OPINION

Not their decision

Re: "New curbs on populist policies," (BP, March 12).

So our election commissioners have determined that parties must explain and justify to the Election Commission (EC) all their so-called populist campaign policies which require funding from the public purse.

According to your report, "parties must inform the EC how much money will be needed to fund those policies and clarify the sources ... parties must also prove that their policies are worth implementing and will benefit the public, as well as show their potential risks and impacts".

While all will agree such information should be widely available, surely it is for us voters to decide which ones we want, not the EC.

Imagine a party submitting the following report to the EC:

Policy: Enroll all citizens in a comprehensive universal social welfare programme.

Source of funds: Cut defence budget by 50%.

Risk: Military upset, threaten coup.

Impact: The lives of the 52% of the workforce currently working in the informal sector without social welfare safety net benefits would be immeasurably improved.

Who should decide?

Re: "Going overboard," (PostBag, March 16), & "Women accuses PM's security team of assault," (BP, March 15).

Anti-Prayut protester Wanthana Othong, 62, was charged last week after trying to criticise the PM during his field trip in Ratchaburi province.

Some have suggested she was unrepresentative of the locals he was visiting, as she'd been a long-time anti-government activist, and has ties with the red shirts, Move Forward Party, and so on, and have defended the police's rough handling of her non-violent protest.

Regardless her identity, our police do not observe a basic legal tenet, which is that all are equal before the law.

Thus, a protester has the same rights as those gathered to adore Prayut Chan-o-cha.

The two anti-Prayut protesters there that day made less noise than the hundreds shouting pro-Prayut cries, and those seeking to take selfies with him have often been way out of their designated areas.

Yet the cops arrested only the anti-Prayut women, and I haven't seen any investigation as to whether the pro-Prayut people lived locally or not.

The police clearly ignored rule of law.

Also, a leader should listen carefully to those unhappy under his care.

Thailand's household debt has seen a sharp increase over the past 10 years from 59.3% of GDP to an all-time high of 91.70% of GDP in Q1/2021 during Gen Prayut's lacklustre watch.

This is no time for Gen Prayut to display a "Let them eat cake" attitude like Marie Antoinette.

Re: "Hoping for a breath of fresh air," (BP, March 19).

I woke at dawn, took a deep breath and dissolved into a coughing fit, such is the foul quality of the air now.

Traditionally, Thailand has three seasons, "Rainy", "Cool" and "Hot".

Going by this year and last, we may not really get a hot season, yet pollution has become a permanent blight on everyone's life, particularly at this time of the year.

So, Thailand still has three seasons, but these are now, "Raining", "Cool" and "Polluted".