Play the ball, not the man

This chain of correspondence began simply enough with me correcting Khun Sathit on a clear point of fact – his statement that “there was no government” when the military took power. It seems Khun Songdej doesn’t dispute this point, but rather contends that the country “was not manageable through the democratic process”. As noted before, he’s entitled to his opinion – as I am to mine when I ask, “Who can know?” Repetition doesn’t turn opinions into facts, any more than peppering assertions with “plainly” and “obvious” does.

He might believe that, as a Thai, he understands better than any foreigner “what most Thais were feeling at the time”. But I assume he’s not claiming to know, or to have asked enough Thais around the country, to say “most” with much assurance. And of course readers can choose to give his beliefs such weight as they see fit. 

I’ve also seen the opinion polls, but I don’t share his apparent confidence in them, given some at-least-questionable methodology and the fact that they were conducted under a regime so openly ready to “invite” dissenters in for “attitude adjustment”.

It’s hard to fathom what perceived “insults” Khun Songdej has in mind. He doesn’t identify any, and even his reworked versions of my own words don’t include any I can recognise. Conversely, he labels me “cowardly” – but I’ll shrug that off as excess “zeal”. As to my choosing to use a pen name, like so many others, this paper’s policy plainly allows it and I am not alone in doing it. At the risk of seeming abrupt, I say, “So what?”

Finally, I see no point in responding further to letters that distort what I actually say or which include ad hominem remarks. Both are alien to my values. Play the ball, not the man.

Steve CM