As with most disagreements, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. On one hand, Thaksin declares that he has full authority vested in him by the majority popular vote; on the other, the opposition says Thaksin has no mandate to rule because he has so grossly violated the Constitution.

I am very disappointed at the inability of both sides to come to a peaceful settlement, particularly Thaksin. His arrogance is a painful reminder of what money and greed can do to inflate an ego and destroy personal values. His autocratic style in ironing out a solution is destructive. Listening and self-reflection are obviously not key skills in his CEO leadership handbook.

The livelihoods of millions are at stake. Thousands could be injured or die in confrontations between the two sides. This is childish, dangerous behaviour. Thaksin, if you choose to act this way, keep it in your family. You were elected to improve the country, not look in the mirror every day and smugly think you are the coolest dude in Asia.

Outraged Taxpayer

Bangkok

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

This is a dangerous time for Thailand

Once again Thailand finds itself in a terrible position based on conflicting views and goals. On the one side is a perception that advice from His Majesty has been ignored and on the other a train of thought concluding that the results of a national election are being ignored. A good case can be made on both sides of this ledger.

Disinformation seems to abound. If the number of buses and vans Sondhi Limthongkul claims the ruling party used to bring in paid attendees were only filled to two-thirds of capacity, then the entire crowd at the prime minister's speech came from outside Bangkok. Of course, we must also include those "ten thousand motor-taxi drivers ordered to attend". By Sondhi's reckoning not one person from Bangkok, including Thai Rak Thai Party members attended the Thaksin rally, except for taxi drivers.

Former "pro-democracy heroes" from the jungle are calling for former "pro-democracy heroes" from the jungle who are part of the present government to join them in toppling the prime minister. I knew this was coming when we started calling former Communist Party of Thailand members "pro-democracy demonstrators."

The Army commander in chief is trying to maintain a totally professional attitude and must maintain a strict adherence to discipline with too many politically appointed subordinates to control. At the same time, those who fought the Army in the jungle and in the streets to force it out of politics are demanding it turn on the elected leaders.

Rumours abound, and some from within the security forces are troubling and dangerous. Some soldiers feel a coup would be fine to either keep the prime minister in his post or cast him out. Neither side seems to care that both answers have nothing to do with "democracy", but with a return to the "bad old days".

Then we have those who played a direct role in the goading of troops to open fire on the rioting element during the terrible events over a decade ago. Caught in the crossfire were those who merely wished to demand an end to military dictatorship.

That Chamlong Srimuang would have the guts even to show up at another demonstration is beyond belief. One would hope we do not have to see him once again besides another prime minister, begging forgiveness for what they have brought onto the heads of the Thai people.

Major Mark A Smith, USA, (Rtd)

Bangkok

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

Why pick on Singapore if deal is legal in Thailand?

Protesters picketing the Singapore Embassy are barking up the wrong tree. It seems to me that the prime minister and his family were quite within their rights to sell their shares in Shin Corp to whomever they please.

If Thais feel taxes should have been paid, they should take it up with their own government.

If Thais feel that Singapore should not hold some of Shin Corp's assets, such as satellites, radio frequencies etc, because they are sensitive to national security, then they should blame the government officials who lacked the foresight to set out legislation and guidelines regarding the ownership and transfer of ownership of such assets in the first place.

Furthermore there was nothing preventing a "local consortium" of Thais from stepping forward and purchasing the PM family's 49.5-per-cent stake in Shin Corp. By all accounts the price paid by Temasek was not "exorbitant" at all.

Samchai

Bangkok

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

There's no need to stoop low, however good the cause

The Nation has lost all semblance of unbiased reporting and in Friday's paper it went too far in another one of its analyses (which frankly are not analyses at all, rather editorials and opinion pieces masked as analyses so that the paper can run them on its front page).

Instead of crying foul and shaming the anti-Thaksin camp for the bombing, The Nation seems to legitimise it. I quote from your "analysis": "The blast gives the anti-Thaksin camp more reason to claim that the situation is worsening and that the country will fall into chaos if Thaksin stays on."

I almost choked on my morning coffee when I read that. I am no fan of Thaksin, but if I understand your assertion correctly, the anti-Thaksin camp allegedly planted a bomb and then said that the country is falling into chaos and therefore Thaksin needs to be removed. If these are the kind of tactics the opposition is resorting to, Thaksin has every right to declare a state of emergency and investigate with vigour every group that has been protesting - especially their leaders. The actions by the anti-Thaksin movement, their petition to get a royally-appointed prime minister shows that they are in no way in favour of democracy and actually spurn it.

Yes, Thaksin is a creep, and yes he should resign instead of dissolving Parliament. But his opponents, instead of seizing the opportunity to defeat Thai Rak Thai at the ballot box, have resorted to violence, slurs, threats and undemocratic methods such as the aforementioned petition to His Majesty the King.

And where does The Nation fit into all of this? I, a journalist who has worked at numerous papers in US, once liked the paper for its hard-nosed reporting and calling the government to the carpet when it was appropriate. But it has slipped into an abyss and its editorial staff is obviously blinded by their unhinged zeal to see Thaksin unseated - by whatever means possible. This has been obvious with the slanted reporting that has infected the paper recently. Hopefully someone will reinvigorate it with the professionalism it once had.

Joshua Andersson

Hua Hin

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

Neither side is rooting for proper democracy

Unfettered democracy is the rule of the majority and is undesirable. A good example of unfettered democracy is the old "wild west" lynch mob.

Parliamentary democracy, which is preferable by far, is the rule of the majority with full respect for minorities and the rule of law.

Both sides of the present dispute have some way to go to realise the latter.

An Observer

Bangkok

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

How about a sporting chance for peace?

The world seems to be melting down into a pool of hate. It does little to talk of good will when your whole body resonates with a sense of injustice and feelings of rage. It can't be addressed intellectually when the whole body resonates with a craving to do something to resolve its frustrations.

Perhaps we should look to the ancients whose passion for sport and games could even take precedence over wars. The Olympics were a time of peace when conflicts were settled in a more peaceful manner. Is it so naive to suggest that sport could be an outlet for festering passions? Good clean sport, not football hooligan sport.

Nations competing with fair and humane rules - silly? But what a miracle if we could agree on the rules that we compete under. Tried before with our modern Olympics? I don't mean such a jingoistic commercialised spectacle, but sport for sport's sake, broader in scope with less hype. It could bring the blessing of mutual respect and perhaps the promise of real peace.

Fitz Rohan

Bangkok

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

Where did Dilbert and Calvin and Hobbes go? 

I buy your newspaper every day as much as for Dilbert and Calvin and Hobbes, as I do for your staunch anti-Thaksin position.

Including China Business Weekly is no reason to preclude the comics. I want Monday's comics!

Kenny Marshall

Bangkok

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

Why the drought in Lumpini Park?

A recent UN report advises us that over a billion people have no access to clean drinking water. I wonder if included in that estimate are people who choose to frequent Lumpini Park.

During a stroll in the midday sun, as is the wont of us Englishmen and mad dogs, a quest for potable water, whether bought or from a fountain, proved fruitless.

Seeking guidance from the security guards, I was advised, by example, that sitting in the shade and avoiding any endeavour was the only sensible course. Some were kind enough to offer their own drinking containers but a glance told me it was either E-coli or dehydration. I chose the latter. I could, if I was really thirsty, they said, take a walk along Rama IV, where convenience stores abounded. I did and they didn't.

Making enquiries as to how a popular park in the tropics was unable to entice anyone to operate a drinks stall, I was informed that the cost of a licence was prohibitive, and such outlets once abounded, but...??

John Angus

Chon Buri