OPINION

It's your choice, sort of

The "extra question" in the referendum is worded to strongly encourage a "yes" vote, and should be made neutral.

I understand the gist of the extra question to now be: "Do you agree or not that in order for reform to follow the National Strategic Plan, both houses of parliament should jointly agree on a prime minister?"

This draft is clearly a leading question, for it stresses only the positive aspects of a joint appointment. To lead voters to vote "no", on the other hand, the same question could be worded: "Do you agree or not that the junta should be allowed to overrule the will of the majority of voters by letting the junta-appointed Upper House jointly vote with the Lower House in selecting a prime minister?"

To validly and reliably measure the will of the electorate, the question must be neutral, such as "Should the appointed senators jointly vote with the members of the Lower House in selecting a prime minister?"

The junta should realise that referendum results obtained by deception fool nobody, and revise the question.

An online Bangkok Post news story reports that fugitive jet setting monk Nan Khem has been arrested in the United States and awaits extradition back to Thailand.

By this very logic, the Royal Thai Police should be able to locate the Red Bull heir and ask for extradition as well. And while they are at it, how about having a go at Thaksin? But the monk was never a policeman so he is expendable.

The Red Bull heir's daddy is extremely rich, so while he too is expendable, he somehow cannot be "located". As for Thaksin, it will take a mountain to move before anyone ever has the guts to move against him.

The Thai police should adopt the motto, "Seek and ye shall find". I guess the intensity of the search is related to how much it is worth, not to search too diligently, literally.

Leo Bourne's verse was rather better than the witless piece of juvenile humour penned by Boris Johnson. The latter wasn't even worth a prize in a school satirical magazine, let alone a sophisticated publication such as The Spectator.

I have no idea why Peter Fairless should be so affronted, which the beginning of his second paragraph suggests. Has he no sense of humour?

Does he not know that it was Boris Johnson who raised the spectre of Hitler? The opening line of Leo's verse is therefore most appropriate.

Boris Johnson has a history of lying, in both his private and public life, and there is no doubt that the Brexit campaigners told lies and made misleading statements, so as far as I'm concerned Leo's verse is fair comment.

It's perhaps far too early to judge whether the referendum decision was the right one, but it's looking increasingly likely that in order to secure acceptable trade deals with other European countries the UK will have to accept all sorts of conditions imposed by the EU without having a voice or any other benefits.

David James Wong seems to be inhabiting an alternative universe, describing Thailand as a bastion of freedom, and inhabited by happy people compared to an embattled Turkey.

Perhaps the ongoing unrest in the deep south isn't happening, and protesters exercising their democratic rights aren't really being held in custody to undergo "attitude adjustment".

Every now and then there are letters to the editor complaining that I get too many PostBag letters published. Isn't it strange that no one complains when other writers get as many or more letters published than I do?

There is a blatant effort to have me censored because certain people don't like my opinions and because they can never intelligently dispute my arguments, so they want me banned from PostBag.

That PostBag continues to publish my letters means it is not yielding to this disgusting attempt at censorship. What's at stake here isn't just my freedom, but the freedom of anyone who dares to take controversial positions that most people are too cowardly to touch.