OPINION

Riding the issue

Re: "Ethics in Thailand's elephant tourism?", (BP, Feb 23).

That article was confusing. At one point, it seems to present that it's terribly abusive for tourists to feed the elephants. Why? Elephants love to eat. What they don't like is giving rides and doing tricks. Elephant riding is connected to horrible elephant torture (look up Elephant Crushing) that goes on behind the scenes.

Maybe tourists shouldn't be feeding elephants either, but elephant riding is the issue we should be focusing on. Yet, it was not even mentioned in the article. Why not?

What does she mean?

Re: "Uyghurs sent back to China", and "43 refugees from Vietnam jailed for illegal entry", (BP, Feb 28).

The forced repatriation of Uyghurs back to China is reprehensible, and the Thai government deserves universal condemnation for its total disregard of the principle of non-refoulement.

Pol Gen Kittharath Punpetch's comment that they were returned after China promised to ensure their safety is risible.

But the one thing that really puzzles me in your report was Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra's comment in parliament that she "had not looked into the details of the matter, adding that any country dealing with such an issue had to base its action on laws, international procedures and human rights".

What on earth does this mean? Is she claiming ignorance of the repatriation?

If so, how could something that so seriously affects Thailand's standing in the international community be done without her knowledge or imprimatur? Who did make the decision?

And if she did subsequently "look into the matter", why were considerations of international procedures and human rights so blatantly ignored? These are all legitimate questions that demand answers.

Allied to this story was the report of 43 refugees from Vietnam being jailed for illegal entry into Thailand. These are asylum seekers from a Vietnamese ethnic group, Christians from the central highlands of Vietnam, who have long been at odds with the Hanoi government.

One of them is the wife of Quynh Bdap, who earlier had been granted refugee status by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, but this did not stop his arrest following an extradition request from Vietnam.

In view of the treatment of the Uyghurs, police assurances that these Vietnamese do not face deportation back to Vietnam have a very hollow ring.

Clearly disqualified

Re: "PM seeks to clarify 'honesty'", (BP, Feb 27).

In response to a question about defining "pornography," US Supreme Court Associate Justice Potter Stewart famously said back in 1964, "I can't define 'pornography,' but I know it when I see it." I suggest Prime Minister Paetongtarn adopt a similarly pragmatic approach towards defining "honesty". A generally honest person is usually pretty easily spotted as such.

I would contend that someone who is not "clearly honest" -- notwithstanding the lack of a meticulous legal definition of the term -- is probably not honest enough to serve as a cabinet minister. Of course, that would probably disqualify an overwhelming percentage of the current pool of Thai politicians.

Put the country first

Re: "EC inaction sparks probe", (BP, Feb 27).

The EC sorely needs to review its priorities to place: (a) the interests of the country as a whole before those of any political party, and (b) matters of greater importance before those of lesser.

Last year's senatorial election vividly illustrates the EC's misplaced priorities. As the Post headlined, "EC inaction sparks probe; Senate election was unarguably filled with scandals".

Yet seven months after the voting and DSI evidence of possible crime, there's been no probe progress. The possible replacement of over half of the Senate is unarguably of utmost national importance, yet it's been ignored. If the involved senators mainly backed the opposition, would the investigation have been over long ago?

Also, the EC just asked Senator Angkhana Neelapaijit, a well-known human rights defender, to prove that she has the needed civil society experience to qualify as a senator.

Yet, she's only one person, and her eligibility must be far less important than those of the 130 senators who possibly colluded to get their posts. Why is the EC pushing her case now, while the much more vital case languishes from inaction? Is it because she's been critical of the government's actions?

EC, put the country first.

Will Trump fix it all?

Re: "Trump's tariffs will hit consumers and business", (Opinion, Feb 27).

What is the logic behind Mr Trump's policy of levying tariffs worldwide? Mr Trump is a plain businessman. He is running the country like the CEO of a company, and he is desperate.

With a massive national debt at US$36 trillion, the country finds it difficult, if not impossible, to borrow more money by issuing bonds due to a lack of buyers. The easiest way to generate cash revenue is to impose tariffs on all imported goods. Once the goods arrive at a US port, the importer has to pay the treasury.

In the long run, the costs for consumer goods will go up. But there seems to be no better way to find the quick money than tariffs. To say that high tariffs will force businesses to produce goods in the US is just a smokescreen.

With the high cost of living and illegal workers deporting in the thousands, where can businesses find enough labour?

Perhaps the only sensible policy that Mr Trump is imposing is to make billions of dollars in savings by reducing Federal employees and shutting down cash-burning subsidies like USAID.

Mr Trump has two years to fix the economy, as he promised before the midterm election of new members of Congress. Failure to do so will make him a lame duck president like many of his predecessors.

Getting out of hand

I have been a subscriber and reader of your paper for well over a decade. I regularly post my comments and try to adhere to the conditions noted at the head of each column.

When in doubt, I try to research any response before going off on a mindless tirade about issues I am not familiar with. My comments are my own and may often not sit well with everyone.

Recently, I have noted and tolerated a plethora of racist, sexist, profane, grammatically inept, sarcastic, immoral, libellous and misinformed comments by many contributors.

The failure of your editorial staff to properly enforce these regulations has turned what should be a forum dedicated to reasonable discussion into daily comics.

Be that as it may, one recent item has made my blood boil. One of our serial posters, whose commitment to thumbs-down comments is well known, has decided to use the swastika as his icon.

Now, while some may be aware of the religious and cultural implications of this symbol, and its historical significance, most automatically associate it with the Nazi scourge of WWII.

I am not sure why this individual felt the need to make this change; maybe the use of the right-facing swastika indicates his devout Buddhist leanings. Since the print is too small to read, I cannot ascertain the source or reason for this change.

It would behoove the Post to remove this icon until such time as the user explains the rationale behind this change.

Keep free speech

The comments section of the Bangkok Post can be seen as the "home front" of its readers and commentators, where different opinions and perspectives can be exchanged and sometimes lead to controversial emotional discussions.

Recently, the moderation at the Bangkok Post has changed. Comments are often deleted hours or days after publication, leading to the removal of entire discussion threads. This practice calls into question the credibility and transparency of the platform.

At the same time, I want to commend the general comments feature of the Bangkok Post.

Few major newspapers allow their readers to directly respond to articles and engage in dialogue, which contributes to a diversity of opinions and is an essential part of the modern media landscape.

Following the military coup in May 2014, the work of journalists was rigorously controlled. Numerous radio and television stations were forced to close, and the internet was censored.

Several commissions monitored reporting. Perhaps the chief moderator could write an article about their experiences and wishes in moderation to explain the work of the moderators to readers and enhance transparency and user-friendliness on the home front.

It is hoped that the Bangkok Post reconsiders the practice of retroactively deleting comments and develops more consistent moderation.

Readers deserve to have their opinions respected and their voices heard.

A happy visa story!

Re: "Fine-tune visa policy", (Editorial, Jan 21).

I am no apologist for the Thai Immigration Bureau and having lived here for the past 27 years I have been as frustrated as other farangs by the often unannounced inconsistencies and niggles to do with visa extension. But in all these years, I have never had a major problem.

Recently, there has been much talk and many rumours of change, mainly to do with tax matters.

Thousands of would-be "experts" in numerous fora have been expounding their unsubstantiated theories of impending gloom and doom.

Perhaps they might have a point sometime in the future -- who knows -- but right now I would like to thank the Immigration Bureau for possibly the fastest-ever extension of my retirement visa; I was in, checked, processed and out in 40 minutes and, more to the point, there were no changes from last year.

CONTACT: