FACT does not believe Thailand should be so eager to embrace a cyber-crime law when many of the crimes are already covered by existing Thai law.

The cyber-crime bill, which was tabled before the National Legislative Assembly by Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom on November 15 of last year, is vague, ambiguous and imprecise despite further recommendations for changes by Thailand's Council of State, the highest government council for determining the meaning of laws.

The ICT minister set up a committee to consider the bill and asked for it to be considered for only seven days! Fortunately, some members of the committee felt the law deserved serious consideration rather than a cursory approval and rubber stamp.

This committee includes no researchers, computer scientists, professionals or engineers working in the field. Nor are there representatives of non-governmental organisations working in computers and social responsibility. Nor are Thai Internet service-providers or computer businesses represented.

Furthermore, the committee has not been seeking testimony or counsel from these real-life computer-users to assist their deliberations. The bill is still in committee as of this month.

FACT hopes the National Legislative Assembly will consider the application of existing law to the crimes addressed by the proposed bill before passing the bill blindly in order to appear to be doing something. FACT submits that government must be accountable and transparent in computer search and seizure with a single government posting to take full responsibility.

Furthermore, all Internet log data must be considered the computer-user's private property and must not be held by government or Internet service-providers without a proper search warrant issued by a court of law.

Many sections of the bill could easily be interpreted so as to be used for government excesses in political repression and the silencing of dissent.

The most telling aspect of government unrestrained by common sense is that the Computer-Related Crimes Bill seeks to impose capital punishment and life imprisonment for some computer crimes.

There must be a better solution than more lawyers, more judges, more criminals, more prisons. We must always defer to the wide experience of the judiciary and note that the penalties in this law must be suggested, not required, of the courts, leaving room for extenuating circumstances.

Better no law at all than frontier justice.

Freedom Against Censorship Thailand

Bangkok

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

Driver of crashed bus no doubt feared for his job

Re: "Bus crash highlights dangers of deference to superiors", Letters, March 23.

John Benson was spot on with his comments about krieng jai concerning the Saraburi bus crash, but I feel he didn't quite explain everything.

Let's consider the fact that the driver knew there was a danger in continuing to drive that bus and that his own life was on the line. So why did he continue?

Part of the reason is krieng jai, while the other part is futility. Had he stood up to his boss, one way or another it would have been the end of the matter. He would have been sacked, and the transport authorities would have helped the company to cover everything up. Jobless, the driver would have a reputation as a complainer and no future. There would have been nowhere else for him to turn: the police don't give a damn, there is no local MP, other government authorities would just fob him off. And his life would be under threat if he made too much noise.

So he drove the bus to earn profits for his greedy masters, and people died. It will be buried in the mists of time and forgotten because the public here has a short memory for these things. Or maybe they just think it's futile to complain and that it's better just to be quiet and die.

Hans Ulman

Bangkok

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

Men who brutally maimed woman belong behind bars

Re: "Officer suspended over horrendous assault", News, March 23.

That young woman's arm will forever be gone from her body. Similarly, the near-death causing trauma will reverberate with her for a lifetime. The man who hacked through the flesh and bone of the woman's arm should be locked up for life with no possibility of release. The men who accompanied him should be locked up for at least 30 years each. The woman should be given a medal for her bravery in standing up so adamantly to sexual harassment. All the men should be fined severely, and the police station that tried to cover up the incident should further be fined Bt60 million to be paid to the maimed young woman, though nothing will ever compensate for her missing limb.

Ken Albertsen

Chiang Rai

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

Thai govt, not its people, shows anti-foreign sentiment

Re "Tribune reporter's fallacy: Thai anti-foreigner sentiment", Opinion, March 23.

Nobody wants or deserves a bashing. It is clear to me that since the advent of the Thaksin era more division between people has become a horrible reality.

Thais have become more divided amongst themselves. There are many more good things about Thailand than bad, but it is a little alarming to see Thailand's officials mimicking some of the bad aspects of Western countries. I do think the debate should make clear the distinction between those responsible for policy and Thai people in general. I've been here over 15 years, and I still reckon that Thais are the most tolerant people I've met, but their leaders and ruling class, like those in most countries, are another story.

Web Reader

Bangkok

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

'IHT' article offered helpful criticisms not 'bashing'

As someone who has lived in Thailand for 18 years, I have personal sympathy for Thanong Khanthong's lament about foreigners "bashing Thailand", as he puts it. In my experience it is quite true that Europeans and Americans are opinionated and like to tell Thais (and others) how to solve their problems. You have only to read the letters columns of this newspaper to see daily examples of the same behaviour.

However, the International Herald Tribune article he refers to was surely not Thai-bashing, but rather an account of several different problems between Thais and foreigners that have come to a head at the same time.

It seems to me that foreign business people do not care about the coup; they care about making money and are concerned only with the uncertainties of the Foreign Business Act review and the Bank of Thailand's controls on money. On the other hand the EU and US governments do care about the coup and want Thailand to be an open democracy, for all sorts of complex reasons including geopolitical and commercial ones. That is why they (and their press) castigate Thailand.

They don't castigate Singapore or China because there would be no point. Thailand can be "won back", but these other places are not going to change soon.

There is no inevitability about democratisation and freedom, and the latest coup can't be described as just a hiccup in Thailand's progress, as Thanong seems to suggest at the end of his article. Who knows but we may look back on the period between 1992 and 2000 as being a sort of "spring of democracy", after which Thailand reverted to form.

Richard Sproat

Bangkok

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

China, Singapore and Laos should not set the standard

The "bashing" stems from the fact that Thailand for almost 15 years prior to the toppling of Thaksin was a leading light for Southeast Asia, both in terms of economic growth, democracy and for the bridge-building towards the West.

Do not lower your ambitions and be satisfied by being a little better than China, Singapore and Laos - not for the sake of Western appreciation but for the Thai people. Not because Western-style democracy is the only way for Thailand, but because history shows that Thai people prefer, and are willing to die for, democratic principles interpreted by Thais for Thai society.

PoMoat

Bangkok

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

AEC doing an admirable job within its boundaries

Re: "AEC has little to be proud of in its six months of probes," Letters, March 22. Meechai Burapa takes me to task for congratulating the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) for uncovering massive graft in one of ex-PM Thaksin's pet projects, the Ua Aathorn low-cost housing ("Harsh sentences and vigilance needed to stop corruption", Letters, March 21). He notes that there have been no convictions or indictments yet.

The AEC was never designed to be investigator, judge, jury, and executioner. and indeed it'd be a travesty of justice if one body ever were a one-stop, rapid-fire dispenser of justice. As its name states, all it can do is examine the evidence, draw conclusions as to its suspicions and turn its findings over to the injured party and judicial system. Meechai seems to agree that it has done a good job in this respect, as he says that "all the AEC has done is churn out accusation after accusation". That's its main mission, so long as those accusations are substantiated beyond reasonable doubt.

Meechai, 54, hopes to live long enough to see Thaksin and his men locked up. Well, I'm a decade older than him, and so my wish is even more fervent than his, but he should direct his impatience elsewhere, not at the AEC.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok