OPINION

An opaque situation

Re: "Property tax rejig to amplify revenue", (BP, April 17).

The amendment of the land and building tax law made in 2019, replacing the 1932 household and land tax, was long overdue. It is a progressive law. Not only does the amendment enhance efficiency, but it also encourages adding wealth to the nation.

Not having travelled for four years due to Covid-19, I was most impressed by the green scenery along the road to Korat compared to the scenery pre-2019. It is most gratifying to the amendment.

Similarly, in town, most of the wasteland has now been half-heartedly planted with fruit trees.

Most common are lime and banana. Though not that impressive, it still has a better view than wasteland.

Naturally, one should "penalise" vacant and unproductive land.

Planting trees without care so the land qualifies as commercial has been subject to public outcries of tax fraud when half-hearted efforts in utilising the land were noted.

The law talks specifically about an agricultural business.

It is this opaque situation that is the subject matter now.

Through the advice of tax lawyers, a few have announced on noticeboards that they have fruit for sale to emphasise that it is commercial. Is that enough to qualify for the reduced tax rate?

Crisis of inaction

Re: "New plan to solve monkey infestation", (BP, April 3).

Why are things allowed to develop so far in Thailand that they become problems almost impossible to solve? As with the stray dogs, not addressed early while it was still manageable?

Now Lop Buri is overwhelmed with monkeys.

In Hua Hin and many other places, the monkeys have become urban dwellers living off and next to dumpsters. But they are wild animals?

Covid took a heavy toll on the stray dog population, so now the motorcycles are the new "soi dogs" with their "modified" exhaust silencers.

And the more exhaust noise they produce, the faster they also drive; worst now are the popular bigger scooters.

The poorer riders drill a hole to get the desired noise.

So, where is the social control in the neighbourhoods where these noisy bikers live?

Another example is the black tinted windows on almost all cars. Blacker and blacker through the years, so you can't see the drivers any more; even the windshield is tinted black.

The reduced visibility is dangerous and fatal at night time. How easy will it be to reverse all these black windows and to agree on a new safe standard, and aren't people scared, at least pedestrians?

Forget about the police force, but politicians, officials or ordinary citizens; why no actions?

Are they afraid of losing face? Or are they afraid of fellow citizens' hot and dangerous temper that can cost their lives if they interfere?

Or is it something with Buddhism that hinders people from taking action when they see something is going wrong?

Or do they not see the "wrongs", like the noise pollution, miserable life for soi dogs, soi dogs biting or potentially spreading diseases, and bigger and faster motorbikes that are dangerous in the hands of uneducated drivers.

These are visible examples.

Sure, there are more hidden within the system, like rampant corruption.

Is there a way out of it for Thailand to untie people's mentally tied hands and start actions against all kinds of "wrongs" in society, which now are free to flourish?

WHO power grab?

Re: "How to save the pandemic treaty", (Opinion, April 3).

Mariana Mazzucato, chair of the World Health Organization's Council on the Economics of Health for All, tries to seduce readers/member states into accepting a global pandemic treaty.

However, it reeks of convenient and complete control of the world's citizens/member states, because member states/governments are then to carry out (any) binding directives from the World Health Organization and thus give up their independence of making their own policies on different issues.

Moreover, member states are expected around mid-May to (hurriedly) sign the treaty. I am not a believer in conspiracies. However, I do have an uneasy, creepy feeling about this treaty.

To my mind comes a combination of other issues like (a) secret meetings (behind closed doors), (b) co-writing of EU legislation in Brussels by (multinational) lobbyists, (c) buying of huge amounts of physical pure gold by central banks despite there being no more gold standard, (d) efforts to introduce digital money only, (e) unwillingness to evaluate Covid lockdowns, (f) secrecy and unwillingness to investigate excess deaths and side effects of Covid-vaccines; the list goes on and on.

Cultural nuances

Re: "Apologies accepted", (PostBag, April 15).

Eric Bahrt has apologised, and Songdej Praditsmanant has accepted his apology, which is all it should be.

Without in any way wishing to stir the pot, I am, however, intrigued on a linguistic level as to where Songdej derived his translation of the original perceived insult. There is nothing in the English dictionaries that I've checked that correlates with a fake gentleman in a suit acting for personal gain.

This is not meant to be facetious but rather an observation on how easily things can be lost or added in translation. There is obviously a much greater cultural insult in Eric's remarks than is apparent to me and, I suspect, other speakers of English as a first language.

This little contretemps reminded me of the "diplomatic incident" caused by then Australian prime minister Paul Keating describing his Malaysian counterpart as "recalcitrant". What was a relatively innocuous barb in English was perceived as highly inflammatory in the Malay language. All of this just goes to show how words can have consequences, and we should choose them carefully. Even so, misunderstandings will happen, and the best we can do is work around them in a civilised manner.

Dialogue v silence

Re: "Apologies accepted", (PostBag, April 15).

I appreciate the fact that Songdej accepted my apology. I learned from the experience, and I'll be more careful in the future to get my facts straight before attacking someone. But what concerns me is that if people are afraid, they could end up in a Thai prison for misrepresenting someone's opinions, then they may keep their own opinions to themselves.

And self-censorship can be as bad for democracy as government censorship. Therefore I think people should follow the examples set by myself and Songdej and settle their differences in the press instead of the courts.

Platform for debate

Re: "Apologies accepted", (PostBag, April 15).

Watching the fret and fume between Eric Bahrt and Songdej Praditsmanont reminds me of the old days when I wrote to BP. For years, PostBag has been a great venue for readers to express their views and knowledge, especially for those who share the same values as BP, which is a pro-Western newspaper.

There are prominent contributors to PostBag who act as its guardians for Western democracy, who always see Putin as a devil, China's CPT as an evil, a coup is always a crime, etc.

Anyone who writes anything against their ideology and beliefs will surely get a severe response. I remember on several occasions when I argued in favour of Russia and the CPT I was called an apologist for Putin and the communist tyrants.

Personally, I don't care what others call me because I believe what one perceives as right is not always congruent with others.

It is better to argue amicably and let the readers decide by themselves. Writing and reading PostBag articles is like a cake that comes with coffee -- nibble it when you like it, or discard it if it tastes horrible.

Sometimes a little constraint on each side could make writing to PostBag more meaningful and fun.

Decades of dispute

Re: "Gaza war letters", (PostBag, April 15).

The only bit of Palestine that the Zionists legally occupy is the bit now called Israel. The rest is illegally occupied and has been for 75 years -- "Occupied Palestinian Territory" in UN parlance, with settlements that are also illegal under international law, built on stolen Palestinian land.

Finding harmony

Re: "Where is the love?", (PostBag, April 13) and "MFP may get more time to file its dissolution defence", (BP, April 11).

At the highest level, Vint Chavala and I agree on the same thing. We both love Thailand and want what is best for her.

But where we divert is at the secondary level. Vint Chavala is of the opinion that anyone who questions an institution, an institution that is revered by a vast number of people, automatically hates Thailand.

Vint Chavala is, of course, free to espouse his belief, but to equate those two opinions as one and the same thing is perhaps stretching it slightly too far.

Vint Chavala further believes that a party must demonstrate the love of Thailand or be dissolved. The disconnect between those two actions will ensure that Thailand will be mired in a web of disagreement for a long time.

Vint Chavala used the word "hate" twice in his short letter. It is my opinion that "hate" should be used sparingly, if at all, in any political discussion.

And on that note, I want to say that I love you, Khun Vint Chavala.