OPINION

Not-so-fake news

While it is certainly a true fact, as all facts are, that there is a very real danger of fake news laws being abused to further suppress the ability of domestic Thais to accurately understand Thai affairs -- whether Thai history, society or politics -- there is a more salient danger. This greater danger is rightly suggested when the editor writes of the army chief that his "claims are not backed by verifiable facts".

As seen in the wholly unsubstantiated tweets and other deplorably vacuous sound bites by the current US president, there is a deceitful presumption that merely labelling an inconvenient fact as "fake news" in fact rebuts it. It does no such thing, a fact acknowledged by every honest person, and in Thai culture a truth central to the teaching of the Buddha, who consistently emphasised that all opinion must be based on right understanding that is backed by facts and reason. If you want to rebut an inconvenient claim that might well be a fact, merely calling it "fake" counts for nothing. Unless verifiable evidence and sound reasoning is presented, the empty shout of "fake, fake, fake news" is in fact a prima facie admission that the news is very likely true.

As the Chinese example also shows, only a fool would implicitly trust a government to state facts, or to state all the facts needed for an informed opinion of solid worth, something that Thai law has traditionally denied Thai citizens on various issues claimed to be of national importance, where there is indeed much fakery in need of exposure by healthy critical discussion under the protection of the often-offensive free speech that is a necessary condition for any democracy.

Re: "Stop the deathtraps", (PostBag, Aug 14).

I agree with Vint Chavala that unsafe passenger vans should be kept off the roads, but the previous approach of banning all vans more than 10 years old made little sense. There is little inherent correlation between age and safety; a well-maintained 15-year-old van can be far safer than a poorly maintained two-year-old van or minibus. The new proposal for regular inspections of roadworthiness by the Department of Land Transport is far more sensible than blanket bans based on the age of the vehicle.

People should also refrain from thinking the government must regulate every aspect of our lives. In the case of passenger vehicles, the general public should learn to "influence by action". The example of taxi riders in Jakarta is one worth noting. Starting more than two decades ago, one taxi company carved out a reputation for safety, honesty, polite drivers and well-maintained vehicles. The public responded by demonstrating an obvious preference for that particular company, which today dominates the taxi sector in the city. Consumer actions can have far greater influence than government regulation!

Even a new van will become unsafe within less than a year if you fail to provide proper maintenance. All vehicles will be safe for a long time if you maintain them until the spare parts are no longer available.

Almost all passenger van accidents have been caused by poor driving skills and knowledge, ignorance of traffic rules and physical conditions, such as overwork, lack of sleep and so on.

Before capping the age of vans, examine the skill, knowledge, attitude and lifestyle of professional drivers, and expel all unqualified drivers from public van operations.

Re: "Cheers to paraquat", (PostBag, Aug 15).

I must disagree with Alistair North about the herbicide paraquat: I believe he has mistaken it for glyphoshate, which is the subject of a totally different proposition. Paraquat is very persistent in soil and is thus used in places where you want to prevent growth for a long period of time (typically on paths).

I believe glyphoshate has the properties he attributes to paraquat.

According to a senior immigration officer speaking at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand this week, the rationale for the implementation of the TM30 requirement is that it is needed to boost "national security and to fight terrorism and other crimes".

If that is really the case, then why limit official residence registrations to foreigners?

According to my observation, the great majority of threats to national security, terrorist incidents and other crime that have occurred in Thailand in the current millennium have not involved foreigners, but Thai citizens.

If information about the current address is necessary to respond to these threats, then surely, accurate information also needs to be available on the current addresses of the Thai population.

While it can be argued that all Thai citizens already have a household registration (thabian ban) booklet, this provides little information about their current residence as many people choose to migrate elsewhere for work or other reasons.

For this reason, wouldn't it make sense to impose TM30 reporting requirements on Thai citizens as well as foreigners?

Even before the TM30 furore, I had been trying to get an answer to a very simple question regarding the new monthly deposit rules for those of us on the so-called "retirement visa". Changing the rule to require said deposit to be deposited into a Thai bank account left the use of that deposit open-ended and subject to question. We know the 800,000-baht deposit cannot be used for a specified period but no such information is available for the 65,000-baht monthly deposit which is supposed to be "income". Can we use this money for our normal monthly expenses or do we have to let it build up over time?

I came here 20 years ago to take advantage of the lower cost of living here. My monthly expenses are nowhere near 65,000 baht. I would hate to use this money for rent or other expenses, and find out upon renewing my visa that I wasn't allowed to do that. I have written and called in but have encountered only the typical wall of silence. Oh, and is this "income" taxable under Thai law? How about a little help here!

Re: "More TM30 dramas", (PostBag, Aug 15).

The writer asks, "What kind of agency is it that gives you an official document and then minutes later asks you for a copy of the same document they have just given you?" Well, apparently also the Labour Department, which asked me for exactly the same thing when I renewed my work permit. A Thai friend later told me that this is very common in government offices because the agencies are not given sufficient funds to cover the cost of making the required photocopies on their own machines. Thus the cost, as well as the physical task of making the copy, is passed onto the applicant.

Re: "More TM30 dramas", (PostBag, Aug 15).

Aeneid N Walnut asks, "What kind of agency is it that gives you an official document and then minutes later asks you for a copy of the same document they have just given you?"

Aeneid answered his own question.

The Immigration Bureau is so screwed up that at times those who work there don't know up from down, (or right from left for that matter).

Immigration reform is long overdue, but like everything else, reform will never see the light of day, and the system will mire deeper and deeper into its own muck as time goes by.

When my Thai wife and I moved to the UK she was granted a residence permit. The UK never checked on her once and allowed her to work as soon as she received a national insurance number.

Now that we have moved back to Thailand, I find that every time I travel I have to ask my landlord who lives in the USA to fill in a TM30 form or face a fine. I have spent well over £100,000 in Thailand since I moved here less than a year ago, but it seems that Thailand prefers to treat every farang with suspicion. If Thailand does not want foreign retirees, then perhaps they should just say so and save us all the trouble of moving our lives here where we thought we'd be welcome.

Re: "New subsidies aimed at poor folks, farmers", (Business, Aug 16).

It is commendable to hear that the government is considering subsidising the price of fertiliser in order to help farmers. But in the case of rice production in the Northeast of Thailand, what is the point of the subsidy when there is no water to grow rice in the first place?

Baffled Reader in his Aug 16 letter, "A trillion isn't much", thinks it's some kind of a joke that just 10% of the meat Americans eat is responsible for wasting 30 trillion litres of water. I urge the readers to Google: "Meat-eaters might squeeze water supply dry" The report is posted by Business Insider, which is hardly a vegetarian website!

The report notes that it requires 10 times as much water to produce a calorie of meat than a calorie of food crops. It warns that by 2050, one-third of the world will face a dangerously severe water shortage. Over half of our water supply in America is used for livestock production. And that's no joke!

Re: "A life of diplomacy", (Life, Aug 16).

It is a pleasure to read about the life and career of Visutr Arthayukti in the foreign service. But I found some small errors in the article. First, one caption reads, "Visutr met with US President John F Kennedy at the White House in 1960". In fact, the inauguration of Kennedy as the 35th President of the US was held on January 20, 1961.

Second, another caption reads, "King Rama VII and Queen Rambhai Barni were accompanied by Visutr Arthayukti, far left, during a trip to Rome back in 1938". By contrast, King Rama VII abdicated the throne in 1935.

Finally, photo captions should be written in the present tense to give the images a sense of liveliness and immediacy.

Anyway, I'm definitely going to buy the book.