OPINION

Govt cash cow

Re: "Math expert slams govt lotto chances", (BP, April 17).

The odds of lottery systems worldwide are heavily stacked in favour of those running the lotteries. Moreover, since lotteries largely prey on the hopes and dreams of the underprivileged and uneducated, they are essentially a regressive tax on the poorest segments of society.

The official Thai lottery is obviously a very lucrative cash cow for the government. One only needs to observe the size and grandeur of the Government Lottery Office on Sanam Bin Nam Road in Nonthaburi to sense the scale of the operation and the revenue. The building is a massive gleaming 12-storey glass palace.

In ironic juxtaposition, situated immediately adjacent to the Government Lottery Office is the Office of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, a modest, quaint-by-comparison, four-storey structure less than a tenth the size of the lottery office. Speaks volumes about the priorities of the government.

Re: "Leave plants alone", (PostBag, April 19).

I just spent the last hour Googling: "People For The Ethical Treatment of Tomatoes" and the "Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Apples", and I came up with nothing. Why aren't people coming to the rescue of plants the way they do for animals?

But I did get an email from the president of Save the Corn Society, which read: "Since 80% of corn in America is fed to livestock, not humans, please tell people to stop eating meat so that more of our corn brothers and sisters can live".

Sam Wright should be happy to know that after reading that email, I cancelled my plans to commit suicide. Maybe we vegans aren't murderers after all.

Re: "End army 'brain drain'," (BP, April 19).

The Pheu Thai Party seeks to end the military draft, but Gen Prayut strongly favours keeping it, citing national defence and patriotism. In his enthusiasm to support conscription, career soldier PM Prayut made several major factual mistakes. The reporter asked why he opposed the draft, but his answer was: "We need soldiers to defend our country; all nations have soldiers." Gen Prayut confuses the process (conscription versus voluntary enlistment) with the end result (defence of the country).

Yes, we need to defend Thailand, but how should we get the persons we need: by forcing citizens to join the military, go the all-volunteer route, or a mixture of the two processes?

According to a 2019 report by Pew Research Center, fewer than a third of countries at that time had a military draft. The other 108 countries examined had no legal provision for compulsory military service; 23 of these didn't even have conventional armed forces. Some countries that did not have a military draft included the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.

Surely, Gen Prayut would not claim that the soldiers of the above countries are weakened in defending their countries or are less patriotic than if they'd been forced to serve. Also, how do the 23 nations without conventional armed forces defend their country, and what can we learn from them?

Gen Prayut, no knee-jerk answers on such a key issue, please.