They should listen to we the people in doing their work and helping the country out of its mess. As His Majesty the King wisely said, "do not let hubris mislead you to thinking you or your knowledge are superior to others ... (in helping others), it is ... necessary for us, in each instance, to create an understanding with the people whom we are about to help, so they realise what situation they are in, and what they realistically need in terms of support."

Our 1997 charter was highly praised, in large part because it was written after extensive consultations with we the people, following the spirit of His Majesty the King's sage advice. We should build on it, rather than start from square one. Thus, drafters should hold widespread and numerous dialogues, much like what their predecessors did in 1997, both to find out what we need that was not fulfilled by the earlier charter and to educate us on what is possible. This government took power to restore "government of the people, by the people and for the people" to us. They, of all people, should be heartily in favour of political participation by the governed.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

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

Eagerly awaiting the former PM's next asset report

According to Klanarong Chantik of the new NCCC, Thaksin can submit a declaration of assets by October 18, since he was removed from office on September 19. Legally, cabinet officers must submit declarations when they leave office. Failure to submit a declaration will trigger a ban from political office for five years.

This will be Episode III of Thaksin's assets declaration. As you may recall, Episode I was an "honest mistake" involving maids and drivers. Episode II was when he transferred Ample Rich shares to his children while maintaining de facto control, in violation of Article 209 of the 1997 Constitution. In Episode III, Thaksin may have to engage a novelist to draft the report.

He probably doesn't want to list his true assets because they are probably worth 10 times more than they were in his last declaration. To escape from filing another false declaration, his new tax lawyer may say that Thaksin is exempted from declaring his assets because his removal was unlawful.

If the rule of law prevailed in Thailand, Thaksin would not have survived Episode I. He should not have been allowed to serve as prime minister. As you may recall, the Constitution Court, in an eight-to-seven decision, ignored its own precedent and acquitted Thaksin. The same court also refused to consider Episode II. At the end of the day, it should not be only Thaksin who has to face judgement day.

Netirat Intira

Bangkok

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

Thaksinomics seems to have had little affect on wages

When Thaksin came to power, my Thai partner was earning Bt5,000 a month working in a restaurant in Bangkok. She recently went back to work and after six years of Thaksinomics her salary is still Bt5,000 a month.

So no increases in wages for ordinary Thai, just higher prices to deal with. So it is laughable whenever people say that Thaksin helped the poor.

With three school-age kids, Bt5,000 a month is hardly a living wage. No wonder the Thais are so angry over Thaksin's tax-avoiding arrogance.

R Davidson

Bangkok

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

Sufficiency economy deserves a place in public debate

Re: "The sufficiency economy will still need foreign funds", Letters, October 9.

I see that Morgan has replied to my response [Re: "Sufficiency economy is more effective than investment at ensuring happiness", October 8] to his letter, but adds little of consequence to his original letter, which was simply an impassioned plea for the changing of the foreign ownership laws because of a "crisis".

The "crisis", as he chooses to label it, stems simply from non-compliance with Thai law by many companies that are now operating, it would seem, illegally in the Kingdom. The law is quite clear in both spirit and intent. Indeed, section five of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs business handbook makes the regulations abundantly clear as to permissible ownership structures. If companies choose, as Morgan asserts, "nominee structures on advice from leading Thai law firms that went unchallenged for decades", then they have failed to exercise proper due diligence and now may well have to pay the price for breaking the law.

But it is heartening to see that interest in His Majesty the King's concept of a sufficiency economy is gaining attention from commentators and becoming a point of increased public debate. Indeed in the most recent "Watchdog" column, Nophakhun Limsamarnphun addresses the matter and makes many apposite points ["It's time to drop those preconceptions about a sufficiency economy", Opinion, October 8].

The policy has, until now, been languishing, in the Ninth National Economic and Social Development Plan (2002-2006). Perhaps that document will be examined more closely now and actually put into practice.

But others who care for the Kingdom have been advocating His Majesty's policy for some time. It is not surprising that HE General Prem Tinsulanonda described the sufficiency economy in a keynote speech to the Leadership Forum 2001 in Bangkok. He said, "the sufficiency economy' is an enlightened way forward, as a feasible approach to achieving the common objective of a stable, equitable and durable development for all the people and communities in our land. As you are aware, sufficiency economy is a philosophy, graciously bestowed on us by our beloved monarch, His Majesty the King".

I would recommend your readers to read the transcript of this excellent speech as it is as meaningful and insightful now as it was then; in truth probably more so now.

Dr John Symons

Bangkok

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

There is enough negative foreign influence here

Re: "The sufficiency economy will still need foreign funds", Letters, October 9.

Dr Symons pretty much said it like it is. He is talking about life and Morgan is talking about business. And if you are going to persist with talking about business, then allow me to apprise you of a few important facts.

Thailand produces more food than it can consume and is a major exporter of same. It also has a burgeoning tourist trade, not to mention a very large expatriate population. In short, it has an ample supply of foreign capital.

I have been living in Thailand for nine years now and visited for an additional two prior to that. In that time I have seen changes in Thailand that are disappointing if not downright depressing.

The roads are now clogged with foreign automobiles and motorcycles. The air in the cities is now unfit to breathe because of it.

Foreign music and dance now dominate the youth of Thailand. This is music and dance that somehow seem to go hand-in-hand with the use of drugs. I seldom see young people dancing traditional Thai dances with their parents at the wat any longer because of this change.

College girls are now selling themselves on the Internet in order to raise funds to purchase cell phones and designer labels. Large discount stores are replacing mom and pop stores at an alarming rate and ultimately will kill the Thai spirit of entrepreneurship. Watch the television and all you see are spoiled rich brats screaming at their parents at the local disco. This action is interspersed with commercials telling Thais that they need to have lighter skin, more makeup, more designer labels and a new car in order to be "in" with the "in crowd".

Are these the "innovations and efficiencies" that foreign investment and products that you keep referring to will bring to Thailand? If they are, then I might as well be back in Los Angeles.

Thailand is already buried in foreign products and investment and with them the advertising, credit abuse and bastardised culture that they bring with them. What more is it that you want, George?

This country is awash with foreign carpetbaggers who, despite current foreign investment laws, seem to somehow have profited anyway. I'm assuming that because every time I visit Bangkok they don't seem to be leaving, but rather increasing in numbers. Why don't you leave it at that and allow the Thais, with their restrictions on foreigners through investment and immigration laws, continue to live in the belief that they have successfully preserved their Thai culture?

There are ample other "emerging" economies worldwide to plunder. Try another.

John Arnone

Yasothon

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

Where was the US's support of democracy in Chile?

Re: "US being a true friend by voicing its concerns", Letters, October 7.

I can only agree with Scott A Hipsher when he writes that "empirical evidence of military takeovers of democratically elected governments does not lead one to be overly optimistic about the near term future of freedom, democracy and economic development in the country."

However I should like to ask whether the US showed this concern at the time of the military coup in Chile in September, 1973, when the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende was overthrown by a bloody military coup with the help of the CIA. That ushered in the 17-year dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, who was whole-heartedly supported by the US government.

Why was "the US demonstrating friendship to the Thai people more by pushing for a quick return to democratic principles than it would by unquestioningly accepting a system of government that has a terrible track record" when the exact opposite was the case in Chile?

Did the Chilean people perhaps deserve less for democratically electing a Socialist government?

Edward B Duhigg

Bangkok