They think that Thaksin's interviews with overseas media are really a major threat to them and believe it is an absolute priority to counter this threat at any price. The reality is that Thaksin has already had his day in the sun with the foreign media and he will not continue to be newsworthy as an exiled politician from a small Asian country, unless there are new developments involving him.

The sufficiency economy is a very simple and effective idea that is, in fact, easily grasped overseas. However, an insincere explanation of this theory by the architect of Thaksin's wasteful vote-buying economic policies is not something that will interest foreign investors. They need to know what are the government's economic goals, how it plans to achieve them in the short time it has left, and how economic policy will affect foreign investment. So far the signs are that government policy has become inward looking and is extremely hostile toward foreign investment.

However, the government seems to take the view that foreigners are intellectually challenged and have neither understood the sufficiency theory nor that the capital controls and the new FBA are in fact good for them. Therefore someone needs to be sent around the world first class at taxpayers' expense to lecture them about it. This reminds me of the Bank of Thailand's patronising tone in 1996 when rebuking foreign economists for "using incorrect data" to warn that the baht was in imminent danger of collapse.

Basically the government and the generals have decided to use poisonous gas on the enemy's trenches without realising that the enemy has already vacated them and that the wind is going to blow the gas back at them.

Portman

Bangkok

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

Govt puts its foot in its mouth with Somkid appointment

Sending Somkid to explain sufficiency economics to Japan and China is an insult to their intelligence and a manifestation of the government's hypocrisy. PM Surayud should recall Somkid mid-air if he has not landed before we degrade ourselves in the eyes of two Asian powers. This is without a doubt a major error in judgement.

Netirat Intira

Bangkok

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

Ignorance of drainage leads to never-ending problems

In my 20 years in Chiang Mai I have been appalled by the lack of consideration for drainage in almost all of the local projects. The cure-all in this part of the world appears to be landfill. Tons and tons of it, but unfortunately still no drainage. Hence the highway to Chiang Rai outside of Doi Saket is constantly in repair as it subsides due to lack of drainage.

As any child knows, dirt plus water equals mud, a not very substantial material to build on. My own village has had floods recently brought on by mindless "development" including road elevation that creates low, long dams and drains that run uphill. The Litchfield master plan was certainly not an element in this thoughtlessness, it's just plain old incompetent planning and construction. Just what the new airport seems to be suffering from.

The Alien

Chiang Mai

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

Pie-in-the-sky thinking over Thai satellites

A quick lesson in satellite technology for the military seems to be in order. Satellites work on projecting a footprint and even a spot footprint is received over a large area. This means that anyone in the footprint area can receive all the signals with the right equipment. Military signals are typically encrypted, thus protecting national security interests.

Thailand benefits from the footprints of non-Thai owned satellites the same way that others in this region benefit from the transmissions of the Thai sats. In the current case the transmission infrastructure is housed in Thailand. Military transmissions are controlled by the military. The satellite is up in space, so seizing it back would be an interesting exercise. The infrastructure is Thai owned.

The real bottom line is that all Thailand needs to do to get it all back is cancel the agreement and pay the agreed fine. Why has it been necessary to raise up a storm of nationalistic fervour over what is really a privately held business interest? Why work harder to discourage any foreign investment if any deal could be snatched back by the military on a whim? The real question is why is the military playing at international politics - clearly a subject it knows very little about?

Christian Lloyd

Bangkok

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

Thailand rarely honours its international commitments

The recent satellite issue highlights an issue that needs some investigation. Thailand has a poor history of honouring any agreements. If an enterprising reporter decided to look at the history of treaties and agreements signed by Thailand, they will find that the majority have never been ratified by Thailand, including the one with the WTO.

Checking this is quite easy; just compare the treaty list with government sessions and government gazettes. This apparent policy by Thailand has allowed the country to benefit from agreements but not reciprocate in kind to the other treaty parties.

The recent satellite story simply highlights this issue. I would like to see your newspaper investigate this treaty issue and give the people of Thailand a report on how our country's leaders have behaved in the past towards our international partners.

Krisidah S

Bangkok

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

Revamp of security forces in the South is now urgent

The continuing southern violence underscores PM Surayud's admission that seeking reconciliation through applying old ideas isn't working.

I suggest a radical shift in how we view the South. Our words to the contrary, our acts show that (a) we consider that Bangkokians know better than locals as to where they itch, and (b) we view our troubles primarily as a military conflict. I suggest that it's a politically-led fight, and must be fought accordingly. Thus, local elected (note: not appointed) representatives should be given decisive weight in proposing and deciding upon all reconciliation-related decisions, including responsibility for all civil servants in reconciliation projects and police (subject to national security and budget considerations). These representative groups would be accountable for results.

The roles of the military and police should be re-evaluated. To me, soldiers are to combat external threats, primarily against uniformed combatants; police are for fighting internal dangers. Thus, the police should play the lead security role, assisted by soldiers on request.  Our cops are sorely distrusted by locals. So revamp the cops to be responsive to those whom they've sworn to serve and protect. Send only our creme de la creme south, recalling those sent there as punishment. All security forces must be fluent in Yawi within six months and respect local customs. PM Surayud correctly sees that the rule of law is key to reconciliation. Bravo! Back up your words by showing that the rule of law extends to security forces. Court-martial the generals responsible for the Tak Bai manslaughter and over-reaction at Krue Se, and vigorously bring the abductors/murderers of lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit to justice.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

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

Thai-Lao soap row reveals generational culture clash

Recently, there have been reports in the press concerning the displeasure of Lao authorities over the inappropriate content of a Thai soap opera. The Thai producer has agreed to make the necessary changes to assuage the concerns of the Lao authorities. In the comments by both Thai and Lao officials, it often seemed as if there were ships passing in the night in the midst of a cultural fog. The conflict arises due to Lao sensitivity and concern with Thai culture in its present state of transition and transformation. This contemporary Thai culture, as perceived by the Lao authorities, is too ready to extol freedom of expression at the expense of respect for elders and those in authority. This is a view that is also shared by many of Thailand's older generation. While it is understandable that Thai TV soap operas have the younger generation in Laos as their target audience, it is this very generation that Lao officialdom wants to protect from succumbing to values associated with Thai culture in its present transitional form.

At some stage, both Thailand and Laos are going to have to come to an acceptable and constructive accommodation between tradition and change. At present, Thailand and Laos may well be at differing points along this spectrum of accommodation. That explains the recurring cross-cultural tensions and conflicts. It must be remembered that to accept change does not mean there must be rejection of the past and its traditions. Conversely, to value tradition should not necessitate denying change. Traditional values, many of them shared, form the core of both Thai and Lao national identity. However, new values, focusing on individualism and egalitarianism, are integral to newly emergent cultural forms and to new definitions of national identity. There should be refinement, accommodation, compromise. Respect, however, should be earned. Let us hope Thailand and Laos will come to a better appreciation of the complications involved in this process of accommodation. In so doing, both will become more sensitive to each other's concerns. The result will be increased mutual understanding, trust and respect.

BK

Isaan