OPINION

Farmers must stand together

Re: "Not free and not fair" (PostBag, Jan 20).

Khun Lungstib, you are not alone. I too was getting a paltry amount for my fruit sales. However, the problem was improved. You might recall a recent news report where the government urged rice farmers to band together to form mega-rice farms in order to cut costs and labour and get more profit.

Every upcountry tambon has, or should have, its own farmers' organisation, for lack of a better term. We have had this group for a long time, with everyone welcome to join. We sell lemons, bananas, durian and other produce as a collective rather than as individuals.

The government helps by sending responsible agricultural experts to lecture. It also helps us buy chemical fertiliser in bulk at reduced costs. Not being fluent enough in Thai to be able to participate easily, I attend with my helper, who is bilingual. After the meeting we have a shared lunch, socialise, compare problems, suggest ways to solve them and gladly help each other out.

Believe me, the group makes a world of difference. It follows that old proverb, "United we stand, divided we fall". Good luck.

Re: "Dodgy dealings" (BP, Jan 20).

The Bangkok Post highlights just four Thai bribery cases exposed by foreign authorities, some of which go back many years.

Unless I'm mistaken, what the cases all have in common is that not one public official allegedly involved in the bribery scandals has yet served one day in prison. Will the new probe into the massive bribes said to have been paid to Thai state officials and employees of Thai Airways International go the same way?

If in anyone in the list of names of the administrators and executors of the national carrier during the relevant periods is ultimately held responsible, my bet is that they will be limited to those who are since deceased or are in self-imposed exile. Or perhaps I'm being too cynical?

Charlie Brown is being ridiculous (PostBag, Jan 20). Donald Trump is a gift to cartoonists, satirists and caricaturists because of his hyperbolic language, his lack of nuance, his mannerisms, his vulgarity and a host of other features.

The vast majority of Americans detest him and only around a quarter of the population voted for him, so the "balance" that Charlie Brown craves would only require the odd pro-Trump cartoon, but to ask for that is to miss the point of satire.

In any case, I can assure him that there are lots of cartoonists who are as anti-Trump as Matt Davies, but no doubt he never sees them because they appear in publications he would regard as left wing. He should see some of the cartoons of Steve Bell, who spares nobody so cannot be accused of imbalance.

I welcome the voices of sanity of journalists such as Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman that Charlie Brown presumably objects to. Rather than lumping them and others under the umbrella term "left wing" (which to him must be derogatory), he would do better to address the specific points of any articles and tell us why he thinks they are wrong.

I have read many comments and articles in support of Mr Trump. I have yet to come across one that presents a coherent endorsement of his policies.

Re: "Post lacking balance" (PostBag, Jan 20).

In my opinion we are extremely lucky to be able to read a newspaper that is very balanced in its reporting and editorials. The New York Times may well be to the left of centre but its contributors are always a good read.

If Charlie Brown is looking for right-wing newspapers, he need look no further than my home country, Britain, where some 80% of the national press is biased to the right. I trust that the Post will retain its excellent reputation of unbiased reporting that we can all enjoy.

Global watchers have pointed out seven countries, excluding China, whose leaders will be on edge with new US President Donald Trump in the White House.

First, Mexico can expect a wall alongside its border with the US, a bill on the wall, millions of deportations and a lot of pressure on trade.

Second is Japan. If Mr Trump creates increasing contentious relations with China, Japan will be caught between two of its biggest trade partners.

Third, Germany will face uncertainty both in its domestic politics and in its leading role both in the EU and Nato. Mr Trump's embrace of Russia's Vladimir Putin will undermine Europe's attempt to punish Russia for its roguish behaviour in the annexation of Crimea and its militia intervention in Ukraine.

Fourth, France could face domestic political upheaval if the far right National Front wins in elections this spring. Mr Trump's win as US president has emboldened this country's right-leaning movement. France could be next in line to exit the EU.

Last but not least: Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, the three small countries that share their borders with Russia, could expect to face more trouble from their powerful neighbour if Mr Trump becomes too soft and accommodating with Russia's Putin.

Although I share Vint Chavala's concern about the incoming Trump administration in his Jan 16 letter, why is it OK for him, a Thai, to comment on American politics but not OK for me, an American, to comment on the Thai situation?

For years he's been arguing that only Thais have a right to criticise Thailand. Using that logic, shouldn't one argue that only Americans should criticise America? Why the double standard?