Image crisis
Re: "Much hangs on Tak Bai", (Editorial, May 3) and "Sutin backs anti-coup plan", (BP, May 2).
In most developed countries military officers are regarded as officers and gentlemen, who will answer for their mistakes in the military courts, and not be moved to inactive positions.
With the Tak Bai carnage, coups and loss and damage to naval craft, as well as alleged shady business dealings, one wonders how Thais regard their military officers?
That's their job
Re: "Paetongtarn: Central bank independence an obstacle", (BP, May 3).
I disagree with Pheu Thai Party leader Paetongtarn Shinawatra when she says the Bank of Thailand's independence is an "obstacle" in solving the country's economic problems.
There are two main ways for a government to increase GDP: One is to increase production; and the other is to increase public and/or private spending.
This government has chosen a hand out of 500 billion baht to 50 million Thais -- in the form of the 10,000-baht digital wallet handout.
Meanwhile, the BoT's job is to prevent any misappropriation of national funds in any form or fashion.
Hence, the central bank's independence is essential -- not an obstacle as she seems to think.
Go further
Re: "Reshuffle ruffles some", (BP, May 5).
Maybe Pheu Thai should think about reshuffling the owner of the party and the head of the party… Maybe the head of the government!
Not the right way
"Re: "Climate myths" (PostBag, May 1).
It seems to me hard to argue against climate change, and its effects, as we all swelter in the current heatwave in Thailand.
But I take exception to the rather patronising tone of Diane Archer's missive to Postbag, rebutting the so-called myths being peddled by our resident climate change deniers (Setter and Wilcox).
Such condescension does nothing to persuade one of the merits of an argument.
Phrases like "Is JC Wilcox aware of the pre-eminent publication..." (well, clearly not!)
Others: "Perhaps if JC Wilcox and Michael Setter thoroughly read..." (more condescension, implying they're too ignorant to read the esoteric details contained within scientific journals); and "all of their beloved carbon dioxide" (as if the two gentlemen have somehow adopted the characteristics of plants!)
But it is when we stop to read "thoroughly" Dr Archer's letter that we realise how flimsy her counter-argument actually is.
She refers to the "latest" edition of the IPCC report as having been published in 2021.
It's already three years out of date, for heaven's sake! I want to read research published last week, not from three years ago. And then her final paragraph, her last salvo if you will: "Maybe the PostBag Editor could refrain from publishing letters peddling myths..."
All I can say is, I hope the editors at the Bangkok Post ignore your suggestion.