This week’s government’s proposed lifting of the bans on alcohol sale on Buddhist holidays and from 2pm to 5pm in a bid to further boost tourism revenue and to be in line with this year’s tourism theme, “Amazing Thailand Grand Tourism and Sports Year” have raised concerns among religious people as well as health-conscious anti-alcohol campaigners.
There are concerns that more Thais, particularly young people, would become alcoholic, that there will be more alcoholics, higher medical costs, road accidents and that it is something that is not approved in religious teachings, particularly in Buddhism and Islam. These are valid concerns, particularly non-religious ones, and the government should seriously consider how they can prevent, or mitigate, the undesirable effect of greater access to alcohol by the general public in order to lessen the concerns. There’s a need for the government to be able to clarify these issues to the public.
As for the religious concerns, it should be up to the religious teachers of both Buddhism and Islam to teach their followers that if they are sufficiently devout, then they should have nothing to do with alcohol. Their religious beliefs should not interfere or prohibit others, including foreign tourists, to have access to alcohol, however, since Thailand is a secular state.
People should not be forced to not do something, or have access to something, simply because it’s against certain religious teachings. For example, devout Thai Muslims have adapted to the new reality of people’s right to have same-sex marriage. At mosques in Bangkok and elsewhere one can see large banners telling (devout) Muslims that a marriage between man and man, or woman and another woman, is prohibited in Islam.
Now, it’s up to each Thai, or Thai-Malay Muslim, who are LGBT to decide whether to adhere to the religious rules or not. The same can be said about Catholics and Christians in Thailand and whether they are devout, or sufficiently orthodox – it’s their choice now.
The same should apply when it comes to adult’s access to alcohol. The individual should have the right to decide whether he or she wants to buy booze at 3pm, or on Buddhist holidays, and consume it or not.
Thailand took certain freedom to decide away from university students where a law banned the setting of pubs and bars within the radius of 300 metres while in the UK, Oxbridge Colleges do have wine cellar serving booze at subsidised price, and yet it doesn’t prevent them from maintaining its world-class university status. The Thai approach doesn’t encourage responsible decision making by university students and is based on the belief that they don’t know what’s best for them. One unintended effect is that students were not encouraged to grow and to be responsible for themselves.
Thailand should move away from the urge to be a nanny state because this is not a recipe for a mature society. Citizens should be able to learn about the pros and cons of drinking, or excessive drinking, the risk of alcoholism, and in the end, should be able to decide on how best to conduct themselves. Thailand’s de facto decriminalization of marijuana for recreational purposes has shown that most people are able to handle weed in a responsible manner and the kingdom has not become a country of people getting high on broad daylight, wandering and smiling aimlessly.
As much as the legal access to cannabis has boosted tourism among certain groups of foreign tourists, the lifting of the ban of sales of alcohol during certain times of the day and during Buddhist holidays will definitely generate more tourist income. The government will have to prove that they are capable, and ready, to deal with additional negative impacts from drunk people and drunk drivers, however.
Nevertheless, people, both Thai and foreigners, should be able to decide whether they want to buy and consume alcohol during certain hours of the day or certain Buddhist holidays or not. The matter should be that of freedom to choose and the right to make the decision by oneself.
________
