POSTBAG
Your editorial entitled "The long battle against terror" (Sunday Perspective, 27 April 2008) made some sane observations concerning the ongoing terrorism in southern Thailand.
I had written a letter to the editor concerning the many approaches the government has taken in the last four years I've resided here. Each success (if lulls in homicides can be considered successes) was short-lived, with atrocities such as beheadings of monks bringing back to the forefront that these acts didn't go away, they just became more horrific.
I suggested at the time (this letter was not published) that Thailand should adopt an approach similar to the Philippines, bringing in experts in counter-terrorism to combat the problem on different fronts. There are many countries who would be happy to help Thailand rid itself of these monsters, which is actually helping the world as a whole.
The story of people too afraid to attend their own relatives' funerals last week, was especially heart-wrenching and sounding more and more like the early Iraqi days (as well as the frequent beheadings and now people being nailed to the road).
Admitting that the present solutions to the problems aren't working is not a sign of weakness, nor is it a loss of face - it's a reality check. The Philippines worked very hard at tackling their problems with Abu Sayyaf and with the aid of friends from the West finally started to get the upper hand (although vigilance will be needed to keep these murderers in check).
Indonesia has also done some good work but the pardoning of some of the Bali bombers sends a lot of mixed messages to the world.
I concur with the editorial writer's realisation that this problem goes beyond Thailand's capabilities - similar to trying to wipe out those people in Afghanistan who dynamited the beautiful Buddha statues, when they just run over the border and hide in Pakistan.
The hearts-and-minds approach only goes so far - especially when the minds have been poisoned by evil disguised as religion.
CHRIS HOLDEN
Krabi
-------------
Dissenting voice disconcerting
Your article "The voice of dissent" (Perspective, 27 April 2008) made for very illuminating reading but showed some extremely worrying thinking; however this is not an isolated case in holders of high office in Thailand.
We are exposed through the medium of a series of questions and answers to the thinking of Election Commissioner Somchai Juengprasert and as the title reveals, he was the lone dissenter in the recent EC decision to disband 2 political parties.
Your reporter adopts a line of inquiry to tease out the commissioner's reasoning and deeper aspects of his attitudes and approach to his work. In the opening question he is asked what principles he used in adjudicating the party dissolution case and here we see some worrying information.
The commissioner informs readers that he is a former judge and believes in judicial independence but then strangely he goes on to say that in political cases he looks at the political side as well. He continues that in certain cases it is acceptable to use discretion. Then he says it is important to look at the democratic principle as well as election law.
Finally he says that the popular vote, which is the voice of the people, needs to be respected. This is put in stark clarity when he says, "But if we are to overrule the popular vote, we need to think very carefully." Quite what is meant by "overruling the popular vote" is however not fully explained.
It takes a little time for the full implications of this to sink in, but what it appears to imply is that if the outcome of an election was that X was elected but the way in which X was elected was not exactly in accordance with the law then the will of the people in electing X should be respected. I rather thought that the methodology of the election process and its correctness in law was the duty of the EC to protect.
Furthermore, I am unaware of the "will of the people" being used in any judicial or quasi-judicial process in a truly democratic country. Elections, politicians, laws, judges and due process are discrete entities and there is no bleeding across these of the "will of the people" crudely interpreted as who won a particular election.
This is a worrying mind-set but we have seen it before in the Thaksin asset concealment case where one of the judges shared his thinking process in deciding his vote admitting that he had taken into account that because Thaksin had won an election it was unwise to go against the will of the people.
DR JOHN PATTERSON
Bangkok
-------------
A just war
Whilst I was always against the invasion of Iraq and I am in total agreement with the article condemning the lies and fabrications used to justify the Iraq War (Soul-Searching column, 27 April 2008), I would dispute many of the claims made by Cha-Am Jamal in his 28 April 2008 letter "Save us from America."
The parallels he draws between the first Gulf War and the Iraq War are totally erroneous.
The Iraq War was morally unjustified but the earlier Gulf War was crucial in safeguarding the territorial integrity of UN member nations. Had Iraq's invasion of Kuwait gone unchallenged many tin-pot dictators around the world would have been given the green light to swallow the territory of weaker neighbours.
The Gulf War coalition was led by the US but the first President Bush was at first a reluctant participant and it took considerable international pressure, most notably from Margaret Thatcher, to get him involved. Operation Desert Storm had full backing of the UN and the coalition included most of Iraq's Arab neighbours who were there to stabilise the region, not because they were moved by any propaganda regarding the treatment of Kuwaiti babies.
Cha-Am Jamal's observations regarding the attacks on retreating Iraq forces are also spin (to use his own term). The military objective to destroy Saddam's retreating military hardware was questioned by the American people once the pictures of dead soldiers were shown on TV. Far from being gleeful about the "turkey shoot", most Americans were appalled and it was President Bush who ordered an early withdrawal, against the wishes of the military hawks who wanted him to move on into Baghdad and finish off Saddam's Revolutionary Guard. It was, incidentally, these same hawks who concocted the lies and fabrications, after 9/11, to instigate the Iraq War.
C.O.JONES
Write us: Please send your comments on Perspective articles to perspective@bangkokpost.co.th
Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Next
