* They didn't cause any bloodshed. The Burmese military wantonly gunned down thousands of unarmed protesters throughout the country when they staged the coup in 1988.

*The Thai military has a timetable to draw up a constitution within one year and they promised they would not be involved in politics. The Burmese junta has been drawing up a constitution for 14 years. When will they finish is anybody's guess.

*The Thai military faded to the background within two weeks after finding the interim prime minister. The Burmese junta chief Than Shwe is taking off his uniform to become the president of democratic Burma.

*The Thai military has professional soldiers. The Burmese generals never think about the country. They only think about their power and would do anything to keep it so that they and their cohorts will be able to rule the country with guns for generations. They want to copy the Suharto system.

Meanwhile, Singapore is not semi-democratic. It is autocratic. The ruling party has everything in hand: legislative, administrative and judicial power all at its disposal. We can't say it is even a 1 per cent democracy. The courts bankrupt and/or jail anyone who criticises the government.

Even the foreign media are being harassed. The current prime minister got his post because of his father. He is shameless to say that Thailand's coup was a step back from democracy. He lectures other countries about their systems without looking at himself and Singapore.

I think ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra tried to copy Singapore's system by his shrewd marketing strategy and his immense wealth. He wanted to own a party to control Parliament and follow Singapore's way. Perhaps Thaksin chose Singapore as his buyer out of inspiration.

A Burmese expat

Bangkok

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

Time to guarantee the rights of the country's minorities

With so much misguided talk about democracy lately, it's important to point out that votes are hardly the whole of the matter.

Human rights, justice, checks and balances, law and a degree of order are essential components sometimes missing from what is occasionally, but inappropriately, referred to as democracy.

The United States is now democratic only through euphemism - checks and balances, law, human rights and even the vote have been undermined. Yet the US, would dare to preach democracy. As Thaksin Shinawatra did.

Now is the time to show who really has cultural values. And human rights is the place to start.

Assets have not been seized, nor have big-wigs been jailed since the coup (to my knowledge). This may be the Thai way - reverence for the well-born. But now is certainly the time to extend to Yawi-speakers in the South and tribes in the North the rights that Thailand is legally bound to offer.

At the high-school here in the North where I once taught, Thaksin promised citizenship, soon, for people here. Maybe he did that for the wrong reasons, but still, it remains the right thing to do.

It's not just the powers of the "free" world who are watching. So are the peasants. It would be quite a shame if our old CEO (of Thaksin Loves Thaksin Corp) remained a hero of the people (not unlike Stalin and Mao, unfortunately).

To me, and many others, the coup was a great relief. There remains legitimate concern, though, that it might prove primarily of benefit to the Bangkok elite as usual.

Joel J Barlow

Chiang Rai

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

S'pore sees itself reflected in the events leading to the coup

It's hardly surprising that Lee Hsien Loong thinks Thailand's coup was a setback for democracy. It goes deeper than the financial difficulties Temasek suffered from the Shin Corp deal.

The real problem is that the change in Thailand exposes the same charade of a democracy that prevails now in present-day Singapore. It has laid bare the authoritarian rule behind the sanitised mask of democratic trappings.

The sinking of Thai Rak Thai, a well-known clone of the PAP, must have seemed less of a setback than a jolt to Singapore's ideas about governance.

Nicha Natesakul

Bangkok

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

The sufficiency economy will still need foreign funds

Re: "Sufficiency economy is more effective than investment at ensuring happiness", Letters, October 8.

In his letter Dr John Symons criticised my proposal to rationalise Thailand's anachronistic foreign investment laws as somehow taking an American fiscal perception of the world and wishing to perpetuate the legacy of the Thaksin government in prioritising short-term material gains above all else. I think this represents a complete distortion of my message and, at any rate, Dr Symons failed to come up with any alternative suggestion as to how foreign direct investment should be handled, given the current crisis over investment structures.

Contrary to Dr Symons' view, recognising the importance of foreign direct investment and competitiveness to developing economies, as highlighted in my letter of October 7 [Re: "Thailand urgently needs reform of its laws on foreign business"], is in no way at variance with the sufficiency economy approach espoused by MR Pridyathorn Devakula. The central bank governor is clearly not advocating that Thailand turn its back on foreign investors or international trade. As an example, he is proposing that the government should expand the Bangkok subway system more cautiously, focusing for now on the line that will attract the most riders so that the economy and the people can derive maximum benefit from available resources without taking on massive external debt, as implied by the previous government's plans. Pridyathorn is not, however, proposing that the subway should be built without any foreign participation, using only Thai expertise and equipment. Without foreign participation or foreign reserves as a result of surpluses generated from the current and capital accounts (ie trade and investment) it would be impossible to build a subway or any other large development project.

Self sufficiency means "living within your means" and efficient management of resources is key to doing this successfully. As previously stated, foreign direct investment is a very important economic resource due to the innovations and efficiencies it can bring, while at the same time freeing up domestic resources by avoiding a "crowding out effect" on the local monetary system.

This is not to say that foreign investors should be allowed to do as they please without regard for social, environmental or other national priorities. However, there is no evidence to suggest that obligatory joint venture partners are an effective means of regulating foreign direct investment in the best interests of the host country. The government itself needs to regulate both domestic and foreign investment to this end.

Whether rightly or wrongly there is now a crisis over foreign ownership structures because nominee structures adopted by foreign multinationals on advice from leading Thai law firms that went unchallenged for decades have suddenly come under scrutiny due to the Shin Corp deal. The sensible thing to do is to rationalise foreign investment laws and allow 100-per-cent foreign ownership of companies in non-strategic sectors, while strictly prohibiting the use of nominee structures in strategic sectors.

George Morgan

Bangkok

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

The civil service is glad to be rid of Thaksin

I think a lot of foreigners have no idea of what's been going on in Thailand. I'm no supporter of Sonthi Limthongkul, but I disliked Thaksin even more. As I'm in the government, I can tell you that for many of us, these past few years felt like a "reign of terror" - that's the description from a top civil servant. You couldn't say anything against Thai Rak Thai's policies. You had to serve their populist, propagandistic, nepotistic policies and could not ask whether these policies were good for Thailand or not. They never listened.

Politicians were gaining control deeper and deeper into our ranks. Corruption was hidden by dividing transactions into smaller amounts so as not to attract public attention. I'm not proud of the conduct of complicit officials. There's simply no excuse for why we never really stood up to the so-called democratically elected Thaksin administration. But the majority of us in many ministries tried our best to serve the country and His Majesty the King even though we're not in the highest echelons. I'm not sorry the military came. I'm glad the previous administration has gone. I'm a real Thai person. You can keep the ever-so-idealistic democracy to yourself for now. This is our house and it's our task to clean it up.

A Thai reader

Bangkok