It seems that Amreen Choudhury lacks a sense of humour when it comes to dogs. I guess that is okay, but he obviously misread the intent of my letter.

A major campaign to protect dogs would parallel what happened in the United States some years ago. As the government seemed impotent in its attempts to control the hard-drug problem, it went after smokers in frustration. After 10 years or so of unrelenting pressure on smokers, they were able to stand back and ask themselves what they had accomplished - very little as it related to the problem of people on hard drugs.

I would suggest to you that until the day we have solved the problem of stray humans in our society - the drug addicts, the insane walking the streets, the children and women trafficked into slavery, etc - it would seem that a programme for dogs would be premature.

You might also consider that although dogs do not reason as we do, they suffer from the same luck of the draw as everyone.

One can be born as a poodle and end up in someone's arms making the rounds of the malls, or one can be born a soi dog. What do you say we solve the problems of our own species first before we concern ourselves with others? If we could round up all of the people working full-time to protect dogs, chickens, whales, penguins, trees, bushes and spotted owls and put them to work helping humans, we might make a dent in the problems. Evidently Bill Gates and Angelina Jolie figured that out and are doing something about it, but others in our society just don't seem to get the picture.

So what it gets down to is if you really want to help stray dogs, then put your money where your mouth is and go out and feed them on a regular basis and take those you find ill to a vet, rather than trying to enlist the aid of others so you can be the chairman of some committee to protect animals. Who knows? If you set a good-enough example, others may join your cause in their neighbourhoods. That is how it is done. Not by writing letters to The Nation.

John Arnone

Yasothon

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

Why doesn't TRT just pick a new leader and move on?

As usual, your recent editions make fascinating reading, particularly in regard to the very depressing Thai political scene. It is clear a growing number of people would like to see the back of Thaksin as prime minister.

However, the likelihood of this happening of his own volition appears remote.

One reason seems obvious now, as one reads of the pending fate of the former prime minister of Italy, who is to face tax and fraud charges.

Reading that must have sent a shiver down Thaksin's spine, since he might conceivably suffer a similar fate were he to leave office.

Many of us, given a similar situation, would probably want to cling to office, too.

Furthermore, although there are large numbers of people desperate to see him go, there probably remains an even larger number who would happily vote for him, given the chance.

His bizarre behaviour doesn't seem to have put them off in the slightest.

One has to feel a certain slight sympathy for the man, because of the appalling level of stress he has been under for the past few months. Surely it is this stress, coupled with the possibility of losing everything, that has caused him to behave in such an erratic, clinging fashion.

The matter of the letter apparently sent to President George W Bush, would seem a perfect example of this, although we don't yet seem to know exactly what was in it.

What we do know however, is that the diplomatic corps in Bangkok exists partly to take the pulse of the nation and report its condition back to their respective governments.

It scarcely takes a prime-ministerial letter to explain the situation.

As for the weekly radio broadcasts, in which the prime minister presents only his own case without balance, how is it the opposition party doesn't have a similar programme for purposes of rebuttal? Or is there some repressive law that prevents them from broadcasting?

Incidentally, it is to be hoped that the premier will use his programme to urge his supporters to keep the peace and not break the law.

What remains particularly odd, however, is the way in which leading members of Thai Rak Thai, who are, of course, now caretaker government ministers, seem to rally round Thaksin as if he were the only possible prime minister.

Are they in fear of him?

Have they no ambition?

Do they really see Thaksin, despite his idiosyncrasies and autocratic style of rule under which they too must surely have suffered, as the only person capable of engineering Thai Rak Thai's return to power? Surely not!

Thailand, happily, is a democracy.

Long may it stay that way, since despite the autocratic form of government it has endured over the past five years, most thinking people want it to stay that way.

Long live democracy!

Henry Ashe

Bangkok

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

PM has done little to show a clear desire to solve crisis

Re: "'Bid to oust Thaksin not democratic'," News, July 10.

Thai Rak Thai Party spokesperson Sita Divari was calling for reconciliation over the present political crisis in Thailand.

That is a laudable call; unfortunately, it is going in the wrong direction.

The People's Alliance for Democracy, the Democrat Party and other civil protest groups did tone down their criticism in the wake of His Majesty the King's speech on April 2 as well as shortly thereafter.

For their part, Thai Rak Thai allowed Thaksin to have a few weeks' holiday, but then it was back to "normal".

There has been no sign of Thaksin or Thai Rak Thai offering any sort of reconciliation.

They are carrying on in their aggressive, undemocratic manner that brought about the current political situation in the first place.

A first step in reconciliation would be for Thai Rak Thai to replace Thaksin as party leader and caretaker prime minister.

That would show good faith in wanting to end the crisis on the part of Thai Rak Thai and be a major step to breaking the deadlock.

Gareth Clayton

Bangkok

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

Capitalism in its purest form is not a system of corruption

Re: "'The Economist' champions commerce, not democracy", Letters, July 6.

John Francis Lee confuses capitalism with social engineering, among other things. The Bush administration's attempt to remake Islamic society from the top down is an example of social engineering at the point of a sword. That's got nothing to do with capitalism, which is about letting people own what they produce and letting goods and services flow to those who request them. Ditto for political corruption and the handing out of political and economic favours in exchange for money or power. That also doesn't have anything to do with capitalism, but rather with tribalistic politics.

The US system is a mixed economic system, not a capitalist one. And the problems it has are rarely to do with capitalism per se, but with social engineering, collusion between government and corporations, and an overreaching political class that grabs for its own advantages at every opportunity. I agree Thailand should not try to emulate America - but it isn't capitalism that it should not emulate, but rather the political corruption and militarism of the politicians in power.

Linda Tsukamoto

Chiang Mai

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

Being considerate should be the goal regardless of religion

I see myself as an average Thai, who was raised a Buddhist. I was taught to know right from wrong and be moral.

But like many people of my generation (I am in my 20s), I am often disillusioned with the state of Buddhism in Thailand - so much so that I have claimed to be an agnostic.

It is easy not to believe.

If you don't believe, you don't have to care; and if you don't care, you don't have to be responsible.

And while an irresponsible life has been or seemed entertaining, something remains unsettled.

Perhaps some things are harder to denounce than others!

Recently, a very dear foreign friend was very puzzled. He told me Thais were such nice people. We smile, are gentle, cordial, and we respect our elders, generally speaking. And he attributed those positive traits to us being Buddhist. But why, he asked, do Thai drivers not stop to let pedestrians cross the road? He demanded an intelligent answer.

I couldn't give him an answer right away, and his question has been on my mind ever since. I am not an altogether irresponsible driver, but I don't solely attribute that to being an agnostic. I swerve and hit the accelerator at yellow lights and rarely stop for pedestrians.

The thought of stopping for people has never really crossed my mind. If it did, I would probably say pedestrians have bridges for crossing the road. But his question bugs me, because I can't find an intelligent answer for him.

And maybe because I haven't an intelligent reason why I don't stop, lately I have noticed myself stopping for people to cross the road. And it hasn't made my life any worse at all.

Maybe his question is the answer in itself! We have not stopped for people because we have never been asked to do so. Without an intelligent answer to contradict, it's illogical not to be nice.

In the spirit of Buddhist lent, however, I have been trying to link this agnostic answer to Buddhism. After all, Buddhism and being nice are just so close. So, I guess, I would ask people like myself who have lost faith in Buddhism: "Why not be a good and responsible person, even if you are not a Buddhist?"

Banjapat La-orkhun

Bangkok

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