OPINION

Very thorough

Re: "Senate to play pivotal role", (Editorial, Aug 14).

The senators have proved again to be highly responsible. They concern themselves with the qualifications and ethics of the PM candidates.

Allow me to laugh out loud, as the Senate voted for Gen Prayut in the last election.

Right warning

Re: "Leave senior officials be, govt warned", (BP, Aug 12).

Pheu Thai's secretary-general, Phumtham Wechayachai, is right in warning PM Prayut Chan-o-cha's caretaker government that they must not transfer or appoint high-level officials, especially within the military, for the time being.

The promotions will put junta-leaning generals at an advantage when the annual reshuffle arrives. This is especially true in the armed forces, where Gen Prayut's proteges appear poised to slip in and continue his policies.

As Mr Phumtham said, "In order for the new government to quickly achieve its objectives, it is necessary that you initially delay the appointment of high-level officials and wait for the new government to introduce the new policies."

Our generals should acknowledge that in a democracy, soldiers take orders from civilian governments -- and postpone their annual reshuffle.

No conscience

Re: "The bigger picture on speech", (PostBag, Aug 13).

I disagree with Felix Qui in his latest letter on free speech related to Koran burning in some Nordic nations. One has to look at the intentions of those who want to burn the Koran. They intend to inflame, stir up emotions and cause civil unrest.

The principle of law uses the concept of, "What would a reasonable person think/do?"

A reasonable person would not accept the cost of free speech, under these circumstances. The concept of free speech can be traced back 2,500 years to the Athenian era. The responsibility of each (democratic) government, in representing the majority of its citizenship, is to ensure that no single minority group can endanger the safety of the majority.

In Denmark and Sweden, this is called "social conscience".

Not that simple

Re: "Hawaii wildfire death toll hits 55, expected to rise", (BP, Aug 12).

It's been reported that there were no warnings, such as sirens or officials alerting residents. To some extent, that is understandable, considering how swiftly the fire travelled -- and firefighters were already busy fighting three fires on the island.

There are warning sirens in all sizeable coastal towns in Hawaii for incoming tsunamis. Could those same sirens have been triggered for fires?

The electric current needed to power sirens may have been disabled. Towns with warning sirens should have those devices battery-operated. This could apply to Thailand and other regions, also. Side note: Thailand has at least one tsunami-alert buoy in the Andaman Sea, and it's battery-powered. Are those batteries being kept charged?

Plus, those who saw the Maui fire approaching at its earlier stages could have shouted in the streets to alert those who were sleeping or unaware of the danger.

Yet Hawaiians are told early not to sound shrill or panicked, nor disturb others. It's not a Hawaiian thing to jog down a street screaming warnings. I reside on the northwestern part of the "Big Island" from where Maui can be clearly seen. The two islands are about as close from each other as Bangkok's two airports.