OPINION

Madness never ends

Re: "Off to a shaky start," (BP, Nov 14).

My wife and I are the owners of a restaurant on Jomtien Beach. We have, like everyone else, been through tough times in the past two years.

After putting up with all of the silly Covid regulations, we received a beautiful SHA certificate, which is prominently displayed at our restaurant's entrance.

Now that the country is supposedly open to foreign tourists, every day and night, I have people coming in, sitting down and going through our menu. However, upon being informed that we are, unfortunately, not allowed to serve them alcoholic beverages, most of them will leave -- some of them quite agitated -- saying they can go someplace else, as there are plenty of other restaurants that are selling drinks.

When is this madness going to end?

Re: "Is Post anti-vax?," (PostBag, Nov 13).

The Chinese city of Shenyang has announced that all visitors who fly to the city will now be subject to 28 days of quarantine at a hotel and tested multiple times for Covid upon disembarkation; and not only that, they will be expected to stay in a house for another 28 days, after that, encouraged only to go outside for the most essential of things, such as buying food.

Is it any wonder PostBag letter writers such as Michael Setter and Eric Bahrt continually persuade people to question the official media narrative about the seriousness of the coronavirus, since it is driving those in power to do things, which are sheer lunacy?

Rather than get all worked up about it, perhaps Ray Ban should carefully read and reflect upon what the previously mentioned men are saying.

In the beginning, we were all promised that one, maybe two shots of a vaccine would be sufficient to fight off the coronavirus. But now when we see that men such as Thai Health minister Anutin Charnvirakul are getting a fourth vaccine shot, and who himself is saying that many Thais will require this many vaccines, we must all wonder, what is really going on here?

Do the medical and political authorities of our societies really know what they are talking about, or are they only pretending to?

Re: "Dialogue needed on monarchy reform," (BP, Nov 15).

The fact that an issue is sensitive does not mean that it cannot be discussed. Au contraire, if the topic is important, it must be discussed -- but dispassionately, weighing each word and nuance, seeking to understand rather than seeking to silence opponents. Each side has valid inputs overlooked by others -- what are those points, and how valid are they?

Such meaningful talks of national importance, such as the role of our revered monarchy, belong in institutions of learning, like our universities, but not on our chaotic streets.

Let our faculties of law and political science hold public hearings nationwide, like those held by former prime minister Anand Panyarachun which attracted so much valuable public input that the document became known as the People's Constitution.

The summaries of these hearings would be most useful to our parliament as they, in turn, revise our laws.

Instead of heating things up, shed light on the matter.