OPINION

PM is in denial

The Constitutional Court has cleared Prime Minister General Prayut of any wrongdoing for continuing to occupy an army house, which should come as no surprise!

He doesn't lose the premiership and there is little doubt, given his past performance, that he will now dig in for the long haul, even more determined to stay in power. But it is long past the time when he should realise that as far as Thailand's lese majeste laws are concerned, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle and as the old wisdom asserts, once it is out there is no putting it back in.

Whereas before the media spoke in carefully crafted euphemistic terms about "the high institution" and avoided any detail, they now clearly says that what they are reporting is about His Majesty the King and what demands segments of Thai society are making of him, even going into detail about his command of army units and his wealth.

Whereas before, any criticism of His Majesty was whispered among friends, it is now being called out on the streets by youthful protesters.

To add to that, overseas social media are flooded with articles about the situation, some of which go into minute detail. These often pop up on Facebook and other social media without you even having to go searching for them.

To continue to use Section 112 to gag peaceful demonstrators against his government, Prime Minister Prayut is denying reality and in fact is exacerbating the situation.

The Dec 4 editorial, "A verdict of controversy", on the Constitutional Court ruling on Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha' s residence rightly noted: "However, the court stopped short of explaining why a military regulation can overrule the country's supreme law." THIS is the key to understanding Thailand's situation. The army is above the law, the constitution and everything in this country. Who controls, regulates, dictates the rules of the army?

The entire education system in Thailand at the moment is worth "bubkes". It is fragmenting and deteriorating by the month. The Sarasas school scandal, a lack of qualified teachers in many subjects, the uniform debates, the poor English-language results, the lack of actual Thai and world history in school curriculums, and more. No one seems to really understand the complexities of what's going on. The system is akin to a rudderless ship, drifting off to oblivion without a captain. But why fight it anymore? Just accept it. There is no indication that anyone or anything is ever going to make things right. Hot air and rhetoric seem more the order of the day, instead of concrete results.

I can understand that young people at school want to establish their own personal identity and express it in the way they choose to dress when they attend school but perhaps they should be thinking outside of the box? When I first arrived in Thailand 20 years ago, around 4pm in the afternoon, one of the first things I noticed as a taxi took me from Don Mueang to my apartment in Lat Phrao was the hundreds of schoolchildren of all ages leaving school for the day. All were dressed in blue skirts or trousers and white blouses or shirts. It made an immediate impression on me, affected my immediate view of Thailand in a very positive light and diminished third-world impressions.

It gave me the idea that these children were disciplined (to accept the outfits) and respectful of both the authority of their parents and of the secular authorities.

Later, when I started teaching English in government schools, it was so nice to be working with these well-dressed children. When I reflect on my schooldays in England, it was only the rich kids from private schools who wore nice uniforms. The secondary modern students also had a uniform but it was not rigorously enforced. Shirts were half tucked in and half falling out. Blouses and shirts looked like they had been slept in, which on reflection they probably had been, and boys' caps were askew or missing altogether.

But one more thing impressed me when I worked with the Thai kids: even those who come from the poorest families are well turned out at school. Clearly, Thai parents of all financial statuses take pride in their children and want them to represent the family in a dignified way when they are out and about and away from home.

So whilst young ones want to express their individuality in the way they dress at school, spare a thought for mum and dad, who love you just the way you are.

Re: "Is this the end for reckless populism?", (Opinion, Dec 4).

What a joy to read Gwynne Dyer's piece setting out some honest truths about authoritarian, law-and-order types. Such populist brutes are, by their very natures, morally suspect. They are often little more than brutish dictators dressed up in militaresque uniforms, even if supposedly civil servants. And as the example of Jozsef Szajer, the "ultra-nationalist, populist, authoritarian grouping that defends 'family values' and condemns homosexuality" shows us, such people are often remarkable for personal lives that flatly contradict their morally stunted preaching about how others should live their lives. They offer simplistic solutions to complex problems and in doing so not only lie about reality, but outlaw real solutions that are good for society. Naturally, vicious censorship is needed to protect the public myth from the threat of just exposure by the reality of the grossly self-indulgent lifestyles of such preachers of chastity, simplicity, sufficiency, monogamy, marital fidelity and the like from becoming known and discussed as reality should be.

As the protesters on its streets well know, exactly the same mismatch is all too common in Thailand. Look at the chasm between the pious preaching of monks who live in literally gilded temples whilst preaching sufficiency. And the sex lives of Thai monks are far too uncomfortably similar to that of Catholic priests and bishops preaching abstinence as they abuse children and the powerless under their control. But this is merely in the ostensibly sacred realm.

In the avowedly secular realm, there is the regularly repeated Thai example of those who preach law and order, despite having overthrown the supreme rule of law, and in the current case, then having failed and persistently refused to make the oath of allegiance to "also uphold and observe the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand in every respect" (Thai Constitution, Section 161). But in the land of no compromise, why would blatant hypocrisy stand out? Modern Thai history of the past 70 years at least teaches that such deceits, protected by unjust law made up for that purpose, are the normal superficial gloss of preaching good morals by those who would not know a good moral if it bit them.

To take one specific Thai example, look at Thaksin Shinawatra's ultra-nationalist excuses for his law-and-order authoritarian killing of thousands of Thai citizens. His drug war killings were evil that many others were complicit in. In fact, it is such things as his populist drug war killings, with support from the morally compromised, that show Thaksin to have had and to still have today far more in common with the current Thai prime minister, who staged a coup to make himself PM, than he does with such eminently new people as Thanatorn, Move Forward and the protesters on the streets, who would no more want the authoritarian old-style Thaksin than they do his replacement in Prayut. Naturally, those who ousted Thaksin did not care to press the charges of killing thousands in morally indefensible drug wars but instead made up silly political charges. It's all most convenient and too traditionally Thai.

Although, Samanea Saman has convincingly rebutted the speculation of "unsubstantiated remarks" or creating "myths" regarding health insurance for visa applicants as explained by David Brown, Eric Bahrt and other contributors, I would like to add some more facts to the Non-OA visa holders' health insurance dilemma.

In a cabinet resolution of April 2, 2019, it was stated (unofficial translation): "For those with foreign health insurance, the coverage must not be less than the prescribed level for the Thai health insurance. As for the consideration and verification (of foreign health insurance), all agencies concerned should work together to proceed with care for the highest benefit to the work and to the convenience of foreigners."

This acknowledged the validity of existing insurance cover.

Unfortunately, Order No.548/2562 dated Sept 27, 2019 issued by the Royal Thai Police says: "Only an alien who has been granted Non-Immigrant Visa Class O-A must buy Thai health insurance online, which covers the length of stay in the kingdom with no less than 40,000 baht coverage for outpatient treatment and no less than 400,000 baht for inpatient, via the website longstay.tgia.org."

This regulation started to be implemented at the beginning of 2020. Consequently, the current practice for holders of such retirement visas (OA) is that local health insurance coverage must be bought from these listed (14) companies, irrespective of existing insurance arrangements. It is verified at the Immigration Bureau at the time of visa renewal. According to a recent survey among our members, 25% are on OA types of visa. Among the listed companies only two or three are willing to offer insurance to the elderly with fees, depending on age, ranging from around 10-40,000 baht per year and deductibles of 200-300,000. A case reported to us involved a UN retiree of 78 years, residing in Thailand for 18 years, covered by a reputed health insurance provider (Cigna) who was denied an extension of his OA visa because he could not find a local company willing to offer insurance at an affordable rate.

So, this is a real problem, for real people.