OPINION

Law on sovereignty

Re: "In defence of lese majeste law", (PostBag, Dec 11)

Vint Chavala appears somewhat confused when he states that the lese-majeste law is necessary to protect the nation's sovereignty.

Sovereignty pertains to the holder or holders of power. In the present day Thailand that would be Prayut Chan-o-cha. Previously, under a constitutional democracy, it was in the hands of Thai citizens.

Thus in no way does sovereignty become protected by a law designed to protect the royal institution nor threatened by its breach.

I live in the UK. We have a monarchy.

The UK is a democracy so does not require a lese majeste law.

I refer to Dean Peterson's Dec 11 letter, "Police harassment the last straw".

In Chiang Mai I find the police polite but their traffic enforcement is just plain silly and can only be driven by money because common sense does not apply.

At the moment we are subject to one of those periodic "crackdowns" with checkpoints mainly around the moat where, for little energy, police can stop a significant number of people.

Farang and Thai locals are also subject to this random policing. Two days ago I saw a Thai lady fined for parking in the road. As happens a million times per day in the country, she had stopped for a few minutes to pick up something from a local business.

Meanwhile, "boy racers" are free to race up and down sois putting lives at risk, while vehicles can exceed noise and pollution limits without check.

Re: "Who needs the US anyway?" (PostBag, Dec 11).

It should be known to all diplomats that the modern world is an independent one where no country can be an island unless President-elect Donald Trump has ambitions to become like North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un.

It must now be obvious that Mr Trump's unorthodox style of canvassing was partly for show and made extreme in recognising the grievances of American poor -- white or black. His recent proposed appointments of a few in his cabinet including, even some of his previous critics and adversaries, have revealed that he is no isolationist. Mr Trump's tactics of political campaigns fits in well with the quote "the ends justify the means".

There is no moral or ethical rule in winning. Once Mr Trump has won and has the right to govern, then his real self will gradually be obvious. Even Chinese leaders do not think that Mr Trump's words warrant a response since, in the past, words said at campaigns are very much for show and to win.

I am certain that the world will not change radically and see the US as an isolationist state. The US, China and Europe will remain "busybodies" in the world's affairs because they command a lot of clout that deserves the world's attention. So, let's be real: interdependent states will not undergo some sort of reversal in our lifetime.

I would never dare to tell the US to get lost because, even China recognises that, in terms of technology, intellectual property and education, the rest of the world still looks to them to lead.

The retired Thai ambassador might not act like President-elect Trump, but he should show respect to the office of the president, the same way he shows respect for the institution of the Thai monarchy. As for his remark that the world could live without the United States, perhaps true. The world could also live without Thailand, which would be noticeably less missed or mourned.

Sunday's Postscript by Roger Crutchley is always entertaining. In this weekend's issue, he reminisced about awful British seaside guest houses which gave rise to the hilarious and classic TV comedy Fawlty Towers.

It reminded me of one such guest house which served just a smear of honey on toast at breakfast. This prompted the guest to remark: "Oh, I see you keep a bee".