Some Thais want to complain about the president of the United States of America, and yet they keep buying these pirated goods and they are quite happy doing so. Thailand shouldn't cry.

Thais have robbed many a country of millions of dollars by buying and selling fake goods. Yet you do nothing about the open and constant stealing of millions of baht by government officials and politicians.

Don't cry foul when you let your very own people rob you daily.

SB

Bangkok

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

Still no unity since the French Revolution

This weekend's French presidential run-off between conservative Nicolas Sarkozy and socialist Segolene Royal continues a contest between individual self-responsibility and the collectivist mentality first heralded by their 1789 revolution and yet to find its end.

Socialism, always more adept at producing rhetoric than at putting food on the table, remains credible to a puzzlingly sizeable minority of French voters. What explains its residual allure?

Arrogant wealth does breed jealous resentment, and the French are especially adept at both - as readers may have noticed.

The French are also conflicted between accepting that they are not without formidable assets in a competitive world, and fear of the global market-place and its whims. Needed economic reforms are in the offing only if Sarkozy triumphs.

Handicapped by a news media still dominated by the "1968 generation" of pop-Marxist inclination, he is rescued only by the public's sceptical regard of the news media: a conceit the French could helpfully export more of.

Despite all, the Gallic experience still carries influence enough that we might all wish them well in their Sunday showdown.

Ron Goodden

Atlanta, Georgia

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

Snail-mail still has its advantages

Even in this day and age of electronic communication, it is still within the realm of reality that some of us do sometimes need the service of the snail-mail service.

A fortnight ago I received a note from our local postman that there was an undelivered registered letter at the post office for me to pick up.

After a telephone call I learned that it was an envelope from a bank, so I asked him to return it because, from previous experiences, this kind of mail usually contains nothing of importance and is not worth driving to the post office to pick up.

However, the next day I received a note from the postman in my post box that he had looked inside the envelope and found a bank cheque (for about Bt3,000) and therefore it should be picked up, and so I did.

But I forgot to thank him for his service.

Vic Phanumphai

Bangkok

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

More hot air for the environment

Re: " That's right, blame the United States for everything", Letters, May 4.

In the face of ever more hysteria about climate change, it's a tonic to read Major Mark Smith's letter. Continuing his theme of how bodily functions contribute to the greenhouse effect, I can report that here in Australia, "greenies" are now demanding that everyone limit themselves to using only one square of paper in the toilet, in order to save trees.

This is not a problem for Thailand or other Asian countries where toilet paper serves all sorts of other purposes, but is not much used in the lavatory. Therefore, here's a suggestion for the Thai government: at the Apec meeting in Sydney in September, Thailand should propose that all Apec countries immediately prohibit the use of paper in lavatories, and only allow water and (left) hands to be used instead. This will immediately establish Thailand's green credentials (at no cost to Thais), and earn the government brownie points from its lefty critics in the West. A military-backed regime that cares about trees can't be all bad!

Of course, in countries like Australia, where there are lots of trees but little water, this may present difficulties. But, hey, we can't solve all environmental problems at once can we?

Rodney Sheaves

Sydney, Australia

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

Governments are duty bound to protect citizens

One point seems to be missing from the recent debate on censorship in Thailand - people willingly extend the right to decide what is right and what is wrong for them to the government, at least in some matters. People especially expect the government to promote and protect Buddhism and the monarchy. Entrusted with this role it is the government's responsibility to react to incidents like the YouTube affair. We can argue whether the blocking of the whole site was justified or not, but the government was obliged to react.

Libertarians among us would argue that it is an individual matter for each and every citizen and that people should exercise their own judgement. It is, of course, true, but if the majority of people want to transfer those rights to the state, libertarians should respect their decision, too.

This is also a point in having organised religion: the faith of some members of society is not strong enough and needs to be protected and nourished. Just as schoolteachers do not allow students to watch cartoons during lessons in the name of freedom and to maintain discipline, so does the state act similarly in certain matters.

Bottom line: if people want the state to protect them from propaganda, they should accept unpopular decisions. If they think that the state is acting out of sync (like, for example, with banning spaghetti-strap tops), there should be open channels to correct the situation.

Stan G

Bangkok

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

Next prime minister must come from the people

The issue is pretty much settled by now: the next prime minister must be an elected one. Even incumbent prime minister General Surayud, who probably would not have that right nor volunteer again, has agreed to the idea. But how the prime minister is elected is still debatable. Whether this should be a direct election between leaders of all political parties, or it is done through Parliament, or through the party-list system (which was the method employed under the 1997 constitution), is still up in the air. But if the prime minister is an elected one, then it naturally follows that all his Cabinet members should be elected representatives, as well. No matter how qualified, they cannot be outsiders, or the democracy we all long for will be a half-baked one. By the same yardstick, not only must all members of the House of Representatives be elected, so must all members of the Senate. Talk has been heard about half of the senators being appointed and the other half being elected. But if this happens the new constitution will represent a regression rather than a step forward. If we are going to be that liberal, why not go all the way?

And that is not all. Because the system of checks and balances was so inefficient in the past, resulting in the courts doing almost nothing except being prodded on one occasion, when they nullified the April 2006 elections, I would suggest that those judges who serve on political cases, such as the dismissal of the PM or Cabinet ministers, be elected as well.

Although we have already had the so-called Administrative Court and the other one for high-profile political cases, their progress has been at a snail's pace and it takes years before they can come to a decision. If you want what Abraham Lincoln called "government of the people, by the people, for the people", this is the only way to do it here in Thailand.

Prachyadavi Tavedikul

Bangkok

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

Acquit if the evidence does not show clear guilt

I find holes in Ma Nok and Dek Nok Krob's views on the Yingluck insider trading case. First, insider trading means that with special knowledge, you made a killing at one go in the market. As revealed by the Securities Exchange Commission, Yingluck sold AIS shares bit by bit since 2003 whenever she received, periodically, AIS shares from her employer as part of her salary. She liquidated all the shares whenever received. Therefore, if there is any accusation against her, then she should be presumed to have knowledge of the intended sale of Shin shares to Temasek in 2003. I doubt whether there was even that intention in 2003.

However, the writers focus on the sales since October 2005, after the Shinawatra family's request for a Revenue Department ruling in July 2005 of the possible disposal of Shin Corp shares. That means all the family members knew of this impending disposal, which is credible. However, the writers ignored the pattern of the consistent sales made by Yingluck prior to October 2005 in order to fit their slight against the SEC and Yingluck.

Second, from the SEC's announcement, it did not opine that sales of employee option shares cannot be considered insider trading. But the consistent pattern of Yingluck's sales of shares did not suggest the crime of trading on insider knowledge. She sold whenever she received the employee shares irrespective of the price.

Third, immediately after the Temasek takeover, the AIS price was still on the high side of the 100-104 range for two weeks. At that time, any shareholders could still sell at that price. The price tumbled after Temasek's tender offer through Shin Corp for AIS shares.

In sum, I do not see the SEC's failing on this case and rather laud them as having courage to go against the tide for the sake of fairness. Bashing Thaksin's family is gratifying, but sometimes vengeance can go too far.

Songdej Praditsmanont

Bangkok