After President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan announced on February 27 that the National Unification Council (NUC) would cease to function and the National Unification Guidelines (NUG) cease to apply, China warned him he was leading Taiwan towards disaster and endangering regional peace. As director of the Information Division of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Bangkok, I must clarify that President Chen's decision was based on reports by the National Security Council of Taiwan.

First of all, Taiwan has no intention of changing the status quo and strongly opposes its alteration by non-peaceful means. Ceasing the function of the NUC and the application of the NUG do not involve changing the status quo. Instead, they are based solely on the democratic principle of respecting a people's right to determine their own future. As long as the principle of democracy is honoured and the free will of Taiwan's 23 million people to choose is respected, we will not exclude any possible form of future development of cross-strait relations.

Second, the people of Taiwan have the right and obligation to participate in the international community on an equal footing. We are more than willing to play an active and responsible role as a contributor to the global democratic community. On many occasions, China has unilaterally curbed Taiwan's international space and involvement in the world. This not only violates the universal values of freedom, democracy and human rights, but also adversely affects goodwill between the peoples of the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. China's actions contribute nothing to the development of stable cross-strait relations.

And last, in order to ensure Taiwan's national security and prevent the military balance in the Taiwan Strait from tilting in China's favour, Taiwan will actively fortify its determination and ability to defend itself. In turn, this will help protect the status quo, Taiwan's democracy, freedom and peace from being unilaterally altered.

Frank Chen

Director, Information Division

Taipei Economic and Cultural Office

Bangkok

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

Thai govt now actually has greater control over Shin

Re: "Alliance warns S'pore to drop deal or face boycott", News, March 8.

Is this issue of Temasek's purchase of Shin just to give weight to the already-existing demands to get rid of the prime minister? It seems unfortunate not to split the two into items that could be addressed as separate judicial reviews, or is that just impossible?

Let's look at just the Shin issue. There is now under Temasek ownership more control by the Thai government than was the case under the previous incumbent.

Previously, the Shinawatra family could do pretty much what it wanted, having high-level political protection from the licensing authorities, who would simply be warned off if they uttered any concern. This posed a risk of conspiracy with all and sundry, in Thailand and abroad.

For the first time, Thailand has complete freedom to monitor group operations and modify or revoke licences, be they television, radio, communications or airline. AirAsia, for example, cannot expect the Thai government to hand over Thai Airways International's regional routes, as happened last year under Shin.

The Thai government could also, at any time, introduce a bill to take security-sensitive parts of the group into public ownership.

Singapore is no more of a threat to or competitor with Thailand than is the US or Japan. In fact, much less so; Singapore has only a fraction of its former manufacturing industry left. There seems to be far more items of Thai origin to buy in Singapore than there are of Singaporean manufacture in Thailand.

Temasek is Singapore's state investment group, set up in the knowledge that Singapore would survive in the future mainly in the areas of finance, tourism and services. Shortfalls of capital will need to be met from capital inflows to fund society's needs, and Temasek will largely achieve this via its foreign investments. Not a new idea - the Arab Gulf States have been doing this for years, to provide for the day when the oil runs out. Much of the money the United States pays the Persian Gulf states for oil finds its way back by way of Arab investment and trade.

David Prescott

UK

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

Military brass should do their job and stay out of politics

Re: "Army chief: Resolve crisis for the King", News, March 8.

You wrote that General Sonthi Boonyarataklin "urged Thais to help bring an end to the political impasse paralysing the country, out of concern for the Monarch. 'His Majesty would be very unhappy while we are having this problem,' [he] said."

Recent media reports have suggested that the Army should stay out of politics and remain politically neutral. Army officers, however senior, are not elected; they should do their military job and avoid interference in politics.

If Sonthi was speaking in his private capacity, it is hard to understand why The Nation would have published his political remarks as a news item. As a private member of the public, he can always choose to write a letter to the editor. Is that not enough?

Surely the simplest and most logical way to end the present confrontation is for Thaksin to resign and promise to stay out of politics. But Sonthi doesn't make this point; instead, he appears to side with the caretaker PM by putting the responsibility of resolving the impasse onto the Thai people. It is difficult to believe that Sonthi is not a Thaksin supporter who is taking sides, and this bodes ill for the Army.

John Benson

Brisbane, Australia

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

Thaksin rally was a lesson in how not to stage one

I had vowed not to comment on the current political crisis in Thailand and its circus atmosphere that is beginning to capture the attention of the world. I realise that as a guest living in this amazing country, I should hold my tongue and allow the Thai people to address the issues without having to be subjected to input by outsiders. However, since there seems to be countless incidents of interfering and vow-breaking going on, I decided to inject a few of my observations into the fray.

I watched the caretaker prime minister's speech live last Friday on no less than five satellite channels and on Sunday couldn't find any of these same channels broadcasting from the Sunday opposition rally. It doesn't seem quite fair, as many democracies have laws and rules that require equal time for opposing views. However, if the opposition does finally receive some screen time, they should learn from the other group's missteps, to give their show a more engaging flavour.

First, take away the mobile phones and PDAs from the people who will be on camera with the keynote speaker. I was laughing so hard I cried at the people on their mobiles chatting away, seemingly paying no attention to the prime minister. The one man on the prime minister's right really never did figure out what to do with his hands or mobile. While he was taking and making several calls, he looked very guilty and appeared to be talking to someone he shouldn't be. My guess would be the opposition, or at the very least a mistress. It was so entertaining, in fact, that thousands must have noticed and been distracted from the business at hand.

Second, was it I or did anyone else pick up on the fact that everyone in the audience was wearing the same hat and had exactly the same size flag? Were those give-aways? Perhaps the organisers should mix it up a little, to appear more spontaneous. It looked a little staged when combined with the cheering going on at what seemed badly chosen times. I've even heard reports that many of the people there had been paid to attend.

David Barkdull

Bangkok

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

Peaceful nature of protests so far is a credit to the Kingdom

The Thais and the People's Alliance for Democracy have the attention of the world this week in demanding a change in leadership. In the United States, there is a similar struggle going on. People and non-governmental organisations in many countries are monitoring citizen's movements all over the world to figure out the most effective and peaceful way to bring about political change. The rallies in Bangkok and other parts of Thailand have been well focused, well organised and very peaceful, and they are being closely watched all over the world.

Brian Quade

USA

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

Bangkok's luxury malls are about ready to implode

Re: "Siam Paragon targets more international customers", Business, March 7.

We have really gone off the rails with our obsession for luxury retailing, haven't we? From The Emporium to Gaysorn Plaza to the Peninsula and now Siam Paragon, we keep pouring investment dollars into luxury shopping centres.

It is certainly one way of attracting tourists, but outside of tourism, these shopping monstrosities have limited value. How many retail dollars are generated by the locals? Do tourists really view Bangkok as a place to purchase international brandnames? Outside of providing people with jobs, does pouring excessive money into luxury outlets really develop our infrastructure? Often when I shop at Gaysorn or The Emporium during the day, both places look nearly abandoned.

Here is my point: while shopping centres are important for stoking consumer spending and providing great venues for weekend entertainment, we have reached our saturation point. I don't believe Siam Paragon is sustainable. It is too expensive to run, and there are not enough customers. Local retailers will come and go in there. Luxury international boutiques will view it as creating an image and nothing more. They will likely go the way Sogo did a few years ago or the way Seacon Square is deteriorating today.

Years from now, these luxury malls will be monuments of a society gone mad with its dreams of luxury spending.

Outraged Taxpayer

Bangkok