OPINION

Tenure nonsense

Re: "Prayut's PM tenure 'ends 2025'," (BP, Sept 7).

With respect, the Meechai Ruchupan opinion is, of itself, a false application of post hoc ergo propter hoc, the concept that, after this, thereafter because of this. It is erroneously creating a sequential relationship to a causal consequence. Simply put, Section 264 of the constitution prescribes that the prime minister shall be the person who held that role the day before promulgation. In essence, Mr Meechai's opinion provides unequivocal evidence the prime minister held that post the day before the April 6, 2017 promulgation; thus it is nonsense at law and in logic to suggest his tenure began from that date.

Re: "Senate must prove mettle", (Opinion, Sept 7) and "Senate's PM pick role up for debate", (BP, Sept 6).

I agree that it's very unlikely that senators will cede their power to join MPs in electing a prime minister.

However, Thailand claims to be a democracy with the monarch as head of state, and in a democracy, the decision of the majority of voters prevails either directly or through their elected representatives. As Gen Prayut and Gen Prawit handpicked and appointed each senator without any say from elected officials, to have senators vote on those who appointed them would be a gross conflict of interest, for it would allow that person to win with just 1/6 of the popular vote.

If senators wish to retain their role in selecting the prime minister, they should recuse themselves when Gen Prayut or Gen Prawit are involved.

Re: "Leader's checklist", (PostBag, Aug 28).

I've been tempted in the past to reply to ML Saksiri Kridakorn's barely disguised pro-China missives but have so far resisted. The letter published in PostBag on Aug 28 has finally spurred me to act.

Some suggestions for the checklist:

Voting on a country's policy, leaders and political parties is fine; limiting the alternatives is not.

Providing feedback and expecting remedial action is fine; dictating outcomes is not.

Having a strong and growing economy with increasing living standards is fine; using slave labour is not.

Eradicating poverty is fine; sharing wealth unfairly is not.

Having a harmonious society is fine; stifling dissent and violating human rights is not.

Achieving food and national security and personal safety is fine; curtailing basic freedoms is not.

Treating all peoples internationally as equal is fine; oppressing minorities is not.

Having high-tech manufacturing is fine; using technology to control people is not.

Building state-of-the-art infrastructure and systems is fine; limiting access to urban populations is not.

Ubiquitous 5G communications is fine; controlling content on networks is not.

Never having been a colonial power is fine; trying to become one is not.

Re: "Avoiding snakes", (PostBag, Aug 31) and "Snakes can do good", (PostBag, Aug 29).

I would have to agree with Mr Brown that it's better to avoid being bitten by a snake in the first place than to take the opportunity of using the venom from a bite to treat others. While the latter writer may be correct that snakes help to control the rodent population, it's far-fetched to conclude that something good can come out of a snake bite. It should be pointed out that the venom from one species does not always work on a victim who was bitten if the sub-variant of the same snake species is slightly different.