Re: "Voters told to focus on promises", (BP, Feb 25).
I fully agree with finance permanent secretary Prasong Poontaneat that voters should evaluate the economic feasibility of platforms of various parties, each of which is promising the sky, as the incoming government will have very limited funds for new projects.
Individual citizens have neither the databases nor financial expertise required to do such analysis -- but their political rivals do, plus the necessary motivation.
Thus, I propose a quick, televised series of face-to-face debates, patterned after those in the US primaries or the Swiss debate series Arena, between any two of the four leading parties. Each debate would focus on one topic, with the prime ministerial candidate of the given party showing how he/she would to achieve that party's plank -- and the other side would strive to show that his party would be able to outperform the other in the topic in question.
For example, Khunying Sudarat Keyuraphan of Pheu Thai would justify her proposal to reduce military expenditure by 10% by stating where the cuts would come from, why our defence capabilities would still be adequate, and how the funds would be put to better use. Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha would rebut, and so on. To add fun to the debate, the moderator, who would be a respected but neutral and forceful media personality, could take before and after votes of the studio audience, with the winner being decided by the swing vote.
An election is credible only if voters are well-informed, and seen to be such. Let's make this round meaningful enough that the results are fully accepted by the losers as expressing the free will of the people.
Burin Kantabutra
Sad indictment
Re: "11 charged over hoax news stories", (BP, Feb 25).
The story of a dastardly plot to increase the military conscription period was so obviously fake news that the response is puzzling. For fake news to be harmful, it must first be believed. Would the authorities have believed that this fantasy really was in fact believable? To whom? Why? How?
It seems, prima facie, as credible as asserting that the governing politicians overthrew the supreme legal pillar of the nation to protect the rule of law, or that they became dictators to protect democracy. Is it really being suggested that Thai citizens are prone to these sorts of beliefs? That would indeed be a sad indictment of Thai education.
What will we next be expected to believe that the Thai nation uncritically believes without evidence?
Felix Qui
Atheist high ground
It's always good being an atheist, knowing that no wholesale killing, invasion of a continent or violent beheading has taken place in the name of your mythology, but this month has been better than ever.
With Cambodian Muslims illegally in the country for 7th century "education" at the hands of older, uneducated leaders and the interruption of a school exam by drunk young men joining a Buddhist group, and a top Catholic priest convicted of child sexual assault, being an atheist appears to be both morally and spiritually a great way to go.
Lungstib
Undeniable present
Re: "Poles suffered too", (PostBag, Feb 26).
Polish Stephan's letter is a bit of an enigma. My Polish friends openly say they do not like Jews, but have never given a reason. Polish Stephan may wish to rewrite the past, but he certainly cannot deny the present.
David James Wong
Contact: Bangkok Post Building
136 Na Ranong Road Klong Toey, Bangkok 10110
fax: +02 6164000 Email: postbag@bangkokpost.co.th
All letter writers must provide full name and address.
All published correspondence is subject to editing at our discretion.
