Imagine how the world would react if our next election were held without Thaksin. If one has no idea, then imagine the Burmese junta allowing a free election but banning Aung San Suu Kyi.

To the anti-Thaksin camp, comparing him to Suu Kyi is like comparing Hitler to Mother Teresa, but that's not how civilised countries look at it. All they know is that both won a general election decisively. Under normal circumstances, both would have assumed the office of prime minister. Instead, the election results were nullified, and the military grabbed power. To the world, the accusations against Thaksin were made up to justify the coup. None has yet been proved by legal process. The world feels for Thaksin and Suu Kyi the same way it does for rape victims.

So from now on, we can expect the whole world to berate Thailand the same way it does Burma. Expect the whole world to sympathise with Thaksin the same way it does with Aung San Suu Kyi.

Meechai Burapa

Chiang Mai

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

Only the penalty, not poll-fraud law, is new

 Re: "Government must look beyond Thaksin regime's demise", Letters, June 2.

I am compelled to break my self-imposed rule about farangs not commenting on Thai politics. Burin Kantabutra's frequent comments on these pages are usually well written and well pointed, but this time he was just plain wrong.

He asked: "How can any tribunal punish defendants using an ex-post-facto law?" Fortunately, that did not happen. The Election Fraud Law that was being adjudicated on May 30 was a long-standing law; the penalty for the offence was party dissolution. What was changed was the penalty: the five-year ban on political activity was added recently, but during the investigation phase.

This is clearly not a case where a law was created and then applied to a situation that was legal at the time it was committed. It is simply an extension of the penalty for breaking an existing law, and it was added at an appropriate time.

Good job all around!

Grandpa in Chonburi

Chon Buri

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

Chaturon might be good, but he chose bad company

 Re: "Chaturon an honest man who does not deserve ban", Letters, June 2.

Boris Loosebrain's sad lament over the innocence and good character of Chaturon Chaisang reminds me of a getaway driver sitting in his car waiting to speed the thieves away from the gold shop. Is he any less guilty because he didn't actually carry out the robbery? Can he claim that he didn't know what his friends were up to? The man knew, as we all did, the moral character of the leader he followed and what the consequences would be if the Thai Rak Thai house came tumbling down.

Chiang Mai Mike

Chiang Mai

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

TRT acting leader paying for staying with the party

 Re: "Chaturon an honest man who does not deserve ban", Letters, June 2.

I completely agree with Boris Loosebrain that Chaturon Chaisang is a good man. Unfortunately, he was on the wrong side of the fence. He could have resigned when the election-fraud story broke and disassociated himself from Thai Rak Thai, but he chose to stay on till the last. It is very unfair to him, but we must respect the verdict handed down by the Constitution Tribunal.

I would like to see our next administration carry on many of the programmes created by ex-PM Thaksin, with transparency. Many of them are good for the people and our country. He could have been the best prime minister Thailand ever had, but ego and greed got the better of him.

Surasak Piputtana

Bangkok

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

Editorial on Chinese ties ignored crucial issues

 Re: "Thai-China bond unshakeable", Editorial, June 1.

As a supporter of human rights and a regular reader of this newspaper I would like to say that your editorial concerning China is quite possibly one of the worst I've seen in some time.

First, the editorial itself is basically a recitation of facts that one could easily find in reports from the Chinese propaganda bureau about Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont's trip to China. Certainly the visit deserved, and did get, mention in the paper itself, but what exactly was the benefit of devoting so much space in an analysis piece providing no analysis whatsoever of already established facts?

Second, aside from a couple of cursory mentions of Burma, the article skirts the issue of China's stance on human-rights abuses and its support of dictatorial regimes. The fact is that China is helping to prop up two of the most repressive regimes in Asia, North Korea and Burma, and it is stonewalling on the crisis in Darfur in the United Nations.

I'm left trying to come to terms with why your newspaper, which has a pretty strong record on promoting human rights (jumping to mind right away is the coverage you give to the hill-tribe/refugee situation in the North, which I hope to see more of) would come up with such a servile, unchallenging piece about one of the world's greatest backers of human-rights abuses. This is not to mention the abuses that continue to this day within its borders.

My only guess is that China's embracing of the Thai military junta somehow was translated as signifying the country's great friendship with Thailand. I would take this as being absolutely opposite to Thailand's best interests.

There are no doubt benefits to increased trade and economic relations with China, but there are also severe drawbacks. I personally believe that the Thai people, especially farmers, have suffered far more from the already signed Thai-Chinese free-trade agreement (FTA) than they ever would from the proposed Thai-US FTA. Regardless, these are the kind of things that should have been mentioned in an editorial on relations between the two countries written by the free press in Thailand, and I do believe this country has one of the freest presses in Asia.

It's disheartening to see that in the wake of what could be the first step back to some semblance of democracy in Thailand an editorial like this celebrating its opposite would appear. Here's hoping for better next time around.

BF

Bangkok

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

All fired up about new anti-smoking proposal

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

Burin Kantabutra is absolutely right in saying that the only way to change things is to become politically active. I know that he was directing his comments to the Thai public in general, but he should have qualified his statements by mentioning that he was aware that I am a foreigner.

It was with great trepidation that I even submitted an opinion, because I do not believe it is my place to do so. I am not a voter in Thailand; I am simply an observer. Not to mention that marching in the streets and trying to convey to my Isaan neighbours in Laotian what they should be doing could only lead to my getting run out of town on a rail, or worse.

I will tell you what I would get involved in, however. It seems that Dr Prakit Vathesatogkit of the Action on Smoking and Health Foundation is pushing for a ban on smoking in Thailand's pubs and homes. The good doctor is obviously a believer in the American Medical Association's report on second-hand smoke, and now, armed with his beliefs, he wishes to dictate to Thais and foreigners what they can or can't do with their own bodies.

What he is trying to do to the tourist trade, and in particular the tens of thousands of bar workers in Thailand, is bad enough, but I assure you that when he or his smoking police enter my home to tell me that I cannot smoke, you will see me get politically active.

John Arnone

Yasothon

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

Why tax HIV drugs if the cost is already too high?

 Re: "Merck lowers price of patented Aids medicine", News, June 2.

You report that Merck has agreed to reduce the cost of its medicine efavirenz from Bt1,400 to Bt767, including value added tax. So, the government wants the drug companies to reduce prices but still insists on taxing medicine. And they wonder why people doubt their motives.

Dom Dunn

London