OPINION

MFP targets military spend

Re: "Stuck on Section 112", (Editorial, July 14) & "Defence body eyes reform", (BP, June 2).

It is not the Move Forward Party's amendment of the lese majeste law that frightens the establishment the most. It is the threat to drasticly cut the number of generals from 1390 to 400 and bring the military under control of parliament, not to mention asking them to return public property, including deeds and businesses.

This would shake the military, and those who cling to it, to its very core.

Article 112 is just an excuse: As Pita said, the PM vote is not legislation against lese majeste.

India learns from its past

Re: "India displays diplomatic finesse", (Opinion, July 10).

Indian diplomacy has its roots in the colonial era. After independence from the UK, the first prime minister, Nehru, retained the ICS and its top people, albeit with a title change to the "Indian Administrative Service" (IAS). It continued its role as a key administrative service throughout India. Even today, Indian diplomacy is run by cream-of-the-crop members of the Indian Foreign Services (IFS), one of the top choices of IAS.

The finesse in civil and foreign services and in every other sector, such as finance and businesses, are not accidental. It is due to the educated and dedicated people selected through a competitive exam and selection process. After selection, they are also trained by IAS, considered a premier civil service organisation in India.

Respect our senators

Re: "Pita: 'Persecution against me would be costly'", (BP, July 12).

Move Forward Party leader Pita says he does not believe there is a campaign of political persecution against him, because if there were, it would be "costly". I agree. However, some senators have been complaining that certain MPs have never greeted them when they meet in parliament. Thai senators, like those in Britain's House of Lords, are acquired through selection, not election. One difference between the two may be that membership in the British House of Lords is granted for life, while in Thailand, a senator can serve five years.

In my opinion, senators should be allowed to vote on their own volition. They should not be looked down upon or intimidated in any way.

Enlightenment rules

Re: "The old guard retains its grip, for now", (Opinion, July 15).

In a true democracy governance of the people should be for the people and by the people. In the interests of practicability, representative democracy prevails. Therefore elected legislators or members of parliament are representative of the majority of the people who voted for them.

Over 25 centuries ago the Indian prince Siddhartha, once exposed to the outside world from the seclusion of his palace, began to think and become aware.

His thinking and unenhanced self-assessment were his individual enlightenment.

This sovereignty of an individual, that he taught as Lord Buddha, created enemies in the contemporaneous world of authority that enjoyed collectivism, a submissive population controlled by diktat.

Had this enlightenment of the individual become universal it would be the very basis of democracy. In a democracy the power lies in the hands of enlightened, free-thinking individuals having the right to appoint their representatives to government. Such individuals are not influenced by propaganda or ideological diktat. They think for themselves. While they hold many different points of view, they are all enlightened with a broad awareness.

The result of their votes would appoint aware representatives to represent them in government resulting in an enlightened system of governance.

Rethink uniform policy

Re: "Uniform pros and cons", (PostBag, July 15).

From a glance, people will tell you how student uniforms represent equality because uniforms are "uniform". But is that the only point of uniforms and the rules about them? It's ironic that something that should bring equality, as one claims, also has the power to disqualify students from low-income families even before their academic journey starts.

Other than that, I always hear how impractical and uncomfortable they are. I spent my early teenage years in an all-girls school.

We always looked forward to PE class because it's the only chance we could wear pants -- something practical -- and lessen the risk of flashing each other. Uniforms also have no direct link to academic performance, so what good is it?