Re: "Thailand abstains in UN vote against Putin land grab", (Online, Oct 14).
Voting for the UN resolution "Territorial integrity of Ukraine: defending the principles of the Charter of the United Nations" should have been a no-brainer.
Respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty of all states are foundational principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter to which all states have subscribed. It is a necessary condition for the proper functioning of an international community that benefits all states, especially the smaller ones.
Sentiments in the draft resolution reflected our long-held outlook on international issues, as well as our moral stands as a nation.
When answering requests for support from the resolution's sponsors, the Thai Foreign Ministry replied: "We have always been in support of international law and principles enshrined in the UN Charter. Our consideration will be based on these principles." This commitment was not kept; many of our traditional friends and allies were misled.
Our vote is not compatible with Bangkok's status as the headquarters for the Asia-Pacific of the United Nations, second only to New York in terms of breadth and coverage.
The opportunity to reaffirm adherence to international principles of good conduct and the UN Charter was not taken. The Thai explanation of the vote that international principles have become "politicised" and "counterproductive" as a means to end the war in Ukraine is hard to fathom, contorted and disingenuous.
Just five days earlier, in a statement to the Sixth (Legal) Committee of the UN, the Thai Permanent Representative had affirmed Thailand's commitment to the advancement of the rule of law as "indispensable to peaceful co-existence and cooperation among States".
Other Asean countries hosting major international meetings next month made the decision to take a stand on principles rather than go for easy cop-outs. Indonesia as the host of the G20 and Cambodia as the host of the Asean Summit and Asean Regional Forum did not feel it necessary to abstain in order to ensure Russian participation. Both of them voted in favour of the resolution as a matter of principle. Russia is still expected to attend the conferences, both in Phnom Penh and Bali.
The latest resolution was not about choosing sides but taking a stand on principles.
Thailand is campaigning for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. It is aware that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in Paris way back in 1948 states that the principles contained therein set the "common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations", and there have been nine legally-binding treaties influenced by the declaration. So standards and principles do matter.
Aspirational so-called "initiatives" by individuals, power-brokers or national governments to bring about peace or at least the non-escalation of war in Ukraine must be predicated on a general acceptance and understanding of basic standards and principles, and cannot jump directly into open-ended back-room or corridor deals.
Thailand's hard-won good standing in the international community should not be readily cast aside in stretching for a short-term "PR-headline" win in what will probably be an elusive exercise in any case.
Strength and consistency of conviction is what will better stand us well in the uncertain emerging future of a post-post-Cold War world.
Nothing of course is irreparable, and within a few months the negative fallout may just drift away. But what this latest episode brings out is that "who" and "what" determines the formation of our foreign policies are increasingly legitimate issues of both immediate and future concern as the nation moves into election mode.
Kobsak Chutikul
Retired Thai ambassador and former elected member of parliament
Lost entertainment
Re: "Target challenge", (PostBag, Oct 14).
Kindly restore Target at your earliest convenience and, while you're doing that, kindly find someone with at least half the talent of the one and only Bernard Trink and restore Night Owl as well. These measures will help to bring you slightly nearer to being the entertaining and interesting newspaper you once were, many years ago.
Bob Terry
A great Target
Re: "Puzzled by absence", (PostBag, Oct 14).
I have been a loyal subscriber of the Bangkok Post for well over 50 years. I kept renewing and one of the main reasons was the entertaining Target word puzzle with words like repechage and quodlibet. Please reinstate this puzzle to brighten up the morning of this 89-year-old individual.
Anthony Vinke
Drug falsehoods
Re: "Lessons to learn from nursery tragedy", (Opinion, Oct 10).
The lesson to be learned from Veera Prateepchaikul's opinion is that some go to great lengths to push comforting, populist assumptions over an evidence-based, critically reasoned response to a tragedy. Veera's opening sentence proclaims: "Narcotic drugs, methamphetamines in particular, and guns, when they are mixed together, are a dangerous chemistry for violence -- much worse than the combination of alcohol and guns."
The more serious misunderstandings Veera assumes are his incorrect ideas about drugs and drug harms to society. His claim that "methamphetamines ... are a dangerous chemistry for violence" is true. But when he goes on to repeat the common false belief that they are "much worse than the combination of alcohol and guns", he flatly contradicts expert opinion, which is that of all drugs in popular use, alcohol is far and away the most harmful to society and others.
Veera is certainly right that drug use, especially methamphetamine use, is a serious problem in Thailand. Alcohol use is, however, an even more serious drug problem in Thailand. Had Veera considered for a moment, he would realise that it is alcohol that is the drug implicated in a high percentage of traffic deaths and in domestic abuse and sexual assault. The Democrat Party's former golden boy Prinn Panichpakdi plied himself and alleged victims not with ya ba but with alcohol.
Yes, Thailand needs to take a hard look at the failing drug policies of many, many decades. A healthy start would be to look honestly at the evidence and form a drug policy that reflects reality. Portugal, which decriminalised all personal drug use in 2001, now offers more than 20 years of valuable statistics on what happens when reason and not inherited prejudice based on wild assumptions is used to plan a national drug policy whose aim is not appeasing popular prejudice but in fact the reduction of drug harms to society consistent with respect for human rights.
Felix Qui
Distressing media
Re: "Media ethics need scrutiny", (Editorial, Oct 11).
It is fine for Thai immigration to cancel the visas of two CNN reporters who breached accepted standards with their televised report of the Nong Bua Lam Phu carnage, and for the Bangkok Post editorial of Oct 11 to thunder about media ethics, but it would seem few in the media are listening.
On Wednesday, during the television news on Channel 23, there was an extended report on the killing of a grandmother in Ratchaburi who had her throat cut, allegedly all for the sake of 600 baht.
During the entire report, which ran for several minutes, Channel 23 used a side-bar showing a picture of the woman when she was alive, alongside a graphic of her lying slain and spread-eagled on the floor, scantily dressed, and which a bright red slash across her throat. (As an aside, the graphic artist has little knowledge of anatomy, because the painted-in slash was too low to have cut the carotid artery, which would have been the cause of death.)
Did anyone at Channel 23 stop to think how distressing this would have been to any relatives or friends, or even members of the Ratchaburi community, watching it?
This type of invasive broadcasting is all too common on Thai television, even if it does titillate many of the viewing public and boosts television station ratings.
David Brown
In CNN's defence
Re: "No fence-sitting", (PostBag, Oct 13) and "Police plan action against CNN team for entering mass shooting crime scene", (BP, Oct 9).
Apparently, Mr Jellison did not read the first news report on this incident. The CNN team reported that they saw the door open and no crime scene tape restricting entry so asked around if they could enter the building. It was only when they exited that the door was closed, and crime scene tape now erected they had to climb over to exit. Why didn't the authorities go after the person or persons who gave them permission to enter? In typical Thai fashion, you must always blame someone else for your failings. Next time Mr Jellison, read all of the information before you write your opinion.
PS: I saw the CNN video and it was a tasteful reminder of how horrible these events are.
Brian Springer
