Suthichai Yoon's earnest question has a simple answer: educating Thailand is simply not in the interest of Thailand's elite. Keeping people ignorant, confused and distracted by irrelevant entertainment is a tried and true way of holding onto power. Lao-tzu called it "minds empty and bellies full". The ancient Roman version was "bread and circuses".

The Thai Rak Thai Party understands all too well that the more educated people are, the more they understand that Thaksin's simplistic policy of throwing money at any problem is a recipe for disaster - even if the candy tastes good right now. The anti-Thaksin camp is little different. Instead of focusing on the very serious problems with Thai Rak Thai's policies, they latch onto highly emotional "issues", often with scant evidence, in order to get people excited.

Who is interested in educating people? Nobody. That would mean being accountable and making sense, two concepts that strike fear into the hearts of Thailand's elite. Mega-projects, on the other hand, provide ample room for shuffling money around to holding companies and armies of consultants through complex financial arrangements that are the modern equivalent of money-filled envelopes being passed under the table - only with slick international investment bankers and their local front-men making sure everything is within the letter of the law.

Mega-project priority for education? That would mean empowering common Thai people, and we can't have that.

HP Boothe

Bangkok

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

All religions should show sensitivity to other faiths

Re: "Time to address 'Buddhist chauvinism'," Opinion, June 4.

Pavin Chachavalpongpun makes a valid point that in a multireligious, multicultural society, the majority needs to be sensitive to the needs of the minority, to achieve harmony and avoid strife. Strength in numbers is really not the point.

Nevertheless, the writer weakens his case by making sweeping statements, using emotive language, exaggerating and tilting exclusively to one side. In the process, he risks being labelled insensitive himself.

He laments, "Thais perceive Buddhism as the answer to all questions", and, "When threatened by other faiths, the Thais quickly claim their Buddhist supremacy against what is seen as an alien belief."Don't Christians, Muslims and others also regard their religions as the answers to all questions? Don't they also claim their religions to be superior to those of others?

Indeed, does not the Bible claim not only superiority, but also a monopoly on truth? Otherwise, why do so many Christians try to convert other people at every opportunity, as if what others believe doesn't matter? As former US President Bill Clinton reportedly said, "It is okay to say you believe your religion is true, even truer than other faiths, but not that you are in possession in this life of 100 per cent of the truth."

The writer then says, "It is doubtful whether most Thai Buddhists truly comprehend the content of Christianity or Islam." How many Christians, for that matter, know what Buddhism is about?

The writer describes the Thai government's proposal to spend profits from the national lottery on development projects in the Muslim South as insensitive. Of course it is. But can we honestly say the record of the US government's actions in Iraq, led by a very Christian President George W Bush (whose policies are largely dictated by his faith) are any better?

The writer asks us to "imagine" the horrors that would supposedly be committed by Buddhists if a fictional thriller were written about Buddhism. There is already at least one such novel. "The Buddha of Brewer Street" is a fictional account of the death of the present (very much alive and revered) Dalai Lama. Yet, there were no death threats, no pillory. If Pavin has not heard of the book, it's probably because his attention was not drawn to it by loud protests. The Bamiyan Buddhas were destroyed in Afghanistan and several Buddhist monks killed in southern Thailand, yet Buddhists have not responded in kind.

All this is not to excuse insensitivity just because it comes from Buddhists, only to set the proper context. Insensitivity is wrong, whether it originates from Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims or Christians.

What the writer fails to point out is that promoting understanding and respect is a gradual and difficult two-way process. As the great conductor and pianist Daniel Baremboim, who founded an orchestra in which both Israelis and Palestinians could make music together, recently put it, reconciliation requires "sensitive speaking and painful listening".

Beng Low

Chiang Mai

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

EC chief should know that no one is indispensable

 Re: "Vasana staying 'for good of country'," News, June 5. No politician will say that what he or she is doing is motivated by a desire to benefit themselves. Election Commission chief Vasana Puemlarp is sticking to the job for the sake of the country? Unfortunately, the three highest courts have ruled that the April 2 election caused damage to our democracy and that undue delay in his and his fellow election commissioners' resignations would inflict greater damage.

Some people nowadays like to regard certain individuals as "indispensable". They say our country will not survive without Thaksin Shinawatra, for example. And now it turns out another man, named Vasana, is indispensable! What will we do when one day these great, indispensable men die? (No one is immortal.) This country would go to the dogs if we had to depend on only one or two men. Even without Thaksin and Vasana, our nation will never die but go on and on. The late US President Richard Nixon's resignation did not stop the United States from going on, did it?

Vasana has worked hard and honestly throughout his career and made great contributions. But in a democratic society, meritorious service to the country and the people cannot in any way make one immune from being held accountable for wrongdoing and punished. In the eyes of the law, shedding (crocodile) tears and eulogising yourself makes no sense, Vasana.

Bunphan

Bangkok

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

'Jump-start' to economy is only for TRT's benefit

 Re: "Thaksin looks to shore up support," News, June 4. The caretaker government's initiatives to jump-start the economy are really troubling, especially if the ultimate purpose is to shore up the popularity of the Thai Rak Thai Party and its leader, Thaksin Shinawatra. It simply does not make sense to waste a few more trillion baht of taxpayers' money just to Thai Rak Thai the upper hand in the next election.

In the first place, the Thai economy has sunk so low that any jump-start is bound to fail. Most economic experts have concluded it is beyond resuscitation. They generally agree the best Thailand can do is prevent a recurrence of the 1997 economic meltdown and that this in itself will require a great deal of commitment, not only from the caretaker government, but also from all of us. If we fail this time, the disaster that lurks ahead promises to be much more severe than the previous one.

We need to tackle the problem head on. We must, first and foremost, abandon the populist policies that have emptied the state's coffers for no particularly good reason except to maintain the Thai Rak Thai leader's image as champion of the poor. Of course, those policy components that are essential to the four basic human needs (foods, lodging, clothing and medicine) must remain in place. But the others, which tend to mire people in deep debt, must be discarded forthwith.

One of the most dreadful spectres to visit this nation is the temptation to bring in foreign capital to invest in the mega-projects that have become the trademark of the present administration. Even if the investment could be secured, it would not guarantee that Thailand would escape from the down cycle of the economic equation. At best, this endeavour would be a temporary solution; at worst, putting strategic infrastructure development in foreign or private hands would be tantamount to surrendering our sovereignty, which we could ill afford.

We do not have to look far for examples. The privatisation of PTT, when scrutinised closely, benefited only a very few groups of people, not the whole nation as might have been expected. The rise in the cost of fuel and other energy sources looks to be manufactured and contrived. It has been suggested that the staggering profits PTT was able to make last year should be used to reduce or compensate for the rise of the world's oil prices instead of becoming attractive dividends for shareholders.

Be that as it may, however, what confronts Thaksin and his Thai Rak Thai in a most serious way is his inability to bring the good life to all Thais, regardless of whether they are Thai Rak Thai Party members or not. He must admit that both his political and economic policies do not work. As national leader, Thaksin cannot shirk the responsibility of making Thailand a unified nation. In the last five years of his pre-eminence, we have seen nothing but a nation sharply divided along ideological lines. This has greatly damaged Thailand's credibility when seen from the outside and, if left unattended, will soon tear asunder the fabric of Thai society.

In any case, I don't think that the measures launched by the caretaker government last week will work.

Prachyadavi Tavedikul

Bangkok

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

Making foreigners leave every 90 days is a pain

Why on Earth does the Thai government still insist on foreigners leaving the country every 90 days unless they have a retirement or work visa? It doesn't benefit Thailand. In fact, it creates more work and is environmentally unfriendly.

The visa may be a non-immigrant one-year one, but every 90 days the poor farang has to cross a border or fly out of Thailand. Both are costly. Bordering countries charge visa entrance fees, and airfares are prohibitive.

What is so absurd is that on return to Thailand, the passport gets stamped with another 90-day stamp for no charge.

I can understand the authorities wanting to keep an eye on non-immigrants, but it would be more sensible to have foreigners get a 90-day stamp at any Thai immigration office upon production of their passport and visa and a bank-book showing sufficient funds to stay in the country. They could even charge a small administrative fee, which would still be cheaper for the farang than having to leave the country and return.

Thailand needs tourists, and many foreigners like to stay here for varying lengths of time. Why on Earth don't the authorities sit around a table with officers of the Expats Clubs of Thailand and thrash out a mutually agreeable arrangement?

Giles Wynne

Nakhon Ratchasima