objective reality, it need not lash out in desperate fear at those who question its verities.  

Denmark and Sweden have responded correctly to the extremely offensive but nonetheless peaceful expression of opinion that is the burning of the Koran. If we fail to insist that the law not only allow expressions of speech that we find utterly repellent but actually protect the peaceful exercise of such deeply offensive acts, then we do not in fact respect the fundamental right of free speech, which does not magically stop at my or your most revered or sacred things. Free speech really does mean that others have the right to peacefully express ideas that we, and perhaps a large majority of our society, find offensive in the extreme. Anything less debases claims of free speech to a worthless platitude allowing only already accepted ideas. Islam should take this opportunity to show a moral maturity that accepts that others will think differently about what it deems of supreme importance. 

 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 August 9, 2023, under the title "Free speech in full" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2626029/tip-for-mfp

No man is only an island

re: "Religion and politics" (BP, PostBag, August 4, 2023)

Dear editor,

Jeff Wilcox presents as being as well informed on Buddhism as he is on Thai political history. Both are solidly on a par with his understanding of human society. In describing Buddhism's founder, he writes that "Siddharta established the sovereignty of the individual human mind: that people are individuals, not one of a collective species." I am not sure that Siddhartha would have claimed to have established any such broad understanding of human reality, nor would he have dogmatically asserted he had infallibly gotten that or any other factual matter right for all time. He presents as a more modestly human individual.

We are indeed all individuals, although under Thai law, the sovereignty of each is restricted, even to criminalizing the peaceful expression of ideas that displease powerful political players. Whatever else they might be, such political players are thereby proved decidedly not apolitical; to support Mr Wilcox's claim of them being apolitical, considerable public debate would be required. For some reason, that required debate has not occurred.

If Mr Wilcox seriously thinks that we are "not one of a collective species," how does he explain his use of the Internet to interact with the Bangkok Post? Did that just appear out of blue for his "individual human" use? And the Post itself where his letter is published? And if Mr Wilcox buys food, how is that not making him a part of a collective species? Being unique individuals with rights that can be violated does not preclude our also being members of collectives, which are themselves collectivized. 

If might shock Mr Wilcox, but the evidence supports John Donne's pithy "No man is an island entire of itself" (1624). Our species has not become the dominant animal on this planet, now with literal power of life and death over all other living things, because we evolved not to be interdependent members of massively connected and interconnected organizations: collectives we call religions, NetFlix, states, tribes, clubs, corporations, families, projects, political parties, PostBag, and so on. 

 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 August 6, 2023, under the title "No man is only an island" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2624287/revolving-door-politics

Proud of Pride

re: "Don't overdo it" (BP, PostBag, June 29, 2023) 

Dear editor,

Ellis O'Brien seems not to understand the many values of Pride Month. The LGBTQ+ community is proud both of their achievements and of who they are. Both testify to great progress. In mere decades, within my own life time, we have done much to reduce the suffering of fearful LGBTQ+ people desperately seeking some honest human contact while living a lie under constant threat of family rejection, of being thrown into prison, of losing a job, of being poofter bashed for sport, and so on. This is cause for celebration. 

Look at the United Kingdom's disgusting treatment of Alan Turing, for example. Having substantially helped them win the Second World War, the law of the land and its lawful executors forced him in 1952 to choose between prison or castration for the crime of loving another man in perfect accord with how nature had created them. It is only because of the protests, parades, and other efforts of proud LGBTQ+ people over recent decades that England realized very lately how morally repugnant its homophobic laws always were, so much so that in 2021, Turing was put on the £50 note, the highest honour that can be bestowed on an English woman or man. That is serious progress well worth the celebrating for a month. No one, however, forces you to participate or even to watch the celebration.

There remains, nonetheless, much to be done. In countries like Thailand, LGBTQ+ citizens are still denied equality before the law: same-sex marriage is still denied Thais who love someone of the same sex. In other places, the traditional hatred and intolerance sedulously fanned by toxic myths inherited from ancient despotisms continues to suppress, imprison, silence, stigmatize, and even kill those who would love and live each other differently to the majority or differently to the prurient commandments of fanciful deities, including those of the communist or fascist faiths. 

Pride Month in Australia, Thailand, the US and elsewhere sends a message of hope to those yet suffering in places like Russia, Uganda, the Arab nations, China, and other benighted places still under the sway of traditional darknesses. This alone is an sufficient reason for a colourful celebration of Pride Month. 

Let me assure Mr Ellis that, in the meantime, I am perfectly happy for him to hold a Straight Pride month. Why wouldn't I be? I must, however, correct a small but understandable misunderstanding. Unlike the despotic deities with their ideologies pushing hate and intolerance for millennia, I do not claim to be omniscient, however confident Mr Ellis be that I am. To claim such would be a whopper right up there with every other such claim that has ever been made by the zealots pushing their own one, true arbiters of objective reality and all things moral as determined by whatever patriarchal society of inflexible, ruthless, conformity birthed them to pillar their own position of self-satisfied men lording it over others: over their women, their children, their goats, their darker skinned neighbours, their poorer, their infidels, their witches, their fallen, and so on.

Pray tell, Mr Ellis, what exactly are you planning to celebrate in your Straight Pride month? What messages will you be sending? Please send the brochure. 

 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 July 1, 2023, under the title "Proud of Pride" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2602958/tips-on-staying-calm

re: "No Culture for Alienated Men"

re: "No Culture for Alienated Men" (The New York Times, June 17, 2023)

Whilst he might not offer solutions, Mr Douthat does at least delineate a problem with traditional conceptions of masculinity. 

If any of the gods existed, it would be their fault for having made such seriously botched men, and for then failing to update their products. In their absence, mindless nature is the prime culprit, one from which we can't escape. In the absence of divine creators, blind nature, accidents of insemination and environment, makes us all exactly what we are, including the Kaczynskis, the Berlusconis and the Cormacs, along with the Jesuses, the Socrates, and the Cormacs. 

Nature, in the meantime, continues as it always has.  

_______________________________

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

It is published there at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/17/opinion/ted-kaczynski-silvio-berlusconi-cormac-mccarthy.html#commentsContainer&permid=125804646:125804646

We still need plumbers

re: "Is AI out for your job?" (BP, Opinion, May 29, 2023) 

Dear editor,

Tatat Bunnag blithely writes that "Jobs that involve creative thinking, complex problem-solving and human interaction are less likely to be fully replaced by AI. We do things that AI cannot do yet." He then gives not a single example of what such jobs might be. They are not Bangkok Post opinion writers, a job Chat GPT appears quite competent to do, if not last year, then likely next year.

As a quick test, I asked Chat GPT to: "write a 400 word essay for the title: 'Is AI out for your job?'" A few seconds later, I had a well-constructed essay developing sound arguments in excellent English. It included the sentence: "This can free up human workers from mundane and time-consuming tasks, allowing them to focus on more value-added activities that require creativity, critical thinking, and emotional intelligence" — including perhaps writing opinion pieces for the Bangkok Post.

But Mr Bunnag need not despair. Chat GPT also points out in another well-placed sentence that "This has led to the emergence of new job roles such as AI engineers, data scientists, and machine learning specialists." All that is needed is for the Post's author to put his innate mathematics skills to use with a spot of upskilling in that burgeoning field.

Alternatively, I suspect that Chat GPT and its rapidly evolving siblings probably can't replace plumbers yet. There might be an opening for some upskilling in that area at a local vocational college. 

 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 4, 2023, under the title "We still need plumbers" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2584646/talk-to-the-generals

No fan of religion

re: "Malaysia seizes ‘Pride’ watches" (BP, May 24, 2023) 

Dear editor,

It is well-known, millennia of evidence across cultures attesting to it, that religion reliably leads to false beliefs and moral stunting masquerading under arrogant claims of unquestionable infallibility. Still, the sad seizure by Malaysian authorities of "Pride" watches bearing a design inspired by nature's beautiful rainbow is seriously kooky behaviour for the faith-driven as they seek to despotically impose their faith-sodden ideology on an entire society. 

Sadder by far, however, is that their unreasoning intolerance and contempt for basic human rights leads ineluctably to the creation, in the name of their ruthlessly commanding gods, of all too real hell on Earth for actual human beings. 

 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 May 26, 2023, under the title "No fan of religion" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2578784/reckless-riders

Meaty options

re: "Stop the denial" (BP, PostBag, May 22, 2023) 

Dear editor,

Eric Bahrt is correct that beef production remains a major source of greenhouse gas production, specifically of methane, which "is more than 25 times as potent ... at trapping heat in the atmosphere" (US EPA, 2022) than is boring CO2. Unfortunately, I was unable to find the sentence Mr. Bahrt quotes that claims "Beef production remains the biggest source of greenhouse gasses", which sentence, according to Google, exists solely on a few Facebook pages run by avid vegetarians, and now on the Bangkok Post. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in contrast, reports that for the US, "Human activities emitting methane include leaks from natural gas systems and the raising of livestock," in that order, with natural gas and petroleum systems contributing 29% and enteric fermentation (animal digestion) 25%. (US EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases, 2023, April 13)

But 25% is still a lot of methane to be pumping into our atmosphere by ruminative animals converting plants into tasty flesh at low cost, except to our shared environment. Happily, methane also breaks down relatively quickly, making it sensible to focus on to contain global warming. 

Even more happily, science and technology are now providing us with alternative ways to grow real meat without the release of harmful methane.  With cultured (lab grown) meat now becoming a reality, that sustainable alternative to real meat needs to be further developed with economic incentives to make it more attractive for research and production. Putting cultured meat made in animal-free factories on the tables of consumers looking for the delicious taste of real meat that mindless nature, or darkly humorous gods, has implanted in us whilst not simultaneously destroying the environment we all must live in is win-win for ourselves and nature. Moving to such human-made meats will also remove most if not all of the suffering currently inflicted on innocent members of other species by we human animals bent on needless pleasure according to our evolved, or god given, nature. 

 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 May 24, 2023, under the title "Meaty options" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2577089/handling-the-purse

re: "Legalizing Marijuana Is a Big Mistake"

re: "Legalizing Marijuana Is a Big Mistake" (The New York Times, May 17, 2023)

Although he does not mention that popular drug that is far more harmful to both users and society than marijuana is, Mr Douthat is presumably aware that that is the case. The silence is odd. Anyone who opposes marijuana legalization on the grounds that it is personally degrading will logically be a rabid abolitionist when it comes to the more toxic and degrading alcohol. 

As for the argument that cops "simply substitute some other pretext when the law changes, leaving arrest rates basically unchanged," what this shows is that more laws need to be amended or revoked to prevent such racialized abuse by police. 

But Mr Douthat's founding premise is hazy unto murk. He appears to think that if X is known to cause some harm to some adult users, that is a sufficient reason to ban it for all. There goes not only alcohol and parachuting, but cars and swimming pools. The degradation is seeping in everywhere. 

 

_______________________________

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

It is published there at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/17/opinion/marijuana-legalization-disaster.html#commentsContainer&permid=125154054:125154054 

Reform mandate

re: "Pheu Thai must size up its options" (BP, Opinion, May 15, 2023)

Dear editor,

Veera Prateepchaikul offers, of course, not a shred of evidence to support his claim that "there are many among the silent majority who may feel offended and rise up if their revered institution is desecrated." The nationwide poll conducted on Sunday, May 14 suggests otherwise. It is clear that those who voted for the happily popular Move Forward have no such concerns. It is not at all clear that Pheu Thai voters feel differently on the issue. It is credible that those who voted for Palang Pracharat do to some unknown extent feel as Veera suggests, but they are a minority. It is fairly certain that United Thai Nation voters do indeed feel as Veera speculates, but they are clearly a small minority of Thais, nothing remotely like a "silent majority".

This being the situation on the ground, Pheu Thai might sensibly reconsider its views and opt to work with Move Forward in bringing about the long overdue reform that an increasing majority of the Thai people apparently want for their nation. Acting contrary to the groundswell shown by yesterday's poll will not win Pheu Thai, or any other party, more votes in elections to come. It would be prudent to respect the evolving will of the people. 

Nor does any party, least of all Move Forward, have any desire to "desecrate" a revered institution as Veera somewhat hysterically describes it. Amending unjust law that contradicts democratic principle cannot itself be a desecration of any institution that itself values justice and democracy. Veera has no grounds for concerns about protests on this score, unless a tiny, non-silent, self-serving minority who might oppose both democracy and justice were to act to violate what the available evidence now suggests is the clear will of the Thai nation.

 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 May 16, 2023, under the title "Reform mandate" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2571542/hearts-and-minds

Hell on Earth

re: "Families devastated by Kenya cult horror" (BP, April 26, 2023)

Dear editor,

The righteous outrage over the latest religiously inspired human sacrifice, this time in Kenya, is a little irrational. The horror of 90 or more faithful souls starving themselves and children to death at the behest of their pastor, a man too truly touched by his god, the Christian God, is indeed monstrous, yet nothing unusual in the history of religions, whether humankind's experience of Christianity or of other the other religions that have been made up from time to time.

Popes have a history of almost two thousand years of eagerly imprisoning, torturing and burning to death those they deem heretics and those who propose new understandings of the natural world around us, such as the basic science of our solar system. Islam's acts inspired by the Koran are also too well known. The apologists of religions naturally prefer we forget such facts about their truly zealous deeds. At least those Kenyans who starved themselves to death for their inspired belief in the Christian God's promise of eternal life did so more or less willingly and did not take vast numbers of others with them, although they have brought to their corner of it the very real hell on Earth that so often comes from sincere religious belief. They did not wage holy war on the tribe next door with different beliefs, but have nonetheless managed to tear families apart as too customary when religion is taken seriously.

One root problem with religions such as Christianity, Islam, and the other monotheisms  proclaiming their own perfect infallibility in all things is rooted in their sacred texts, perhaps also in those of polytheism, as the acts of India's Hindu nationalists teach us in recent years, along with a repugnant caste system blessed by their Gods.  Those collections of the magical thoughts of men written in reliably more primitive, less morally developed times are the source of the false beliefs about reality (heavens, hells, angels, and all the rest, and of course gods), and the font of the even worse perversion of good morals that history has shown to afflict the faith-driven. The still throbbing lust of some in the US, for example, to keep gay sex criminal and to deny women ownership of their own bodies are relatively innocuous evils that are based solidly on the content of the Bible, which really does say what its crusaders find in it. It is a book that should surely be banned from public libraries, from schools, and other  places where it might fall into the hands of innocent children. For decency's sake, save the children! 

But the root of the religious malaise is faith. This rejection of knowledge, along with life, in favour of faith is written into the very beginning of the the Judeo-Christian sacred text. In the Bible's Genesis chapter 2, God, Yahweh, dictates explicitly that "the tree of knowledge" is off limits, is absolutely banned. Faith does not love knowledge. 

Faith, however,  has never, under any circumstances, been a reliable guide to the true nature of the world around us, its physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, culture, history, or any other aspect of reality. Worse, faith has never been a trustworthy guide to moral good, as millennia of history too horrifyingly attest: religious wars, human sacrifice to faith-based ideology, persecution of non-believers, the suppression of women, gays, Jews, and any other out group condemned by sacred texts or their religious interpreters, and most recently 90 people starving themselves and children to death for their sacred one(s).

The outrage unfolding in Kenya is indeed the result of the religiously inspired teachings of a monster. It is also nothing extraordinary in the record of the acts of religions worldwide throughout history. 

Religion only becomes morally decent when strong secular morals compel at least a show of good morals. That is why Christianity in the US and modern Europe at least pretends to value human rights and respect even women, sometimes even LGBTQ people, and even those of competing faiths. In nations blessed with sound morals freed from the unquestionable commands of the sacred, even Islam can be brought to behave with some decency. These modern miracles are wrought not by faith in religion but by the efforts of critical reasoning, openness to correction, and an honest search for understanding taking hold in those societies and their liberal democratic governance, for which praise be given. 

 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 April 29, 2023, under the title "Hell on Earth" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2559715/road-chaos-inaction

Ignoring liquor's ills

re: "Singapore hangs prisoner over 1kg of cannabis" (BP, April 26, 2023) 

Dear editor,

A foundational principle of justice is that the law treat like acts alike. This entails that Singapore's law also require the execution of alcohol dealers, for alcohol is also a drug, one that is in fact more harmful to users and to society than cannabis. Basic justice requires, therefore, that Singapore make its criminal law consistent by criminalizing with the imposition of a death penalty the possession, use, production and trafficking of alcohol. Either that, or decriminalize the use, possession, production and sale of other equally or less harmful drugs, which is all of them.

It is unjust to treat one drug differently to others merely because it happens to be popular in society. That is crude prejudice, which is never a justifying reason for state interference in personal liberty. 

 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 April 28, 2023, under the title "Ignoring liquor's ills" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2559001/prawits-watch-saga

Cruel execution

re: "Branson urges Singapore to halt execution of cannabis convict" (BP, April 24, 2023) 

Dear editor,

Sir Richard Branson's call to Singapore to halt the execution of a man duly convicted of the charge of trafficking over a kilogram of cannabis is doubtless well intentioned. However, by making that call conditional on the fact that the man might be innocent of the charge, Sir Richard obscures what is really wrong with Singapore's imminent killing of a person not known to have harmed anyone. 

It is always possible that any verdict returned by a fair court after a fair trial is wrong. Mistakes happen, and there is no concatenation of facts that can not also be explained by a different, however exceedingly unlikely, account. That truth is not relevant in this case.

Even if Tangaraju Suppiah is in fact guilty as charged, executing him is a vile injustice. Injustice is not magically made just by passing  a law that supports whatever prejudices lurk behind the injustice thereby blessed by law. That Singapore is a sovereign nation that has the legal right to make whatever law it wishes is not being disputed. 

It does not, nevertheless, follow that any law is just merely because it is a properly made law. Singapore could tomorrow pass a law to start imprisoning gay men or to execute those who sell unhealthy sugary drinks to children; that would be its legal right, but those laws would also be morally repugnant to decent society.

Singapore should halt the execution because the law with which it accords should not exist. Imprisoning adults who do not directly harm anyone but merely do what some segment of society, even a large majority, personally dislike, which dislike is the only reason for the law behind the proposed killing, is unjust. To execute people who have not harmed or threatened to harm any other is a moral abomination unbecoming a nation that would see itself as civil, civilized, educated, and decent. 

This, not that there is some finite possibility that he is innocent, is the reason Singapore should stop the execution. It should then look to amend its antiquated drug laws to better comport with good morals. 

 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 April 26, 2023, under the title "Cruel execution" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2557374/nacc-must-comply

Nod to Helen Clark

re: "Reforms 'can't end' with legalised cannabis" (BP, April 18, 2023) 

Dear editor,

It was a welcome corrective to traditional thinking of six decades to see the Bangkok Post's "Reforms 'can't end' with legalised cannabis" on the front page for a few hours. Former New Zealand prime minister and current member of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty, Helen Clark is correct on all counts. The 60-year-old punitive approach to recreational use of drugs has been an abject failure that has not reduced drug use, except in places like Singapore, where moral decency is rejected in favour of extreme force, including judicial killing in accord with law made up for that purpose, to impose the shining totalitarian vision of some, albeit perhaps a majority, on an entire society. Singapore resembles too perfectly the fabled city state of Omelas described in writer Ursula K. Le Guin's short story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas". In that moral horror story, all looks light, cheerful, healthy and perfectly happy; that glowing happiness is dependent on the abuse of an innocent child locked away in a dark place, an evil that all know of but of which none speak. 

Ms Clark is right that not only have the last six decades of drug wars indefensibly killed thousands of drug users, but they have not reduced the natural human urge of thousands of years to use drugs for fun. The populist drug wars have, however, very effectively debased the public morals of societies practicing such morally indefensible abuse of individuals. Ms Clark is right to praise Thailand's recent decriminalization of cannabis, and to insist that it needs to go further in the pursuit of good morals for society. 

The drug wars and their killings, their overcrowded prisons, their massive economic, social and moral costs to society, are premised on the notion, shared by communist and right-wing authoritarian ideologies alike, that human beings are not born to be free, but to serve as productive units for self-serving groups wielding political power. 

The lame excuses that drugs must be suppressed to "protect society" or to "protect children" are false claims. That such claims are not truly believed even by the parents and populist politicians who promote them is proved by the fact that they do not apply their reasoning with any attempt at consistency. The facts are that whilst all drugs, cannabis, alcohol, yaba, heroin, cigarettes or whatever, are harmful to the user, as Ms Clark sensibly admits, when it comes to harms to society, the drug that is far and away the most harmful is alcohol, as concluded in such studies as those of Professor David Nutt et al. ("Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis" The Lancet, 2010, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61462-6 ) and Associate Professor Yvonne Bonomo et al. ("The Australian drug harms ranking study", 2019, Journal of Psychopharmacology, DOI 10.1177/0269881119841569  ). Since alcohol is the single most harmful drug to non-users and society generally, were the advocates of prohibition sincere in their principles, they would be calling for the imprisonment and execution of the alcohol barons, those wealthy executives of famous businesses producing and peddling that very popular recreational drug to the great harm of society. Were they consistent in their professed moral convictions, the anti-drug advocates would be demanding that the law imprison those in possession of the drug alcohol to further uselessly, harmfully, swell the grossly overcrowded prisons. They conspicuously are not. 

Those pushing the 60-year tradition of suppressing some popular drugs whilst allowing free rein to a more harmful drug might think themselves acting for the good of society or the family, but they are wrong. Their confused, delusive, irrational and morally corrupt vision is the path towards Omelas, founded on an unspeakably vile truth lurking at the dark heart of their ideal society. 

 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 April 22, 2023, under the title "Nod to Helen Clark" at https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/postbag/2554676/handout-pros