They've had four years to curb the violence in the South, and how many insurgents have they brought to justice? They have only made things worse: the country is on the brink of civil war. It's beyond me what makes them think they could run a nation, except to run it into the ground.

For what does the military need an additional Bt30-billion-plus budget this year, and how is it going to be spent? I'd like to see some details on that. As far as I know, Thailand is not out to wage war against any nation. All this outcry about compulsory licensing to save Bt24 million, yet they can afford to spend Bt30 billion on the military. How can they claim they are trying to protect the Thai people when they spend that money for undisclosed military purposes? How could anyone in their right mind claim that a foreign pharmaceutical company is more responsible for the health of Thai people than the Thai government? Spend a fraction of the military spending on subsidising medicines, problem solved. The fact is that Thailand could easily afford the medicines; they just chose not to pay.

Thaksin Shinawatra was bad news for Thailand but this junta is even worse. My sincere wish is that there will be politicians with the morals, ethics and wisdom of HM the King, but unfortunately I have not seen anyone come even close.

So many want power so that they can abuse it to gain personal wealth. Many have absolutely no sense of decency in their pursuit of it. Wildlife managers sell animals and own game-meat restaurants. Police officers carry out contract killings. Airport officials and contractors destroy a Bt150-billion airport and cause immeasurable financial damage to the nation. Environmental-protection agencies take pay-offs and let factories pollute unhindered. A transportation company kills 30 people through negligence in vehicle maintenance. Even the layman would rather pour used engine oil in the gutter if he could save Bt20 by not disposing of it properly. Why? Because there are no consequences. People do these things because they can get away with it.

I see shocking examples of lack of character every day. What kind of nation is it that rewrites its constitution all the time? A constitution is usually the result of decades, if not centuries, of evolution. How can anyone expect to completely rewrite one in just a few months? The result will be just another failure, inviting the next coup and constitution.

Che Tiya

Bangkok

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

Reflections on the passing of Thanpuying Phoonsuk

 When I heard that Thanpuying Phoonsuk Banomyong had died I was really depressed. It seemed as though a thread that connected me to my roots and to the agonising birth of democracy in this country had snapped.

I have always thought of Pridi Banomyong as a grandfather because he was a frequent visitor to my maternal grandmother's house, and a lot of history was made there. I remember that my Uncle Eed, who has also passed away, always regaled us with stories of how the police came to arrest my grandmother, accusing her of concealing some great cache of arms for Pridi's revolution. I did not know Thanpuying Phoonsuk that well, but I last saw Pridi in the Netherlands when I was a teenager.

Pridi was an exile living in Paris, and all he wanted was a piece of paper from the Thai Embassy there affirming that he was still alive so that he could collect a small government pension. Certainly a small enough favour to grant the father of democracy, but the ambassador was too scared to provide the affidavit. Instead, Pridi took a train to The Hague, where my father, then ambassador to the Netherlands, wrote the letter. When he came to my house, my mother said: "You must always call this man grandfather. He's one of the most important people you will ever meet, and he is very special to our family."

But this man did not exude any sense of self-importance. He was a gentle, white-haired man, and he and I went for a little walk around the streets of The Hague one afternoon. He radiated a kind of saintliness that I have rarely seen in any human being, and it amazed me that a person who had once held the fate of a nation in his hands found time to talk to me about my teenaged aspirations.

I have thought of him recently because it has occurred to me that Thailand is a country that rarely rewards those who give her their all. Bad things have happened to many of our country's most talented people; they have often become consumed in petty little turf wars or jealous bickering. Terrible things happened to my father, and, in a smaller way, they are happening to me now as they did in 1978, the last time I came back to this country. At least I have had another chance to finish the work I started 30 years ago; many others never came back.

Somtow Sucharitkul

Bangkok

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

Suggested consequences of drug policy are far-fetched

 Re: "US trade consequences real in wake of drug-patent fracas", Letters, May 19.

Will Knight was somewhat irrational in calling Thailand a pariah state. I find the following faults in his letter:

First, he accuses me of dismissing one basic rule of life in not recognising that all actions have consequences. I clearly agreed with this view in my letter of May 18, but I do disagree with the writer's stated consequences as being far-fetched. As a Thai, I was pleasantly surprised by the support we got from US activists and some Christians who condemned the audacity of one drug house in deciding not to export two new drugs to Thailand. As a result of this outcry, that drug house is now slowly backtracking on its stand.

The prospect of Thailand not getting any new good drugs in future, as Knight and many others expected, has now become unreal. Thailand, Brazil and many others owe thanks to former US president Clinton, many US and international activists, and even the drug companies' stockholders.

Second, is compulsory licensing tantamount to stealing the hard work of those drug companies' research departments? Since Thailand relied on the World Trade Organisation rules in its open action then, under WTO rules, one would expect a reaction from the other camp in the world trade body, instead of hitting at Thailand's exports and condemning Thailand as a pariah state. Thailand's message is simple: keep drug royalties at a rate that is conducive to the ability of the poor to pay for the cost of their development.

Third, the proposal that charities fund drugs for the poor instead of two-tiered pricing is a practical solution. But we do not know whether this has ever been discussed by the drug houses and the Thai government or rejected by either party. My impression is that the past strategy of those affected was to carry on talking with as little conclusion and as much confusion as possible.

Finally, if Thailand deserves to be called a pariah state, I can guarantee that Knight's opinions and those of others will never be published in a newspaper whose owners take pride in its independence.

I beg of Knight and others to be open-minded and less materialistic in helping those in power to find the right solution for our fellow men.

Songdej Praditsmanont

Bangkok

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

Americans' desire for goods will temper trade reaction

 Re: "US trade consequences real in wake of drug-patent fracas", Letters, May 19.

It is really pointless for Americans to continue to subtly threaten Thailand with trade restrictions because of its stand on HIV/Aids drugs.

Is Will Knight suggesting that the shrimp and jewellery that they have been importing were either not needed or not wanted? Is he suggesting that those in America who profit from the sale of these commodities are ready to chuck their profits to hit back at Thailand?

Are Americans going to punish Thailand by cutting back their shrimp consumption or craving for jewellery in the same manner that they cut back their oil consumption to punish oil-producing countries for twice doubling the cost of oil over the past 35 years?

The very basis of the American system is greed and consumption. It is deeply ingrained and paramount. It is also America's weakness and has been the cause of every foreign-relations debacle they have been involved in over the past 40 or so years.

If I am wrong, and the American government makes a solid move to punish Thailand in the near future, I assure you that the US shrimp and jewellery lobbies will get it reversed quickly. Not to mention the numerous letters that will be received by congressmen from shrimp restaurants, seafood-lovers, jewellery stores and debutantes.

John Arnone

Yasothon

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

Blair's Iraq stance a disaster for Britain's foreign relations

 Re: "Blair's successor must show same spirit of conviction", Letters, May 17.

I must strongly disagree with Ron Goodden's assessment of Tony Blair as "a paragon", which according to the "Oxford English Dictionary" means "a model of excellence or of a particular quality" and his prediction of political havoc and other disasters as a result of his pending departure from office.

It is precisely his missionary zeal and his firm belief in his own righteousness, along with his spirit of conviction, not to say hubris, that has helped create the mess that the US and Britain have got themselves into in Iraq.

Blair's unflinching support for George W Bush's misguided adventure in Iraq has unquestionably resulted in Britain's loss of prestige and moral authority not only in the Middle East but also in many other parts of the world.

By his foolhardy involvement in the invasion and occupation of Iraq Blair has almost single-handedly increased the danger of Islamic extremism in Britain itself and left his successor, Gordon Brown, the unenviable task of restoring and refurbishing the image of Britain as a beacon of democracy in the troubled world of today.

Edward B Duhigg

Bangkok