For instance, in the letter by Tom Lloyd in The Nation last Friday ["Junta has now handed the Democrats one-party rule"] the author states categorically that "Thai democracy will be dormant for the foreseeable future". As this is the kind of dubious and perhaps deliberately mischievous statement that the Australian foreign minister has reiterated since the coup, he may well agree.

Of course, as these people evidently had no practical solution to the parliamentary dictatorship Thaksin sought to legitimise by phoney elections, one wonders whether they would have displayed such an essentially uncaring attitude if similar events had occurred in their country. One can only guess how they will spin the court's verdict that Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party had " no ideology beyond the personal ambitions of it's founder".

Closer to home, it seems Giles Ji Ungpakorn ["Verdicts the by-product of an illegal seizure of power", Letters, June 1] too wants us to view recent events in a peculiar way. He ignores the abundant evidence that Thaksin had effectively politicised bodies such as the Election Commission in order to carry out gross electoral fraud for the same motive, ie, for Thaksin's cronies to maintain political domination at seemingly any cost to the country. So, my suggestion to Thaksin and his foreign friends is to stop making trouble, start supporting Manchester City and to perhaps even buy it if you want, because Thailand is not your toy anymore.

Frank Lee

Nonthaburi

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

Pojaman has had plenty of time to alter her schedule

Re: "Pojaman wants five-week delay", News, June 5.

I read this story with interest and a snicker. Of course she wants a delay! It is so obvious that she really wants a permanent delay.

How is it that there has been no more "news" regarding the freezing of her and her husband's assets? The first rule in Law 101 is that if you might be guilty, delay, delay, delay ... Of course, I am not prejudging anyone.

Then, maybe the prosecution witnesses will die, have amnesia, or have more time to change their "testimoney". Did I misspell that, or did money creep in to the discussion ... again? There has been plenty of opportunity for her to change her overseas commitments to meet the Thai court's calendar. Is this how she shows her respect for the rule of law that her husband espouses?

Oh yes, one final question: will the government ever really try to recover ill-gotten money from them? Looks questionable now!

Legal Eagle

Bangkok

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

Vital measures being ignored in deep South

I would like to congratulate The Nation on its editorial on Saturday "Army blundering threatens security". It is truly mind boggling how incompetent the handling of the attacks in the South has been.

The daily tragedies of Thais assaulting Thais are so against recent Thai history and tradition.

You point out the incredible incompetence of the military when it comes to such basics as arriving to care for wounded soldiers on a timely basis and engaging in hot pursuit of insurgents. With modern technology - communications, drone aircraft, helicopters, etc - the means are there to better handle both of these matters. Moreover, certain countries have offered the advisory assistance of special military and civilian units with the experience, knowledge, skills, and technology to make a key difference. One can't help but wonder why the Thai military declines such assistance, or at least why it does so publicly.

Then, there's tracking of the sources of money, munitions and weapons. It would seem elementary to pursue these avenues. One assumes the commercial banks would be more than willing to cooperate.

In the South, the business of physical intimidation for money has flourished for decades and not just in the deep South. There is nothing religious or political about it. It's just business.

We have to accept that the Thai military has little combat experience. However, the Thai military needs to accept assistance from those countries whose military have more experience, more know-how, and better technology. That assistance needs to also include methods of following the money trail and weapons supply channels.

Alternatively, one could suspect that the military is somehow complicit in the situation, seeking to justify a fatter budget. Thailand ranks 15th in the world in the number of active troops, but ranks 20th in population. Thailand has no external enemies, therefore, no threat of imminent attack, thus, making a significant military entirely superfluous. But serious domestic violence provides an ostensible justification for such a large military budget. One might wonder, however, why so many troops are stationed in Bangkok and why the Army has such a huge portion of the prime real estate within Bangkok when their mission is to protect the borders.

Thanks again for an excellent editorial. Let us hope the military is grateful for the feedback.

Gibson Martin

Bangkok

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

Clarification needed in intelligence-sharing story

Last Friday, after the bilateral meeting last Wednesday between the Thai foreign minister and the Swedish foreign minister at the Asem Foreign Ministers Meeting held in Hamburg, Germany, The Nation published a report titled "Intelligence on militants in Sweden to be shared".

In that news item, there was a statement made by Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesman Tharit Charungvat in response to the question raised by a Thai reporter of whether the case of the Patani United Liberation Organisation was discussed at that meeting that was not clarified properly. The Foreign Affairs Ministry would like to state the facts as follows:

The spokesman stated that the case was raised by the Thai side. In response, the Swedish side mentioned that the freedom of activities should be within the limits of Swedish law and that the matter should be a subject of further discussion between the two sides.

Songphol Sukchan

Director of Press Division

Department of Information, Foreign Affairs Ministry

Bangkok

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

Locals can benefit from informed foreign views

Re: "Foreigners wary of political involvement", Letters, June 1.

Sibeymai makes the very valid point that: "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 [by suggesting practical ways for improvement] that he also advocates for his fellow Thais to seek equal rights [against abuse of power] for foreigners living in Thailand."

Thais, too, are subject to abuse of power by the authorities, eg, frequent tax audits, so speaking out has risks for all. But, yes, being a non-Thai carries extra risk, and one must observe normal standards of courtesy expected of a guest in another person's home.

But that said, a wise man learns from the mistakes of others. We should make full use of the experiences of the foreigners in our midst, especially those with in-depth knowledge of our circumstances, for their countries may have gone through similar problems, and especially since, as the National Legislative Assembly's critiques made clear, our government apparently has little idea of a game plan beyond going after Thaksin.

Also, non-involvement as a guest has its limits, and, say, while I as a guest would not interfere in a family spat, if husband and wife were taking hammer and tongs to each other (as down South), no guest could remain a mere observer.

Thus, I do advocate that foreigners have equal rights against abuse of power by the authorities, and that they speak out constructively and offer feasible solutions. We Thais should carefully evaluate their ideas, and decide for ourselves.

There are many ways in which non-Thais can help. Safest, of course, would be to use a nom de plume when speaking out through the media. Also, they may contribute in many non-confrontational ways, for example by teaching with an emphasis on teaching how to think, not what to think, and focusing on community-relevant topics. Thus, they may have students do an age-appropriate survey of the benefits and costs of having a mega-retailer in the neighbourhood, or of how residents perceive that rule of law has been applied locally - and discuss the results in class.

I thank Sibeymai for bringing up an excellent point, contributing constructively to our discussion, and invite him/her to keep it up.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok