I see we have a sociologist among one of our correspondents. Religion may very well be a human construct in sociological terms, but this notion contributes nothing to solving the current problem in Sino-Vatican ties. A study of Chinese politics and history rather than sociological theories is perhaps more useful.

The problem stems mainly from the Chinese government's fear of religion as a galvanising force in social movements. In their own history, they see the chaos of the Taiping Rebellion, which had strong Christian undertones. When they look outwards, they see the church's role in the toppling of dictatorships, such as the Marcos regime, and fear that allowing Catholics a free hand would lead to a similar "acceleration" of democratisation in China, a process that the Chinese government would rather regulate. The Vatican is not the only one affected by policies based on this fear, as a cursory examination of the Chinese state's treatment of the Tibetan Buddhist hierarchy in previous years will reveal.

The question is how do the two sides proceed from this point? Clearly, the Chinese government is not doing itself any favours in the eyes of the Vatican and others by these unilateral consecrations. However, if the reports that many Chinese dioceses have been left without bishops because of Vatican intransigence are true, then the Vatican also needs to shoulder some of the blame for the current tension.

In any solution, the spiritual needs and well-being of the Chinese Catholics should be paramount. Political factors, such as the Vatican's maintenance of ties with Taiwan, should be considered secondary, if not irrelevant altogether. On the Chinese side, if they really want the Vatican and other sovereign nations to cut ties with Taiwan, they merely have to pursue their current policy of peaceful reunification to its conclusion.

Ultimately, however, as an independent, sovereign state, the Chinese government is perfectly entitled to set up a "patriotic" Christian church that is tailored to its needs. However, such a church cannot be called the Roman Catholic Church, as it would be bereft of the guidance of the successor of Peter.

Apisake Monthienvichienchai

Cambridge, England

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

Keeping track of corruption scandals is an excellent idea

Re: "Publish a corruption watch list to ensure the guilty are punished", Letters, May 14.

What a good idea from Glenn Bradley to have a weekly "Corruption Watch" in The Nation. It would not only help ensure that the guilty get punished, but also act as a deterrent, especially if also published in its sister Thai paper, Krungthep Turakij. Even a monthly or quarterly list would be great. Another name could also be considered: "Follow-up on Corruption".

Lest we forget, Thais are great at forgetting and forgiving, because we believe in karma. The culprits hope to get away with short-cut wealth accumulation with the passing of time.

Songdej Praditsmanont

Bangkok

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

Shouldn't a 'fiction' label also be put on the Bible?

Re: "'Da Vinci' film ban sought", News, May 16.

The four Christian groups demanding a ban on the movie "The Da Vinci Code" and their request that Sony include a warning that the film is "based solely on fiction" made me laugh out loud. Are we to believe then that Christianity is "based solely on fact"? I'm requesting that the Bible carry a warning that its contents are based on historical fantasy until proven otherwise.

Chiang Mai Mike

Chiang Mai

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

Film bans exploit emotion at the expense of reason

Re: "'Da Vinci' film ban sought", News, May 16.

The expected response from Christian groups in Thailand seeking to ban the movie, "The Da Vince Code", does a wonderful job of proving one of the novel's main points: that established Christian churches use force rather than reason to suppress different ideas. In this case, they are seeking legal sanctions backed by the threat of state force. They do not use reason or present any evidence whatsoever to counter what they claim is a false view, because there is no such evidence or reason. Rather, the force of evidence and reason is against them, so they opt immediately for threats and abuse to protect their "truths" from critical evaluation.

Dan Brown is an appallingly bad writer, but he at least had the honesty and decency to sell his works as fiction. As your article says, there is a mix of fact and fiction in Brown's novel. Perhaps if they read more, these Christian groups would realise that many novels mix fact and fiction.

If Jesus were a male of 33, especially Jewish and living at that time, then not marrying would be so extremely abnormal that you would expect the Bible's writers to comment on it emphatically. But they do not, which suggests he may well have followed the norm and married. It is at least credible that he did marry.

Lest anyone think I am anti-Christian, these comments apply equally to every other major superstition.

Peter Filicietti

Bangkok

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

Censor censors, not material they would rather you not see

Two more calls for banning films - "The Da Vinci Code" ("'Da Vinci' film ban sought", News, May 16) and "Mak Tae" ("Thai comedy fails to score with Lao officials", News, May 16) - one by religious groups, the other by bureaucrats. Totally unjustified of course. For this reader and film viewer, a book or a film worth banning is a book or a film worth reading or watching. In fact, such calls are sure to arouse the curiosity of people and encourage them to taste of the "forbidden fruit", defeating the purpose.

Political and religious correctness has been infecting our societies for too long, and they continue to do so, fanning the flames of extremism, intolerance and bigotry and reducing populations to infantilism. Let the people exercise their right to judge and criticise, free from the dictatorship of sectarian zealots.

Ban the censors! Ban ignorance!

Sagittarius

Bangkok

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

Looks like no religion has a monopoly on being offended

Re: "'Da Vinci' film ban sought", News, May 16.

All right, so now some Christian groups in Thailand are protesting and have filed complaints against the release of the Hollywood movie, "The Da Vinci Code", based on Dan Brown's phenomenally successful novel of the same name. The groups are reportedly decrying the film, because its story-line was degrading and undermining, besides being historically incorrect. Have these groups even realised that both the movie and the original novel are considered works of FICTION? What's the ruckus all about?

I am also wondering whether any of those groups might have been among those that were shocked and flabbergasted when Muslims went to the barricades over the publication of the by-now notorious Muhammad cartoons, labelling that an overreaction. The mind boggles.

Thomas Schmid

Bangkok

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

Special tourist fares are levied on special tourists

I have lived, worked and paid taxes in Thailand for the past five years, mostly quite happily. But the double-pricing policy for foreigners has always stuck in my throat. Sometimes I successfully argue my way out it; sometimes I grudgingly pay it. Mostly I try to avoid places that discriminate against foreigners, because of the bitter taste it leaves in my mouth.

However, one has to admit that the national parks attempt to justify their discriminatory pricing on some sort of principle. They charge higher prices for foreigners everywhere on the basis of claims that Thais paid the taxes and put in the work that built the infrastructure and that Thais are poor and foreigners rich. These are flimsy claims, but at least an attempt has been made to justify the policy.

Not so the State Railway of Thailand (SRT). It doesn't even pretend to hide behind a principle in their discriminatory practices. Its policy is open, undisguised, cynical opportunism. On a recent long weekend, I went to Nam Tok in Kanchanaburi from Thon Buri. My Thai friend paid Bt39; I had to pay Bt100.

I can go anywhere else in Thailand for the same price as a Thai but not to Kanchanaburi. How can this be justified? Why not higher fares for Lop Buri or Ayutthaya? The SRT has merely seen that a lot of foreigners like to travel by train to Kanchanaburi and thinks this would be a good chance to squeeze them a bit.

The SRT, and by extension all of Thailand's tourism authorities, are saying to foreigners, "You are second-class people and the lowest class of passenger. We hold you in contempt, and whenever we think there's a chance, we will rip you off." I enjoy trains, but next time I'll travel by bus.

Incidentally, my uncle was a prisoner of war of the Japanese. He and his mates built the railway past Kanchanaburi. I don't think he would have been impressed by the "special tourist fares".

Dr Thomas Hoy

Nakhon Pathom

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

Sleeping giants do not always rouse from their slumbers

It is customary these days to refer to India and China as emerging global economic giants. The reference may well represent current economic reality, but it always reminds me that in my youth, I used to read in the media that Africa was a sleeping giant. I wonder what came of that. What comes after sleep? Coma?

Cha-am Jamal

Phetchaburi

Send us your views in an instant E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to the Editor' in the subject box, to: letters@nationgroup.com