OPINION

Double standards

Re: "Srettha defends integrity in court", (BP, July 31).

In challenging PM Srettha's ethical standards in court related to his appointment of a former convict to his cabinet, senators appointed by the Prayut junta spoke of "good morals" and "ethics," while Prayut's cabinet allowed a drug-related convict who'd been jailed in a foreign cell to sit happily in cabinet.

That alone shows a whopping double standard enshrined in the law. It is unethical.

Also citing the need to suppress peaceful speech, those same senators denied the Thai people the government for which they voted. That was neither just, nor moral, nor democratic, merely legal: again, the double standard that legalises such bad morals, such unethical practices, is glaring.

Meanwhile, the fact of Prayut being where he is having done what he did, highlights as nothing else does the extraordinary double standards written into the law when it speaks of "good morals" and "ethics". The pending court cases only emphasise those double standards enshrined in the law. Such are the messages being consistently sent by the conservative old guard.

Is it any wonder that support for Move Forward and its popular policies continues to grow? I daresay all those who realised so soon after the event that they had wasted their vote by voting for Pheu Thai are looking forward to correcting that mistake.

Offensive to whom?

Nang Tani demands more transparency regarding moderating comments in this newspaper. This is due to a recently published comment apparently containing offensive content, which was not removed despite multiple reports.

Funnily enough, this contributor is not transparent him-/herself by not mentioning the offensive comment he is referring to.

Rights ignored

Re: "Govt can't meddle in Vietnamese activist case", (BP, Aug 1).

Whether under an army-ruled government under Prayut or the current so-called democratically elected Thai government under civilian Prime Minister Srettha, the issue of respecting human rights does not arise at all.

Lest we forget, the Thai government handed over 109 Muslim Uyghur refugees in 2014 to China under tremendous Chinese pressure, knowing the fate of these poor Uyghurs.

They were blindfolded, handcuffed and forcibly put on a China-bound plane and handed over to Chinese authorities. Their families and children were separated and were deported on a separate plane.

The world does not know the consequences or their fate.

Again, against the request from the UN and human rights organisations across the world, the Thai embassy in Istanbul was attacked and had to close down our consulate.

We had handed over political activists and members of opposition parties from Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, and Hong Kong to their brutal and repressive dictators.

The question of respecting human rights sounds like an alien concept to us, especially when we Thais treat our unarmed Thai brothers and sisters so cruelly by sending them to jail for violating Section 112. One was arrested for expressing an opinion on inconvenience from a royal motorcade.

Now, is Thailand allowed to stay a member of the UN, or would it be fair for the UN to include Thailand as a member of its human rights committee?

Eyes on Bdap case

Re: "Govt can't meddle in Vietnamese activist case", (BP, Aug 1).

In the court case of Vietnamese activist Y Quynh Bdap, who's overstayed his visa but has been granted refugee status by the UNHCR, we must follow the principle of non-refoulement. This "prohibits States from returning refugees ...to (where) their lives or freedom may be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. (It) is a part of customary international law and is therefore binding on all States, whether or not they are parties to the Geneva Refugee Convention and Protocol" (source: EU Glossary).

Mr Bdap seeks freedom of religion for Vietnamese Montagnards, and Vietnam requests his extradition for launching campaigns that break Vietnamese law (but evidently not Thai law). Critics say that Christian Montagnards have long been persecuted by the Vietnamese government, and US Congress members have asked PM Srettha to release Bdap.

We seek a UNHRC seat in this October's elections. We should show the UN that we follow international law's core principles.

If we extradite Mr Bdap, it must be to a country where his life or liberty will not be threatened, such as the US.

Vote wisely

Re: "Trump, Harris hone attack lines in speeches", (World, July 29).

It could be said that Donald Trump sees everything in black and white in that people either support him or they don't, with no one in between.

It's probably true that the public either loves or hates him. Is it all that simple?

How can he say that Kamala Harris's identity has changed as "she happened to turn black" and to say that in front of people at the National Association of Black Journalists convention is not only offensive but stupid politically in that he wants to appeal to as many people as possible? Why are many politicians, or specifically one politician, so divisive in what they say and what they intend to do?

Value your vote and use it wisely.

X credibility issues

Re: "Musk's politics may be pushing away some buyers from Tesla", (Business, July 4).

When Elon Musk, the owner of X, publicly endorsed Donald Trump as the next US president and added Venezuela's Madura to the list of world leaders whom he wants to pick a fight with, he put another nail in the coffin of X as a recognised social media platform.

The moment my X account was regularly flooded with Trump's election news, I decided to deactivate it.

This does not mean that I am in favour of the Harris camp, if that matters.

The public needs a social media platform that is unbiased and does not take sides.

Elon Musk is probably betting on Trump and Congress to give more support to his vast business interests, especially his Space X and Starlink projects.

The value of X, estimated at just $15 billion at the beginning of this year, is declining and is insignificant when compared to his other holdings.

Slashing US debt

Re: "US debt tops $35 trillion", (Business, July 30).

If the US Congress wanted to, they could've lowered the national debt by 5% in one day. How?

In response to the Covid economic crisis, the Fed did quantitative easing which was the buying of Treasury bonds using newly created dollars (as if those bonds were never sold to the public in the first place).

The Fed is now unwinding those bond buybacks done during QE.

Since June 2022, the Fed has let $1.5 trillion of bonds roll off its balance sheet when they mature, and those bonds reappear as new issuance (the debt is rolled over).

A law could've been passed that instructed the Fed to declare those bonds 'paid off' rather than rolling over the debt (the debt is instead reduced by $1.5 trillion). We could call it a quantitative redemption.

Russian perceptions

Re: "A disastrous war", (PostBag, Aug 1) and "Nato's blame game", (PostBag, July 13).

In contrast to Ray Ban's conspiracy theory about Trump-Putin collusion leading to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the case that Russia was provoked into invading Ukraine is supported both by international relations theory and evidence.

Realist international relations theory teaches that states relentlessly pursue security in the anarchic international system.

This results in a security dilemma in which states take measures to increase their security, which makes other states in the system less secure.

While the US sees Nato as a defensive alliance, the Russians have been warning since the dissolution of the Soviet Union that Nato expansion is perceived by the Russians as an unacceptable existential threat.

The Russians have some reason to believe that a Ukraine-Nato partnership is an unacceptable security risk. Ever since the US-supported Maidan Revolution of 2014, there have been increasing political and military ties between Nato and Ukraine.

While it is true that Ukraine was not and still is not a formal member of Nato, annual joint-military operations between the US and Ukraine in the Rapid Trident programme and the proliferation of CIA bases in Ukraine are seen by the Russians as a threat.

Even Jens Stoltenberg, Secretary-General of Nato, has admitted that Nato expansion provoked the invasion. In a Sept 7, 2023 news conference, Stoltenberg stated that "President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted Nato to sign, to promise no more Nato enlargement. That was what he sent us. And [that] was a pre-condition for not invade [sic] Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that. He went to war to prevent Nato, more Nato, close to his borders."

The United States attacked Cuba in the Bay of Pigs invasion and blockaded Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis in response to the perceived security threat of communism and Soviet nuclear missiles on America's borders.

The Russians similarly concluded that military action against Ukraine was essential to eliminate the possibility of Ukraine becoming a Nato staging ground for American offensive weaponry along Russia's 2,000km-long border with Ukraine.

While many of us non-Russians do not see Nato expansion as a threat, the Russians have a very different historical experience. Frequent foreign invasions have resulted in catastrophic suffering for the Russian people, so they feel justified in mitigating the threat of Nato with military action.

Unfortunately, it is the Russian perception that matters in this case.

CONTACT: BANGKOK POST BUILDING136 Na Ranong Road Klong Toey, Bangkok 10110Fax: +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.