I think we all know, admire and respect the genuinely superior people to whom The Nation is referring, so in that sense it's an effective word. On the other hand, when used in the discourse of modern democracy the word has negative implications such as "privileged", "wealthy", "snobbish", and even, shudder, "aristocratic". So we need a better word in these times, particularly as The Nation is read widely in the international community.

So let's start with the names of a few of those whom every Thai would immediately place in that group: Anand Panyarachun, Sathianphong Wannapok, Prawase Wasi and Prem Tinsulanonda, a businessman, a Buddhist scholar, a doctor and a soldier. Are they "privileged", then, in the elitist sense, or does their "wealth" or their family connections define and isolate them? Obviously not - they've won a place in our hearts from their years and years of hard work, and we know we can always count on them to put our interests above their own.

And most of all, and at the very top of the group, our most beloved monarch His Majesty The King - so elevated yet so humble, so powerful yet so modest, so rich not in money but in love, compassion, and the ability to help the Thai people in the most practical ways whenever they need it!

If we can't find a better English term than "elite", then we'll just have to free the word from all the qualities we do NOT associate with the figures in this group - arrogance, selfishness, cruelty, hypocrisy, disrespect and cheating,

And therein lies a huge irony. How extraordinary that we are being asked to believe that a man who so blatantly embodies in himself all the negative qualities that we do NOT associate with our "elite" is the one who is going to protect us against abuse by that "elite"! The mind boggles at it!

Lung Kip

Chiang Mai

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

PM's bid to stay in power flies in the face of 'reconciliation'

In my letter published in Thursday's The Nation ("'Reconciliation' talk is just another of the premier's tricks"), I called everybody's attention to what Thaksin would be up to at the Dhammakaya Temple rally. As was expected by many observers, Thaksin's call for national reconciliation turned out to be a call to mobilise grass-roots people for the upcoming general election.

He has resorted to the old strategy of "divide and conquer", inciting hatred and struggle between educated urban people and uneducated people living in rural areas, a tactic the late dictator Mao Zedong of China once used to suppress his critics, especially the intellectuals.

He deliberately distorted facts by saying that urban educated people look down on the poor.

The fact is that urban people do not look down the poor. They criticise Thaksin and his Thai Rak Thai Party for their handout populist policies that are designed for votes rather than for helping the poor to their feet.

Undoubtedly, his sympathy for the poor is widely felt among them. Thaksin and his party can expect another landslide victory in the new election with moral support from grass-roots people. Thaksin is playing dirty games. He is by no means playing by the rules of democracy!

Thaksin must have been very proud of himself when he touched upon the subject of sports in connection with politics.

Mind you, Thaksin, politics is politics, and sport is sport, though both have some similarities. You don't know at all the true spirit of politics and the true spirit of sports. You only want the losers in an election to unconditionally accept the unfair judgements by the Election Commission, headed by its notorious chief Vasana Puemlarp, like unfair judgements by referees in the World Cup.

Have you read in the newspaper or heard reports about the scandal involving four major Italian teams? If not, ask your aides to give you a briefing and you will know what's what. So speaking of winning and losing in the two previous elections, we must ask how the Thai Rak Thai won landslide victories in the two elections.

Is it possible for a national reconciliation? No, by no means, unless we get rid of this rogue leader!

Abee

Bangkok

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

Hezbollah and Israel should both be seen as terror entities

The Middle East crisis has been taken to new heights of fierce violence, widespread destruction and death, in the Gaza Strip, in Israel and in Lebanon.

This latest country is the unfortunate victim of a dirty war between two terrorist entities: Hezbollah and the State of Israel, which once again shows the world its superior military power in dramatic ways.

However, the international community doesn't much oppose this disproportionate Israeli war escalation, partly due to America's blind support of this madness.

When will the world political leaders start solving the main root cause of these atrocities: the unjust creation of Israel on stolen land from the Palestinian people and the immoral refusal of the Israeli government to give back part of this land for the creation of a Palestinian state?

Frederic Loyat

Bangkok

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

Iran is now being made to answer for harbouring 'thugs'

Re: "Attacks on Palestine and Lebanon belie Israel's desired image as the 'innocent side'", Letters, July 18.

What a very disappointing letter from the Iranian Ambassador - disappointing, because, like so much else emanating from his government, there are half-truths, untruths and serious omissions.

The serious omission in his letter is, of course, the fundamental fact that the war now taking place in Lebanon was actually started by Hezbollah attacking Israel across the border, killing several soldiers and abducting two others.

As the entire world knows, Hezbollah is financially supported and actively encouraged in its terrorist activities, through the supply of arms, by Syria and Iran.

The leaders of both these countries are intent on causing as much trouble in the region as they possibly can and are only too willing to use other organisations (such as Hezbollah), to further their aims rather than to actively participate themselves. Far too dangerous! It is for this reason that the thugs in control in both Teheran and Damascus are simply not believed by the rest of the world. The perfect Iranian example is the difficulty experienced over the issue of uranium enrichment.

Who can believe Iran in its claims that its enrichment programme is carried out for peaceful purposes when one reads the vitriol in the Ambassador's letter against Israel?

Who can doubt the eventual intention of his country's government?

And should he, perchance, feel hard done by over the description of his country's leaders as thugs, one reminds him of the female Canadian journalist of Iranian extraction, who, not so long ago, was arrested by the Iranian authorities, imprisoned, beaten, raped and eventually killed.

 As to Israel's appalling reaction in both Lebanon and the Gaza strip, it takes a very stupid person indeed to prod a hornet's nest. The response will be out of all proportion to the offence. This, of course, is precisely the kind of stupidity Hezbollah and Hamas showed when they prodded Israel by abducting their soldiers and killing others. Without doubt, Israel is a hornet's nest that the intelligent person would leave well alone.

What is even worse, is that they appear to have carried out their folly with, at the very least, the tacit encouragement of Iran and Syria, both of which are countries under the control of Islamic extremists.

Their real victims are the Palestinians and the entire Lebanese nation.

The Syrians and the Iranians, through their support of Hamas and Hezbollah, have a great deal to answer for and a great deal of responsibility. It is a pity that they will, as usual, be able to escape Israel's wrath.

Henry Ashe

Bangkok

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

One need not be religious to appreciate common decency

Re: "Being considerate should be the goal regardless of religion", Letters, July 12.

Readers have reminded Banjapat La-orkhun not to allow the sad state of Thai Buddhism to cause him to abandon his religion. But no one's advised him to stick to his new-found belief in agnosticism; I hope he will be true to himself and not let others dictate to his conscience.

He is being irrational, though, when he says: "I see myself as an average Thai, who was raised a Buddhist. I was taught to know right from wrong and be moral."

Becoming an agnostic doesn't erase socially desirable traits. Consideration and good morals are common to all human societies, and predate the rise of religious beliefs.

Hence I'm bemused to read that Beng Low ("Malaise in Thai Buddhism does not mean religion should be abandoned", Letters, July 16) nods approvingly when a Buddhist novice tells foreign visitors that the essence of Buddhism is: "To do good, to avoid evil, to purify the mind, this is the teaching of the Buddha."

If visitors travel thousands of miles to learn about Buddhism and this is all they are told, they might just as well have stayed home. Their grandmothers could've told them the same thing.

Banjapat should have known, even before becoming an agnostic, that stopping for pedestrians is good, and not stopping is bad, since it's the considerate thing to do (even if he didn't know the traffic rules).

If you don't stop for pedestrians, sooner or later your luck will run out and you'll end up in jail.

But he appears not to know why most Thais (according to him) don't stop in such a situation and, when questioned, took several days to think of an intelligent answer.

I commend a simple rule to live by: "Treat others as you would like others to treat you." Follow this rule and you will do the right thing.

Trirat Petchsingh

Bangkok