This one-man show, in which he played the innocent lamb, sacrificing himself on the altar for the greater good, was a star turn. His many appeals for forgiveness from those he could no longer represent and his sincerity were nicely stage-managed to perfection. Then, the grand finale of breaking down and tearfully accepting hugs from friends and family as he rode off into the sunset. Roll the credits.

It was a performance designed to make his 16 million voters (as he kept repeating) feel that they have been robbed of the great man who guaranteed them a golden future. Once I reminded myself that I wasn't actually watching a soap opera, I didn't need the handkerchief. It was just Mr Thaksin up to his old tricks again. We might not see him as often on the stage, but he will still be writing all the scripts. You can be sure of that.

Chiang Mai Mike

Chiang Mai

Thaksin's 'resignation' is just a strategic ploy

Re: "Thaksin quits", News, April 5.

The title of this article is misleading. How can Thaksin quit from a position that does not exist? The truth is Thaksin Shinawatra will remain in power until Parliament can be opened with its full 500 members, which is not possible considering the monk Premsak incident [when Premsak Thepkanjana resigned his MP seat to become a monk] and the "no vote" result in the South.

In Thaksin's rhetoric, one cannot see that he has a will to quit, but instead he seeks only to stop the People's Alliance for Democracy's Thaksin-Get-Out campaign and enable the Thai Rak Thai-dominated Parliament to operate. Only then will he "step down" and let his choice of successor become the next PM. That is to say, "quit" is not really the word.

S Teravut

Chon Buri

It is time for reconciliation to advance the Kingdom

I am a foreigner who has been observing Thailand from the inside for the better part of three years. For some time I have wanted to respond to many heated issues including the current political situation. Being American - a place where politics has long forgotten the meaning of democracy, where Bush with the help of his brother, the governor of Florida, stole the election and the presidency from Al Gore - find it fascinating and inspiring to watch a younger democracy fighting for its survival. It is a fight for its voice and place in a free world.

Now I respond with maybe some words of wisdom for all sides. Everyone has to forget about individual fights and remember the country.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but maybe we can negate everything for a fresh start. Thaksin had great ideas, a great business sense and enormous opportunity, but he didn't have the guts to be a great leader of Thailand, which would involve more then expanding his own stock portfolio.

Running your own business is not the same thing as taking care of a country of free people. You serve them (all of them), and they don't serve you.

Thailand has to push ahead with its future, and this will take economic intelligence. Thailand also has the potential to be a shining star and model for the world, and that will take morals.

A new government has to take care of the people both economically and morally with respect for all citizens. There is no need to throw away your ideals and morals, or your country, for one more million, or Bt73 billion for that matter.

Desertrat

Bangkok

Do not be fooled by the PM's chicanery

Since the caretaker PM proclaimed on Tuesday that he would not be the next PM, there have been a lot of people who have applauded Thaksin for his renunciation. Even People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) members were not an exception.

In my view, this is a subtle, malevolent plot so that he can abate friction caused by the alliance, gain more support and preserve his power as the real leader. If we scrutinise the situation scrupulously, we hardly see any significant changes: Thaksin is still in charge as the head of the Thai Rak Thai Party and the country will still be run under his evil policy.

Not only does his move enable him to retain his power, it will reinforce his legitimacy after the election. On the other hand, this might also enfeeble PAD's strength as some members may be reconciled and satisfied with the PM's action. I think it is not difficult to understand his guile, though it is much more difficult to overturn his game.

Tawin I

Bangkok

Whaling is an international, not just a Japanese, issue

Re: "Greenpeace declares victory as Japanese firms give up whaling", News, April 4.

Quoting the article: "Japan uses a 1986 loophole in the international moratorium on commercial whaling that allows the killing of whales for research, but it makes no secret of the fact that the meat ends up on dinner tables." This is patent rubbish.

First: "Japan uses a 1986 loophole in the international moratorium on commercial whaling ..."

Untrue. The right to kill whales for scientific purposes is specifically enshrined in Article VIII of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling: "[A]ny Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorising that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research."

Second: "... it makes no secret of the fact that the meat ends up on dinner tables." Nor should they. In fact, they would be in violation of the 1946 convention if they didn't use the carcass to the fullest extent possible: "Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed".

In fact, since it is the Japanese government that gets to choose the merit of its own scientific research programmes, it is in full compliance with the convention.

This is the real problem. Japan took about 800 whales in 2005 for "scientific research". Although their intentions with the whales may be dubious, the article you published villainises Japan for what is a failing of the international community.

Despite best intentions, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is a joke. Its findings, recommendations and regulations carry no weight, as they are not international law, and members of the IWC are free to ignore them as they choose. Norway, for example, by merely lodging an objection to the moratorium, is no longer bound by it.

If Greenpeace, and anti-whaling countries like the UK, US and New Zealand want to stop whaling, they will have to change international law. All they've accomplished is to drive the Japanese whaling industry into the hands of the government, which is where their most successful businesses typically lie.

Rene Malenfant

BANGKOK

Free Burma's peaceful prisoners of conscience

As members of Amnesty International, we belong to one of eight British groups writing to Burmese authorities on behalf of three prisoners of conscience - Kho Aung Htun, U Thar Ban and Dr Maung Maung Kyaw - who were arrested in Rangoon in February 1998. About 50 members of our groups are trying to alert Burma to the fact that these three men are detained solely because of their peaceful political activity. We are particularly concerned about the health of Kho Aung Htun, who is suffering as a result of being tortured in 1998, and of U Thar Ban, who needs treatment for dysentery and for eyesight problems.

We firmly believe that these men are innocent and have been unjustly sentenced. We hope that you will therefore support our plea for their immediate and unconditional release.

Raymond and Martine Coulon

Canterbury, Great Britain

Oblique banking rules are biased against foreigners

Now that the political mess is being sorted out, it's time to turn attention to another bastion of ignorance in Thailand: the banking industry. I, like many foreigners, have chosen to adopt Thailand as my home, notwithstanding the legal obstacles in doing so. Naturally enough, my Thai partner would like to buy a house.

We visited several of the country's largest banks to inquire about a home loan. "No problem" we were told, but you must be married to your partner to have both incomes considered against the lending criteria. We were told our application would be judged on the ability to repay up to 80 per cent of the bank's property valuation and confirmed this information at each bank's website.

Having been informed of the lending criteria and been told by bank staff what our borrowing parameters were, we paid a deposit on a house. After registering our marriage we completed the necessary loan paperwork at three of the largest banks. Each bank declined the loan application because 1) they would not include a non-Thai for calculation of income/repayments, and 2) they would not loan 80 per cent of the valuation to a non-Thai.

Why were we repeatedly told otherwise? We will now in all probability loose the deposit. Are Thai banks part of a conspiracy to defraud foreigners? Such actions would attract severe penalties in my country. Institutionalised discrimination such as this does nothing to advance Thailand's image as a developed country. In fact, when the fundamental economic institutions of the country can lie with impunity it says a lot about Thailand as a whole. Kasikornbank, BankThai and Bangkok Bank, please take note. Foreigners beware; the smile has nothing to do with customer service.

Steve Pedrotta

BangkoK