Several hospitals have already "thrown out" Bt30 care, despite Gareth Clayton's plea not to do so. Other Thai hospitals will be forced to follow suit.

The reason is simple. These Thai hospitals have been forced to withdraw or face bankruptcy. Clayton ignores this fiscal reality, as perhaps he does not understand that modern technology and drugs to care for the sick are way beyond Thailand's taxpayers' ability to afford them.

Poor Thai villagers have cared for their sick without modern medicine for centuries without handouts or charity from Thai taxpayers, yet now Clayton feels the Bt30 system should be kept for "the people who cannot afford insurance". Clayton stated the problem succinctly, although he may not have recognised it. The problem here is that the people are poor. With money they could buy their own insurance.

Using Clayton's logic, Thailand should thus provide the poor with Bt30 housing insurance, Bt30 clothing insurance and Bt30 food insurance. And of course Clayton would have the Thai taxpayer pay for it all. This thought process rests on the political philosophy "from each according to his ability [the taxpayer], to each according to his need [the poor]". Those words were written by Karl Marx. Clayton is advocating pure socialism.

To his credit, Clayton has recognised the consequences of nationalised care of the sick in the UK, where he states that "doctors give very poor minimal service" but fails to question why this is so. Also, he notes that in the land of Oz "the problem is some doctors [are] 'overservicing' patients with unnecessary visits".

He does not connect the dots between socialism and lousy service, although history has shown that all socialist systems eventually collapse because of economic contradictions.

These First World countries with First World budgets cannot make their socialist systems work. By what wizardry does Clayton believe much poorer Thailand can magically pull it off?

Last, there is a forlorn hopelessness in Clayton's letter in that he states "the poor get even poorer", as if there are no prospects for Thailand's poor to escape the chains of poverty. Can he not see a future Thailand where social mobility enables the poor to climb into the middle class? One thing is for sure - high taxes to support socialist programmes will retard Thailand's growth and delay that day when prosperity is at hand for all.

W Knight

Orange, California

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

Ministry is applying the law against protesters unfairly

Re: "PAD leaders summoned over 'threat to security'", News, April 13.

By being so one-sided, Interior Minister Kongsak Wantana and the police appear guilty of harassing the leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD); Sondhi Limthongkul, Chamlong Srimuang, et al, have been charged with threatening national security by holding rallies to oust PM Thaksin.

Yes, the language of PAD speakers was often too extreme, espousing half-truths and biased - but, then, in equal measure, so were the rabble-rousing talks of the pro-Thaksin camp, in Buri Ram for example. Why haven't the Buri Ram speakers been summoned by the cops?

Why are the summons being issued so late? The protests were weeks ago. If the protests threatened national security, why did the police allow them to take place, knowing well in advance roughly what the speakers would say?

Which police generals have been sacked for dereliction of duty?

The PAD's crowd was well behaved (as were the police on the scene). They threatened PM Thaksin's job, but not the nation's security.

Minister Kongsak and the cops should either stop this one-sided action or go after the pro-Thaksin speakers with equal vigour. For starters, call in Pol Lt-Colonel Thaksin, a PhD in Criminal Justice, since he was a key speaker at many rallies. Neither side is above the law - isn't that right, Minister Kongsak?

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

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

Nothing wrong with a healthy debate over recent events

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

This column was certainly heavy on sarcasm, but it avoided addressing the real issue of concern to The Economist and many other observers. That issue is: is it democratic for a minority group, no matter how well-intentioned, to try to force a resignation of a (largely) freely elected head of government, no matter how odious his rule might have become to some. And this is a legitimate concern, no matter how much your column wishes to dismiss it.

No one has the final word on the issue, and the more this point is debated, the better. Thailand is very fortunate that Thaksin has at last resigned and allowed the nation to move on.

But that doesn't mean all means employed to that end were, in the end, good for Thailand or the development of its democracy. As much I was personally sympathetic with the protesters' goals (I even attended a demonstration at Siam Square), several things about this entire process were less than democratic including:

1) The protesters insisted that Thaksin should leave on their - minority - demand alone, with no regard for the wishes of the country's majority population. Pure majority rule is not democracy, but neither is minority rule.

2) The electoral boycott had more than a whiff of cynicism and opportunism about it, as the opposition simply knew they'd lose the poll.

Many of those who fought hard for Thaksin's resignation will disagree with opinions like these, but it doesn't make them any less valid. I hope this debate continues, with more and more people taking part. This is the best way for a real consensus on what's appropriate in a democracy and what isn't to eventually emerge.

Let all sides talk, so that next time all parties - the government, the opposition and everyone in between - can respect the democratic process in pursuit of change.

Dave Sherman

Bangkok

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

Anti-Thaksin camp should be more constructive

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

The magazine The Economist is right when it claims that democracy has suffered a blow in Thailand. It seems inconceivable in a democracy for the winner of a free election to be forced out by demonstrators. The only case I can think of in the US when the "the despotic majority of numbers" was a problem was when it caused the southern states to secede from the Union. That is when the South tore up the constitution.

It's all very well to argue that this election contravened the constitution; the fact remains that it was sanctioned by Royal decree, and Privy Counsellor Prem Tinasulonda gave his unequivocal approval, being among the first to cast his ballot. Could he have sent any clearer signal of where he stands on the issue?

I fear the impasse lies in the inability of the anti-Thaksin faction to get off their high horse and compromise, just a little.

Thaksin has. Having come so far relatively unscathed, would it be so unconscionable to throw our support behind the election, convene Parliament, form a government of national unity, revise the Constitution, and hold a fresh election. Then check Thaksin's bill, if this is warranted. Isn't this a better proposition than waiting for the powder keg to explode, as we are doing now?

The print media must assume a portion of the blame since they are so rabidly anti-Thaksin as to do the People's Alliance for Democracy proud. Thaksin is accused of tax evasion, media interference, cronyism and corruption.

But where is the smoking gun? Until this is found, I for one can only judge him on his policies. In your recent articles assessing Thaksin's track record, the authors have not found one good word in his favour. Forget that he is hope to millions of poverty-stricken Thais; he is to be vilified and ridiculed.

Yet his healthcare and housing schemes provide a social safety net that is the poor man's holy grail. One writer said his diplomatic initiatives lacked finesse and sophistication and are not based on sound principals.

What does that mean? I thought that diplomacy was the art of the possible. Though our diplomatic heritage dates back to Kosa Pan and beyond, only now are we finding it possible to take a leading role in the region and even vie for the world's top diplomatic post. And for this Thaksin is derided as inept or scoffed at as seeking the global limelight.

His policies - derisively called Thaksinomics - deserve time for them to function properly. Thatcherism, initially strongly opposed, two decades ago turned around the British economy and put Britain back on her feet again.

The People's Alliance for Democracy and the Democrats are screaming for the baby to be thrown out with the bath water, as it were, even though millions voted for him and his policies and they offer no alternative.

For healing to take place, we need compromise. I dare you, for once print something positive about Thaksin. It won't hurt much, but it might heal a lot.

Trirat Petchsingh

Nonthaburi

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

Media should be covering the anti-corruption watchdog

There have been numerous letters to the editor published in various newspapers recently demanding informative reporting of events and actors involved in the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC).

Readers have asked the press to name all of the candidates for commissioners' posts on the NCCC. Yet the press has failed to do so.

The public has been kept in the dark, as if there were a deliberate blackout of proceedings of the Senate's selection committee.

How about a display of press freedom! Give readers all of the necessary the facts. Tell them who the candidates are. And do so before the selection committee meets and decides.

Tharm Wasawang

Bangkok

Send us your views in an instant E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to

the Editor' in the subject box, to: letters@nationgroup.com