OPINION

Watch this space

Politicians and political parties are claiming Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha is unable to solve Thailand's corruption problems by referring to his deputy, and the watch scandal. If this is set to be the new standard of intolerable corruption, Thailand is moving forward. But for that to happen, politicians and parties now heavily criticising Gen Prayut have to stick to the 25 watches norm also when in power. I am sceptical, especially with the new party that wants to move "forward" by moving backwards, returning to the old democracy that was not so much of a democracy.

The "crime" with the 25 or so watches seems bleak and petty and on the level of stealing bread when others get away with millions and billions in corrupt money. And politics now are all about digging up dirt on opponents. Of course, Gen Prayut is to be criticised. We talk about principles here. But don't forget there is also something called proportionality, like 25 fake or original wristwatches set up against the billions lost in the rice deal case, with Potemkin-like stacks of rice sacks to fool the inspectors.

A sober discussion on politics needs to maintain a sense of proportion and reality, not only principles, or principles that fit your needs. The case with the 25 watches is good to have as a non-tolerable corruption standard -- established now by politicians and parties during an undemocratic time -- and to be remembered and referred to in coming corruption cases when Thailand has returned to its old democracy or achieved a new version. Better and exciting times to come, and we all hope democracy and political critics will do a better job than Gen Prayut.

Re: "Weed out bad cops", (PostBag, Dec 21).

Vint Chavala's letter goes some way to addressing the problem of how women in Thailand are perceived. But it is only part of the solution. Until there is a fundamental change in the attitudes of males towards females in this country, women will continue to be seen as servile and men will continue to treat them as objects.

In all developed countries there are procedures laid down in law when it comes to dealing with rape cases. It is not sufficient to just weed out the bad cops. Laws are set by governments and Thailand is no different. Change must come from the top. How would the current prime minister feel if his daughters had been the subject of a rape attack and he himself had been offered 30,000 baht to keep silent? But, once again, because the girl in question is not, in the eyes of the establishment, worthy of any form of justice due to her background, she is treated as an object while the perpetrators of the crime are seen as victims.

This is a disgrace and demands action from the powers that be. The gang rape of the girl on a bus in India who was travelling home from a night out with her boyfriend comes to mind. In that case, the girl died of her injuries and there was, mostly by women, a public outcry. The boys in question were sentenced to death. Where is the public outcry in Thailand? Or does it take some poor girl to die before legal changes are implemented?

Re: "Weed out bad cops", (PostBag, Dec 21).

Mr Chavala writes "Weed out the bad cops". Most countries have been trying to do this for ages. The only issues Mr Chavala has neglected to address are who is to do this, and how it is to be done. The days of Wyatt Earp are long gone.

Aliens inhabit the Earth, though few of us ever meet them. They are a supremely intelligent and mostly benign species, about which we have little understanding. We don't know where they came from, nor do we understand their language well. They are called "whales". The problem is that the truce we had with them for the last century has been broken by Japan. They want to resume killing whales for purely selfish, arrogant and simply wrong reasons.

The Japanese have made a decision that reflects a profound insensitivity to their prey, a deep lack of understanding of nature, and an utter disregard for the laws of karma. It's as if the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been forgotten completely, and they now have no respect for world opinion.

The Japanese eat extremely well, starvation is not a problem and they are great farmers. So why in God's name endorse with enthusiasm the wholesale slaughter of these truly magnificent creatures? A shame indeed.

Japan's withdrawal from the IWC is a so-called "my country first" concept. Japan must remain with the IWC and try to claim its policy using the proper channels. On the other hand, having whales in Japanese dining is rare nowadays. There is no merit in catching whales for scientific purposes anymore.

An open letter to the BTS: To accompany your latest ridiculous announcements, do you think it would be possible to provide passengers with an illustration of what a "pregnant woman wearing special tags" looks like, or is it as obvious as their wearing sandwich boards? This will help those of us who offer our seats to ladies who are not obviously pregnant.

Do you not think it may be a good idea to consult a native English speaker about announcement content before letting your daft messages loose on the public?

It may be an idea to have a regular announcement asking those seated to get their noses out of their phones for a few seconds and take a look around in case there are others that could be offered seats.

By the way, turn the volume down. The announcements don't need to be so loud as to distort the system speakers to levels of inaudibility.

Yours, wanting to help,

Re: "Cheap 'fake news' shot", (PostBag, Dec 20).

As I read Michael Setter's letter on Donald Trump's purported support for "authentic journalism", I was reminded of those people who not only talk to their pet cats but are convinced their cats can understand every word and one day may even answer them.

I'm sure cats are highly intelligent creatures, but they do not understand the subtleties of human grammatical language, and to imagine that Donald Trump has views on anything beyond how to enrich himself and bed yet more porn stars and Playboy bunnies is, at this stage, absurd.

Donald Trump's speeches reveal a mind incapable of coherent thought, stumbling from one stock phrase to another like a like a town drunk stumbling, night after night, into the same familiar trees in the park where he habitually collapses: "Build a Wall!", "Crooked Hillary", well, we are all too familiar with this nonsense after two years of this ridiculous and imbecilic charlatan.

It is becoming clear Mr Trump broke more laws than most of us knew existed on his way to the Oval Office. This statement is not journalistic spin from CNN but is grounded in facts emerging from the Trump swamp -- deal making in Russia during his presidential campaign, which everyone in Trumpland lied about at the time, the forced closure of a fake charity to match his fake university, one close associate after another convicted of serious crimes -- I could go on.

The only mystery about Mr Trump is how 38% of the American public can still believe he is the Messiah, come to lead them to the promised land of manufacturing jobs that have gone forever due to automation. If Mr Trump has a pet cat, the American people should make it president. It couldn't possibly do a worse job than Donald Trump and would be at least as capable of profundity as he is.

Re: "Cheap 'fake news' shot", (PostBag, Dec 20).

Well I had to laugh out loud at Michael Setter's hilarious assertion that Trump is a supporter of transparency in government. This laudable dedication to transparency has led to 17 investigations by seven sets of prosecutors into the transparent world of Trump. Oh I forgot, this must be fake news and fake crimes.

How long will we have to put up with this chimerical charade before something really serious happens?

Earlier this week the Bangkok Post reported about policemen ignoring motorcyclists who do not wear crash helmets. In Pattaya we have the same problems. On school runs I regularly see four or five atop one bike, all without helmets. There is no sign of the police, even when motorbikes using both lanes as a racetrack. In Vietnam, you wear a helmet or you get fined. I also believe more speed bumps should be installed to prevent these high-speed runs.

Re: "Je suis Médine", (Elian Peltier, Life, Dec 18).

The title of the article from The New York Times echoes the "Je suis Charlie" slogan that emerged after the murder of Charlie Hebdo journalists in January 2015 by radical Islamists. This is insane. These journalists were representatives of the French secularist republic and secularist society. It is odd then that the NYT journalist does not quote the lyrics of rapper Médine: "Let us crucify the secularists on the Golgotha", a call to the murder of people such as Charlie Hebdo journalists. Of course, we know that Islamic State crucifies secularists.

This rapper Médine is presented as not being a radical Islamist. In fact, he is close to French branches of the Muslim Brotherhood (radical Islamists), who differ from IS only in tactics. Most French Muslims are very happy to live in a secularist "laique" republic. A minority would like Islam to be able to impose religious rules on society, and unfortunately they are having some success in certain predominantly Muslim districts. This is the meaning of Don't Laik, Médine's song. Whether the NYT likes it or not, "Je suis Charlie" will continue to mean exactly "Je ne suis pas Médine".

Re: "Brits of sterner stuff?" (PostBag, Dec 20).

I would like to say "hear, hear!" to Robin Grant for explaining the whole sorry story of "EEC-EU and the UK" in words many who seem baffled by the situation can hopefully now understand at long last. I would like to add two things: The EU is notorious for its brinkmanship in all negotiations, so anyone who was not expecting this situation to arise was kidding themselves; added to that is the fact that the UK's own civil service bureaucrats, who are mostly pro-EU.

Robin Grant has misunderstood the basis of the second Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish did reject the treaty in the first vote, only to have a 25% shift towards acceptance as it passed the second time. Crucially, the text of the treaty was changed between the votes to address the concerns expressed by the Irish electorate during the first referendum. If that is not democracy in action, what is?

Mr Grant and I will never agree on the merits of Brexit, but we could agree the standard of debate and levels of honesty on both sides leave much be desired.