Right to an opinion

Re: “Just doing his job”, (PostBag, Oct 8).

Dusit Thammaraks gets a couple of things right and a couple wrong. It is wrong to write that the accused “would have to legally contest the allegations, and prove without doubt that they had no intention to break the law.” On the contrary, innocence is presumed and the accuser must prove his claim of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Since good people might reasonably feel that there seems to be little basis for the accusation made by Maj Gen Burin Thongprapai, they cannot be wrong to criticise him “for filing a complaint with the police accusing 12 panelists at a Pattani forum on Sept 28 for distorting facts” to foment sedition. Under Thai law, the onus of proof, even for state officials, is on the accuser.

But Mr Thammaraks is certainly right that “Human rights and freedom of speech do not go hand in hand with sedition!” However, neither is peacefully presenting a dissenting opinion about what just law should be equivalent to sedition. Democracy and the fundamental right to free speech do require that every law, including the constitution, be open to discussion. The good morals that found democracy are premised on the presumption that all citizens have an equal right to a voice in forming not only their government, but the laws that regulate that government, their society and its form, and this moral imperative demands that all laws be up for discussion by the people. The twelve people who were on the panel are all Thai citizens. FELIX QUI