A bit of creative "outside the box" thinking, however, may provide a means to finance the purchase of new public buses for the benefit of all Bangkok residents.

I propose that the Bangkok police start enforcing the existing law prohibiting the driving of motorcycles on the city's sidewalks. Any motorcycle found on a public sidewalk would be seized and sold at public auction. The resulting windfall could be used to purchase a new fleet of public buses. Such an innovative policy would result in (1) decreasing air and noise pollution; (2) improving safety for pedestrians; and (3) training police in the lost art of law enforcement.

Of course, various groups accustomed to using public sidewalks as their own private highways would oppose this plan (motorbike taxi mafia, pizza delivery companies, messengers, postal carriers, etc). In addition, the Bangkok police would no doubt require some special consideration to entice them to abandon the comfort of their air-conditioned police boxes and actually engage in law enforcement (another novel idea) on the city's sidewalks. Perhaps 10 per cent of all seized motorcycles could be contributed to the police benevolent fund.

There are simple solutions to Bangkok's complex problems. They just require a little creative thinking - and some guts.

Outside the Box

Bangkok

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

Chiang Mai should emulate London's pollution measures

I can just about remember London in the 1950s, but although I was only seven years old at the time I remember 1952 very well. Air pollution, due to burning coal, was very bad then. On December 5 that year the air pollution "sank" onto London. The result was that about 12,000 people died from pneumonia, bronchitis, tuberculosis and heart failure.

Eventually the government passed the first Clean Air Act (in 1956) and coal burning in London was stopped.

In Chiang Mai today we face a similar situation. People are dying every year from airborne pollution. This year the pollution is worse than others.

There is one difference between the situation in London in 1956 and the situation in Chiang Mai in 2007. In London people had to burn coal to keep warm. In Chiang Mai the burning has no purpose or reason. It is done out of pure ignorance; "We burn because we burn". The police do nothing to enforce the existing law. I recently saw a policeman stand and watch somebody setting light to a pile of rubbish that included plastic and other toxic waste, as well as dried grass and leaves. A smouldering fire later released toxins and deadly smoke particles into an already polluted atmosphere.

The policeman stood and watched with a stupid grin on his face.

David Wenman

Chiang Mai

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

Flying in the face of their own regulations

I agree with General Saprang that he is key to this government restoring democracy and transparency, especially at the airport - but that doesn't excuse him from being accountable. Au contraire: high position brings with it high responsibilities, including being a role model and inspiration to the rest of us.

Rather than seeking to find out how we found out that he spent Bt7.2 million taking 13 delegates on a week-long overseas trip, at the Airports of Thailand (AOT)'s expense, he should be glad of the opportunity to show that all was done in a proper manner. Thus, I support TRT's call for the general to open up. Our hero should be proactive and post his delegation's expense receipts and related records on the web.

As AOT chairman, he should also show that the regulations themselves are defendable. For example, why should directors be allowed to bring relatives along at AOT expense? Also, if the group needed a translator, why was only the general's relative available?

Likewise, TRT leader Chaturon should trump the general by posting information on the web about ex-PM Thaksin's usage of your money and mine to buy a plane to ferry him and his entourage about. How much did it cost? How often was it used? And at what cost?

Gentlemen, heed Confucius: "The superior man is modest in his speech, but exceeds in his actions."

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

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

Wake up Thailand, this is a global economy

Thailand is relatively independent of the global economy and relatively well off - exporting food and "importing" tourists, but it is all relative. Thailand is highly dependent on tourism as its major foreign exchange earner, and huge sums of foreign direct investment have supported this industry from the beginning.

Thailand alone is not building all those five-star hotels, which have always imported huge amounts of food (somewhat decreasing with more local produce now). Much of the profits from direct investment flow straight out of the country for these and other imports, but anyway the argument is that Thailand is highly dependant on the global economy. And its wealth and investment in surrounding countries is probably dependent on ongoing direct investment in Thailand. This is capitalism, which is proliferating through global markets like a cancer.

Watson

Bangkok

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

A convoluted route to becoming president

Re: "A brief history of non-elected leaders, Letters, March 13.

Henry Ashe's correction of Prachyadavi Tavedikul was appropriate. In May of 1940, Churchill, as a member of parliament, became the leader of the House Commons after Neville Chamberlain resigned. Churchill formed a wartime national government with support from all parties. This is appropriate for a parliamentary system. If we follow Prachyadavi, all British prime ministers are non-elected. King George VI appointed Churchill the same way Queen Elizabeth appointed Tony Blair.

Gerald Ford in 1974 was in the US Congress as House Minority Leader. Ford came to the vice presidency because Nixon's vice president, Spiro Agnew, resigned. Pursuant to the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution, President Nixon nominated Ford, who was approved by both houses of Congress and sworn in as vice president. In essence, Ford was indirectly elected vice president by the US Congress. When President Nixon resigned, Ford became president, according to the rules of succession in the US Constitution. For Ford to become the only non-elected president in US history, two major events had to take place. One, the elected vice president had to resign. Two, the president, who nominates the new vice president, had to leave office. These two events took place only once in more than two centuries.

Tunyatape Suwanjindar

Bangkok

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

Ford was not elected as US president

Re: "A brief history of non-elected leaders", Letters, March 13.

For the sake of historical clarity, in regard to Winston Churchill and Gerald Ford, I wish to point out the following facts to Henry Ashe:

Having taught American Government and Comparative Politics for 35 years, I can confirm that Gerald Ford was not elected to the vice presidency of the United States. Spiro Agnew was. Agnew resigned after the "kick-back" scandals in October 1973. Ford was then nominated by President Nixon as vice president under the 25th Amendment of the US Constitution and was confirmed by both Houses of Congress.

In fact, Ford had chosen not to return to politics in the next elections (1974). He became the first "accidental president" when Nixon resigned in August 1974.

As for Sir Winston Churchill, he was indeed First Lord of the Admiralty before he became prime minister in 1940. But that was also an appointed position, not an elected one. Churchill was not a member of the House of Commons at that time.

Of course, both men served their countries as representatives of their people prior to rising to political prominence. And they served their countries well and true, both as elected and non-elected leaders.

Prachyadavi Tavedikul

Bangkok

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

An unelected but honest PM would serve just as well

Re: "A brief history of non-elected leaders", Letters, March 13. 

While I was pleased that Henry Ashe set the record straight about the circumstances of Winston Churchill's appointment as British prime minister in 1940, sadly he was wrong about Gerald Ford.  The elected vice-president under Richard Nixon was Spiro Agnew, who resigned in disgrace in 1973 after pleading guilty to tax evasion and money laundering. Gerald Ford was appointed by a majority vote of the US Senate to replace him.  While he was unelected by the people as vice-president, I believe he was nevertheless an elected member of the House of Representatives at the time.

One omission from the previous correspondence on the topic of unelected leaders has been the case of Sir Alec Douglas-Hume, British PM 1963-64. As the Earl of Home, he was a member of the House of Lords by descent and was certainly unelected when the Conservative Party chose him to be their leader, and therefore prime minister, on the resignation of Harold MacMillan in October 1963. However, before the pro-unelected prime minister lobby think they have found a precedent in the western world, they should bear in mind that his status was opposed by the House of Commons and within a month he had renounced his peerage, resigned from the House of Lords, changed his name, found an MP willing to resign his seat in parliament, fought and then won a by-election.

Now, what would there be to fear if an appointed Thai PM was prepared to go to such lengths to legitimise his status?

Derek Pott

Bangkok