OPINION

Labour laws outdated

Re: "Complaints grow against migrant 'job snatchers', " (BP, Jan 18).

When I was in the Los Angeles Public Library walking to the men's restroom, a white man launched a totally unprovoked flying kick at me, screaming, "You Vietnamese (sic) steal our jobs!". Reading that our Labour Ministry's received complaints that migrants were working in jobs reserved for Thais reminded me of that.

The sine qua non for a law is that it must benefit the country in the long term. Occupations like the military or government must be reserved for nationals because national security is concerned. But barriers to entry must not work against our long-term interests. For example, we reserve lottery selling for the handicapped because we don't give them the same quality of education that we give the able-bodied. We forbid foreign nationals from being tourist guides -- but desperately need their nationals to tour Thailand and lack Thais who are fluent in Chinese, Russian, Arabic, etc. We insist on kicking own goals.

Our national interests demand that all Thais be able to develop to their fullest potential. Thus, we owe all Thais equal (and very high) quality of education -- whether handicapped or not. Requiring guides to be Thai would be acceptable in the first two years so we can learn other languages, but after that, we should compete with all comers.

The TDRI reported that one of our key problems was that our laws were woefully out of date. I suggest that our labour law banning foreigners is definitely one of them.

You were all played

Re: "Inequality chasm," (PostBag, Jan 20).

This letter, if published, will probably break the hearts of many people who adhere to progressive politics. Sadly, the open letter that the writer letter Sad Optimist cited as signed by 205 "super-rich" attendees of the Davos Forum asking for us to tax them (or, as President Biden says, "pay your fair share") was nothing more than an empty political stunt, and I will explain why.

Prayut Chan-o-cha cannot really tax those who are truly "super-rich" primarily for two reasons which are well-known to most world leaders. First of all, if the prime minister were to actually do that, it's obvious that many of our "super-rich" would quickly pull up sticks and move; leaving Thailand all the poorer. But, far more importantly, the reason why the prime minister cannot really tax the "super-rich" is because, unlike you and I, the "super-rich" don't make much of their money on earned income.

The "super-rich" make their money primarily on passive income; very often through the creation of debt which society needs in order to create large tangible assets like Trump Tower, huge social developments, etc, and that kind of income cannot be taxed much. Modern societies and modern economies require people like Donald Trump, Robert Kiyosaki, et al to create those beautiful things which society enjoys and concurrently create many jobs. So, if the prime minister, Mr Biden, etc were really to do that (or really even can), it would immediately bring many of society's mega-developments and new creations to a screeching halt, leaving only the government left to do those things which governments are never good at.

So, the next time you hear Mr Biden, Hillary Clinton, or those at Davos talk about taxing the rich, they mean people like doctors and lawyers who still work for a living, not the "super-rich", and everyone at Davos who the writer says signed that letter already knows that… they also know that you probably don't know that.

The writer just got played.

Medical weed needed

Re: "Govt issues cannabis guideline for visitors," (BP, Jan 6).

My parents in the USA were born of the "hippie generation" of the 1960s. I am now 56 years old. I grew up in Northern California, ground zero for cannabis use and cultivation. Back in the early 1980s -- my high school days -- recreational cannabis use was very common among both young and old Californians. Thailand's cannabis (Thai Stick) was particularly famous for its low price, high potency and exotic origins.

After high school, I served in the military for nearly two decades where all illicit drug use was strictly prohibited. Later in life, some of my friends worked hard to petition Californian leaders to change the law and allow cannabis as medicine. It worked. Now cannabis is legal for medical use in most of the USA and, recently, many countries around the world, including Thailand. When I saw Thailand legalise cannabis, I was happy.

My grandmother lived to be 94, and she would have suffered much less in her final days had cannabis been allowed for medical use in Texas. Many years later, as my own mother in California was battling cancer, legal medicinal cannabis provided her great relief near her life's end.

Now that cannabis is legal in Thailand, I hope government and industry leaders will work hard to develop this medical gift from nature. Around the region, in places where cannabis is still outlawed, one can see many people suffering through disease without access to this amazing medicine that goes back thousands of generations as one of the world's great natural cures. Countries embracing cannabis as medicine are on the right road.

However, public education and research on the many therapeutic applications for different medical conditions is still a challenge. There is so much more to using cannabis as medicine than lighting up a joint. Cannabis oil from the "Indica" variety, for example, has shown great promise in treating melanoma.

My hope is that Thailand will continue embracing medical cannabis and leading all of South East Asia into the new era of medical cannabis education, research, therapeutics ... especially in the fight against cancer.

A penchant for sugar

Re: "Society's poisons," (PostBag, Jan 18).

Joynandan Haldar, thank you for clarifying areas where I appear to have failed to write clearly. Allow me to correct my previous failure. Like the issue of sugary foods I also brought up and which you ignore in your response to my argument, alcohol was also relevant. It and unhealthy, sugary foods help illustrate the distracting irrelevance of your asking readers whether they would want their own children to be visiting casinos or smoking cannabis. That sort of populist question is no sound argument either for or against anything.

I do not cheer for alcohol, cigarettes, or any other popular drugs, as you falsely claim. Nor do I cheer for or have any desire to visit casinos. I do, however, cheer for just law. However, just law is not made by merely following the personal likes and resulting choices of either you or me, or even of a large majority's personal prejudices. This is why a strong constitution prevents majorities making popular law that violates basic principles of individual liberty and autonomy.

All normal adults should have the right to decide for themselves how they enjoy their own life equally and impartially respected by the law, and that includes a legal right to indulge in things that other adults might think, often with very good reason, to be foolish, unproductive and even unhealthy. Just law does not treat people merely as productive units of the economy or a means to some other end of society.

However poisonous they might directly be to me, and thus indirectly to society, I continue to cheer for and to hold that the wonderfully sugary pastries and cakes in which I occasionally indulge should not be criminalised merely because they can be unhealthy. Please also leave butter alone.

Brilliant, he's back

Re: "Thamanat seeks Prawit nod," (BP, Jan 17).

I'm sure I'm not alone in my delight at seeing Captain Thamanat Prompow back in the political fray by re-joining the PPRP, his "beloved old home". Once again., we can look forward to his colourful japes like hanging out with the Chinese triads or hilariously awarding himself a doctorate with a bogusly written thesis. It is hoped that General Prawit Wongsuwon truly appreciates what an appropriate ally he has in the captain.

Who's the wise one?

Re: "PM tells people to vote wisely," (BP, Jan 17).

In response to the PM requesting Thai citizens to cast our votes wisely, which is creating confusion, allow me to speak up. I am the same patriotic Siamese person who once supported the coup d'etat orchestrated by Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha in 2014 since I felt that was necessary to get rid of the corrupt government of Khun Thaksin and Khun Yingluck even though I fought my whole life as a human rights activist, always against coups d'etat all over the world. But now I will explain why I might not cast my vote as I did earlier for your party or the Palang Pracharath Party.

Corruption has returned to their homes. Under your regime, unarmed students and netizens were sentenced to lengthy imprisonment. Your regime always used Section 112 to suppress the youth. Apparently, you are scared to listen to people's voices.

The cases involving your brother and your relatives were not investigated properly. Khun Prawit Wongsuwon's watches and the related judgement left me speechless, and I lost total faith. Above all, you have built a coalition government with the same people who were questioned by the public -- some of them coming from Pheu Thai.

Indeed, I have a deep family background of the Democrat Party. The reason I stopped supporting them is because of their inability to protest or raise their voices against irregularities and unethical actions in the current coalition government.

So when you request us to be wise to vote, surely we are wiser now.