OPINION

What's the agenda?

Re: "Banks agree to comply with BoT security measures by June," (Business, March 11).

The recent announcement by the central bank that all transfers over 50,000 baht will require a face scan sounds like a recipe for chaos in the banking system.

Does this mean we will all need to arrange to have photographs taken at the bank for their records? Will we need to go to a bank branch for each such transfer?

Will the facial recognition system be 100% reliable? When companies are making payments, who gets scanned?

Overseas banks have long used small electronic appliances to send authorisations for transfers or SMS authorisation codes to mobile phones which provide adequate controls over transfers.

Why do we need to be different, or is there another agenda for this data collection?

Re: "Appeasing tyrants," (PostBag, March 28) & "Economy not as flexible as many thought," (Opinion, March 13).

I read Ray Ban's thoughtful criticisms of my recent contributions concerning the Ukraine and reflected upon what he had to say as he recalled the actions of Nazi Germany and basically accused me of "appeasement". However, it's not 1938 any more and my thought process is based in 2023.

Unlike in 1939, we are in the atomic age. Wars can have different consequences today and I think what matters now is not whether anyone supports either Russia or the Ukraine, but rather what a foolish and potentially apocalyptic proposition that continuing this unwinnable war may spell in the nuclear era.

I conclude by saying that, as Paul Krugman recently pointed out, the West cannot provide enough ammunition for a victory with conventional weapons, and I would caution readers that a nuclear escalation could happen far sooner than we might like to think.

So, accuse me of "appeasement" if you wish, but to borrow from a well-known contributor's words, I think that even a lousy deal between the Ukrainian and Russian presidents would be far better than risking nuclear war.

Re: "Beware of boredom," (PostBag, March 30).

I thank Khun David Brown and Khun Felix Qui for mentioning my frequent letters noting that our national father His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej The Great objected to our usage of lese majeste laws, for, as His Majesty said, such usage "ultimately damages the monarchy".

I dearly love our monarchy and consider His Majesty to have been our expert on the institution. Hence, I hope to prevent actions that would harm it.

One easy way to stop my letters on S112 would be to show that His Majesty King Bhumipol Adulyadej the Great did not speak as I have quoted; my quotation was out of context.

Or we could admit that His Majesty was right, that our usage of S112 does ultimately damage the monarchy -- but that's the way we like it, so shut up!

Or, best of all, join me in using our lese majeste laws to protect -- not harm -- our monarchy. For example, if we keep S112, require that the Privy Council approve charges brought in each case as being in line with His Majesty's desires.

Do any of the above, and I'll gladly move to other issues.