OPINION

More double standards

I fully agree with the National Human Rights Commission that charges against five people who attended the 13th International Conference on Thai Studies in Chiang Mai should be dropped (BP, Aug 24). They, including the director of Chiang Mai University's Regional Centre for Social Science and Sustainable development, are accused of illegal political assembly, as the forum involved more than five people.

But, the forum was non-political, and constitution section 31 guarantees freedom of expression and protection of academic freedom. Also, why were only five people arrested -- not everybody? Do we have double standards?

We are mired in economic doldrums, severely affecting our competitiveness. Our World Economic Forum 2015 competitive ranking, at 31st (out of 144 countries), is well behind Malaysia (20th), not to mention Singapore (2nd). To use our immense potential, we dare not settle for the status quo, for, by definition, to progress, we must leave the status quo behind. This is especially true for education, for the World Federation of Exchanges found that "another concern is the mediocre quality of education at all levels (87th in the world.)" With a third of our 15-year-olds being functionally illiterate in any language, how can we progress?

On top of that, we are far from being reconciled, as shown by the junta's refusal to loosen the ban on political gatherings.

The junta should be protecting freedom of expression and academic freedom -- helping us break out of our economic bonds and exploring how we can work together toward overarching goals.

Peter Atkinson's logic in pointing out the contradictions of pressing charges against individuals under the country's lese majeste laws is ironclad (PostBag, Aug 22). The only conclusion that can be drawn is that enforcement and punishment against those allegedly violating lese majeste legislation are meted out for purposes other than the original intent of the law.

Re: "3 Paths to Yingluck's fate", (BP, Aug 24).

The graphic gives three scenarios for the court's verdict. However, all three seem to based on politics when, surely, the verdicts should be based on the law and not have political overtones?

Re: "When faced with Trump, what do moderates believe?" (Opinion, Aug 23).

Moderates do believe that the era of moderation and civility, the two pillars of American politics, have fallen down? If Mr Trump continues his tirade against the media and his own colleagues in the House and Senate, we will see further deterioration of body politics in America. We already see the surge of hate groups and minority bashing across the country. His Twitter instigations to police to be tough on minorities and all others who oppose his rhetoric is bound to create more frictions in American society.

It is quite possible that in coming months the House and Senate may look like what we witness in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and India. For the first time in American history, we may see fist fighting, shoe hurling, and violence in both houses. For some reason, Mr Trump believes that all others, especially the liberal media, is the enemy of the country. He is the only champion of the truth and source of real news. Liberals in America are doomed unless they stop their urge to stoop down to his level of idiocy. Napoleon Bonaparte put it well "In politics stupidity is not a handicap". All the evidence so far indicates that Mr Trump seems to be very proud of his handicaps.

A senior health official has been serially harassing female subordinates for three years and has been caught on video doing it (BP, Aug 23). Police arrested him and promptly released him on bail, despite evidence that he threatened his multiple victims on numerous occasions.

The law is intended to protect and provide justice to injured parties as well as punish the wrongdoer.

The police and justice system are failing, and it is those who are in greatest need of help who are most often neglected.