Buddha Mondhol IV is a very busy road, and there are u-turns located in front of the moobans. These u-turns are dangerous, because even though there exists only one u-turn lane, trucks, vans, taxis and pickups often use the next lane over for that purpose, too.

By so doing, cars that keep to the u-turn lane but need to move to the extreme left after turning, in order to enter a mooban, are often in danger of getting involved an accident.

Moreover, the distances between the turn-ins to the mooban and the u-turns are not very far - perhaps only 60-80 metres. And with drivers of delivery vehicles pressed for time and/or on God knows what substances, not to mention inconsiderate driving manners, there's a real danger here.

Therefore, it is only prudent that traffic lights - and I do not mean those useless single amber lights that tell vehicles to slow down or be cautious - be set up at all u-turns, or at least in front of mooban turn-ins, along Buddha Mondhol IV. The chances of an accident would thus be greatly reduced - or better yet, eliminated.

A Very Concerned Parent

Bangkok

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

Allow Thaksin a chance to show he's learned his lesson

Re: "Thaksin does not need to be given more chances", Letters, May 2.

Surasak Piputtana's objection to Thaksin's comeback is understandable and also supported by a large number of our electoral population.

My previous letter ("Maybe PM will come back home a changed man", May 1) was meant to lift the standard of discussion up from Thaksin's past, which has been exhaustively reviewed, to another possible scenario of a changed Thaksin.

Will he be a changed man after the sufferings? If so, can he be any more useful to our nation, given a rare chance of having to recover his good name? Is an outright condemnation of Thaksin like cutting off your nose to spite your face?

In my humble view, to bury Thaksin for good, as one editorial ("TRT may be courting disaster", April 29) seemed to advocate, those questions need to be answered first.

I neither like nor dislike the man but do like to see fair play when it comes to national interest. In my experience, whenever I give a second chance to a fellow man, I always gain from it.

Songdej Praditsmanont

Bangkok

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

There remains no viable alternative to ruling party

Re: "Abhisit vows fresh start, honest govt", News, April 30.

Last Saturday at a Democrat Party gathering, Abhisit Vejjajiva declared he would make a fresh start in Thai politics. In a message of hope and reconciliation, Abhisit said he was ready to "rise above the political wrangling and lead the country to new heights of democratic rule".

How he will do that is still unclear. Earlier, Democrat leader Abhisit would often lament about Thaksinomics without elaborating what economic policies his party would lay out if the Democrats happened to lead the next government. New elections now seem a distinct possibility, but what do the Democrats have to offer in those elections, other than the promise that whatever and wherever populist Thai Rak Thai policies work, they would try to improve on them? This caused an uproar in Thai Rak Thai. Sudarat Keyuraphan, for one, came out to say Abhisit could not match the initiatives or stature of Thai Rak Thai leader Thaksin Shinawatra.

In the most recent Abac poll, 54.2 per cent indicated they favoured Thai Rak Thai's policies in solving the country's problems, compared with only 7.5 per cent who said they liked the Democrats' policies. But really, what are the Democrats' policies in this regard?

While most would be willing to give the Democrats another chance, they still cannot see a genuine alternative in any other existing political party, the Democrats included.

Prachyadavi Tavedikul

Bangkok

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

Revenues from fuel taxes pay for crucial public services

Re: "Abolish taxes on fuel and let free market set prices", Letters, May 1.

W Knight offers an overly simplistic answer to a complex national and worldwide social issue. The real question is: Who pays for that which benefits the commons?

Are we to pay tolls for using highways financed from foreign capital, or are we to enjoy superhighways, financed from both state tax and local gas-tax pools? Are we also to pay for police services, public schools for our children and for mercenary troops to protect our land and homes?

There is a thing called social responsibility. It is achieved in part from general and specific taxation. It is a civic duty to pay it.

Knight knows his market-driven worldwide capitalist model eschews social responsibility in favour of the mobility of capital. The problem is capital knows only one thing: profits and return on investment. That is where state intervention and regulation is paramount.

Otherwise, what you have are international financial markets overriding and supplanting national sovereignty and moving the tax burden to the consumers rather than to the true beneficiaries of profit: the owners of capital.

Oh, and an aside to all this: Knight suggests removing the fuel tax in the face of a so-called "war on terror". It is a historical fact that no nation in recorded history ever lowered taxes in time of war. This prompts the question: who's paying the bill for this "war"?

The answer to this query is also the answer to Knight's tax proposal.

D Ross

Bangkok

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

Historic incident is enshrined in US anthem

Re: "About time the US got a new national anthem", Letters, May 2.

S Tsow's letter about America's national anthem, "The Star Spangled Banner", is somewhat cute but wrought with inaccuracies.

First, the recently penned Spanish-language version does not even attempt to follow the story line of the standard English version. Though the recording is well crafted, a translation of its words shows it to be a vague mishmash of ideas with an allusion to bias against Latinos.

In 1812, the lyrics that Francis Scott Key put to a popular classical score of the time are near genius as well as awe-inspiring. As a prisoner on a British ship in Baltimore Bay, Key was able to observe from his porthole the apparent success of the defenders of Fort McHenry holding out against a heavy British naval assault. The "uncertainty" of victory he conveyed in this important battle adds an added dimension to the song's greatness.

Unknown to Key, and little known since then, is that a British bomb landed directly in the ammunition arsenal at the fort. As fate would have it, the cannonball's fuse failed to detonate - the consequence of which could well have reshaped American and British history.

The Brits got their butts royally kicked twice by the upstart colony in a span of 40 years, yet have remained fast friends of America ever since. More importantly, that first successful revolt by a British colony served as inspiration for dozens of other colonial uprisings worldwide since that time. Not all were well advised, as it could be argued that several African and Asian nations would have been better off staying within the British Empire.

Ken Albertsen

Chiang Rai

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

Purity of language should be maintained in national songs

Re: "About time the US got a new national anthem", Letters, May 2.

I disagree with S Tsow that the American national anthem, "The Star-Spangled Banner", should be sung in languages other than English. National anthems should be sung in the language of a nation, with "La Marseillaise" sung in French, etc. Just a week ago, I found that a co-worker was surprised the American anthem even had words, and I found myself explaining how I once found them hard to sing when I was a child, but now quite liked the song after I learned to start singing it an octave lower, so as to be able to hit the higher notes. Unlike Tsow, I do not think the lyrics are "incomprehensible", especially if the significant omission is not made as printed in the paper on Tuesday, when the question mark was not placed at the start:

"O say, can you see, by the dawn's early light

What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming?"

The song then goes on to answer this question in the affirmative, since the flag survived the battle that raged through the night. As sung, the anthem ends with another question:

"O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?"

This last question is clearly intended to be rhetorical in nature, as the answer has been made obvious in the preceding lyrics. There is no confusion here; it is essentially a bold statement that the flag is still flying. The last question references the first, but the most important part is the reminder of the freedom enjoyed by Americans that they have boldly defended.

When I was a kid struggling with a couple of notes, I sometimes called for a new anthem to be written, but now I'm very fond of the present one and find it quite moving. I hope it is never replaced.

Brian Greenhalgh

Bangkok