Why has the pro-government mob (which can justifiably by definition be called a mob) had to resort to violence against their opponents - the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) and Democrats - on more then one occasion? And why is Thai Rak Thai MP-elect Wichai Chaijitvanitkul giving speeches at the gathering? Does this start to show the true face of Thai Rak Thai (that the party condones the use of violence) publicly? This strong-arm mentality used by Thai Rak Thai and its supporters to stay in power and silence its opponents sickens me.

I commend the PAD for its months of demonstrations exercising their constitutional right to voice its opinion non-violently. As for Thai Rak Thai and its supporters, all I can do is shake my head and say, "Be careful, Thailand!"

Desert Rat

Bangkok

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

Attempts at saving face tripped up at click of a mouse

Re: "Thaksin returns to Thailand", News, April 20.

To quote your story:

"Thai Rak Thai Party leader Thaksin Shinawatra returned to Bangkok early Thursday morning ... Asked whether he had met British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George Bush, Thaksin said yes, adding that he would meet them again."

I am in the UK at the moment. I looked for reports of PM Blair meeting ex-PM Thaksin but could find none. PM Blair has more serious issues to deal with at the moment; otherwise, being Easter, he would have been on holiday.

I heard of reports of ex-PM Thaksin visiting his old college in the US. Any stories of Thaksin meeting President Bush? No reports whatsoever. President Bush also has more serious issues to deal with.

Is ex-PM Thaksin trying to save face by claiming he met Blair and Bush? At best, this is self-delusion, at worst outright mendacity. It is also foolish, since today the details can be checked by the click of a computer mouse.

Yuri Velasquez

UK

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

Billboard culture's insidious permeation of the Kingdom

Re: "Scantily clad women can be seen at appropriate venues", Letters, April 24.

In his reaction to my letter ("North has worse problems than scantily clad woman", April 22), Tom Lloyd missed my point totally!

Although I still don't know what the Chiang Mai Cultural Council considers "scantily clad woman" during Songkran, the worst I saw were woman with spaghetti straps in short pants.

I did not join the Songkran festivities to watch that kind of "dangerous woman", as Tom Lloyd alluded to. With my letter, I wanted to draw attention to the many monstrous, huge billboard constructions that make Thaksinburi (formerly known as the Rose of the North) so ugly.

Even in the old city, inside the moat, there are huge billboards, advertising a certain brand of shampoo or whatever, just in front of a historic building. Also, right next to the National Cultural Museum, a monstrous, still-blank billboard dominates the compound. And there are a hundred more!

So anyway, the Chiang Mai Cultural Council must have noticed it. This billboard culture is in my opinion a consequence of Thaksinomics, which dictates that money is the only thing that counts and not environmental issues.

Try to watch from behind your taxi window, coming from the airport, the skyline of Bangkok. It is not possible anymore. The skyline has disappeared behind hundreds of these monstrosities!

There exist regulations about the size and place permitted for the construction of billboards, but here again corruption makes everything possible.

I tried already to open a discussion about this matter in the Chiang Mai Mail, illustrated by some pictures I made of billboards in Thaksinburi, but it evoked only a few (positive) reactions of farangs.

So, in conclusion, what I wanted to say was that there are more important issues for the Chiang Mai Cultural Council to deal with. That is all!

Or belongs Tom Lloyd to that kind of people that considers "sex, drugs and rock and roll" the biggest threat to humanity?

Chiang Mai Nick

Chiang Mai

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

UK Embassy sell-off is part of a bigger, more nefarious plot

I have read many letters recently in regard to the selling off of parts of the British Embassy in Bangkok. This is almost certainly all part of the gradual abolition of the United Kingdom. In the future, there will only be an EU Embassy, so why maintain a British Embassy? Of course, Tony Blair, David Cameron and Menzies Campbell will deny this.

At 41, I have never had any say about Britain's EU membership - totally against it!

Politicians (who have by far the most to gain) are quoted (in private) as saying that a very gradual integration will go unnoticed.

Andrew Munn

Bangkok

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

Flipping a coin gives as good an indicator as any 'expert' can

As the price of gold soars above US$600 [Bt22,600] an ounce, I recall how a few years ago, expert after expert with credentials on top of credentials were saying gold was finished as an investment. They argued that gold was traditionally a hedge against inflation, and with good monetary policy, inflation wasn't a threat. Besides, gold doesn't earn interest, and people could lend money to governments (buy bonds) and get a return on their money that way. Gold is used as jewellery and has a few industrial uses, but that doesn't justify a high price. These experts must have been so convincing, as many governments sold most of their gold reserves when gold was just over $200 and lent money to countries with deflating currencies. Now the same experts, for the exact same reasons that gold was finished as an investment, say gold is a good investment. Personally, I believe that whenever you see the word "expert", if you substitute it with "fool", you will be far better off. This applies to most fields. Or to put it another way, just do the opposite of what the experts tell you.

Lester Parker

Bangkok

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

A misunderstanding of 'Thai politics' is a bogus allegation

Re: "Failing to understand Thai politics", Opinion, April 22.

Rado Tylecote's article tells us that The Economist - and some Western media - failed to understand Thai politics. But this doesn't take into consideration that many Thai nationals share this supposedly Western view or that many Westerners do agree with The Nation's stand on these matters. The issue at hand is not the impossibility of foreigners to understand local politics. In dealing with the controversy about Thaksin's resignation, the last thing we need for a healthy discussion is to dismiss or accept ideas because they're local or foreign.

The reasons he gives as for why The Economist failed to understand local politics don't seem to carry much weight. The alleged naivete of The Economist, which sees in Thaksin a Robin Hood, fails to account for the heavy criticism the magazine has had towards him. The simple picture of just giving more economic aid to the poor has never been The Economist's stand. And all those nice-sounding names (National Counter Corruption Commission, Electoral Commission, Constitution Court, etc) have been frequently well monitored and criticised by The Economist.

One wonders what Tylecote means when he says, "Thai politics is not easy for unseasoned observers to understand..." Thai politics as opposed to what? What country would one really believe could fit into that sentence without the negative? What The Economist considered "distasteful" and "dangerous" was not the higher standards of political transparency of the Thai public - which we all surely welcome - but rather the vision of an enlightened middle class that believes that the ends justify the means.

Our defects can really be our exaggerated virtues: high standards of political transparency are excellent; the fact that the prime minister was forced to resign by means of intimidation using dubious arguments like "ethics" is not. A middle class that assumes it knows better is distasteful. And arguments that are not based on the rule of law and which lean towards "morality" are dangerous; it sets a precedent that will surely be used again in the future, towards your favourite politician.

Why does it seem so difficult to refute The Economist without mentioning its "foreign perspective" and its misunderstanding of local politics? One is of course very entitled to disagree, but to dismiss arguments on the grounds that foreigners don't understand Thai politics is too simplistic.

Sebastian Wasserzug

Bangkok

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

Election Commission needs to get with the programme

Thanks in large part to our Election Commission (EC), I think our elections are becoming a joke, a farce and a tragedy. The EC's objectives should be to ensure a fair and secret election, so that we may have "government of the people, by the people, for the people" (to use Abraham Lincoln's definition of "democracy").

So, the EC decided that PM Thaksin's promising to give loans on condition that he becomes PM was legal - because he would use state money. To me, that's vote-buying, but using voters' funds to do so - how sly! The EC ruled that PM Thaksin's giving cash to students while campaigning was legal too, because it was to pay for magazine subscriptions! This supposedly competent body also designed election booths wherein outsiders could see which box voters ticked. The EC also ruled that by-elections be held on just two days' notice, hardly enough time for candidates to campaign. Now, the EC has suggested Parliament be opened even without the constitutionally mandated quorum needed to choose a PM.

The EC should recall its mandate and protect democracy, not somebody's vested interests - or be impeached.

Burin Kantabutra

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