At least Tulsathit Taptim's article acknowledges the prestigious publication's editorial, "A blow to Thai democracy". But its ironic tone fails to refute The Economist's main argument: that although Thaksin has been far from a model for democracy, the solution the People's Alliance for Democracy and the "middle-class elite" have achieved is even more dangerous and less democratic.

When you oust an elected prime minister on such dubious grounds as "ethics", expect the same arguments to be raised in the future towards any administration.

It should also be noticed that The Economist has never been a keen supporter of Thaksin - and from the very beginning - which is more of a reason why its opinion should be taken seriously.

A few headlines and "kickers" from The Economist during all of these years illustrates this: "After Thailand's election - By electing an untested billionaire as prime minister, Thailand has apparently abandoned political reform and opted for uncertainty" (January 11, 2001); "Tycoon or Thai con? Thaksin Shinawatra has won Thailand's election by promising the moon. Now he has to deliver, if the courts will let him" (January 11, 2001); "Thailand's prime minister worryingly exonerated - Thailand's prime minister has escaped censure-for unexplained reasons" (August 9, 2001). "Press freedom in Thailand - By cracking down on the press, Thailand is moving in the wrong direction" (March 7, 2002); "Violence in southern Thailand - A day of mayhem may herald trouble for a once-impregnable prime minister" (April 29, 2004); "Thailand's bloody South - Muslims die in custody, and the prime minister blames Ramadan" (October 28, 2004); "Thailand's prime minister - With his latest political merger, the power of Thailand's prime minister has grown even greater" (January 31, 2002); "Thaksin gets tough in Thailand - The prime minister gives himself sweeping powers" (July 21, 2005).

Perhaps it would be interesting to expose The Nation's readers to one more quote from The Economist's recent editorial: "The spectacle of an urban elite overthrowing an elected leader, one who enjoyed great popularity among the rural poor whom he genuinely helped, is not only distasteful but potentially dangerous."

Sebastian Wasserzug

Bangkok

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

'Economist' normally pro-PM and has a history of miscalls

Re: "Thank you, 'The Economist', from the bottom of my heart", Opinion, April 12.

In the past few years, The Economist has shown itself to be on the wrong side of history on three counts:

1. We all know that democracy is not just about the electoral process working as a vehicle of political change. Democracy is also about effective checks and balances. See "A blow to democracy" in Thailand. Or its recent article, "Goodbye ... or 'au revoir'?" and the whole series leading up to it. Witness this hollow stance from a magazine that is supposedly pro-democracy and selling Western ideals.

A major Thaksin apologist, it chooses form over substance and doesn't think twice before pulling the rug out from under a more aware mass and legitimate political reform effort. Quite short-sighted and shallow, even from a pro-market standpoint. Will somebody get these guys on the ground or advise them just to copy AP feeds?

2. A US-Indian nexus is good for the world and should be encouraged, the impetus for which is found in the recent US-Indian civilian nuclear-cooperation deal. Where is The Economist? Way too wedded to the typical cold-war mentality of the anti-proliferation camp. A dinosaur without nuance or subtlety! It urges Congress to vote down the Bush-sponsored cooperation bill. What it doesn't get is that like-minded allies should treat each other differently from how they treat their foes (for example, North Korea), and the US is just another country with national interests to protect. A future strategic balance and peaceful competitive tension in Asia, which provides a foundation for economic prosperity, favour this deal. The Economist, on the other hand, favours a flawed and anachronistic treaty that "the foes" won't honour anyway.

3. US economic expansion has kept the world economy and especially China buoyant in the past few years, and that's good for the world.

Fundamentally, what's been needed throughout this period is a Europe that reforms itself and cuts fat and labour feather-bedding, so it can grow again, plus a Japan that is more confident and robust. Japan is coming through, though. And sure, in all of this there are risks in world currency markets (when is there no risk?), but the major risk has always been a Europe that is too cosy with its destiny and a Japan that's too scared of reform and more consumption. Where is The Economist on this? Relentlessly attacking US demand as manifested in its current-account deficit and predicting the dollar's crash or disorderly depreciation, or divestment from dollar assets, for some years now. Way too dogmatic in its approach, it's been peddling the idea of a US-made global imbalance for so long that its analyses have become unbalanced and, frankly, stale. The world will eventually correct itself, but the question is will The Economist?

I hope the new editor can rescue the magazine from itself. I haven't shelled out a pence for this magazine since the time of Judas Iscariot.

A Thai Reader of 'The Nation'

Bangkok

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

Don't further worsen our image with weird demands

Re: "PM eyes talks with leaders in Europe", News, April 12.

Thaksin told the Thai people his upcoming trip to Europe was a private visit. Over and over, he has publicly stated he no longer has the PM job, was no longer involved in government affairs and even told the press about looking for a new career during his present days of unemployment.

The Associated Press reported a statement from the UK Embassy spokesman in Bangkok that Thaksin requested a meeting with Tony Blair in London during his visit and that the embassy had conveyed his request to London. From the diplomatic community in Bangkok, it was further disclosed that Thaksin summoned the ambassadors to meet him at Thai Rak Thai Party headquarters and requested they arrange for him to meet with their respective government leaders during his so-called private visit.

It is no surprise to me to see Thaksin caught lying publicly, as I have seen that too often already. However, I am very concerned about the credibility of the present Thai foreign minister and his ability to conduct his work without losing face, due to the undiplomatic manner of his party's leader. I also urge Thaksin to consider and acknowledge that, due to his recent decisions, Thailand's image has been rather bruised from the political instability and the unjustifiable election that was boycotted by the opposition. There is absolutely no need for him to keep fostering a bad image for the country and the caretaker government through foreign affairs.

Charan Singh

Bangkok

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

Premier was the poll winner, no matter how you look at it

Re: "PM's exit sets stage for part II", News, April 6.

According to your figures, Thaksin won 16 million votes and the "no vote" got 12 million (10 million "no votes" and 2 million spoiled votes), which gives Thaksin about 57 per cent of the votes cast, yet you wrote, "Thaksin failed to win a mandate".

He won a majority of the votes cast; he would have won a majority of the seats even if the opposition had contested the election, and that would seem to constitute a mandate.

Why don't you write honestly that Thaksin did gain a respectable mandate, but it was not big enough to silence the losers?

Dom Dunn

Surat Thani

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

Booth positioning was a flagrant charter violation

The decision by the Election Commission (EC) to survey the public on the arrangement of polling booths is necessary but should not be done by that agency. Such in-house surveys are usually self-serving. Furthermore, such a survey is a waste of taxpayers' money, as the Constitution says voting shall be by direct and secret ballot. The arrangement of polling booths clearly violated the Constitution.

John A Donnelly

Bangkok

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

PM has only himself to blame for his electoral downfall

Now that Thaksin Shinawatra has excused himself from an active life as Thailand's caretaker prime minister, it is advisable he start looking back at events leading to his having to declare his decision to take a political pause.

During his five years as prime minister, he has been accused of numerous acts of wrongdoing, most prominently his insouciant character and manners. Important and respected figures, both within and outside the country, have been offended by his uncalled-for remarks. Thaksin didn't seem to know where he stood but seemed too big to be polite and diplomatic - a bad trait for any politician.

One other issue was his association with the wrong people within his radius of power. He has lately been influenced by counsel from these people, based on subjective rather than objective rationales. It is easy to pick out these sycophants. Chat Thai Party leader Banharn Silapa-archa once said of these few people close to Thaksin that they should be beheaded instead of listened to for the bad advice they have been offering the PM.

Last, Thaksin's own bad judgement and wrong steps leading to his political hiatus also deserve mention: the needless House dissolution, the putting of conditions on the opposition's compromise initiatives, his avoidance of coming face to face with his opponents to answer their questions, and his claims of 16 million votes, despite the unprecedented number of invalid votes (4.04 million) resulting from voters nationwide venting their wrath on him, in writing, on the ballots.

Chavalit Van

Chiang Mai