I thank the writer for reading my letter ("Malaise in Thai Buddhism does not mean religion should be abandoned", July 16) and taking the time and trouble to comment, which is more than most people would do. But he should have read it much more carefully.

He misses the point of my letter entirely when he says that Banjapat La-orkhun ("Being considerate should be the goal, regardless of religion", Letters, July 12) should "be true to himself and not let others dictate to his conscience".

Banjapat following his own conscience is not an issue here.

I certainly have no problem if that is all there is to it. Indeed, if Banjapat had said he was not a Buddhist because he did not believe in the Buddha's teachings (as opposed to his being "disillusioned with the state of Buddhism in Thailand"), I would not have found it necessary to write my letter.

Neither is the point that one need not be religious to be a good, responsible or decent person an issue. In fact, I stated this explicitly in my letter.

Trirat Petchsingh accuses me (and others) of trying to dictate to Banjapat what he should believe. But in the last sentence of his own letter, Trirat could not resist telling Banjapat what to do. Ironic, isn't it?

Besides, Trirat's golden rule ("treat others as you would like others to treat you") does not always work. What if a boy loves a girl who, however, does not fancy him in return? A not uncommon situation. Does he kiss her simply because he wants her to kiss him back?

The writer also says, "If visitors travel thousands of miles to learn about Buddhism and this ('to do good, to avoid evil, to purify the mind, this is the teaching of the Buddha') is all they are told, they might just as well have stayed home. Their grandmothers could've told them the same thing." Again, Trirat seems to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

First, the conversation between the Belgian lady and the novice comprised more than I did or could reproduce in the letter. The question she posed about the gist of Buddhism came only at the tail end of that conversation.

Second, as I stated in my letter, the lady wanted a very simple answer for her young daughter's benefit (and not a commentary on the Tripitaka).

Third, maybe Trirat's grandmothers could have taught him the same thing, but the Belgian lady's grandmothers certainly could not - for obvious reasons.

Finally, the quotation from the Dhammapada that the novice uttered is generally accepted as the simplest yet most comprehensive statement of what Buddhism is all about, shorn of all philosophical and cultural issues. But, of course, what can be gathered from it depends on the individual person hearing it.

The Belgian lady and her young daughter certainly appreciated it, even if Trirat does not.

Beng Low

Chiang Mai

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

Jail inmates should not be allowed special treatment

Re: "Jailed trio's transfer bid denied", News, July 28.

"Still no bail, but guilty three allowed better quarters, TV and mobile phones."

Even the jail applies double standard for the three election commissioners! The above sentence says it all about us, the Thai people. I guess we are used to it, and it has become normal in our society.

Is this the norm we Thais are setting as an example for our future generations? Sorry, I can't help but think so.

Oh! Suthep Thaugsuban, don't forget to send some Thai coffee to the three election commissioners in jail like you promised.

Chuwit Kamolvisit has already done his good deed by delivering fried rice and Thai coffee to the jail himself.

For once in my life, would that I could witness the law standing against the untouchables! We have to depend on the judiciary as our last resort (hope). For those influential figures (dark or light) especially who say they didn't do anything wrong: we follow the rule of law.

The election commissioners were proved dead wrong, and they are paying a hefty price for their stubbornness. That is the law of karma.

Surasak Piputtana

Bangkok

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

Postal service's home-delivery standards could be improved

Re: "Thai postal workers are courteous and efficient", Letters, July 25.

I would like to add two observations concerning the delivery practices of the Royal Thai postal system. It seems that the mail distributed in Bang Lamung district of Chon Buri is held there until enough of it amasses to make a trip worthwhile. I can sit in front of my house and watch the deliveryman stop at one-third to one-half of the houses in my small development.

Surely, all of the mail addressed to our area does not arrive on the same day. Perhaps it is a petrol-saving plan.

Second, when the mailman does come, which is about once per week, he seems to be in such a hurry that he rarely uses the mailboxes. Every house has one, but 90 per cent of the time he simply shoves the mail into the gate and drives on. This leaves the items subject to wind and rain.

Are there no standards? I'm guessing that 10 per cent of the time when the mail ends up in the mailbox, the delivery is not made by the regularly assigned carrier.

Grandpa

Chon Buri

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

Not opposing Surakiart's UN bid is like supporting Burma

For more than a year, the White House has criticised Asean nations for their failure to press the Burmese junta into turning the government over to democracy forces.

By refusing to declare its opposition to the candidacy of the junta's foremost stooge, Thai Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai, for United Nations secretary-general, the White House has abetted Asean's support of the Burmese junta and also the junta's continued opposition to democracy forces in Burma.

It has also encouraged Asean support for Surakiart.

A week or so ago, the White House declared it favoured the Indian candidate for the UN post. But more recently, the White House declared it was uncertain whether or not to support Surakiart.

Publicly admonishing Asean for its intransigence or complicity with the Burmese junta is the only possible and proper response. It is pointless to criticise Asean for its misconduct while aiding and abetting it at the same time.

Edward Kaddie

Bangkok

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

No need to feel guilty if one cares about canine friends

Re: "No need to choose between soi dogs or 'stray' people", Letters, July 20.

First of all, I completely agree with Amreen Choudhury.

Anyone has the right to do good deeds in any way she or he sees fit. No one can force another person to use her or his money for one good deed over another. Further, dogs remember what you did for them and are far more grateful and make better friends than people ever could. The whole issue is one created by people.

If people would really start to care and take more responsibility, then it would never be the problem that some perceive it to be.

Of course, there are more solutions, but they will not be sustainable if the core issue is not tackled. It is all about attitude. People rather prefer not to see "it" as their - or better, "our" - communal problem, but rather someone else's. Only when "we" win is it ours, but when we perceive it as negative, then it is "their" problem.

Come on, that's the easy way out.

Bangkok is an overpopulated city where people don't seem to care about their environment. The traditional way of living, in which everyone is involved, does not exist in urban areas.

This is unfortunate, but it is a people's problem, not a dog's.

Martin

Vientiane

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

New Israeli conflict is a proxy war between US and Iran

The current conflict between Hezbollah and the Israelis has its origins in US policy towards Iran. The Iranian regime has been developing its nuclear programme as a defensive measure against US demands that democracy sweep over the Middle East. Fearful of this, Tehran has also been building unholy alliances with both the Syrians in Damascus and Hezbollah.

The US never gives up opposing foes that run counter to its own political philosophies, except when it is financially viable to do so, as in the case of China and Vietnam.

This is a war of two ideologies: the US and Iran. Hezbollah, Israel, Syria and a couple of others are merely pawns in this international chess game. For once, Russia and China see no gain in getting involved.

The murder of four UN peacekeeping soldiers in Lebanon was almost certainly the result of the US CIA giving the Israelis a fix from their spy satellites. Perhaps the Israelis were unwittingly persuaded that the target was Hezbollah. The CIA has a long history of maverick, unsanctioned operations and wants the UN clearly out of the way, to hasten the demise of Hezbollah.

Key also to the conflict is the UK policy of supporting the US in every event. High time the UK realised its responsibility to the European Union, which is striving to bring stability to an increasingly dangerous world.

And the cost of ending the war? It's as simple as a normalisation of relations between Washington and Tehran. There is a will to end the suffering, isn't there?

David Prescott

UK