OPINION

Graft as strong as ever

Re: “Dubious new charter looms with Meechai”, (Opinion, Oct 16). Despite so many charters and coups, why is the “road to Thai democracy” still riddled with potholes and patches? Mr Pandey is correct in pointing out that the key reason for the failure is the charter drafters’ undemocratic mindsets.

Those who are part of the current regime are the product of the same hierarchical system that worships authority, adores the military, and ensures the police, the judiciary and the bureaucracy remain in power. Even after eight decades of experiments with democracy, the web of nepotism and cronyism has not weakened.

Charles Koch, an American businessman and philanthropist, once said: “I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.” Mr Pandey is correct in pointing out the reasons why the people in the current regime, including the new CDC chairman Meechai Ruchupan, think that only they can decide how to run the country.

If the current regime is serious about reform it should focus on how to get rid of the cancer of cronyism and nepotism that has crippled Thai society rather than focusing on crafting another grand constitution or a new “roadmap to democracy”.

A good constitution is one which upholds the rule of law and protects the interests of ordinary people, not the interests of the elite or those who grab power by illegal means. It seems the current constitution will also end in a fiasco. Mr Meechai’s fresh attempt at drafting a new constitution can be summed up by the commonly used Thai lingo: “Same, same, but different”.

Kuldeep Nagi

I agree with some of the points JC Wilcox makes in regard to America’s problems in Syria (PostBag, Oct 16). It seems that wherever America gets militarily involved — Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan — the situation worsens.

If I ask why America is the policeman of the world the answer is that it’s the No.1 superpower. But the problem is that America’s military might is virtually worthless in these kind of civil wars where you have numerous factions fighting one another and we don’t even know who to support. How do you choose between the Islamic State and Bashar al-Assad? It’s ridiculous. Even if there is a moderate fighting force in Syria we have to believe they can defeat both the IS and Mr Assad. A tall order!

A comparison I’d like to make is that Floyd Mayweather may be the best boxer in the world but that doesn’t mean he could win a karate tournament. America is fighting the wrong kind of fight and the results are predictable.

Eric Bahrt

Re: “Aid for poor nations can hurt them”, (BP, Oct 15). The opinions expressed by Angus Deaton, the 2015 Nobel laureate in economics, deserve adequate attention.

His appeal for limiting the arms trade is highly topical. In this respect, further political efforts are needed to reach the universality of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) which is a multilateral legal instrument meant to regulate global trade in conventional weapons.

It contains 28 articles, has been in force from Dec 24, 2014, but is ratified by only 77 states.

The ATT is of unlimited duration and represents a successful result of multilateral diplomacy in its difficult mission to limit and regulate the global arms trade, thus contributing to the promotion of peace, cooperation for sustainable development and responsible action in the world arena.

Ioan Voicu

I would like to make a clarification on the Sept 23 editorial, “Japan policy riles critics”.

First, the editorial suggests that Japan has not faced up squarely to its conduct during World War II. This is simply untrue. Japan has repeatedly expressed feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology for its actions during the war.

The statement by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in August this year also clearly mentions that this position as articulated by previous cabinets will remain unshakable in the future.

Furthermore, Japan’s legislation for peace and security, which was passed by the parliament on Sept 19, aims at protecting the lives and peaceful livelihoods of its people in any situation.

The legislation is aimed at pre-empting war by strengthening deterrence, and also at preparing for unexpected contingencies. It never wavers in its position as a peace-loving nation.

Japan’s exclusively defence-oriented policy will remain unchanged. The use of force is permitted only as a measure for self-defence under extremely stringent conditions, namely the “Three New Conditions”. In other cases, Japan will never use force. Therefore, the editorial’s comment that “Japan can wage war again” is absolutely groundless and inappropriate.

I do appreciate that some positive evaluations of the legislation were also presented in the editorial: The law will enable Japan to assume a more responsible role in the world, and Japan’s contribution through PKOs by the SDF will be viewed positively by some countries. Both the prime minister and foreign minister of Japan have explained the background of this legislation personally and attentively to their counterparts during their overseas trips and to those who visited Japan. As a result, understanding and support have been garnered from a large number of countries including Australia, the Asean and EU members, not to mention the United States.

I would like to reiterate that Japan has proudly left steadfast footsteps for the past 70 years as a peace-loving nation and remains committed to never deviating from this path. It must never again repeat the devastation of war. It upholds its pledge never to wage war again. It is the people’s will. The voters are in control of the government in our democratic system. They have never allowed the government to have the Self Defence Force engage even in a single combat mission over these 70 years and they never will. It is also the people’s will that they never allow the government to acquire power projection capabilities such as aircraft carriers, long-range bombers, missiles and so forth. They are never listed in our transparent defence future procurement plans at all.

Shiro SadoshimaAmbassador of Japan

Re: “Big pharma has us hoodwinked”, (PostBag, Oct 11). I know that JC Wilcox is an enthusiastic passenger on the vegetarian/animal welfare bandwagon, but now he turns his attention to dairy products, claiming that they too are injurious to our health. Well, I have regularly consumed moderate amounts of meat and dairy products for most of my nearly seven decades of existence, and am in good health.

However, just to be sure that I am not gradually eating my way to a premature death, I did some research. The Harvard School of Public Health, no doubt an excellent and reliable source of information, has produced a report on the effects of calcium, and dairy products, on our health, and their findings are much more balanced and cautious than Mr Wilcox’s somewhat alarmist claims.

Yes, according to their report, dairy products do pose some health risks, but they also have benefits, and the precise nature and extent of the risks cannot be ascertained without much more research. Other factors, such as lifestyle, exercise and the amount of dairy products consumed are also relevant factors. So, the situation is much more complex than Mr Wilcox seems to think.

I do wonder sometimes what motivates these anti-meat and anti-dairy product campaigners. Are they really so very concerned about the health of their fellow human beings, and the welfare of the animal kingdom, or is there something more sinister at work here, perhaps a need to exercise control, or a fervent desire, verging on the fanatical in some cases, to force their lifestyle on the rest of us.

Life for me would be much less appealing without the delights of, say, a juicy, tender steak, followed by a portion of mature cheese. Others might prefer a bowl of lentils or beans, and that’s just fine. Each to his own. Let’s keep it that way.

Robin Grant

I am sure other “PostBaggers” will want to join me in congratulating the Guru editorial staff for producing yet another amazing and well thought-out edition on Oct 16. Once again, full of marvellous pictures of delicious steaks, burgers, chops and other mouth-watering meaty dishes — particularly pertinent during this vegetarian festival .

littlepe

The alcohol consumption and promotion policies in this country are indeed topsy-turvy, a point well made by David Swartzenberger. To add to it, we tax responsible drinkers and inconvenience them with restricted sales times while alcoholics have free access to cheap, unpoliced lao khao sales.

The government makes significant revenue from such taxation but won’t allow said legal products to promote themselves to distinguish from the competition, while our biggest selling beer is advertised on football shirts in a country where it’s not even sold.

Tourism counts for 10% of our economy yet we tell our leisure-seeking guests we have dry days about 20 times a year, and that they must all go home at midnight anyway.

And then there are the bars in the general vicinity of schools that must close down even though the students leave the area many hours before the bars’ operating hours.

Above all, none of this really works due to corruption, selective law enforcement and policy that was never trialled for effectiveness in the first place.

Andrew

Re: “The SRT has banned the sale of alcohol on all its routes, since Wanchal was drunk when he attacked Nong Kaem” (Spectrum, Oct 11). Alcohol was not the cause.

He was already a rapist. Drunk or sober.

The SRT has punished 99.9% of its passengers, plus lost considerable revenue because of one person — who was an SRT employee. The blame lies with the SRT which failed to screen its employees properly. Do not blame others.

Brian

The censorship board said on Monday it banned the Arbat film because it wanted to protect Buddhism and “prevent trouble.” The board is living in the Middle Ages, or perhaps is still not aware of what the rest of Thailand, indeed, the rest of the world knows about monks, temples, power plays, greed and corruption. Yantra might be a defrocked monk from the past, but he is alive and thriving in Los Angeles. Another defrocked monk owns his own jet and a fleet of Mercedes vehicles and is living in the US.

Do the censors really believe they are protecting Buddhism? The public is more sophisticated. Stop thinking Thais live in ignorant bliss. I’m sure many original, uncensored copies of Arbat will appear in every Thai community worldwide, and copies will be made and sent to Thailand for viewing as well.

David James Wong

The Thai censorship board censored the movie, Arbat. Why? To protect the institution of Buddhism. The old fogies who live in the past probably think Thais do not have internet, do not read the newspapers, and are unaware of corruption in temples, monks appearing in laymen’s clothing in the evenings in pubs and “houses of ill-repute”, monks having girlfriends who visit them in temples, monks owning jet aircraft and fleets of cars, abbots who evict people from temple land in order to build shopping complexes.

The list is endless. The censor board can censor all it likes. This movie, in its original version will make its way out of Thailand, and then back in.

Remember how Jan Dara was called a “dirty porn movie”? Remember how Thaksin censored The Economist magazine years ago? Copies of the “censored” article were available on the internet and via other online media. Only a fool is capable of fooling himself.

Charcoal Ridgeback

Can someone please help me out with a puzzle regarding the Arbat film censorship? So let me get this right? You can dress in a saffron robe and call yourself a man of faith and profound abstinence whilst indulging in many or all of the vices of the average man in the street? You can betray the trust of the men, women and children who are programmed from birth to trust and revere your holy orders? You can scam the great and the good into making substantial tax free donations on the promise of a better life or lives?

But no one is allowed to make a film which even suggests any of these critical issues?

Welcome to religious fascism everyone; it is alive and well and it lives among us in Thailand.

B Army

It is laudable that the Bangkok Post is inspired by the four-part Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet, who won the Nobel Peace Prize this year and would like Thailand to follow this outstanding example (Editorial, Oct 12). Unfortunately there are at least two important differences between Thailand and Tunisia.

1. Tunisia has no army with political ambitions.

2. One member of the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet represented the UGTT, the main union in Tunisia. As far as I know Thailand has no unions at all.

Arend

CONTACT: BANGKOK POST BUILDING 136 Na Ranong Road Klong Toey, Bangkok 10110 Fax: +02 6164000 email:

postbag@bangkokpost.co.th

All letter writers must provide full name and address.

All published correspondence is subject to editing at our discretion.