It seems Premier Surayud Chulanont is forgetting or choosing to ignore the fact that his government has never been given any sort of a mandate by the Thai people.

It was installed temporarily by the military with just one job to do: steer the country towards constitutional reforms and the next election. That task is formidable enough and it should not include:

1) Attempting controversial social reforms, like banning alcohol ads etc.

2) Imposing draconian financial controls, then backtracking - leading to market chaos and investor confusion.

3) Launching investigations into corruption and abuse of power under Thaksin - this is better left for this government's democratic successors.

4) Bullying media outlets into closure where compromise is surely possible.

The government must stop wasting valuable time with these distractions and side-shows, pull itself together and steer the country back to democracy. That is a big enough responsibility in and of itself.

It is the only thing the interim government should be focused on - and its success or failure is, arguably, the only thing this government will ever be judged on.

Dave Sherman

Bangkok

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

TITV staffers need to hone up on professional media ethics

Re: "iTV gets 11th-hour reprieve", News, March 8. All TITV staff members must take an intensive course on how an independent media outlet covers politics. Otherwise, they will have learnt nothing from this lesson.

Obviously, all of these employees have used their power to protect their benefits only. Moreover, staff never blamed their management team or Shin Corp and they never asked for help.

iTV was not national property. Why did they deserve such mercy?

This will set a bad example for the next media generation.

What iTV did is something that many other channels can do. iTV did not show that they originated from the developers of Thai democracy.

Web Reader

Bangkok

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

What is the AHRC and who are its members?

Re: "An open letter to the editor of 'The Nation' by the AHRC", Letters, March 8.

I read with interest the open letter from Basil Fernando, executive director, of the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC).

I was amazed by the negative language and tone of his attack on the current government and the editorial opinion of The Nation.

First I would like Fernando to lighten up if he wants his organisation to be viewed as credible here in Thailand. The real Human Rights Commission, the one under the auspices of the United Nations, does not condemn the Kingdom of Thailand. Fernando and the AHRC state that The Nation, "shows a deep misunderstanding of the meaning of human rights and a bizarre denial of reality".

Even the latest United States human rights report states the situation is improving under the current government and does not refer to it as a "dictatorship" like the AHRC.

I researched the AHRC website and found that they have attended many meetings and released hundreds if not thousands of press releases to further their cause over the past 10 years.

I could not find a financial report to see who is paying for these opinions but there seems to be about 200 people doing all this for the good of the world. The names listed were for the most part of western origin and there were no instantly recognisable Thai names.

Most, if not all, other human rights organisations view a sovereign county as self-governing and make suggestions and offer aid to those in need.

With the exception of the AHRC, these organisations also promote press freedoms and respect a news organisation's right to communicate news and opinion worldwide without interference.

David Barkdull

Bangkok

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

Citizen confused by opposing assessments of Thailand

As a Thai citizen, I am confused. I have been comparing what is said by the current government against what is being said outside of Thailand and there are major differences.

As reported in the local press, our government agencies are telling us that foreign investment is high, that Thailand is still enjoying economic growth and that there really are no problems with projects like the elevated expressway.

Internationally the picture is different. One of our biggest investors, Japan, has publicly rated Thailand as a very poor place for investment and financial magazines tell of how much debt we have as a nation with low reserves.

When I discuss the situation with foreigners who specialise in international investment and international finance they tell me that the real situation is that foreign investment in Thailand at the moment is very low, that real growth is very low and that we will have problems meeting our debt payments.

As a nation we do not have a constitution, we have not even ratified the Declaration of Human Rights and the military tells us that another coup is always possible. This means that we can never really have a lasting constitution that belongs to us.

Looking back, whenever there has been a coup, during the time the coup makers were in power the economy of Thailand has suffered until a proper government containing people with at least some training in financial affairs has come back into power.

It appears that we need this to occur quickly to stop any further slide in our growth.

It would also be very useful for the Bank of Thailand to explain why things have come to the state reported by those outside of the country.

Krisidah S

Bangkok

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

Ideal of a free market elicits yet another stirring epistle

It's comforting to know that thought-provoking conversations as from Netirat Intira ("Thailand is not the only country to place restrictions on foreign businesses", Letters, March 6) and Burin Kantabutra ("Consumers the ultimate losers with Foreign Business Act", Letters, March 8) exist amid the current mayhem. The Foreign Business Act is just one aspect that needs an overhaul to make our country more competitive.

I am praying hard that in its remaining seven months, this "Old Ginger" government will be able to make the tough decisions that no elected government could ever make. If they just skim Thomas Friedman's "The Lexus and the Olive Tree", it may get them on track to fix the long-standing structural failures in our system rather than going on this increasingly ridiculous Thaksin witch-hunt. (If I can find a Thai translation of the book, I will buy it and send it to the entire Cabinet). Thomas Friedman clearly understands that globalisation or "lok anuwat" is a runaway train. His recipe for how a country can make it in the 21st century is food for thought, if not controversial. It involves steering society completely towards a free-market economy.

Thailand could move towards a freer market by creating a transition fund and deadline for Thais who cannot adapt so quickly to the fast changing environment. These include the highly entrenched and comfortable groups like teachers, farmers and the seemingly implacable TOT, CAT Telecom and Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand unions. While not everyone will be able to completely adopt to a free market, at least it will be a start. Or as Burin said in his last sentence, "Yes, the free market economy I aim for doesn't really exist - but the ideal can, and should, still guide us".

Sukit Bejrsuwana

Bangkok

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

Thais won't profit by replacing culture with consumerism

Re: "Statistics point to the positive benefits of foreign investment", and "Natural resources alone do not make a country great", Letters, March 7.

Obviously the two people writing did not understand my point. These people are arguing profitability, while I am discussing contentment. "Playing the system in an age of capitalism" is not what it is all about.

Taking care of your citizens is what it is about. And teaching them how to play the capitalist system and thus the consumerist system is not necessarily good for them.

It doesn't really matter what I say because the barbarians will continue to bang on the gate and ultimately Thailand will become another consumerist society, but if anything I say at least helps to postpone it, then I will be content.

It would seem that maybe the West should just take the quick route and simply make a leveraged buyout of Thailand. I have no doubt that the 10 per cent who control 90 per cent of the stock of Thailand would be happy to make a handsome profit.

My point is that I am not arguing profitability. I am arguing culture, families, happiness, and what results when people begin to place things before family and culture. And this is precisely what happens when the gates of consumerism are opened.

My belief is that Thailand, having ample agricultural resources and an ever growing tourist trade, does not need lessons from the West on how to make money or Western money which ultimately will begin to dictate policy.

Is Western investment profitable? Absolutely, but for whom and to what end?

John Arnone

Yasothon