OPINION

Truth of no importance

Re: "BBC journo Jonathan Head risks jail over Phuket report" (BP, Feb 24).

Your report states that the lawyer bringing the case against Jonathan Head and Ian Rance is doing so as the BBC report "caused him to be defamed, insulted or hated". Readers will note that there is no reference in the lawyer's complaint as to whether the allegations against him in the report are true or untrue as this is irrelevant and of no consequence under Thai law.

According to David Streckfuss's book Truth on Trial in Thailand, "defamation is a crime designed primarily to protect reputations -- of individuals, collective entities, companies, governments, national symbols, institutions; defamation is not designed to produce the truth."

Even if Mr Head and Mr Rance can demonstrate beyond any doubt that allegations against the Thai lawyer are true, this will be less important in the court than whether the BBC report intended to damage the reputation of the Thai lawyer.

What does this say about the importance of truth in Thai culture and society? If the truth of a legal matter is not of prime importance, how can Thai people have confidence in their legal system? What does it say about freedom to report honestly and factually in Thailand?

I wish Mr Head and Mr Rance all the best as they confront the Thai legal system.

Re: "Justice system put on trial" (Editorial, Feb 24).

Your editorial calling the Thai justice system into question is only the latest in a long series of incidents and media reports in which it is obvious that there are serious misgivings.

It would appear to a casual observer like me that from the first laying of allegations of a crime (sometimes by an aggrieved person with no basis in fact) to and through the police investigation, then to the courts and courts of appeal, that the Thai criminal system works on the basis of guilty until proven innocent.

The rest of the civilised world works on the basis of innocent until proven guilty.

The Trump administration is sending mixed signals to the world, with President Donald Trump saying one thing while his cabinet members say another.

For example, after Mr Trump criticised Japan and Korea for lacking self-reliance and suggested they develop nuclear weapons for their own protection, he sent Defence Secretary James Mattis to reassure the two countries that they still have full US support.

Secondly, after Mr Trump chastised the European Union for "not paying their bills" in operating the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) and threatened that the US might reduce its financial support for the organisation, he dispatched Vice President Mike Pence to assure the EU of unaltered US backing.

And in the last instance, following President Trump's verbal attack on Mexico for "stealing American jobs" and his promise to build a big wall on the US-Mexico border, he sent his Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, and State Secretary Rex Tillerson to give assurances to Mexico that contradicted his own stance. Hence, when will the world have a chance to see the usual mature way of conducting diplomacy by the US government?

Re "It's best not to forget lessons of 1991 coup" (Opinion, Feb 24).

Learning from past mistakes is surely something everyone -- the military, politicians and citizens -- need to do if Thailand is ever to have a government that operates for the good of the country.

So far the individual desire to rule so as to maintain a system that is reaping benefits for its rulers has been depriving the citizens for 60 years. Inept politicians became grossly wealthy and paid little attention to the people's needs, but military intervention has done nothing more than replace one group of unusually wealthy people with another.

Anyone who doubts that need only look at the declarations of wealth for the present National Legislative Assembly members. Both the military and politicians have repeated this situation for all to see and only a third party can do something about it.

Citizens need to take a good look at all their past and present leaders, decide which ones have been in it for monetary gain and have nothing more to do with them. Once they get back the right to vote, it is essential they vote wisely and with a moral conscience. Only then will things get better.

Re: "Flawed argument" (PostBag, Feb 24).

I fully agree with Peter Field that knocking on car windows and asking drivers their opinion about the Bus Rapid Transit service in Bangkok that they have never used, and will never use, is ridiculous.

I was there that morning and wondered why they were asking car drivers, not asking the BRT passengers. I was one of those passengers and I am willing to pay 15 baht for a ride.

BRT station staff are friendly. But the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) should improve the quality of hand straps, curtains, seating and air conditioning on buses. BRT drivers should also be more disciplined because they sometimes used their mobile phones while driving.

The BMA should also clear skywalks connected to BRT stations to make sure there are no vendors or beggars obstructing passengers.

I hope that I haven't asked for too much.

Re: "A toast to our world No.1 traffic rank" (Opinion, Feb 23).

When I first saw the Inrix Inc report that Bangkok commuters lead the world by sitting in traffic for an average of 64.1 hours last year, I thought there must be some mistake. Perhaps the report meant to read that drivers were stalled an average of 64.1 hours per month?

I think most Bangkok drivers would be happy to be stalled in gridlock for only 64 hours a year. The real numbers are surely much higher.

Undoubtedly, Bangkok can look forward to remaining champions of the world in this category for years to come.