OPINION

Cambodian Justice Defended

Re: “ ‘Show trial’ jails activists, CNRP figures” (BP, July 22).

I would like to comment on this AFP story published in the Bangkok Post, and the misleading notion that the legal process against 11 members of the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) was a “show trial set up to intimidate the CNRP”.

The term “show trial” used to portray the legal process is a gross betrayal of the reality. The charges against these 11 individuals had never been dropped and the legal process against them was ongoing, since the violent incident on July 14, 2014. All of them had lawyers to assist in their case. 

These individuals were charged for instigating public unrest and attacks against public officials who were on duty to maintain peace and order. The court had sufficient evidence, including live video widely distributed on YouTube, on the extent of the violence churned up by them. The court’s decision against them on July 21, 2015, had nothing to do with their political affiliation or legal political activities.

They were simply charged for instigating unrest and violence, which gravely endangered the peace and security of the country and amounted to insurrection. This is a serious criminal offence punishable by law not only in Cambodia, but also in other democratic nations around the world.

In a democratic society, the laws apply to everyone equally, regardless of social status or political affiliation; and everyone has equal obligation to respect the rule of law; failing to means social order and peace can never be maintained. The 11 individuals convicted for insurrection on July 21 cannot claim immunity from justice for actions in violation of the law committed in the name of their political party.

Under the constitution of Cambodia, the judiciary is fully empowered to decide on any case brought before it in accordance with the provisions of the relevant laws in force. The government has no authority to interfere with the legal process.

The allegation that Samdech Prime Minister Hun Sen “brooked little dissent” is a misguided and fallacious statement, given the fact that the people of Cambodia enjoy freedom of expression, with all types of foreign and local media, as well as social networks accessible with no hindrance to all, including those from the opposition camp.

Eat SopheaCambodian Ambassador to Thailand

Re: “The sex trade: Exploitation or choice?” (Opinion, Aug 7).

After the TIP firestorm it is nice to see an article about something else. The article mentions trafficking, of course, but debates criminalisation versus legalisation of prostitution. For me, a third choice is the only one that makes sense: decriminalisation.

Most anti-prostitution interest originates in the prudish US. This is also where miscegenation laws, laws outlawing relationships between people not of the same race, were enforced until 1967. Laws against sodomy, commonly used to attack gay men and transsexuals, were enforced in the US until 2003.

At its root, prostitution is a willing contractual agreement between adults for a private service and should be treated as a civil right too. If prostitution were legal, pimps would go elsewhere for a bigger reward for an illegal risk. Police can enforce laws that protect prostitutes just like anyone else. 

Unfortunately America’s most extreme feminists and the religious right are odd bedfellows in aggressively attacking all prostitution everywhere. Those who might speak up for prostitution prefer anonymity. Thailand should make its own decisions with no outside cultural influences.

John Kane

The opinion piece on prostitution was well balanced. What always angers me is when prostitution is called “violence against women”. Sure there are men who beat up prostitutes. There are also men who beat up their wives. But we don’t call marriage “violence against women”.

There have been tens of millions of men who have gone to prostitutes who were consenting adults and no violence occurred. Sometimes customers even marry their prostitutes.

Are those men fools? Are the prostitutes still being “exploited”? I don’t know and I don’t care! As long as we’re talking about consenting adults, why can’t the feminists stop being such hypocrites and realise that prostitutes have as much right to do what they want with their own bodies as the “respectable” women do?

Eric BahrtChiang Mai

Re: “You pay for high-flyers” (PostBag, Aug 8).

Ken Devey is absolutely correct, especially regarding the fact Western countries make sure “important/self-important people” pay for their seats.

One only has to look at the recent resignation of Bronwyn Bishop, the speaker of the house in the Australian parliament, after using taxpayers’ money to pay for non-government flights.

Each member of parliament there receives a travel allowance from the government with which they pay for their air fares and travel (Australia is a very large country) — nobody flies for free.

There is one slight problem — the allowance and guidelines are open to abuse by politicians; until they get caught like Ms Bishop.

If the Thai government brings in a “user pays” policy then Thai Airways and other Thai carriers would start to edge closer into the black.

However, the important/self-important people may find ways around such a policy, unless it is well-written with guidelines that must be followed.

John Lowndes

Re: “Farmers warned not to plant” (BP, Aug 8).

The government needs to make an order on planting and enforce it, not just issue a warning.

Farmers failed to obey the government’s instructions to stop or delay the planting of the first crop, then they manipulated public water supplies to feed their own paddies, inviting a tap water crisis in many parts of the country. Unless a rule against planting is enforced, we may face another water management problem next year.

RH Suga Lamphun

CONTACT: BANGKOK POST BUILDING 136 Na Ranong Road Klong Toey, Bangkok 10110 Fax: +02 6164000 email:

postbag@bangkokpost.co.th

All letter writers must provide full name and address.

All published correspondence is subject to editing at our discretion.