This cleaning up of politics by getting rid of fraudulent politicians allows the possibility of starting with a clean slate and a clean break from corrupt, power politics.

Not disbanding the Democrat Party gives a real opportunity for a corruption free government, restoring democracy with transparent policies working for the welfare of the population. I find it incomprehensible that some criticise the wiping out of a bunch of politicians on the basis of overwhelming evidence, and call the punishment too harsh. Too harsh? Isn't the seriousness of the act - undermining democracy - not worth the punishment? I would like to plead for the opposite. The punishment for these kinds of acts should be a ban from politics for life.

In this context I object and detest a letter to your editor yesterday in which a certain "Steven" ["Junta continuing in Thai Rak Thai Party's repressive mould"] opines that the Democrat Party is in cahoots with the Council for National Security and hopes the Thai Rak Thai will come back stronger.

Does he have proof for this claim about the Democrats? Did this man read the crystal-clear verdict and still maintain the same opinion that Thai Rak Thai should come back?

How can anyone still support Thaksin after this verdict, not to mention all of the corruption charges against him in court. And here we have the biggest challenge for this government in which they have failed miserably till now: how to inform the population, especially in the North and Isaan, of all the evidence leading to the disbanding of Thai Rak Thai Party, and how to make them listen and not close their ears. Should they send brochures and pamphlets to all households?

Without a population knowledgeable about the misdeeds of Thai Rak Thai and its leader, which now have been clearly proven and documented, hardly anything will change and a wonderful chance for a new, fresh start will be missed.

Egon

Bangkok

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

Verdicts the by-product of an illegal seizure of power

The ruling of the Constitution Tribunal, which dissolved Thai Rak Thai and banned party executives from politics for five years, shows that the tribunal had no independence and is acting as the arm of the military junta. The whole point of the September 19 coup was to destroy Thai Rak Thai. The junta could not therefore hold an election before it had found someone to prevent the party from taking part in elections. The tribunal has done its job.

It is true that Thai Rak Thai officials paid small parties to stand in the April elections. This was a dishonest act and should be punished. The larger and much more serious fact that the Constitution Tribunal chose to ignore is that the September 19 coup was an illegal and violent act against democracy.

In fact the tribunal ruled that the junta's decrees were legitimate laws. In doing so it gave importance to the "tradition of Thai style governance" and quoted previous coups (October 6, 1976 and February 1991) as useful legal standards. The tribunal argued that dissolving parliament in times of crises was somehow "undemocratic". Yet it is an accepted international democratic standard. Coups by the military are not.

The tribunal never considered why Thai Rak Thai officials paid small parties to stand in the April election? The reason is that Thai Rak Thai was trapped by a legal pitfall that resulted from the Democrats and other opposition parties deciding to boycott the election. Opposition parties boycotted the election because they knew that they would lose because the majority of the electorate did not support them. Paying small parties to stand in this election made no difference to the overall result: 16 million for Thai Rak Thai and 10 million against.

When one looks at it like this we see that the Democrat Party had no democratic principles. Now they are looking forward to winning an election where their main rival has been eliminated by a coup and a tribunal ruling. If Thai Rak Thai is to be accused of destroying democracy, so too must the Democrat Party.

Yet the tribunal has ignored this and made a "political" judgement.

In fact dissolving the political parties was never a proper solution to Thailand's crisis. The people should be trusted to make choices about parties and all those who are interested in politics should engage in democratic debates. This means that the September 19 coup and the tribunal ruling will never be a long-term solution to the crisis.

The junta and its supporters hope that the next election will result in an extreme neo-liberal government which quotes "fiscal discipline" in order to cut welfare for the poor majority. They have written extreme neo-liberalism into their draft constitution.

If they get what they want the majority of the Thai electorate will have a government that they never supported.

We must continue to campaign against the dictatorship and all its supporters. We must continue to build a political party of the Peoples' Movement and we must oppose any election that disenfranchises the poor from making their own choices.

Giles Ji Ungpakorn

Bangkok

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

Public must help restore dignity to political life

Nine brave and noble chief justices of the Constitution Tribunal are to be congratulated on their fair-minded, equitable verdict, based on meticulous deliberation of facts, as a giant step forward toward upholding true democracy while advancing the rule of law in Thailand.

The public must now support the drive to once and for all end the corruptive, egocentric abuse of power crisis in favour of progressive measures to ensure a return to cherished, respectful national pride with dignity in the land of the free.

Dr Chanchai Prasertson

Bangkok

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

Junta has now handed the Democrats one-party rule

The Constitution Tribunal judges have spoken. There is no longer any Thai Rak Thai and 111 of its executives are banned for five years.

The disbanding of a party with 14 million supporters leaves a big gap in representation. I'm sure that can be corrected by reconstituting a new party under a different name, albeit much weakened for lack of suitable, experienced functionaries. The judges bludgeoned their way through the patient instead of using a surgical knife. The danger in their action is that Thailand will go to an election with only one possible winner - the Democrats - and there will be no viable opposition to ensure checks and balances. In this scenario the poor people of Thailand will once again be ignored and disenfranchised.

The generals are now content as they have ensured that Thai democracy will be dormant for the foreseeable future and their role in Thai political life will go on undisturbed. The winners, the Democrats, will be forever grateful to them for handing them power.

The only way for healthy democracy to work is to have parties based on ideologies representing different sections of the electorate. The judges may have been legally correct, but in their indiscriminate punishment of all Thai Rak Thai executives, they have unwittingly assisted in slanting the next election. No new party emerging from the remnants of the Thai Rak Thai Party can have sufficient time now to reorganise and make the next election meaningful. The next election will be a foregone conclusion as a result of only one party, which is intact and able to govern.

Tom Lloyd

Australia

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

Foreigners wary of political involvement

Re: "Encouraging public to be politically active preferable to merely criticising situation", Letters, May 31.

Burin Kantabutra's recent advice to John Arnone regarding political involvement is well founded insofar as it relates to the most effective way for Thai citizens to influence politics. However, the risks to Thais of such outspoken behaviour are not to be ignored as evidenced by the disappearance of a number of such activists in the past. Burin also makes the point that criticism should be accompanied by practical suggestions for solutions. This is where I take issue with his advice to John Arnone. Foreigners living in Thailand are not granted the same rights as Thai citizens. They are constantly subject to the risk of abuse of power by authorities. It is therefore imperative that when someone invites foreigners in Thailand to participate in politics that he also advocates for his fellow Thais to seek equal rights for foreigners living in Thailand.

Those of us foreigners who would like to contribute to the political development of Thailand firstly need the support of the Thai people to achieve equal rights and protection under Thai law. Foreigners and their families already have concerns regarding their lack of rights here. It would be foolish indeed to invite authorities to make life more difficult for foreigners.

If democracy is truly not a "spectator sport" as Kay Maxwell says, then foreigners who wish to play the game need to be confident the same rules apply to all players and the referee can not unfairly "red card" some players out of the game.

Sibeymai

Bangkok

Send us your views in an instant E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to the Editor' in the subject box, to: letters@nationgroup.com