Re: "Targeting FFP boss sets bad precedent," (Opinion, May 2).
Just as Thai Buddhism, showing sincere loyalty to gold images, extravagant temples and the entrenched patriarchy of power hungry old men, deploys the letter of the Buddha's wise teachings to overlook the "honest mistakes" of those whose desires for tasty animal flesh lead them, citing the letter of the rule, to order a needless mass slaughter of animals every day in clear contradiction of the intent of the First Precept of Buddhism, so too is the bad morals in the official "stubbornness in citing 'the letter of the law"' as a means to attack political opponents whom the Thai people deemed good on March 24.
I seem to recall others, conspicuously silent when now faced with the real thing, insisting that reform was needed to heal the deep divides and injustices in Thai society. What we instead see is the seeming loyal abuse of the rule of law by the Election Commission and others to attack the politicians of Future Forward with genuinely good policies for long-overdue reforms of Thai society and politics. This assault by weaponised rule of law on the sensibly good choice of the Thai nation is most unlikely to return any happiness to the Thai people. It is, however, perfectly consistent with the undemocratic intent of the those who annulled the nation's democratic form of government, which act looks more double plus ungood than obviously respectful of the nation, its institutions defined under the constitution so annulled, or fundamental teachings of the Buddhist religion: you cannot credibly claim to respect what your known acts contradict.
The truly weird thing defying all comprehension is that some still credit the protestations their actors put out that such acts signify good. But with the upstart Winston duly dealt with by the strict rule of law, O'Brien must be happy.
Felix Qui
Guilt must be proven
I don't see what the fuss over Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit's ownership of a media company's shares is. The law clearly forbids such ownership by a candidate seeking to be an MP, so was he an owner when he applied or not?
How does the law determine ownership: by the time the documents were received by the authorities, or by the time the transfer documents were signed in the presence of witnesses, if required? If the former, then the date and time can be clearly verified; but if the latter, we must remember the burden of proof is on the accuser -- not the accused. So, can the accuser prove that when Mr Thanathorn submitted his application, he hadn't legally transferred the shares in question? If so, let him submit his proof for consideration. Mr Thanathorn has no legal obligation to prove the documents were signed within the time limit -- though his willingness to let his cell phone records be examined speaks volumes about his confidence he's within the law. Either way, the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
Burin Kantabutra
Wealth is not health
Re: "Hospital hierarchy", (PostBag, April 30).
I can picture Somsak Pola in an ambulance in rural Thailand after suffering life threatening injuries in a traffic accident, (God forbid), or being incapacitated by a stroke, (God forbid), issuing orders to the ambulance driver, or those emergency response vehicles so popular in Thailand.
"Take me to a luxury hospital please. I can afford to pay". "Certainly," responds the driver. "We will be in Bangkok, barring no traffic jams, in three hours. Can you please wait?" Ha, ha, ha.
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.
