'Bull' and baloney walk
I am not surprised at all concerning this kid [Red Bull heir] who killed a policeman and has still not been arrested or prosecuted, and it has gone on for four years (BP, May 26).
I guess it is still "money talks, and baloney walks". I find it hard to believe that someone who kills a person while driving, and flees the scene is not behind bars.
When you kill someone you should not be given bail or, in this case, years to be on the run. It is an obvious stall, and the whole world is looking and scratching their heads about jurisprudence in Thailand. Yet, after the tragic fire in Chiang Rai, most likely caused by a faulty electrical system, police are fervently trying to find a culprit to blame. I find this whole thing about people not owning up to their responsibility and being accountable for their actions, disgusting.
In his May 21 letter, Vint Chavala said: "The White House should act more reasonably in its criticism of Thailand over a small incident such as an arrest of the mother of an activist for alleged lese majeste. In fact, the reason put forward by the 'supporters of free speech' group that the suspect had typed only one word in her online message and this could not be mistaken as acting against the lese majeste law is irrelevant."
I suppose my first question to Vint is: How is that irrelevant? So, the content of what the "suspect" actually expressed is irrelevant regarding the suspect's arrest, or to put it more accurately, her abduction, with the aim of gagging her son for expressing his views? So what one expresses or what one does that results in an arrest or some form of detention is irrelevant to that arrest/detention? The fact the junta has not provided the public with any details regarding the nature of what she said apart from ja, but assures everyone they have absolute, iron-clad proof she expressed more than that. No need to inform the public, no need for accountability, nothing. What the junta declares is Gospel truth. They can do no wrong.
He also asserts that the abduction is but a "small thing". The fact is, no one knows what she wrote in her Facebook message, but abducting people for expressing views, whether for or against the monarchy or any other matter, is not a small thing. It is a reflection of the ongoing abuse of powers by the junta. The so-called Section 44, after all, is not a law, it's a blunt-force weapon wielded by the PM -- I use the term loosely -- to do whatever he likes. It's a reflection of just how low it is willing to stoop in an attempt to get its way, including hacking people's Facebook accounts. It is a reflection of its incompetence, the latter which highlights why military regimes have no business trying to run a country. They simply don't know how.
But getting to the real issue, the lese majeste law is quite absurd. The King himself has expressed strong disapproval of the law reasoning that it does more harm than good to the monarchy, and, as most people I'm sure are aware can be easily abused by those in power to go after peaceful opposition elements or perceived enemies, which is precisely what is happening now.
Vint goes on to say: "On the Thai side, the junta government should present facts instead of sharp words to answer its critics' questions." The junta does not know how to present facts for the same reasons they don't know how to run the country effectively. They are military men whose only experience is the military. I have yet to hear PM Prayut utter a single coherent statement on anything. How could someone of his apparent disposition possibly adopt the language of diplomacy, or even understand the very nature of diplomacy?
I suppose what confuses most about Vint's letter is that he seems to be happy to be told he is no longer allowed to express an opinion. This doesn't seem to concern him. It doesn't seem to concern him that remarks by the US ambassador do actually reflect the concerns of much of the international community and, as ambassador, it was his duty to make those comments.