If and as far as Thailand's government, executive branch and judiciary can now be likened to an apple cart, then the apples in it, in the main, are rotten. Ordinary Thai citizens, compared with Thaksin, are humble and simply want to undo what has happened under Thaksin's authoritarian administration. They want to destroy Thaksinism and almost everything else it stands for.

For the People's Alliance for Democracy, the Democrats, Chat Thai, Mahachon and others, with all this behind them and within them, any government led by Thaksin is simply unacceptable. And Thaksin and this beleaguered and lame-duck government now realise the precarious nature of their authority during this period of disenchantment and uncertainty, when attitudes in favour of Thaksin's critics appear to be crystallising rapidly.

Thaksin increasingly has an ever more difficult row to hoe in order to maintain his authority. He can now make little appeal to an ever-increasing swath of Thai society, which has had it up to here with Thaksin and the endemic and rampant corruption he personifies. And even more damning is the military's continuous maintenance that its first and foremost priority is their allegiance and duty to His Majesty the King and his subjects.

Thaksin now has his back to the ropes. No wonder all Army chief General Sonthi Boonyaratglin could say after meeting Thaksin for lunch was, "I came to eat lunch," thereby, as reported, "side-stepping a direct question on the possible of a military coup".

Thaksin may be the first minister and head of the government, but one should not underestimate the influence of the Thai military and His Majesty the King in times of trouble, when common sense and national unity are required above all else.

Peter Marshall

Bangkok

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

Boycott simply means no votes for do-nothing parties

In the last general election, the Democrat Party, under the leadership of Abhisit Vejjajiva, suffered its most humiliating defeat in its history. Then, after not making any significant contribution to benefit Thais since that defeat, it took an opportunistic step by climbing aboard Sondhi Limthongkul's bandwagon and aligning itself with two other parties to take advantage of the situation. One party, Mahachon, is headed by disgraced Maj-General Sanan Kachornprasart. What a sharp move, having a man who was convicted in court of lying to hide financial assets as a major figure in your camp to challenge the prime minister on ethical questions.

Then, with the growing attendance of anti-Thaksin attendees in recent rallies, any competent political leader would, along with his advisers, have developed a decision tree of possible scenarios and prepared for them. If Abhisit or his cohorts had any leadership skills, he and his advisers would have been proactive and developed a candidate list before Thaksin dissolved Parliament. After all, that possibility had been mentioned for weeks in the press before it happened. However, the three opposition parties appeared unprepared for this scenario - their list was not prepared, and it took them several days to develop a unified response.

The opposition, which won only 125 of 500 seats in the last election, failed to prepare for the snap election, then sought to reward themselves for these failures by demanding that Thaksin meet only with them to amend the Constitution and draft a social contract. With the opposition parties once again proving themselves incompetent and without visionary leadership, it becomes obvious that additional sources are needed for constructive ideas; thus, the right move was to invite the other political parties to attend.

The three opposition parties then concluded they should boycott, because:

1. Thaksin was not going to let them use the veiled threat of mob rule in the capital to hand them the unearned reins of government.

2. Even if Thaksin did not get 19 million votes this time, he would still get millions more than parties that did not have popular programmes and had leaders of questionable ability.

I feel sorry for Chat Thai Party leader Banharn Silapa-archa, who was persuaded to join with his less-than-distinguished cohorts. I also feel sorry for those Thais who for two generations have supported the Democrat Party, only to see it degenerate into its current state. The silver lining of this boycott is that the incompetent people in the three boycotting parties will not be attracting votes that can now go to candidates with constructive ideas.

Ronald Visconti

Bangkok

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

Candidates should go have their heads examined

The Constitution - sections 109:3 and 126:4 - prohibits an insane person from serving in either house, making one wonder if the candidates for past elections were ever evaluated by psychiatrists before being qualified. If not, the Election Commission must have them go through a psychiatric test and declared legally sane ahead of the coming election, both for MPs and senators.

This is vital. Since the root cause of the current political chaos may not originate from Thaksin (as Suthichai Yoon wants the readers to believe), but rather from having a bunch of lunatics sitting in both houses.

MB

Samut Prakan

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

Blast of hot air only leaves readers cold

Re: "A blast of hot air could just clear things up", Letters, March 3.

Dr Charles Frederickson is at it again! Can anyone explain what this pretentious verbiage means?

Talk about a blast of hot air! But unfortunately, it doesn't clear things up. Can someone please explain to Charles the benefits of plain English? It was good enough for Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln.

Rodney Sheaves

Australia

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

Cory and Megawati were indeed long-term leaders

Re: "Could Sudarat be first woman PM?" News, March 3.

Being a respected newspaper, you should not allow your reporters to make sweeping statements. Please get your facts right. Corazon Aquino of the Philippines served her entire constitutional term, six years, from 1986-92. Megawati Sukarnoputri of Indonesia was president for three years, from 2001-2004. I hardly agree with your reporters' assertion that these respected ladies didn't hold onto their jobs "for long". And what of the feisty Gloria Arroyo? She has now served five years as the Philippine leader and does not look like she's going to go anytime soon. Just because they're women doesn't mean they're not tough. A little gender education for your staff please.

Pat Goldane

Bangkok

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

Bush caricature could spark global anti-Thai rioting

Your illustration of President Bush being made unwelcome on his visit to India (News photo, March 2) makes me hope that you warned the Thai Foreign Ministry in time for it to send an alert to every Thai Embassy and restaurant in the non-Muslim world. This unfortunate and tasteless slur aimed at the much-loved US president is bound to create mobs intent on destroying Thai property worldwide. Of course, no more invitations to the White House for Thaksin, either.

Except for a few drag queens, mostly in New Orleans at this time, American men and most American women are mortally offended by a caricature of their president wearing a bra, especially when he is not at a pool or the beach.

Hilton

Chiang Rai

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

Denying Holocaust is every bit as bad as committing it

Two letters this past Sunday represent extreme opposite stances on the freedom-of-expression issue.

Krabong Kuverakorn ("Free speech is limited by social responsibility", February 26) correctly puts that such a right has only a natural limit: the social responsibility of the individual speaker (or writer). Yet, there is no right without an attending duty tempering it. Speakers are therefore accountable for what they say to their targets if the speakers violate their rights and to society if they cause unjustified social strife and disorder.

OG Pamp ("Denying the Holocaust is absurd but not criminal", February 26) advocates that there should be no limits. In fact, he claims it is legitimate to speak intentional errors, fallacies, factoids and outright lies. As examples, he brings up the David Irving case, and he lumps fallaciously together the Nazi Holocaust of Jews, Gypsies and others with all the genocides before and after it.

All those genocides have only one thing in common: a horrendous, insane massacre of humans. The responsibility and accountability of each of them distinctly falls on each individual regime that has committed it.

Therefore, the denial of the Holocaust is as clear a crime as the Holocaust itself in all European countries affected by it. Such a denial is a major piece of post-WWII Nazi propaganda: a "big lie" to project Nazi Germany and its leaders as victims of the "Jew-loving" Allies.

David Irving may be an expert writer and speaker, but by promoting the denial, he has committed rape against history in negating proven facts and upholding falsehoods that please only neo-Nazis and other racists. He has no claim to scholarship, as he has committed the scholar's deadliest sin: perverting his abilities, intelligence and expertise to deceive and poison students' and readers' minds.

Dr Massimo-F Buonaiuto

Nonthaburi