• 
• 

Published on February 27, 2008

You mention in your editorial that Samak and his words will slowly sink the country and its people. In a recent interview, the robust and blustering Samak asked a young journalist whether he was alive at the time, or had physically attended, the last "war on drugs" or the Tak Bai tragedy. If not, the rebuttal was in the same vein as "did you have illegal sex last night?", and the young man could not therefore comment.

Except for the Crimean War, Cromwell's sacking of Drogheda and the Spanish Inquisition, Samak was alive during the Holocaust, the Rwandan and Cambodian genocides and the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Were these historical events merely hearsay or political mythologies? And if so, does Samak have some monopoly over military engagements the world over?

Samak, in his first few days as PM, has shown himself to be an irresponsible spokesman for the nation, diametrically opposed to the new Australian government's recent apology to the Aborigines -  although the Australian PM was not only too young, he was also not physically present.

By crying wolf for the third time that "they're out to get me", he may find that when the big bad wolf arrives in triumph this week, that "they" actually are.

James Groveway

Bangkok

---------------------------------

Interior minister spouts off without thinking

Our esteemed newly appointed interior minister, Chalerm Yoobamrung stated: "It is not unusual for senior government officials to have a gig [a casual sexual partner]. At the cost of the taxpayer? What a statement to make. What an example for our young generation? This minister shoots off his mouth without ever thinking about the consequences of his statements. Do we really need or want this type of politician? What about promoting family loyalty?

I am becoming more and more disgusted by the type of politicians we put into our political arena. Again I hang my head in shame.

Pakorn

Bangkok

---------------------------------

Flawed conclusion to accident reports

Re: "Alcohol prominent in under-15 fatalities", News, February 26.

According to the above article, the permanent secretary for Public Health stated that "nearly all accidents were due to excessive alcohol consumption or not wearing motorcycle helmets", and also that the chief of the Disease Control Department wanted the authorities to be stricter on the enforcement of helmet wearing among youths.

So it is okay to drink, even if you are as young as 15, if you keep it under the limit? And how much is "excessive" anyway?

The logic here is very flawed. But what's very wrong in this piece of official news is that the non wearing of helmets is implied as being the cause of traffic accidents. How can that be? Not wearing a helmet will of course increase the severity of the injury, but it has nothing to do with the cause of accidents.

Vic Phanumphai

Bangkok

---------------------------------

Alcohol ban won't change drinking habits

It would be enlightening to understand the government's reasoning behind the ban on selling alcohol during elections. What it appears to say is: "We, the democratically elected government, think you, the voters, are too immature and too irresponsible to be trusted to buy alcohol that could impair your judgement to make a reasoned decision when you vote, or that you will be so impaired that you will not vote at all. Therefore we have to protect you from yourselves".

Any politician who truly thinks that way must be seriously delusional. Nobody believes that Thai drinking habits suddenly change at election times as opposed to the major Thai holidays such as New Year and Songkran, when they clearly do change. And no politician would have the courage to even suggest banning alcohol sales at these holidays when the benefits would be potentially enormous in terms of lives saved.

If, therefore, drinking habits do not change at election times, then presumably after the ban is over the same voters who would have been impaired if they had access to alcohol will now be impaired in making rational judgements in their day-to-day activities at work, while driving, or doing other equally demanding tasks. Flawed thinking of course.

Nobody is really inconvenienced by these bans and those who abuse alcohol will find it no restriction at all and would likely not vote anyway. The bans are just bureaucratic nonsense in the same way as the ludicrous law dictating the times when alcohol can be sold legally.

Tourists who happen to be here during the bans may find it annoying that for two of their ten days' vacation they cannot legally have a quiet drink with their friends. On returning home they will relate these stupid laws to their friends, who will shake their heads in disbelief and wonder at the lack of common sense and wisdom of politicians in Thailand and, indeed, worldwide.

Chris Kaye

Chonburi

---------------------------------

Tourists go home with bad PR for Thailand

I was interested to see that the new tourism minister is keen to promote high-end tourism and there is much talk of five-star and boutique hotels.

I am sure that your tourism minister is as aware as I am that first-class accommodation requires first-class dining facilities. A good meal is not complete without wine. It is not an extra, it is part of the meal and the dining experience. Bangkok has many fine restaurants serving world-class food that is a credit to the city and Thailand. However last weekend it was not possible to get a glass of wine in any restaurant for three days.

If I had jetted into the country to enjoy a relaxing few days at a five-star hotel and was told I could not get a glass of wine with my dinner for one night, I would be unhappy. If I was told I could not get it for three nights, I would be furious. I would never come back to this country again and would advise anybody not to come here either.

Sam Worthington

Bangkok

---------------------------------

We are adults; treat us as such

When will Thai politicians start treating Thai adults as adults instead of children? If those over the age of 18 can have a vote to choose the way they want their country to be run, these same adults should be able to choose whether they want a drink during election time! It's an insult that every Thai over 18 years of age is prohibited from buying a drink during elections.

Over Eighteen

Bangkok

---------------------------------

No country for old politicians

Someone in Hollywood must have had Thailand in mind. No country for old men? Tell that to the prime minister.

"There Will be Blood"?

Let's hope not.

Citizen Jane

Bangkok

Send us your views in an instant

E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to

the Editor' in the subject box, to:

letters@nationgroup.com

The Nation