OPINION

Tool of injustice

Re: "Nate probe a let-down", (Editorial, May 19).

Yes, the hardly unexpected treatment of Nate Naksuk, former director-general of the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) is a let-down. However, like the alleged sex abuse of its poster boy Prinn Panichpadki by the Democrat Party, the latest publicly revealed workings of the OAG are likely but the tip of another iceberg of injustice.

If true as the Post's editorial alleges that "society wishes to see justice served", then Thai law, from the constitution down, needs to be radically reformed so that it in fact supports justice rather than injustice.

The recent comments by the respected former prime minister Anand Panyarachun are salutary here. When, to take the tip of another iceberg that collides constantly with justice in Thailand, the law allows globally honoured human rights activists to be imprisoned for no just reason but merely for the "crime" under Thai law of peacefully protesting in favour of openness, transparency and accountability, then the law proves itself a tool of injustice, and the officials charged with executing such law are made tools of injustice committed against the good people of the Thai nation.

The Red Bull comedy making a mockery of what passes for Thai justice for a decade now is hardly the only depressing act being perpetrated by Thai law loyally upheld by Thai officials.

People more important

Re: "Cold comfort awaits annual meet", (Opinion, May 20).

It really amazed me when CNN anchor Richard Quest criticised China for its "extraordinary zero-Covid policy".

Indeed, one million deaths in the US presumably was a good result compared with "tens of millions in China are still living under the yoke of lockdown". Similarly, the six deaths in North Korea have become major news in the media and was portrayed as the country's failure. I am not convinced. Somehow, I still think that the life of people is more important than some inconveniences of lockdown.

Lose-lose scenario

Re: ''Sanctions don't work", (PostBag, May 16).

I disagree with letter-writer Kuldeep Nagi. He opines: "Pouring money and weapons into Ukraine will only lead to more deaths and destruction. The West should make all diplomatic efforts for Russia to give up rather than keep fighting." Not so. It's Ukraine that needs to negotiate with Putin (not "The West"), and Ukraine smartly doesn't want to negotiate while it's winning.

Appeasement will only make Putin grin and continue his warpath to other parts of the former USSR. That's the legacy the 69-year-old wants to leave: re-cobbling the USSR. He's getting old, blanched and flaccid, so he fires off rockets -- as if to show Russians that he can "still get it up".

Two of the many results of his lose-lose activities: 1) Ukrainians will have heaps of steel to recycle and, 2) Ukrainian wheat fields will get fertilised by Russian boys' blood and guts. Some of that wheat may get exported to Russia (after Ukraine wins). Nearly 30,000 Russian young men have died during the past three months there. How many more, until Putin realises enough is enough.

Challenging thoughts

Re: "Shaman goes too far", (Editorial, May 20) and "Cult guru scares new neighbours", (BP, May 12).

In a culture steeped in superstition with public celebrations and holidays based on such beliefs, are incidents like the corpses discovered at a spiritual centre really a surprise?

Can you transition a society to a "4.0 Digital Economy" or expect it to be a scientific medical hub when myths are the predominant social force?

In order to meet these goals and protect the citizens from being swayed by charismatic charlatans (either religious or financial swindlers), the population must be taught reasoning and higher thinking skills.

Most governments do not desire "free thinking" constituents because they are not easy to control. All government schooling is geared towards making a conformist citizenry, not people with minds that challenge the current orthodoxy. Sort of a catch-22: to make independent thinkers means more general independence will be expressed in the culture. Is Thailand ready to let go of some of the antiquated beliefs in order to thrive in the 21st century?

I can only hope so.