OPINION

US wrong again

Re: "US envoy stands by criticism of arrest of activist's mother", (BP, May 13).

US Ambassador to Thailand Glyn Davies on Thursday read a statement from his prepared notes: "… the USA is troubled by the recent arrests in connection with online postings including the arrest of Patnaree Chankij, the mother of a political activist. This we believe conflicts with Thailand's commitment to freedom of expression. We believe it creates a climate of intimidation and self-censorship''.

I would like to respectfully remind Ambassador Davies that political activism in Thailand perpetually involves defying the country's lese majeste law. Whether the law is good or not is up to each individual's perspective and interpretation.

In the case against Ms Patnaree, since the junta insists there is strong evidence to prosecute her (and she is also the mother of activist Sirawith Seritiwat), we should wait for the matter to go to trial before voicing any protest.

Concerning the human rights situation in Thailand, allow me to ask these questions:

During the past two years under the junta government's rule, how many murders have been committed as a result of internal political conflict?

How many disappearances of political dissidents have occurred as a result of intimidation by the government?

The answer to these questions is: None.

Conversely, the extrajudicial killings of 2,800 people in the "war against drugs" in 2003, the Tak Bai and Krue Se murders of Muslims in the far South, and the disappearance of many legal and political figures that occurred during the Thaksin Shinawatra administration, a democratically elected government -- these should be regarded as the most atrocious human rights abuses that ever happened in Thailand.

The question is: Where was the US government in show its concerns over human rights abuses in Thailand when all this happened a decade ago?

In referring to the online article about the UN and officials from other countries condemning the human rights record of the junta, the Bangkok Post used the phrase, "Thailand vs the World".

I think this was a very misleading headline, as many human rights organisations and leading academics within Thailand, as well as the two leading political parties, and if the gossip and whispers which reach my ears are accurate, the majority of the population of the country oppose the indefinite continuation of rule by a military dictatorship and the suppression of all opinions which differ from those of the junta's.

Maybe it would have been more accurate to have written, "The military junta and its dwindling number of supporters vs the world and the rest of Thailand."

Re: "Bring 'Boss' to justice", (Editorial, May 12).

I read this headline and before I could even read the editorial, my mind was saying "yeah, do it''. Then I started laughing.

I read the editorial, and when I finished reading, I looked back at the top headline.

I'm still laughing.

My heart goes out to the parents who have lost a child, and in circumstances which should never have happened.

No investigation, no holding to account of those responsible will relieve their loss and suffering.

To whichever authorities are investigating, please start at the top, and not with the drivers. Start with the organisation responsible, its policies and procedures.

Re: "Water costs rural folk", (PostBag, May 12).

I sympathise with the rural folk enduring one of the worst droughts on record.

Having lived at the village level in Isan for a number of years I fully understand their plight. However, the question is: Do "urbanites" understand?

At my condominium complex in Bangkok, gardeners have no idea.

Yes, the foliage is a pleasure to observe. But every day, continual watering of hedges, trees, pot plants and grassed areas occurs for each least five hours (including the greatest evaporative times).

Sometimes, the hose is left running and precious water just runs down the drain.

Maybe Section 44 could be invoked to curb wastage of man's most needed resource?

I have a problem. First Vint Chavala tells me I don't have a right to have an opinion about Thailand because I'm not a Thai. Then David James Wong (PostBag, May 13) says I don't have a right to have an opinion about America because I don't live there anymore. Does this mean no one has a right to have an opinion about a country unless he is both a citizen of it and is currently living there?

And what about historians who write about events which happened before they were born? Or astronomers who write about Mars although they haven't been there?

I think what's really happening is that because my critics can't intelligently dispute my arguments they just want to shut me up. But they should know by now that shutting me up is about as likely as me voting for Donald Trump!

Re: "Out of touch", (PostBag, May 13).

David James Wong castigates Eric Bahrt for daring to pontificate on US affairs because he doesn't live there. Equally he attacks the two Democratic presidential nominees (residing in the US) for being out of touch too. Presumably then, the only people allowed to be definitive in this debate are those who agree with the letter writer irrespective of a residence qualification.

This letter is addressed to David James Wong.

Sir, you have no business writing letters to a public forum if you're unable to tolerate the letters of others. Your arrogance and misunderstanding of the purpose of the PostBag section leads me to advise you to look up the meaning of the word "forum".

I've also been an inhabitant of Asia for more than 20 years. I was recently contacted by a marketing company in the US to write a series of articles about the current presidential race. The views I expressed would not have been changed whatsoever if I was back in the US, so the notion that us expats are "out of touch" really means that you do not know how to use the internet effectively.

I am no fan of Eric Bahrt. However I respect his right to pontificate about whatever he wants to. If he wants to lighten up on the meat-eaters, that would be fine with me.

So, David James Wong (PostBag, May 13) decides that those who live outside the United States, including American citizens, have no right to an opinion on the coming presidential election. This despite the fact that most of the world will be affected by the result of the election, one way or another.

Would this, incidentally, happen to be the same David James Wong who lives in California yet feels entitled to pontificate (his word) frequently and authoritatively on the political situation in Thailand? Yet now he has the gall to say that only by being there personally can you make an accurate judgement.

Notice, also, that he doesn't include everyone in his instruction. Laughably, he only includes those (Eric Bahrt and people who agree with Bahrt) who have opinions different from Mr Wong himself. Feel free, then, to express your opinion, so long as you don't hold a different opinion from David James Wong.

As usual, far too many road accidents and deaths over the Songkran holiday period and predictably a wide range of comments and suggestions as to what could or should be done for the future.

Most agree that something has to be done but considering accident statistics and Thailand being No.2 in the world for road deaths makes this pretty obvious.

With so many differing views, many of which are embedded in customs and culture, it is my view that even with the best will in the world it's not going to change anytime soon. I would therefore like to suggest what I believe to be a completely new approach. Make road safety a core subject on the national curriculum to be taught free of charge, without any exceptions, at all schools both private and public for all children from five years of age right through to leaving school.

I was five when I started school and was taught the basics of crossing a road. Look left and right, always look and listen very carefully before stepping into the road.

Later, when a little older we progressed to learning road safety as cyclists including how to take care of our bicycles and we received a cycling proficiency certificate.

Here in Thailand, as children get older the lessons could be based around the Land Transport Act with periodic exams, which must be passed on merit, well before any youngsters are old enough to drive on public roads.

This would of course be a long term and continuous project beginning anew for each annual intake of five year olds.

Knowledge of motorcycle care and maintenance could be included as students reach their teenage years followed by a formal driving test and licence issued before taking to the streets. And later still, continuing the programme to include car and pickup truck driving and maintenance, leading to a comprehensive test to acquire a licence.

Of course, times have changed since my young days but the increased volume of traffic makes it vital that everyone understands that the road is a facility to share with all road users including pedestrians.

Public roads should never be considered a playground or race track and in many countries it is a criminal act to use them as such, so why not make it so here and help reduce road accidents, injuries and deaths which apart from other considerations, costs the Thai nation billions?

As for Songkran, surely the simplest way to deal with this is to prohibit throwing anything at or from any vehicle on all roads unless it is closed for that specific purpose, and don't limit this to Songkran.

Education is where it all begins and where better than at school?

It is never too soon to educate children on road safety and the lessons learnt would hopefully produce a long-term caring society of road users.