I must be a dinosaur, since I am well into my 60s, but I really cannot support the opposition's decision to boycott the snap elections.

I am equally as dissatisfied as the rest of the anti-Thaksin protesters with the decision to dissolve Parliament and have even cried foul play. But let's face it: the power, constitutionally and democratically, is in the guy's hands. It is his best - and constitutional - way out of deep trouble. Do they really think the guy would just hang his head in shame and hand his power - and livelihood - back to them? That is pure naivety.

The opposition surely realises this. Is it not the duty of an opposition party in any democratic and constitutional country to be ready always for this kind of political turn of events? Should they not welcome new elections that would give them a chance to try again? Do they not realise that it needs patience and endless work in taking the democratic long road? Maybe they would prefer the quicker, decisive military coup, which has toppled them time and time again since 1932.

As usual, the opposition - or more specifically, the Democrat Party - is never ready when it comes to doing. Before - and during - Sondhi Limthongkul's rallies, how have they helped? I do not mean by joining the gatherings, but by supplying lucid and legitimate information. They prefer to wait until they are sure of high public sentiment before coming in, hoping to ride the crest of public support. I would call that opportunistic.

The Democrat Party has also chosen to ignore - to their own end - that the appearance of Chamlong Srimuang once again brings on the spectre of anarchy. Nor do I mean just the May 1992 incident - for that could have been interpreted as "an accident", albeit a wilful one. He may have denied it once, but it is time to come up with tangible evidence that Chamlong was one of the chilling voices on Army radio, crying "Lese majeste!" in a perfectly innocent rally inside Thammasat University that incited the October 6, 1976, incident, more bloody even than May 1992. It was an incident in which leading members of the Democrat Party - along with a few members of the present Thai Rak Thai Cabinet - should well remember, for they were part of the then-persecuted student activists themselves, although power and wealth have since gone to many a head.

I am disappointed that Abhisit Vejjajiva, supposedly informed, educated and from a supposedly sophisticated social environment, should have chosen to follow the Democrat Party's old line of bickering and dithering about. Good looks do not a good leader make. And we can all sense the nanny brigade of old party members lurking behind. Thais do not want that kind of leader. We have indicated so, twice, in the past five years. We do not want a namby-pamby, run-to-mammy type of person, for he cannot hope to lead.

Sunida Kitiyakara

Bangkok

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

Parliamentary procedure rarely involves mob rule

Re: "PM given ultimatum", News, February 27.

In a parliamentary democracy, the government is responsible to the people through their elected representatives. So long as the prime minister commands the confidence of a majority of the members of a parliament, he has the authority to lead the country.

Through various political miscalculations, the current prime minister here has antagonised the sentiments of a significant number of people in the capital city, who have mobilised to protest against him. It is not at all clear that these people represent the feelings of people elsewhere in the country or even of a majority of people in Bangkok.

Fifteen years ago, Margaret Thatcher lost her job as prime minister in Britain, because a substantial number of her party's MPs believed she had lost the support of the country and that they would lose the next election if she continued as leader.

Thai Rak Thai MPs presumably have not rebelled against Thaksin, because they believe, at least for the present, that they are more secure with him than without him.

In Monday's Nation, I read that the leaders of the opposition parties are proposing some amendments to the Constitution. Strangely, I was not able to discover what was proposed in these amendments. One would have expected the details to have been the focus of the article.

Another election will demonstrate the extent to which Thaksin and the Thai Rak Thai Party command the confidence of the national electorate. However, given the current Constitution, this expensive and time-consuming manoeuvre will achieve nothing unless the participants of these mass rallies accept the principle that the prime minister is responsible to Parliament and not to their loud gatherings.

Bruce Kennedy

Chiang Rai

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

Don't forget education reform once this crisis ends

Once we are out of the woods and able to focus on party policies again, is it too much to hope that a political leader will emerge as the "education prime minister"?

By making a binding personal commitment to introduce a proper modern education policy with a clear and detailed implementation programme, voters might actually be able to see a prosperous future for the majority, instead of the current development paradigm of big capital and cheap labour, cheap resources and cheap lives.

It seems we have two real choices: raise the level of debate now or wait perhaps another 75 years finally to start going in the right direction.

Frank Lee

Australia

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

Allow due process to run its course if PM has done wrong

Re: "Poll boycott corners PM", News, February 28.

Why is the opposition party boycotting the April 2 elections? Are they afraid they will lose? And if they do, what does that say about who should be prime minister?

I am appalled at the double standards set by opponents of Thaksin. If they want to remove him, due process calls for another fair, general election. How fair is throwing him out on his butt? If he gets caught doing something illegal, then charge the man and put him on trial. If he tries to bribe people, catch him. But to force him out without tangible evidence is undemocratic, isn't it?

Moreover, we paint a scenario where the opposition are the good guys, and Thaksin is the evil Darth Vader. Yet how many good guys have tried to avoid paying taxes?

I'll bet anyone who has the opportunity to avoid paying taxes by trading equities on the stock market would do so in a heartbeat. Accountants make a living conjuring up clever ways for decent citizens to avoid paying taxes, so why can't Thaksin?

Yes, he is prime minister, and yes, he should set an example. It is reprehensible that he moons the very government that he is running.

But give the guy due process and let him pay the penalty. If our form of justice is rising up against the system, than the system is wrong. How right is it simply to throw a man out because he is playing by the system's rules?

I don't like Thaksin's arrogant style, nor the way he uses his power to further his own welfare, but let's get it done the right way. Impending violence is stooping to his Neanderthal level. As the opposition, let's press the issues by bringing him to justice and try him accordingly, not throw rocks at him because we don't like what he is doing.

Outraged Taxpayer

Bangkok

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

SEC acted entirely properly in Shin Corp investigation

Re: "SEC was lenient in Shin Corp probe", Business, February 27.

Please be advised that this article was definitely incorrect.

You correctly pointed out that in the past, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had investigated cash flows to substantiate our measures. However, please note that all of the cases you mentioned were violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1992, such as misstatement of financial accounts, manipulation of share prices, siphoning of money out of listed companies, etc. The SEC, throughout our history, has never investigated cash flows to substantiate an investigation in regard to any type of law other than securities law. The SEC would do so if requested by another relevant government agency, provided that a violation of securities law was cited.

But in the Shin Corp deal, the violations to securities law involved only a failure to report the transaction and a failure to make a tender offer. On both counts, the SEC was already able to establish the facts using evidence obtained throughout the investigative process. Therefore, we did not need to look into the trail of financial transactions.

I agree that the trail of financial transactions may be of interest to authorities that have the power to investigate the possible violation of the Constitution, the Alien Business Law or laws governing telecommunications businesses, etc. However, if any information that the SEC currently has on hand could be useful to such authoritative agencies, the SEC would be more than happy to accommodate them.

Thirachai Phuvanatnaranubala

Secretary-general

Securities and Exchange Commission

Bangkok

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

Tongue-twisting missives lead to head-scratching

Re: "US mission to free the world is doomed to backfire", Letters, February 27.

Dr Charles Frederickson: building complex sentences may be a hobby, a vocation, even a passion for you. But you can't assume the same level of commitment from the readers. Please consider these questions. How hard are the readers willing to work on your letters? Will they stumble through every superfluous complex sentence? Will they look up every word they don't understand? Or will they simply quit in frustration?

Somsak Pola

Samut Prakan