OPINION

Where's the probe?

Re: "EC must act, not observe", (Editorial, Feb 2).

My letter responds to the editorial regarding the Election Commission (EC) officially announcing an investigation into the 450-million-baht withdrawals flagged by the Bank of Thailand. But this inquiry must be swift and transparent.

I am beginning to wonder if I have fallen down a rabbit hole or maybe walked through the looking glass, but then I correct myself and ask: Is that what has happened to the EC and the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC)?

We have seen spectacular news about both recent elections, which implies that both rigging and vote-buying have occurred on a large scale.

It doesn't take a genius to understand where large amounts of cash went in the run-up to the election; in fact, many Post readers have seen exactly where it went with their own eyes. But not the officials from the EC. On May 14 last year, the Post reported "1,200 suspects in Senate probe: DSI" and on July 17, "229 targeted in Senate vote-rigging case. Suspects include 138 senators and many Bhumjaithai Party executives".

All marvellous revelations that any sane, sensible reader would have expected to cause havoc amongst the officials whose work was to investigate these things, but it's all quite simply disappeared. Possibly the largest case of vote rigging Thailand has ever experienced, and the silence is deafening. It's all too much to think about, obviously.

Peace board puzzler

Re: "Peace board price tag", (Editorial, Jan 21).

Despite the unrelenting gale-force wind from Washington, I haven't read any reports lately about the dubious "Bored (sic) of Peace" initiative. Or am I missing something, given that two of its proposed members (at least) are oblivious to its mandate?

Global imbalance

Re: "Roaring global growth is emerging", (Opinion, Feb 11).

While welcoming the above-mentioned topical and optimistic article, readers may ask whether alternative views on potential global growth are available.

In this regard, it is useful to consider the position of the Group of 77 and China (which in fact represents 134 countries, including Thailand).

This group, which is very active in the sphere of multilateral diplomacy, has recently declared that it is gravely concerned about the harmful effects of unilateral coercive economic measures on the efforts of developing countries to achieve the objectives of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by all United Nations member states in 2015.

According to this group of developing countries, immediate action is imperative to eliminate such measures and to rectify imbalances within international financial institutions.

These actions, they argue, contravene the principles of the UN charter and international law, posing threats to trade and investment freedoms.