OPINION

Ultra-right wing

Re: "UTN leader stands up for patriotism, tells 'nation haters' to leave," (BP, April 9).

While it was not surprising to see the two Ps do a theatrical split, to broaden their collective net to catch conservative voters in the upcoming general election, many observers are shocked by the extreme royalist right-wing positioning being staked out by Gen Prayut's United Thai Nation (UTN) Party.

In sharp contrast to Gen Prawit's newfound enthusiasm for democracy and inclusion, UTN leader Pirapan Salirathavibhaga has vowed to take action against "nation haters". Appearing on stage with him at a campaign rally were Prime Minister Prayut, Dr Rienthong Nanna, the ultra-royalist owner of a hospital and chairman of the party's committee on quality of life improvement, and party secretary-general Akanat Promphan, stepson of Suthep Thaugsuban, who led the 2014 street protests that paved the way for the military coup led by Gen Prayut.

Mr Pirapan didn't mince words. "Someone asked me what I would do if my party was taking care of the country, and I replied 'It's easy. Thailand is a land for patriots and the land is holy with the monarchy serving as the pillar of the country. If you don't like it, you have no right to change it because the entire nation wants it. If you don't like it, please go to another place. No one is stopping you. Go now. Any country you like, you can go and stay there. But Thailand will be like this forever.' "

Mr Pirapan is caretaker Prime Minister Prayut's anointed successor when he completes his constitution-limited two-year term following the upcoming election.

No empty promises

Re: "EC wants Pheu Thai's giveaway details," (BP, April 9).

The Election Commission (EC) is correct in ordering the Pheu Thai Party to provide details of its policies involving budget spending to the EC, as required by law. This will enable voters to separate hot air from dreams which could come true. But the EC should go further by: (a) mandating that all parties -- not just the government's main opponents -- reveal the feasibility of their campaign promises involving taxpayer money to the EC and (b) posting the parties' feasibility data on the EC website for other parties to scrutinise with fine-tooth combs. Let's promise what can come true, not mirages.

Why the rejection?

Re: "Censor versus editor", (PostBag, April 10).

David Brown is right on the dot on the meaning of censorship and an editor's discretion. Suppressing some letters could hardly be regarded as censorship but more as exercising judgement. Irrelevant, self-glorifying and gospel-like letters should have been suppressed. Though not a frequent writer, my letters were rejected twice in the past.

Come back, Crutchley

Re: "Time for a Break," (PostBag, April 12) & "Where's Crutch?" (PostBag, April 11).

I too was taken aback to find an abnormally bloated PostBag section encroaching on Crutch's customary domain last Sunday, especially since Nobby Piles had shown up as usual on Saturday. It would be unlike Roger to miss his deadline or leave without saying good-bye. Let's hope he's just taking a break and will reappear soon.