DECIDEDLY ‘UNBUDDHIST’

Re: “Debating the death penalty”, (Editorial, June 20).

The Post’s editor is right that the death penalty raises “deeply moral” issues that should be discussed. The most obvious is that such killing directly contradicts the first precept of Buddhism. That Thai Buddhism, loyally serving powerful political players who find killing highly acceptable, if not agreeable, for many reasons, does not categorically condemn the death penalty tells us something about the true nature of the religion known as Thai Buddhism, with its decidedly un-Buddhist in its teachings and customs.

Prime Minister Prayut’s comments also illuminate issues worthy of note. First, there is the fake news claim apparently believed by the PM that the death penalty is necessary to deter violent crime. As the editorial notes, this is a false statement. To persistently spout such a falsehood shows either willful lying or a willful disregard for discovering the truth: neither of these are moral virtues.

But the PM has made an even more telling assertion in response to the condemnation of the latest legal killing by Thai authorities, insisting that not only is it necessary to maintain public order (a fake claim), but that the death penalty is necessary to teach lessons. He is, in fact, right that the death penalty teaches lessons.

The lesson learned is seen in the murder and violent crime statistics for states that have the death penalty, for example Thailand, with four murders per 100,000 people compared with Australia, with only one murder per 100,000 and no death penalty for many years. The lesson that has clearly been learned under the thinking espoused by the PM is that violence, up to and including vicious murder, is a solution to problems.

This lesson is, of course, consistent with the repeated use of coups as a violent solution to social and political problems: nothing peaceful or remotely in line with Buddhist teaching has ever been learned by this repetition in Thai modern history of using violence to overthrow a rule of civil law that some see as a problem to their vested interests.

Felix Qui