The censors are at it again in this fair land. From the Ministry of "Culture" no less! The reason? Sheer, unadulterated, unjustifiable superstition! The mind boggles.

When is Thailand going to grow up? Why should artists be the victims of ignoramuses using their own brand of (misplaced) morality or, in this particular case, their irrational fears as a justification to interfere in the process of artistic creation?

It is time to snatch the censors' scissors from their hands. I know I may incur the wrath of some obstreperous foreign do-gooders who consider any criticism of this country as outrageous and inexcusable, but I'll take the chance. I don't see how criticising censorship and defending artistic freedom can in any way be construed as intolerable just because some of us are guests in this country (or any other for that matter).

Artists must be protected from the dark forces of ignorance and cretinism. They are the treasures of the nation.

Sagittarius

Bangkok

Obvious wrongs in any society need to be discussed

Re: "Foreigners should mind their manners in Thailand", Letters, November 16.

While arguing that a person residing in a foreign country should not find fault, JM Joyce asks rhetorically, "If we visit a friend's house, do we immediately tell our friend what he should do in his house, or what we don't like about his house?"

Dear JM Joyce, there are different types of people in this world; some will make efforts to accept all that's going on around them - particularly if perceived wrongdoings or annoyances don't affect their immediate well-being. On the other hand, there are those who speak out when they perceive injustice or harm. JM Joyce and "Grandpa" seem to fall into the former category.

Myself and others fall into the latter category. That's not to say I give blanket agreement to all the complaints voiced in the "Letters to the Editor" column, however, I will say that most letters make good points that need to be aired. Even if I don't agree, I will defend their right to voice their concerns, and I appreciate the forum that The Nation offers.

In responding to Joyce's rhetorical question in a literal manner: I would say it is, in fact, okay to tell a friend (or anyone else) in their own house that something is wrong if, in fact, you see harm being done. Similarly, if there's a structural/safety problem, is it wrong to possibly offend the homeowner by pointing it out?

If I see anyone harming someone, some animal, or the environment, I will speak out. I once saw some young Thai monks felling trees on a hilltop park - for no reason - and I spoke to them about it and they realised the foolishness of their deed and they desisted. Similarly, if I see a man physically abusing a woman or child I will speak up - and will use force if necessary - regardless of the venue or nationality of those involved.

The many JM Joyce's and "Grandpas" of the world can go on pursuing their immediate concerns and hushing others in order to avoid offending anyone - and that's their choice. There are other types who choose to stand up to protect the vulnerable and those without a voice, and that's our choice. Vive la difference.

Ken Albertsen

Chiang Rai

Capital punishment is open to error and is no deterrent

Re: "Capital punishment weeds out society's bad seeds", Letters, November 15.

In response to Jay Cue's frightful letter in support of "weeding the garden of society", aka the death penalty, I simply want to say that there is no proof at all that capital punishment deters crime. As a matter of fact, many countries which have sensibly abolished the death penalty have far lower crime rates than those which have not.

The death penalty is immoral, liable to horrific and irredeemable error, and should not be a part of any civilised nation. I can't believe that there are people out there who still support it. We are supposed to be a Buddhist country, where is the compassion?

Pim Kemasingki

Bangkok

Death penalty reduces society to the level of murderers

Re: "Capital punishment weeds out society's bad seeds", Letters, November 15.

As one of "these whimpering, simpering anti-capital punishment folks" I wish to comment on Jay Cue's letter. He or she feels that "anti-capital punishment folks" are missing the point of the death penalty. I feel that Jay is missing the point of many opponents' opposition to the death penalty.

This opposition is due to the total abhorrence of the ability to calmly and, with forethought, take another being's life. The willingness, by some societies, to kill for whatever reason, as punishment, as revenge, as deterrent, or to "weed the garden of society" lowers the value of what we should hold most dear and, I believe, is part of what sickens society. Taking a life should be an utterly alien, repugnant concept, and the monetary cost of keeping a criminal incarcerated in prison is the price society should pay to remain unsullied by committing the horrendous crime of homicide.

Elizabeth J

Hua Hin

What if the majority of Thais want Thaksin to return? 

This is merely a scenario to consider. What if the poor, average person indeed wants Thaksin back? Are the educated, rich, elite Bangkokians not ignoring this possibility? Reading the news it seems that this has become a sad and a forced democracy. There have been a lot of accusations and assumptions regarding Thaksin. But no evidence, as yet. As far as I'm concerned, all politicians have their hands in the cookie jar, all over the world. Some manage to hide it better than others.

It seems Thaksin still has widespread support, and if that is so, he should be allowed to return, form a political party and run in the next election. Unless, of course, he is convicted of crimes.

It is my humble opinion that a handful of people in the capital decide what is best for the rest of the country. It appears as if they claim that only they understand politics. A poor farmer cannot get vocal and demand Thaksin's return, but a politician from the capital can voice his opinion that Thaksin should quit politics. The media - I fail to understand why - seems to ignore the Thaksin supporters. Politicians and academics get front page coverage, the poor farmer nothing, because he "does not understand politics". The mere fact that the current administration is trying extremely hard to prevent Thaksin from returning to politics is very worrisome, and leaves one with a lot of questions about their real intentions. What if the majority, the poor, indeed want Thaksin to return? Would it be a truly free and fair democracy then, to ignore that fact? Why should a poor farmer be restricted from the right of having the opportunity to vote for Thaksin?

Johann Scheffer

Bangkok

Thaksin is still manipulating the media for his own benefit

I am very disappointed at The Nation's decision to run a huge photo of Thaksin on the cover of this past Tuesday's paper. Thaksin is obviously travelling around this region just to get some exposure, and the media seems to be doing exactly what he wants - so he won't be forgotten.

Please do not give him any freebies, he has already taken enough from our country.

Carolyn

Bangkok

University students subjected to religious propaganda

I would like to inform people of the way Assumption University is enforcing religious propaganda on its students under the guise of "business ethics".

Every student in ABAC is forced to attend what is called a "business ethics" seminar twice per semester. Why they call it "business ethics", I do not know.

The last such seminar was held on November 11. It was not a discussion or general lecture. They told students as a fact that abortion, sex before marriage and contraceptives are immoral. Their "business ethics" are simply traditional Catholic views on things completely unrelated to business. But every ABAC student must attend.

It is okay for the religious administration of ABAC to proclaim their faith, but it is unacceptable that they try to teach students (of many different faiths) that their religious ideals are facts.

Concerned student

Bangkok

Thai double standard over intellectual property rights

Re: "Warning over Apec-wide FTA", Business, November 16.

This article warns about the possible dangers of an Asia-Pacific free trade area and the fact that the US wishes to enforce its intellectual property rules.

Some time back, a letter from a Thai professor stated words to the effect that, "Those cunning Americans will enforce ... IT rules ... [which would] cost Thais billions".

A few days later there was an article about an American company that wanted a patent on some kind of Thai fruit drink. This was met with fierce opposition in Thailand and a vehement desire to protect Thailand's intellectual property.

I don't care if the US trades with Thailand or not, but how do you deal with people who admit to being pirates and have two sets of standards?

Raymond O'Neal

Texas