OPINION

It's just not Buddhism

Thai governments in the past have made a grave mistake in allowing the Dhammakaya Buddhist sect to build a temple on a vast piece of land as large as 2,300 rai -- despite the fact that normal Thai Buddhist temples are no larger than five or 10 rai. This has caused consternation among Thai Buddhists that this is not Buddhism according the original vision of the Lord Buddha.

The temple's unusually large, UFO-shaped stupa is also believed to be against Buddha's teaching: that we should proceed on the "middle path" in everything that we do.

Buddha has never taught us to spread the religion in an exaggerated manner.

To sum up, Buddhists place their veneration on Lord Buddha's teachings before monks. Hence, monks who are found to have breached the rules and precepts of Lord Buddha are considered to have lost their monkhoods even before they are officially defrocked.

The ongoing furore at a certain temple evokes what Henry II said about Thomas Becket: "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

Re: "Wonders of coal", (PostBag, Feb 20).

Here are some of the facts of modern power generation: Wind and solar energy are already competitive with coal-generated electricity (with the prices continuing to decline steadily); both wind and solar create more jobs per MW of generating capacity than traditional coal power; and both wind and solar are virtually free from greenhouse gas emissions. These are indeed very attractive attributes.

But among the "wonders" of coal-fired power plants is the fact that they cost an inordinate amount of funds to construct and the "traditional" mechanisms for awarding contracts for their construction and operation are very well known and firmly established.

Re: "BRT, should it stay or should it go?", (BP, Feb 22).

I think it can stay, if you add a few changes, and I hope it stays. Compared with its convenience and efficiency as public transport, the existing fare of 10 baht is a little too cheap. By simple mathematics, increasing the fare to 14 baht, 40% up, can cover present costs at the present usage. Strict penalties against motorists who enter the designated BRT lane, while there is bad traffic congestion, should force them to use the system. This will increase ridership.

As someone living in the Chong Nonsi area and a user of the BRT, I find the latest development ridiculous in the extreme. Once again "experts" from one of our universities are called upon to provide statistics. Knocking on car windows and asking drivers their opinion about a public service that they have never used and never will is ridiculous.

Interviewing pedestrians in the area is more of the same. I have used the service during the daytime hours and have always seen plenty of users. The queues in rush hour times are always long, so where did the statement that it is underused come from? It would appear that the acting, unelected leader of the BMA has an agenda to increase traffic in the capital. Just what we need.

I have also used the new Purple Line and that is always nearly empty. Usually about 20 people on a three-car train. It's losing a vast amount of money -- more than the BRT -- but no one is demanding its closure.

As Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon requested, find a way to keep it running. Bangkok's inadequate public transport system is bad enough as it is.

The Purple Line is a money-loser, so fares will be dropped to a 15-baht flat rate for weekends and holidays in an effort to lure more passengers. I don't suppose a feasibility study was done prior to construction. No, I suppose not.

I have been following developments in self-driving cars. There have been reports of some vehicles in the US running red lights and not stopping at pedestrian crossings. This means that these vehicles are already entirely compatible with Thailand's driving standards.

postbag@bangkokpost.co.th