The grand exhibition of His Majesty the King's life and accomplishments is, by far, one of the best tributes to the man who will be remembered for generations to come as a great monarch. So many people won't be able to see it!

Surely the powers that be have thought about putting the best parts of it aboard half a dozen rail cars and taking it around the country after it closes in Bangkok?

As Patma Vityakon put it in her letter: "In order to allow this outstanding exhibition to reach out to more people and to make the investment more worthwhile, the government should consider extending it to the end of this auspicious year." Yes! A good idea!

I would only add that many of His Majesty's most loyal subjects cannot travel easily to the capital. However, a rolling exhibit parked in a nearby city would allow them to pay their respects and see some portion of it. This would be very important to so many of them. Also, it seems appropriate for the exhibit to travel around the country like His Majesty himself has done throughout his life.

R McClellan

Ratchaburi

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

Present a well-reasoned case for reciprocal land ownership

Re: "Closing loophole on foreign ownership of land won't be a disaster for economy", Letters, June 2.

I agree entirely with Songdej Praditsmanont's comments that presenting a case for reciprocal land-ownership rights would be much more compelling than hysterical warnings that the Thai economy might go into a tailspin when foreign residential developers cease building houses for foreign buyers in resort areas. Arguing that any government should turn a blind eye to an illegal business for the sake of short-term economic benefits is an unattractive premise in any context.

There are many countries in the world that permit Thai citizens to own land freely without restrictions, and many politicians and other prominent Thai citizens have taken advantage of these laws to own property abroad. For example, former interior minister Purachai Piumsombun, who recently published a book titled "Surviving in New Zealand", owns a house in that country. Many less-prominent Thai citizens also live, work and own property abroad. Now that we have returned to an era of bilateral and free-trade agreements, I would suggest foreigners who wish to promote foreign ownership of land in Thailand lobby for reciprocal land-ownership rights, assuming their respective countries allow Thais to own land. If not (and Singapore springs to mind here), then their fight should start at home, lobbying their own governments to allow foreign ownership. There is a precedent for reciprocal land-ownership rights in Thailand. According to the Land Department's website, Thailand had treaties with 16 countries up to 1970 that permitted nationals of those countries to own land here.

Obviously, this a political hot potato, and Thai voters may understandably have concerns about foreigners driving prices up beyond their reach or foreign developers littering the coastal landscapes with thousands of hideous residential developments, as they have done in Spain. Therefore, a gradual approach is to be recommended. Amendments to the Land Code in 1999 moved in the right direction by: allowing 50-year leases on commercial and industrial land (previously, 30 years); allowing foreigners investing Bt40 million in approved investments to buy up to one rai of land for residential purposes; and restoring the rights of Thai women married to foreigners to own land, in line with their constitutional rights. These amendments have apparently not caused any ill effects to the country. So why not dip the toes a bit further into the water? Politically palatable suggestions would include: allowing 99-year leases on all types of land; allowing foreigners approved by the Interior Ministry for certificates of residence to own residential land; and perhaps expanding and updating the Bt40-million investment category (many of the approved investments for this category, such as the "bail-out" property funds, are no longer available).

George Morgan

Bangkok

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

Thailand has been too lax in following treaty conditions

Our group has been having a discussion about the Thai-US Amity Treaty and the manner in which it isn't being followed by Thailand. A number of us have read over the paragraphs and have the same interpretation.

The treaty provides that all US citizens have all the rights and privileges of a Thai citizen. Therefore, US citizens are not required visas, passports or immigration checks and can remain in Thailand indefinitely, without any extra requirements.

However, any American who has visited here knows that the Thais follow strict rules in regard to the US, and those rules clearly violate the terms of the Amity Treaty.

There are even Americans in prison for obeying the law, while Thai police and immigration are not prosecuted for violating the treaty.

Michael Weldon

Udon Thani

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

Up to courts to decide sentence appropriateness

Re: "Let Panya's punishment be tailored to help alleviate crisis", Letters, June 3.

Burin Kantabutra's suggestion of an alternative punishment of sentence suspension or community service instead of the Criminal Court's three-year jail term for the ex-chairman of the State Audit Council is somewhat daring. The matter is sub judice, since the ex-chairman is now out on bail and the case likely subject to consideration by the Appeal Court and also finally the Supreme Court in determining the guilt of the man and appropriateness of the jail sentence.

From this judgement, it was made clear that the eight governors of the Audit Council had to vote on the applicants for the position of auditor-general, and the council's chairman had to submit only one name, that with the highest number of votes, to the Senate for final approval. It was tantamount to malfeasance for the names of all the candidates, including the one with no votes, to be submitted to the Senate for selection. After considering all the legal evidence, the court viewed the chairman's act of submitting the three names to have been beyond his legal power. The consequence of his act was more than a year of dispute while the country went without an auditor-general.

The selection of auditor-general is dissimilar to the election of members of Parliament. Legal power rests with the council's governors, who democratically select one of the applicants to be auditor-general. Henry Kissinger's dictum, "There are times when national interest is more important than the law," has no relevance here and is also somewhat threatening when anyone can claim national interest for committing an illegal act, such as wiretapping. Also, to say the former chairman is a hero similar to the legendary Phanthai Norasingh is beyond my understanding. On the contrary, as an example to others, Phanthai, the chieftain of the royal barge, insisted on his beheading because of the law at the time requiring those responsible for the sinking of the royal barge to be put to death. The legend was to respect the law beyond any extraneous circumstances, which is directly opposite the opinion of exceptions to the law.

Songdej Praditsmanont

Bangkok

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

Apprehended murder suspect did not work for UNHCR

Re: "Jealous killer held", News, June 4.

According to this story, a murder in Tak was committed by a member of the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) staff in that province. I would like to inform you the person in question, Maung Tan Maung, is not and has never been employed by UNHCR in any capacity - paid or unpaid. We have not been able to identify the source of the misinformation, but we have been told variously that the information came from the police and from the reporter.

As the erroneous report can damage the reputation of the UNHCR, as well as impact the UNHCR's important responsibilities in the border region, we would appreciate it if you would print a correction as soon as possible, making it clear there was no involvement of UNHCR staff in this case.

Elizabeth Kirton

UNHCR field-office head

Tak

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

Refugees have been chased to our border by Burmese army

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has been informed by sources in Thailand that more than 800 persons fleeing Burmese army troops who were destroying villages have been refused entry into Thailand and are currently living in temporary shelters within a few miles of a Burmese army camp. There are also unconfirmed reports that aid groups in Thailand have been unable to reach the group. There are grave fears for their safety, and urgent action is needed by the government of Thailand to allow them access.

According to the information received so far, the people are from villages across northern Karen State, where the Burmese army is reported to have been systematically destroying villages and food stocks since the second half of April, in an attempt to force the population into areas under government control. Many persons are hiding in the mountains, while others have come to the border with Thailand. The affected areas include Taunggoo, Nyaunglebin, Thaton and Papun districts. In recent months, at least 150 houses and 40 rice barns in 23 villages are reported to have been destroyed.

The more than 800 persons are located at a site called Ee Thu Htah, opposite the Mae Ramat refugee camp in northwestern Thailand. They have been arriving at the site in small groups. The Thai army and other authorities situated in the area have reportedly allowed some 1,000 other persons into the refugee camp but refused to allow more than that. It is also reported that groups conducting cross-border relief efforts for internally displaced people have in recent days been unable to reach Ee Thu Htah.

The group of refugees, which reportedly consists largely of women, children and the elderly, is located less than five miles from the nearest Burmese army encampment, and there are very grave fears for their safety. There are two encampments in the vicinity. The people's situation is anyway very precarious, because they lack food, medicines and housing, and it is raining.

The AHRC is at present attempting to obtain further information on this situation.

Asian Human Rights Commission

Hong Kong

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