I would say this is an issue here that needs careful elaboration and which will show that no election under the present circumstances could be legitimate. The reason I say this is because of the Thai Rak Thai government's consistent failure over five years in office to implement crucial elements of the 1997 Constitution. They all relate to free speech and access to information.

1) The Constitution mandates reform of the state education system towards decentralisation of power and away from the authoritarian style of "parrot" teaching which stifles the ability of people to think originally and critically.

2) Control of the broadcast media was to be taken away from the government to allow independent journalism to survive.

If these three measures had been implemented, Chirmsak's message would be much better understood by now and communities that are most subjected to government brainwashing would be learning, as Thai Rak Thai used to say, to "think anew". Moreover a fairer election might have resulted.

The Thai Rak Thai government, by violating these constitutional provisions, has forfeited its right to govern and that implementation of these provisions should begin immediately.

The second quote that I refer to is: "Ultimately, Thaksin's strategy is to avoid a situation in which Article 7 of the Constitution could be invoked" ("Thaksin's temporary break is nothing but a shrewd tactic", Letters, April 9). Implementation of the above-mentioned provisions would require a non-partisan caretaker; in other words, Article 7 [which allows the Royal appointment of a non-partisan premier when other articles of the Constitution do not apply] must be invoked.

Of the three neglected reforms, the simplest measure to hand over editorial control of the broadcast media to working journalists would allow the rural folk who rarely read newspapers to hear the stories Thai Rak Thai has been suppressing for so long.

A further tantalising thought about a Royal-appointed government is that the coercion of the Electoral Commission would end. Also, if the accusations [of voting irregularities] made by Democrat Party Secretary-General Suthep Thaugsuban are proven, the Thai Rak Thai Party should be dissolved, and if an election is called within 90 days, no Thai Rak Thai member would be eligible to stand, so we could really see a fresh start to Thai politics.

Ricky Ward

Bangkok

Do not tamper with the Constitution

I'm very tired of hearing the ruling party state that the only way out of the current impasse is for the Election Commission (EC) and Constitution Court to interpret the Constitution in a way so that the current parliament can convene. This is not only illegal, but also disingenuous.

The Constitution provides a very simple way out of the impasse, but the ruling party doesn't want to consider it. The EC could ask for an audience with His Majesty the King and request the April 2 election be nullified and a new election held, in accordance with Article 7. All of the parties have already agreed they would contest a new election.

This option is completely legal and would not lead to any lengthy, expensive court trials or disenfranchised voters. Everyone would win. Unity would be restored. Democracy would be back in action. This disgusting lack of integrity shown by the ruling party is becoming extremely tiresome. If they believe in democracy and unity, if they love Thailand and Thais, ask His Majesty for a new election.

Only the obstinance of the ruling party is creating the impasse. If the ruling party truly believes they have a mandate from the people, then call a fresh, new and fair election under the leadership of an impartial caretaker government. If their belief is correct, they will win again. In any case, Parliament will be convened without any illegal and harmful ruling on the Constitution.

Joe Frasier

Bangkok

There is no democratic mandate against Thaksin

Your paper has long been an apologist for the suspension of democracy, but yesterday's articles went a bit far. Thepchai Yong ("Thaksin still casts a long shadow over Thai politics", Opinion, April 11) claims the anti-Thaksin rallies are evidence of political maturity and that Thaksin's stepping aside does not address the allegations levelled against him. In that case, why didn't the People's Alliance for Democracy rally for an independent inquiry (like the British Royal Commission's inquiry into Blair's conduct in the lead up to the war in Iraq) instead of for the removal of the PM against the wishes of the majority?

In "Democracy moves to next level" (News, April 11), you write of the middle class joining rallies "to hear more charges against Thaksin". But charges are all they are, mostly unsubstantiated and often wild, like Sondhi Limthongkul's claim that Thaksin was behind the destruction of the Erawan shrine. You opine that democracy is a process not limited to polls alone.

Quite true, but the selection and removal of governments is one aspect of the democratic process that must be limited solely to the polls if democracy is to have any meaning at all.

Thepchai writes of the "no vote" being "overwhelming" and "phenomenal", but he sounds rather like he is whistling in the dark in order to keep his spirits up.

Dom Dunn

Surat Thani

Political environment has spawned perpetual deadlock

Re: "Can we get out of this jam?" News, April 11.

The headline screamed across yesterday's front page. The answer, quite simply, is no. Corrupt politicians, corrupt voting, monumental greed, blatant graft, apathetic and uneducated masses and complete lack of law and order in Thailand will ensure that the Kingdom remains in the quagmire it is so completely bogged down in. There is no democracy here.

Democracy is a political system based on laws, which must be upheld by all. Without the enforcement of these laws, democracy cannot and will not persevere. Furthermore, Thailand will never be a democracy as long as it retains a monarchy and a parliamentary form of government. Elections mean nothing here. Only one thing makes the rules in Thailand - money!

KJ Rosser

Bangkok

The Election Commission is contradicting itself

Many critics have called the Election Commission (EC) incompetent, biased, etc, and I'm starting to see their point.

Consider that commissioner Prinya Nakchudtree said the EC would now turn voting booths around, so voters face election officials - conceding that the present position might allow others to observe which box a voter ticks. At the same time, he insists that the present position maintains the secrecy of the ballot.

Sir, if you think secrecy can be maintained even though others can see how a person votes, I suggest you're in the wrong job. Also, if what you said is true, why is the EC going back to the same position. Just to satisfy public opinion? Does the EC lack the guts to take a thought-out, defensible stand?

Also, is the EC using double standards? In the 2005 Kanchanaburi constituency-3 by-election, the EC ruled against admitting new candidates, leaving the Thai Rak Thai candidate running without competition. This time round, the EC is allowing new candidates in 38 constituencies, ruling that it will promote democracy.

What's the difference between the 2005 case and this year's, other than the parties in question? As Democrat Party lawyer Thaworn Senniam has noted, it appears the EC always sides with Thai Rak Thai.

If true - or even if there is such a widespread perception - either the commissioners must reform themselves or be replaced before the April 23 by-elections.

This month's by-elections provide an excellent opportunity for voters to sign a referendum to impeach the commissioners themselves. The mechanism's already in place to ensure that all signatures are valid - let's "make hay while the sun shines"!

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

Whale strikes back against pro-whaling policy

Re: "Collision with whale injures 97 in Japan", News, April 11.

Is it just me or does anyone else out there feel that it's high time that whales got one back against the Japanese? Who knows? Maybe the whale that collided with the passenger ferry was conducting a "scientific experiment".

Sam Wilkinson

Phuket

Technically the elephants are going against the flow

Re: "Going with the flow", News, April 9.

Oops! A breakdown in communications has occurred somewhere. I hope it is not between the elephants and the tourists. The fact is all the elephants in the front-page picture on Sunday are facing upstream. They also appear to be walking in that direction, in which case they were going against the flow, not with it.

The tourists are going to get mighty lost if all the tour organisers think they are going with the stream when they are in fact going against it.

Gareth Clayton

Bangkok