Re: "PM heads to Laos for bridge opening", (BP, Oct 28), and "Prayut mulls more bridges with Laos", (BP, Oct 29).
It was reported on Oct 28 that construction was about "57% complete" and on the day after it was reported that construction was "56% completed".
My point is not that construction regresses from one day to the next but that I am glad to learn that the Bangkok Post's editors learn from one day to the next that it is partially "completed" and not partially "complete", ha ha.
Thanin Bumrungsap
Sunak adds charm
Re: "The big black door with no keys," (PostScript, Oct 30).
Recently, there has been a lot of drama inside and outside No.10 Downing Street. For centuries, white men and women have spoken in front of the grey walls and iconic black door that is No.10.
For the first time in the history of the UK, a dark-looking man, Mr Sunak, seems to blend with the background. There is a lot of hoopla about him becoming the PM of the UK. The British, who went around the globe colonising countries, forgot that the Crown appointed Viceroys and Admirals who were not even born in those countries and knew very little about governance. Many of them were racists and treated the natives as savages.
It took 200 years in the USA to get Mr Obama elected president. It has taken a few more centuries for the UK to accept a non-white man as the prime minister.
Mr Sunak, who was not the first choice of the Tories, also holds the advantage of being richer than the King of England and all other parliamentarians. He is not a refugee from a Third World country. His election as the PM will help look beyond race, skin colour, and other prejudices in the UK. A smart man, he will add to the charm of Downing Street.
Kuldeep Nagi
Double gibberish
Re: "Recreational use 'doubles' since delisting", (BP, Oct 31).
"Recreational use 'doubles' since delisting", the Bangkok Post's lead article, and front and centre on the website's homepage, certainly catches the reader's attention. It is also a shameful piece of alleged journalism.
Admittedly, the Post is not an academic journal. Nonetheless, if the claim is to be made that "the number of people aged under 20 who use cannabis recreationally has doubled since the plant was formally decriminalised this year", then the before and after numbers must be cited. Did the number double from one to two? Or was it from 100 to 200? Perhaps 10,000 to 20,000? One million to two million? Without those numbers, the claim is worthless.
Equally important is explaining the research behind those statistics. As far as this reporting goes, it might just be numbers made up by someone at the Centre of Addiction Studies making a more or less educated guess to push an agenda that the Bangkok Post apparently favours.
Did the statistics come from polls? From records of hospital admissions acting as proxy for the number of users? Did they come from arrest records?
Again, without this information being given, the Post's loudly touted headline "recreational use 'doubles' since delisting" is at best garbage, and possibly deceitful.
Felix Qui
