OPINION

A colourful bunch

Thais are colourful even when we are in confrontation!

We have the rival red and yellow shirts, and now the white-clad Dhammajayo.

The buddhists, as seen more and more in recent actions, are the owners of dark orange.

No one wants to wear black as the blacks are the mysterious group that pop up to shoot or carry out arson attacks.

Green and khaki are not available unless you have more muscles to flex.

Pink, blue and purple are colours worn by the majority who want to show respect to members of the Royal family. Those are colours of unity.

Are there any other colours left that can be used for new rival groups?

Lucky us if there is none.

Rules not meant to be broken

Re: Abroad at Home, Opinion, June 17.

Thitinan Pongsudhirak is always very interesting to read because he sometimes hilariously slips off the track. It is not always easy to detect in his lively articles.

"Asean has to make unmistakable references to alarming changes in the South China Sea status quo while convincing the Philippines to back off enough for China to be interested in negotiating a rules-based arrangement": the "dormant" Code of Conduct.

If this represents the position of Thailand in its Asean diplomacy, we not only face a serious threat to Asean's centrality but we risk endorsing China's disrespect for the agreed rules of the International Court of Arbitration and thus undermine the basics of international conflict prevention and global peace.

Respect for the rules of the Court of Arbitration is an essential part of the status quo which China tragically wants to change.

The Court of Arbitration was established as a result of the 1899 First Hague Peace Conference in which a forward-looking Thai delegation participated. It was the first step in the long process towards the United Nations. If we convince the Philippines who legitimately brought its case to the court 'to back off', we move in a direction of extremely dangerous international unruliness.

Kudos to the justice minister. At last, a modicum of common sense re: draconian drug laws in SE Asia. All drugs should be legal, and then the problems should be dealt with as social issues, not criminal.

Alcohol dealers and Big Pharma won't like the easing of drug laws because they prefer keeping their competition illegal. Also, millionaire drug dealers and police won't like it because it takes money from their coffers. But it's good for the many small time users/sellers who should not be criminalised.

Reprimand and/or clinical help for small-timers is ok, but don't destroy a chunk of their lives for their being stupid.

Next on the agenda is pot. Who has been harmed from smoking pot? No one I've heard of. In comparison, who has been harmed from alcohol-related problems? Pretty much everyone.

After that, politicians can legalise a drug which is not a drug... a substance which has never gotten anyone stoned: hemp. It's legally grown and sold/used in dozens of countries worldwide (including China), yet possession of a tiny bit can get a person thrown in jail. Volvo uses hemp products in their cars, youngsters wear jeans made of hemp... yet a Thai farmer who plants a hemp seed is a criminal. What's wrong with this picture?

Living upcountry, most people are traditionally early risers. A weekend is still a work day, not a day of relaxation.

While sitting with a few neighbours over a pot of real, freshly brewed coffee, (not the instant stuff), a once-a-week ritual, to discuss durian trees, the 8am news came on and it was immediately turned off.

Why? It is the PM's time to talk to the nation.

One neighbour laughed and commented that if the PM does not listen to the people, why should the people waste their time to bother listening to him?

The discussion, very inspired, turned from durian to... buffalo fertiliser, also known by its other traditional name, bull-you know what.

The followers of Phra Dhammajayo are absolutely sure that the abbot is innocent. In that case, they should be eager for him to prove that innocence in court, and give the authorities access.

The followers' demand that the abbot should surrender only when we have full democracy holds no water, for democracy consists of far more than elections. What we have never had, and which is vital to democracy, is political toleration. So, should the abbot never surrender?

But their fears that he would not receive justice under the current regime, where one man wields absolute power, is well-founded. Look at the trial of the two Myanmar defendants for the most foul rape/murder of two British tourists at Koh Tao last year. There, the men were sentenced to death on the basis of DNA analysis from a police lab not certified to do such analysis, and their "confessions" were extracted before they had been informed of the counterpart of their Miranda Rights -- thereby rendering their "confessions" inadmissible, per Thai Criminal Code S134/4.

I suggest that the abbot's disciples have little to fear, for he will have the best defence that money can buy. Also, the junta should be intelligent enough to know that the real judge lies not in the court, but in the streets and paddy fields. The abbot allegedly has ties to Thaksin, and unless his disciples are utterly convinced of his guilt, a "guilty" verdict will widen the chasm between us -- and so hopefully will bend over backwards to ensure all is transparent.

The abbot's followers should surrender the priest and focus on his defence.