The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is now part of the complex of shame led by the Constitution Court when it tried to clear PM Thaksin from his Ample Rich smokescreen. The SEC is not in a position to know about the extent of control PM Thaksin exercised over Ample Rich in violation of Article 209 of the Constitution.

The genesis of ever-expanding popular revolt against the Thaksin regime is the fact that independent and quasi-independent agencies have rushed to protect PM Thaksin instead of protecting the people and the national interest. Open letters from the CEO prime minister or a parliamentary joint session or other tricks will just fan the flame. In a true sense, Thailand is being liberated from five years of occupation.

Netirat Intira

Bangkok

--------------------------------

Commission ruling hardly came as a surprise

Re: "SEC clears Thaksin of wrongdoing", Business, February 24.

Bravo to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)!

Bravo for not letting me down! There was never a doubt in my mind that this would be the conclusion of their intense investigation. Even more accolades for inflicting a punishing fine of somewhere between Bt20 million and Bt50 million! This will teach the Shinawatras never to make a mockery of SEC rules and regulations! Let the heavy fine serve as an example to would-be stock manipulators and insider traders that the SEC is enforcing the law in full force.

This will surely discourage any form of insider trading, since all gains from their illegal transaction would be wiped out by a ridiculously punishing fine.

Impressed with SEC Efficiency

Bangkok

--------------------------------

PM may be off the hook, but he's certainly not home free

Re: "Thaksin off the hook", News, February 17.

The Constitution Court has again let Thaksin off the hook by refusing to accept the petition presented by the 28 senators. This is a shameful decision by the court, decided by so-called "inaccuracies" in the original petition. And the outcome will surely again give credence to the belief that Thaksin is invincible.

But this is not so! What distinguishes Thaksin is not leadership, but his role as hero. And he is obviously able to continue by the weight of his authority and by the killing off of any perceived threats to his supremacy.

His criteria are quantitative - the bigger the better. These are, among others: the returns on his investments (Shin); almost total control of the broadcast media; the numbers of "supposed" drug dealers killed; the amount of control he is now able to leverage over Thailand's executive branch; the House of Representatives, with its insurmountable majority; and the Senate, the majority of whose members are indebted to the ruling party. His antithesis was somebody like Chuan Leekpai, who derived his authority from Parliament and elections and who depended on a body of opinion as opposed to the inchoate mass following on which Thaksin's power is based.

Up until now, in the main the electorate has paid little attention to what has been going on under the Thaksin administration. And an administration that has attracted nearly 19 million votes could not be as bad as surface appearances have sometimes suggested. Thus, the majority of Thais have up until recently been able to turn a deaf ear to the very explicit policies of this government.

But ordinary, decent Thais everywhere are now starting to see through this government and the self-serving enrichment of its leaders and associates. There is now definitely a climate of change that will grow in the months to come. The Constitution Court's expedient dismissal of a very worthy petition may be cause for celebration in the Thaksin camp, but interested observers think otherwise.

Time will tell!

Peter Marshall

Bangkok

--------------------------------

Political pundit did not urge Thaksin to step down

Re: "TRT figures urge Thaksin to step down", News, February 23.

On its front page, The Nation reported that I "suggested [on Wednesday] that Thaksin should step down to make way for amending certain 'problematic clauses' in the Constitution".

On Wednesday, I joined a panel discussion at Mahidol University and gave my opinions on the ongoing political crisis. What I said was rather academic and neutral, and I did not suggest that Thaksin should step down, as reported. I did analyse various scenarios or options that of course included the one in which he would step down. I am sure that your reporter, as well as others present at the panel discussion, did understand my presentation, so how could the inaccuracy slip in?

I would appreciate it very much if you could clarify this matter or make an appropriate correction.

Gothom Arya

Bangkok

--------------------------------

Poorly run 'film festival' is undeserving of moniker

The Bangkok International Film Festival has come around once again. Despite critics' thumbs down and various suggestions for improvement over the years, the recent festival is still a major disappointment. It's another embarrassing mega-event for Thailand to show the world. Apart from an improvement in the "Master Class" selection and a decent website, other activities seem like an afterthought. There are still no Thai subtitles, even though they could be prepared for a fraction of the budget; this has been done at various festivals around the globe. There is a lack of dialogue between local audiences, local filmmakers and guests, who are shuffled around to tourist sites. Always there are guests complaining that this is called a film festival when the organiser doesn't seem to care about film screenings. True, the entire hoopla is funded by the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT), but what's the point? The event could just simply be called the Thailand Location Grand Sale Festival.

With this budget, which supposedly matches those for international film festivals such as Berlin or Busan, is this all we can do? What is the festival's identity? One has to wonder why an American team has been hired yet again to organise this event. The TAT should be required to state the eye-popping budget spent on this mediocre management.

And please hire an independent body to check the facts and figures. Perhaps like other shady deals between authorities and contractors at the expense of the taxpayers, something might be very fishy here.

MR

Bangkok

--------------------------------

Cancelling Shin sale would restore investor confidence

Re: "Nullifying Temasek deal would send wrong message", Letters, February 8.

We all have interests in Thailand; not all are financial. You ask us to "grow up"; we are grown up; that is why we feel the way we do. Learning from past experiences and making more logical assessments and opinions of current conditions. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

This case is not just a matter of one sale of a company's shares to another company. If that were the case, there would not be any controversy. The lack of transparency, nepotism and blatant violations of tax and Securities and Exchange Commission laws makes this case extraordinary.

There are potential insider-trading, tax-evasion, national-security and ethics violations that if proven would separate this transaction from a simple sale of shares.

To answer the letter writer's question about what would happen if the sale were voided, I think it would provide international investors with more confidence. Restoration of investor confidence will be based on several key concerns: transparency, enforcement of rules and regulations, ethics, acceptable forms of checks and balances and, most important, competent leadership.

It is imperative that the truth prevail if Thailand seeks to continue sustained support from international investors.

Richard D Kamolvathin

Bangkok

--------------------------------

Are credit-card refunds delayed to collect interest?

As a very frequent business traveller, I am having considerable problems when travelling and using my Visa card. I would like to know if the problems I am experiencing as stated below are also being experienced by other travellers in the region.

Probably the reason I notice it more is that my Visa card is a personal one. What is happening is that whenever I check into a hotel, they charge my Visa with a deposit, usually quite large, depending on the hotel group. This is normal, and I have no problem with it.

However, what happens next I do have a problem with. When I check out, they take the Visa and then charge to it all necessary charges, so at that moment I have two Visa charges from the hotel against my account: the deposit and the normal charges. The hotels, we are told, will generally release the deposit back to Visa within 24 hours. What happens then is really upsetting and personally causing me major problems, because the released deposit funds are then held by the Visa company for a further 15 days before being returned to my account.

As I often do on my trips when travelling in the region, I stay in maybe four or five different hotels in a week. By the time I get to the last hotel, I have no money on my Visa card, the reason being a large proportion of the charges are still debited against my account and will be for at least another week or so before each is then slowly released back to my account.

I have to ask why this happens. Are the hotels and the Visa organisation running a scam on us travellers and accruing interest on mine/our money that they are holding? Even my bank is not interested in helping with this situation. It just blames the Visa organisation.

Can someone in authority please let me know what is going on here?

A Very Upset Traveller

Bangkok