Get at the real truth
- Published: 27/12/2010 at 12:00 AM
- Newspaper section: News
Your ''On the record'' interview with Truth for Reconciliation Commission chairman Kanit na Nakorn, published on Boxing Day, was informative and perplexing by turns.
Informative because, as a former attorney-general, Mr Kanit is well able to provide sharp insights into the workings of the judicial system.Perplexing because he says the army has stalled on granting access to its operational plans on key days in April and May.
While repeating that the TRC's mandate does not extend to indicting or even identifying the ''shooters'', Mr Kanit expresses a desire to ''know the truth'' in order to make sense of ''what really happened''.
This is where I'm sure many people get lost. How can you arrive at the truth without establishing a factual chain of events, including who shot whom and on whose orders? How does one reconcile with a person or persons unknown?
Justice, perhaps inevitably, seems to be even lower on the list of priorities.
CHRIS JEFFERY
Morality of learning
Though Chris Boyle's and Peter Dobson's recent letters offer both an interesting insight and chain of thought to the ''need'' for parliamentary candidates to hold a degree, I personally feel they have both missed one crucial point: such degrees can be, and often are, bought.I know of one ex-member of parliament who, when this relatively recent rule was passed, immediately enrolled both himself and his daughter on a course to attain the required degree _ him for attendance and her to do the work. And, as if that wasn't bad enough, to help with the English section he recruited, and paid, an international expat school teacher to do that section of the course.
So when Peter Dobson talks of morality (in the average member of parliament) one has to beg the question whether an education helps an individual to attain it or, as it would seem reading the almost daily accounts of corruption and graft, rise above the perceived notion of needing it to lead the subservient masses.
ROGER SHUTTLEWORTH
Show no sympathy
The editorial in Sunday's edition of the Bangkok Post was, in my opinion, way off the mark in stating that ''Even people who take a very hard line on drugs must have felt pity as they read about the young Thai woman as she was arrested as she went through customs at the Bali airport'' with 1,200 ecstasy pills she was smuggling to deliver to a drug dealer in Bali, and that ''Hopefully the Indonesian courts will show mercy and the woman will be released after a much shorter time'' (than that mandated by the laws of that country).As a victim (not in Thailand, I hasten to add) of a number of violent muggings and burglaries committed by drug addicts in order to pay for their drugs, I have no sympathy whatsoever with the highly paid employees of drug dealers who, by their greed for easy money, make drug dealing possible. What prevents more people becoming drug smugglers is the knowledge that if caught they will be severely dealt with. Show sympathy and mercy and drug smuggling will surely become more commonplace.
I am, however, in agreement with the part of the editorial which states that the most lasting solution is the rehabilitation of drug addicts, but I suspect that those who take ecstasy as a so-called recreational drug are not what may be categorised as addicts.
MARTIN R
Criminal defamation
Regarding the letter ''Defamation is a civil matter'' (Postbag, Dec 26) Dom Dunn justifiably criticises Thailand's criminal defamation laws and says that defamation (min pramart) should be a civil offence only compensatable by monetary damages (although fines can also be used punitively).Articles 326-333 of the Thai Penal Code provide for various penalties for this crime including of up to two years' imprisonment where the defamation is by means of publication or otherwise in permanent form.
Criminal defamation arguably violates Thai constitution Sections 29 (general restrictions on rights), 37 (''A person shall enjoy the liberty of communication by lawful means. The censorship, detention or disclosure of communication between persons including any other act disclosing a statement in the communication between persons shall not be made except by virtue of the provisions of the law specifically enacted for security of the State or maintaining public order or good morals.'') and 39 (''A person shall enjoy the liberty to express his or her opinion, make speeches, write, print, publicise, and make expression by other means.'') and should be repealed by the government or challenged in the Constitution Court.
However, the US law which Mr Dunn cites requiring both an untrue statement and actual malice is for public figures such as politicians under The New York Times v. Sullivan case.
Also, Mr Dunn ties criminal defamation into the overall issue of censorship and says that the ''Democrat-led government ... have imposed censorship far beyond anything ever dreamed of by Thaksin'' and that the current government has been ''perfecting censorship''.
This sounds like the many pro-Thaksin and red shirt websites criticising the government's censorship record and presenting themselves as better on human rights.
Although I am disappointed that Abhisit Vejjajiva has also filed criminal lawsuits and had hoped that as an Oxford debater and a politician with such a good reputation he would have opposed resorting to this law, Thaksin also filed numerous civil and criminal defamation lawsuits including while in office. Mr Dunn may or not remember the very long list of cases including The Economist, Manager, the airport runway cracks, Shin Corp profits, and more recently the foreign minister.
The group ''Article 19'' has an excellent website showing the different criminal defamation laws around the world. They note that of 28 countries surveyed in Asia only New Zealand (decriminalised 1992) and Sri Lanka (decriminalised 2002) do not have criminal defamation statutes.
They say that the largest number of people imprisoned for defamation is in the Philippines, that China uses more ''direct control'' mechanisms, and that in Malaysia and Singapore civil defamation (with uncapped damages) are used to ''prevent criticism''. In 2007, the Mexican Senate also decriminalised defamation.
JOHN SACH
A better role model
Despite the ''spin'' that Paul Conley, USA, put on my letter of Dec 23, the shameful state of US education was not ''gleefully shared'', as he put it (''US education challenges'', Dec 26). The ''dumbing down'' of America is a travesty, not a joke, in my mind.Mr Conley seems impressed by the fact that 75 per cent of applicants pass the US army entrance exams but, as my letter pointed out, the US secretary of education sees it as a threat to national security.
So which is it: Has the education deficit in the US got to the point of being a threat to national security, as the secretary of education has said, or is being ''well aware of the problem'' sufficient?
When it comes to education, the Kingdom of Thailand needs a far better role model than the US and there by the way is the motivation behind my letter, for which Mr. Conley asked.
Any criticism of my choice of jokes, however, is fully justified.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น