In Sunday's issue, you report that a spokesman for that party claimed it was the Democrat Party that should be disbanded, because of the foolish behaviour of one of its members ("Thai Rak Thai to ask EC Monday to dissolve Democrat Party", News, May 14). What utter tripe! It is his own party that was caught apparently dipping into the cookie jar of corruption by bribing smaller parties to contest the now-annulled election.

Another paper reports the possibility of Thaksin remaining as leader of the Thai Rak Thai Party, if not becoming prime minister again. Is there no one within that party with the guts to tell the man he has done enough damage to Thailand? His forte appears to be making money, definitely not governing a country. He should be told to stick to what he does best and get out of politics altogether, to leave the country alone while it sorts out the terrible mess that he, single-handedly, placed it in.

Then there are the charges of lese majeste that have been brought against Democrat Party members. Nothing yet reported suggests that the various people now apparently facing these charges intended to insult His Majesty the King in thought, word or deed. Indeed, I very much doubt there is another kingdom in the world where the monarch is as respected and revered as His Majesty is here in Thailand, a respect that I share entirely.

And then we have the apparent refusal by the Election Commission to endorse five elected senators, on the grounds they took part in a peaceful rally held in defence of democracy. Is it common sense that an aspiring candidate for the Senate cannot be allowed to defend democracy? And isn't it curious that all five just happen to be members of the opposition to Thai Rak Thai?

Finally, Thailand has failed to obtain a seat on the UN Human Rights Council ("Kingdom fails to win UN rights council seat", News, May 11), presumably because of its own record over the past few years. Well, who was in control of the country over these past few shameful years?

Henry Ashe

Bangkok

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

Callous indifference from DEP, Impact officials alike

 I slipped, fell and hurt myself in the Challenge Hall at the Impact Exhibition Centre on April 21 while visiting the Bangkok International Gift and Household Fair organised by the Department of Export Promotion (DEP). Although the hall is brand new, it began to leak as soon as it started to rain, making the hallway as slippery and dangerous to walk on as an ice-skating rink.

Although I fell down just a few metres in front of a guard, he did absolutely nothing to help me, as he was too busy chatting on his mobile. Nothing at all! It is also a scandal in itself that a brand-new exhibition hall that is supposed to show Thailand's face to the outside world leaks like a sieve.

After the initial shock had subsided, I contacted the organiser's office, a few metres away from where I fell, where I was flatly refused assistance or a meeting with the manager - that was reserved for the exhibitors only, I was told. I was advised to go to the information counter, at the far end of the hallway.

The same story was repeated, like a recording, at the information desk, where I was again told to go to some other office. That was until a Thai gentleman, one of the exhibitors, came running to my rescue and demanded, in no uncertain terms, to speak to the manager. He actually had to grab the phone out of the hands of the young woman at the information desk and demanded that the manager assist me immediately.

Only then did the manager turn up, with an entourage of five or six assistants, and sometime later a nurse was called to help me. But it all took a very long time, and had it not been for that Thai gentleman, I'm certain that no one from Impact or the DEP would have cared one iota. After all, I'm only a farang.

In Western countries, it is a criminal offence not to aid people in need, not to mention the US, where it most likely would have resulted in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit. But in Thailand, the authorities seemingly couldn't care less.

Not surprisingly, neither Impact nor DEP officials have contacted me again as promised. I am, however, very grateful to the fine Thai gentleman, whom I thanked personally after recovering from the fall and shock.

Sour Kiwi Lady

Bangkok

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

Time is coming when the world will shun the dollar

 The baht is losing support against the falling dollar, which it is tied to, though I do not know to what extent. However, there appears to be interesting developments afoot. There is a movement away from the "petrodollar"; Middle Eastern countries have announced that a percentage of their reserves will now be held in euros. Hence, the rise of the euro on actual and expected performance of European economies.

The large players appear to be becoming increasingly nervous about holding their reserves in dollars. China and India have been steadily reducing their dependency on the greenback. Other Asian countries are bound to follow suit. Thailand would do well to take notice.

The latest collapse in the US dollar could create greater inflationary pressure in the US, which has steadily increased interest rates to combat this, and which relies on its US$750-billion (Bt28.6 trillion) annual deficit being maintained by those holding the dollar.

It is being suggested there will be a major turning point in the world's economy - not through something the Iranians do, but through what the Americans have done in the Middle East.

The late economist Kenneth Galbraith predicted that the next "correction" in the world's economy would be far greater than in the 1930s, because the capitalist boom would have continued that much longer. All the more reason for Thailand to reduce its balance-of-payments deficit as quickly as possible. Can this be done under a Thai Rak Thai government? "The times, they are a-changin'," as Dylan sang, and a more socially responsible government in Thailand would be preferable for coping with the changing world scene.

Giles Wynne

Nakhon Ratchasima

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

Why does Immigration give investors the runaround?

 I came to Thailand a year and a half ago to work and set up my little company. I was very excited in early days, but that excitement quickly disappeared when I encountered reality.

I thought that since I am an investor in the country it would be easy for me get some sort of visa that allowed me to live here. I guess I was dreaming. My visa requires me to leave the country every three months, no matter that I do not have any work to do in any other country. Of course, before I leave the country I have to go to Immigration and apply for a re-entry visa, which is a rip-off. If there is some emergency and I have to leave the country in a hurry without applying for a re-entry visa then I have to apply for my original visa from scratch.

Even my two young daughters are harassed in the same way. They are just two and six years old and I have to produce a paper stating what they are doing here. For goodness' sake, what would a two-year-old girl be doing in Thailand! They are children and I am their father, so they live with me - you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. To the Thai Immigration, they are two more foreigners that need to be ripped off every now and then. It's lucky I don't have a large family.

So yes, I'm one of the tens of thousands of people who get pissed off and shake their heads at the Immigration Department. Can you guess what my advice would be to any business friends thinking of coming here?

My two bits' worth to the Thai Immigration is stop harassing investors; they are here to do business and, believe or not, they are the ones who have to provide jobs for four Thais for each foreigner they employ.

Last but not least, Thailand is a unique country in that you can have a work permit to hold employment here, but this does not necessarily mean that you have a visa to stay here. Yes, Thailand is amazing!

Hussein Kaval

Bangkok

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

We need to ask: whose religion is it, anyway?

 Re: "Vatican is bypassed once more", News, May 15. With the ordination of a third bishop by the Chinese Roman Catholic Church this past week without the approval of the Vatican, it behoves us all to examine the question of exactly who "owns" a particular religion.

Modern sociological thought recognises all religions as human artefacts. They are human constructs, and as with all human tools, they are created by humans (mostly men) to meet specific human needs. They are most certainly products of the social group within which they were conceived and have evolved. Originally evolving out of stories, folk-tales and myths to explain the at-the-time unexplainable, thereby providing a measure of mental and spiritual comfort, these religions became more institutionalised and took on structure, human authority, ritual and ceremony. Later, in some religious circles, these folk-tales and stories became infallible "truths" and required the commitment of certain "leaps of faith". As religions spread and were adopted by - or imposed upon - new societies, these religions moulded to meet the specific needs of those societies. Host societies saw to it that their religions met their specific social needs. This is no different today.

The Vatican's attempt to control Roman Catholic religious practices in China is a clear attempt by one political power, the Vatican, to influence the social behaviour and order of another political power, the Chinese. Surely, it is for the Chinese to decide what best meets their religious needs, not some remote, self-appointed committee of costumed men on the other side of the globe. Whether or not there is Vatican approval for a Chinese decision - religious or otherwise - is only of concern to people inside the Vatican and outside Chinese society. It matters not to the Chinese.

For this or any religious dispute to be resolved peacefully, it is imperative that all parties respect the social as well as the religious requirements and sensitivities of others.

CA Stanford

Bangkok