
My own interpretation is exactly the opposite. People unwrap candy precisely for the purpose of eating it. So if a woman wants to be “eaten”, presumably she should go around buck naked.
But if a woman dresses skimpily, she is only partly “unwrapped”, so only partly apt to be “eaten”. If she were fully clad, no one would want to “eat” her. She might remain on the shelf of the candy store for a long time.
I interpret Prayut’s Delphic utterance as an exhortation for women to follow the Middle Way. If they cover up completely, they may stay on the shelf forever. If they go buck naked, they may be gobbled up right away.
But if they dress skimpily, they present an element of choice that is not only democratic, it’s perfectly appropriate for the beastly climate of Thailand in April. The image of a woman as half-wrapped candy illustrates the prime minister’s commitment both to democracy and to bringing happiness to the Thai people.
Ye Olde Pedant