OPINION

Show me the gaffes

Re: "Queen, PM in diplomatic gaffes", (BP, May 12)

The Bangkok Post carried a report that stated that British Prime Minister David Cameron called both Nigeria and Afghanistan "possibly the two most corrupt countries in the world". It also stated that Queen Elizabeth referred to a "rude" Chinese delegation.

A gaffe is defined as a mistake in a social situation. As Transparency International ranked Nigeria at 136 and Afghanistan at 166 out of 167 on its list of corrupt countries, it seems Mr Cameron's remarks were not far off the mark. As for the Queen, some people might agree with her opinion that Chinese people can be rude, so where is the gaffe? The only mistake, perhaps, was being overheard expressing their views.

This letter is addressed to Eric Bahrt and all the other people who share his opinions. Opinions are wonderful and respected, but please don't pontificate as you do, and do not consider yourself an expert on United States affairs. You might be an American citizen, but having lived in Thailand as you have claimed, for 20 or so years, you are, sorry to say, a bit out of touch, like the two seniors running for president on the Democratic party ticket.

Getting feedback and relying on opinions from back home, listening to CNN and reading commentaries are not the same thing as being there personally to make an accurate judgment. Donald Trump just might triumph. Look at Barack Obama, thought of as a wunderkind president at first, only to be seen as a failure to the nation and those who voted for him.

Re: "Death penalty no solution to crime", (BP, May 8)

This commentary against the use of the death penalty in Thailand makes a couple of sensible points. But it ignores the principle for having such a punishment: the need for justice to be seen to be done and for the punishment to fit the crime, which is the principle of proportionality in judicial terms. A life for a life satisfies society's desire for justice when first degree murder has been committed -- a desire that was expressed in the call for the death penalty for the young men who killed a disabled Thai person recently. True, such a call may be over-emotional, but it still represents the desire for justice in society. It is not an "easy solution".

The idea that the death penalty deters crime is merely a practical consideration. It should not be used as an argument for having the punishment, as it may or may not work in this way in a given society. The central argument -- one that won't go away -- is the need for justice, and logically, the death penalty is the only punishment that provides this. How can mere imprisonment compensate for the loss of a precious human life? A life sentence is never that in practice, and murderers are often freed after a few years. Where is the justice for the victim in this? And how many killings does it take before the death penalty is merited -- 10, a hundred, a million? Apparently, there is no limit, as imprisonment is often the only available punishment. This is clearly an absurd situation.

Of course, there are problems with the death penalty, just as there are problems with "life" imprisonment, as I have mentioned. However, I would argue that these problems are essentially practical ones and should not lead one to override what represents an essential principle of justice.

I'm surprised that Eric Bahrt in his May 11 letter thinks Donald Trump cannot win the race for the US presidency. Let's look at the rest of the candidates. They are the same old, out of touch people, geriatrics.

Look at Canada's Trudeau, a young vibrant leader with a clear vision for the country and the ability to make it happen. Look at the mess in the UK. People are tired of the same old faces, same old parties, same old promises. The Australians are calling for elections again. Same problems as the Brits.

The Philippines elected Rodrigo Duterte, a man with extreme views. Why? Because Filipinos are also fed up, disenfranchised with the same old parties and failed promises coming from the same people. Americans are due for a change. They want change, they are starved for leadership. They are tired of the liars, the Obamas who reduced the US to nearly third-world status with poor leadership, failed promises, ever-changing policies with no aims, a failed healthcare system foisted upon them against the wishes of many, for the ego of one man's legacy, laughed at everywhere.

For whatever Mr Trump might represent, or might not represent, he is as fresh as a spring flower. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are both withered flowers, indeed now weeds, past their prime and time.