OPINION

Not about safety

Re: "Safer tourism needed now", (Editorial, July 11).

Can the Post try to push back on this "safety" issue about Chinese travel to Thailand? Why is Thailand "unsafe?" If you are silly enough to wander into Myanmar, then you are a danger to yourself. The TAT roadshows in China are not going to be effective. Chinese tourists have less money these days. There are fewer Chinese tourists in Phuket because Phuket is expensive. The Russians can afford it. The Chinese will prefer Phangnga.

Thais are visiting China because China is highly affordable. Why not run that story? What's rarely mentioned is that the communist Chinese government doesn't want its people going overseas and spending money with local tourism, too. If you work in a state-owned enterprise, your passport will be taken by the government, which may decide not to renew it. You may be questioned on why you are going overseas.

It's got nothing to do with safety.

Brics on the ascent

Re: "Brics members reject Trump's accusation", (World, July 9).

It is beyond my grasp how President Donald Trump cannot see himself in the mirror. As Brazilian President Lula da Silva told reporters at the Brics summit in Rio de Janeiro on July 8: "The world has changed -- we don't want emperors."

But history and reality show that the emperor departs, only to be replaced by a new one -- often in different forms. One of those forms is the debt trap diplomacy employed by China's Xi Jinping, targeting poor and vulnerable nations across Asia, South America, Africa, and the tiny island countries of the Asia-Pacific.

Mr Trump has declared that Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) nations are anti-American. The truth is, Brazil, India, the UAE, South Africa, and Egypt are not anti-American. India, for instance, is a defence and trade partner of the USA and a member of the Quad alliance in the Pacific, aimed at countering China's influence in the South China Sea. Indeed, India is one of the USA's closest allies. Mr Modi is considered a trusted friend of Mr Trump and previously supported his campaign by rallying the Indian diaspora in the United States.

Here's the catch: it is no secret that China and India are adversaries, yet both are members of Brics -- even though China funds, supports, and arms Pakistan, which harbours terrorists and is responsible for attacks on innocent civilians in India.

The original five Brics nations represent the largest economies in their respective regions and account for 40% of the world's population -- some 3.3 billion people -- even before including Iran, Ethiopia, Egypt, and the UAE. In short, with the addition of Nigeria, Africa's second-largest economy, Brics expands to represent 54.6% of the global population and 42.2% of global GDP.

Brics is growing -- now consisting of 10 full members and nine partners. These are the nations that dared to stand up, refused to bow, and fought back against Mr Trump's trade tariffs. But readers should understand the deeper reasons behind Mr Trump's hostility towards Brics nations:

1. Brics' initiative for de-dollarisation -- promoting trade in local currencies instead of the US dollar.

2. A majority of Brics nations are strategic adversaries of the US.

3. The alliance of Brics nations -- especially India, Russia, China, and Brazil -- signals a shift towards a new world order that the US perceives as a threat.

4. India's rise as a leader of the Global South, calling for reforms to the UN Security Council, IMF, and World Bank.

5. India's refusal to sign the US tariff agreement by the July 9, 2025, deadline. This means India may lose access to the US market -- but the impact may be limited, as India has already established strong footholds across Africa, the Arab world, and South America, particularly in automobiles, steel, and pharmaceuticals. India has long been developing alternative markets.

6. Brazil, South America's largest economy, had its Congress pass a law on April 2, 2025, authorising the executive to respond to trade barriers -- after Mr Trump imposed a 10% tariff on Brazilian exports. This so-called "Economic Reciprocity Law" was approved unanimously by the House after receiving Senate approval on April 2, 2025.

It demonstrates Brazil's resolve as a sovereign nation to push back against American economic intimidation.

Surely, Mr Trump is not pleased. Likewise, the entire Brics bloc, along with many EU member states, is dissatisfied. Even some of the US's traditional allies are now taking bold steps to seek alternative markets and manufacturing hubs -- in India and beyond.

So, what is the new world order?

Opposing amnesty?

Re: "MPs take up amnesty proposals" (BP, July 10).

Not surprisingly, it is the People's Party's "Amnesty for Political Offences Bill" that values justice under constitutional democracy, while others explicitly reject such good ethics.

But why, precisely, does Bhumjaithai MP for Ang Thong, Paradorn Prisnanantakul, assert, absent any supporting evidence, that putting Section 112 offences at the top of those that should receive an amnesty "could spark new unrest and prolong protests"?

Does the BJT man think that there are those who hold free speech not foundational not only to a democratic society but to informed opinion of worth on any and every topic?

Does he think that there are actually masses who will actually take to the streets to oppose a foundational democratic principle? How many? And who exactly does the Bhumjaithai MP think will protest should justice be respected by parliament?

Kudos to the PM

Re: "Poll questions strongman Hun Sen's role in border row", (BP, July 7).

Kudos to former Pheu Thai leader Paetongtarn Shinawatra for trying to diffuse a potentially volatile situation with her Cambodian counterpart over the border dispute concerning which country should control a certain temple.

While she has lost leadership of this country at least temporarily, no one can doubt her sincere intentions in avoiding a war over nothing!

She was right to call out the military general from Isan in her conversation with Hun Sen. After all, it was she who was leader of the country, rather than the guy from the Northeast. The general was just acting like a typical military guy! Let's hope she gets back into power soon.

Reporting bias?

Re: "Silence has costs", (PostBag, July 9).

Terry Hansen claims that genocide is being committed in Gaza, thereby joining the genocide bandwagon.

The Hamas health ministry, which controls the Gaza information flow, has reported zero Hamas casualties! Israel reports the death of over 22,000 Hamas operatives; also, not all of the 56,000 deaths in Gaza have been caused by Israeli fire.

Statistically speaking, the ratio of civilian/combatant casualties is no greater than in other wars. Otherwise, every war can be defined as genocide.

Moreover, there are about two million Palestinians in Israel, roughly 5,000 of them serve in the Israel Defense Forces, according to the Institute of Palestine Studies.

Not woke, not broke

Re: "Drugs need nuance," (BP, July 9).

I read Tarquin Chufflebottom's criticisms of my views, and I must compliment my critic's masterful writing craft. However, if I might reply with "just the facts, Jack," I'd like to point out how life is going in my once happening-&-hopping tourist neighbourhood:

A few weeks ago, a young Thai man I hadn't seen in years, out of cash, suddenly showed up and tried to break down my wooden apartment door in the dead of the night because people -- including him -- know I have money. Thank goodness for our alert Thai security officer, and I was unharmed.

Today, a long-standing tourist coffee shop became the next small business on my collapsing tourist soi to get ripped out and obliterated forever; a bitter brew indeed. A few days ago, I consoled two Thai friends I have who happen to work at our local cannabis shop; between the crashing tourist arrivals and a sudden (good) legal change requiring medical certificates, they have no customers and are about to probably lose their jobs.

I could go on ad nauseam, but contrary to Mr Chufflebottom's view of me "being an angry old man yelling at the clouds", I am actually one of the happiest men in this entire country. And why? Because I still have a tonne of cash in my wallet while almost everybody else is going broke; no pot of gold at the end of this weed smoking, LGBTQ rainbow I guess, hmm?

No narco state here

Re: "Druggie's paradise", (PostBag, July 7).

Mr Jason A Jellison impresses with his latest escapade featuring ultra-light-weight straw men tumbling down slippery slopes unweighted by a single fact.

Where is the evidence for Mr Jellison's claim that "Thailand has walked into a massive drug crisis"? What are the facts that substantiate his allegation that due to the cannabis policy of the last three years, "responsible tourists are no longer arriving anyway and the sink rate on their arrival just INCREASED (shouting CAPITALS in original)"? Have drug-related crimes increased? Has there been a surge in family break-ups due to cannabis use?

Who exactly, which nations, now think, as Mr Jellison alleges, that "the country is now a 'narco nation' for the world to see"? I would suggest that other nations worry more about Thailand's enduring status as a hub for the thriving international trade in harder drugs, such as methamphetamine. That status was cemented in place by decades of failed drug policy long before the recent decriminalisation of selling cannabis and use by adults.

But perhaps most weird is his rehash of that 1938 film Reefer Madness, which also warned of all the horrors Mr Jellison thinks are already true of Thailand. As even a cursory glance at the literature shows, "There is limited evidence suggesting that using cannabis increases the risk of using other drugs," as the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) usefully sums up for us ("Cannabis and Other Drugs", 2024, Feb 15). Reefer Madness, meanwhile, was so bizarre that it has gone on to enjoy a rebirth as a comedy cult classic among US college students.

Mr Jellison's concluding congratulations to me are perhaps a tad premature. It seems most unlikely to me that anything posted in PostBag is likely to have any effect on Thai government policy whatsoever, let alone precipitate the "narco state" status he asserts it now has.

To help him focus on his response, I would pose a single, simple question for Mr Jellison: What would justify the state denying adults the liberty to decide for themselves whether or not to use cannabis recreationally that would not apply with at least equal force to allowing them to decide whether or not to use the more popular and addictive drug of alcohol?