OPINION

Hidden stock gems

Re: "Foreign investors seeking clear policies amid volatility", (Business, June 10).

SET President Asadej Kongsiri is absolutely correct in that there are many hidden investor gems here. There are reputable long-standing SET/MAI-listed companies that are profitable, while paying very high dividends, often 20 times more than Thai bank savings deposit accounts, and double many Thai corporate bond yields.

And this is in Thailand, which, of late, has reportedly had one of the world's lowest -- or none at all -- inflation rates, along with its firm baht currency. The problem is and remains: Most brokers only follow the glorious top 20 or so companies, which are, alas, viewed with a trading bias. Hence, these high-yielders are most often off the radar screens and well underresearched or even known, all to the detriment of the SET, these forgotten companies, and investors.

Good guys all gone

Re: "Deployment in LA 'unlawful'", (World, June 11).

This was the country of the TV westerns, where the good guys never shot the bad guys in the back, but those days are forgotten, at least in the US, under President Donald Trump.

We saw an Australian reporter in LA standing there for a report until she was shot from behind, although fortunately only with a rubber bullet in the leg. The Lone Ranger, a past symbol of who Americans thought they were, would have been horrified.

How far can they sink into the swamp that Trump promised to drain? Fortunately, our reporter is OK and back on the job.

Marriage questions

Re: "Just the habit", (PostBag, June 7) & "Proud to be out", (BP, June 2).

I write to ask frequent PostBag contributor, Felix Qui, if he can explain why, for same-sex unions, the term "marriage" was necessary. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-gay or homophobic.

Marriage was formerly the exclusive domain of religion, forming a legal and sanctified bond between people of opposite sexes. Then, non-religious people demanded to be "married", and civil union was the result, with the same legal status as religious marriage. And now we have legal same-sex "marriage".

Civil unions could have been called something else, as could same-sex unions. To refer to unions not sanctified by religion as "marriages" devalues religious marriage, a justified complaint expressed by religious people at the time. Yet those demanding civil and same-sex "marriages" disregarded the views of religious people and demanded "marriage" anyway, while at the same time calling those who objected to civil or same-sex unions intolerant, or worse.

If the objective was for equality before the law, that could have been achieved without civil or same-sex unions being called marriages. Call the unions whatever you want, but they are not a marriage in the sense of what marriage was created to be, exclusively between opposite sexes and sanctified before God.

And no, I'm not a religious nut either. I simply believe that using the term marriage for something it was never intended to be is a form of cultural misappropriation. It was unnecessary and insensitive.

Perhaps, Felix, the gay community can give the term "marriage" back to those it belonged to.