I was most amused by Stephff's view of the pantomime being played by Thaksin's wife and the little aside of the title of the newspaper being carried. What, however, is far from funny, is the way this woman is making a fool of the Kingdom and its institutions.

She continues to act in an imperious manner and behaves as if she is above following the correct procedures. It is time for her to be compelled to appear before the legal authorities to address the matters put against her, as the longer this obscene charade is allowed to continue the more the Kingdom's reputation is tarnished.

John de Laurent

Bangkok

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

The overly flexible bars of the nation's 'elite prisons'

My sympathy goes out to the governor of the "Elite Prison for Corrupt Officials" (Epco). Though there is always much talk of wrongdoers in power either being prosecuted or jailed, Epco is suffering from severe under crowding and overstaffing. Those who are publicly, and with much fanfare, ordered to take up residence within its walls never appear, or don't stay long enough to wet their toothbrushes more than once. This creates a problem for the warders, or prison valets as they're known, wasting their time organising pleasing diversions, and chefs frustrated at preparing mouth-watering nutritious meals for the new arrivals only to find out that there will be a no-show. It has been suggested that changing the name from "prison" to "hotel" might make the place seem more accommodating to these reluctant high profile inmates.

Though there is much media attention in the newspapers and on television when these same con-men are found guilty, their exemption or release from jail is given far less attention. They will vanish until their phoney incarceration and humiliation is quickly erased from the public memory, and then re-emerge as the elder statesmen they have always been to offer their collective wisdom and views on the latest situations.

Chiang Mai Mike

Chiang Mai

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

The consumer saves when utilities are privatised

Re: "CDA 'green light' for privatisations", News, June 20.

Government after government has promoted privatisation of state enterprises - and now, we're banning it, at least for state utilities.

Why the ban? Is it because Thai Rak Thai-connected investors benefited from the privatisation and listing of PTT? That'd be akin to banning driving because there were some drunk drivers. Is it because utilities are national infrastructures? If so, why not identify specific dangers that might arise from privatisation, and take specific measures against them?

Privatisation of businesses harmful to the public health and which could cause social problems, specifically the Thai Tobacco Monopoly and the Government Lottery Office, would not be allowed. Given that they're so dangerous, why have them at all? What redeeming social values do they have that outweigh their costs?

A key reason for privatisation has been to subject state enterprises to market forces, yielding greater efficiency, eg an expert at an independent power producer "guesstimated" for me that Egat's efficiency was only about 60 per cent of his - and Egat's one of our "stars". No proponent of stopping privatisation dares propose a concrete plan to make state enterprises match the private sector's efficiency. Yet, this inefficiency means that you, dear reader, and I must pay more than necessary for our utilities; are the anti-privatisation forces protecting your interests?

Our regimes are notorious for making policy based on short-term political currents. This one should make a lasting contribution to our political and economic development by having major policy issues researched by a neutral body, with public hearings, before passing laws - starting with privatisation.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

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

Hemp farming a potential goldmine for Thailand

California's elected assembly of representatives recently voted 41 to 29 to approve the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act. The legislation gives California farmers the right to grow industrial hemp, which is commonly made into food, clothing, paper, body care products, bio-fuel and even auto parts. The bill now goes to the California senate where it is expected to have enough support to pass. Let's hope governor Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't veto it.

Since most world trends start in California (national parks, handicapped parking, non-smoking areas, adopt a highway programme, etc), it's encouraging to think that allowing the farming of hemp there may lead to a more reasonable outlook on hemp in Thailand. Thailand currently follows the lead of the US in regard to its policies toward psychoactive drugs. Anyone who knows anything about hemp knows it's not marijuana and it's not psychoactive (it can't get you high). Indeed, a cup of coffee, a cigarette, or a glass of beer will warp your thinking more than smoking a bagful of hemp. However, Thailand's current policy is not based on any investigations by Thai researchers - but instead based on residual paranoia of witch-hunts instigated by a few American conservatives from bygone days.

We don't really expect Thai politicos to be looking at this subject, as their days are packed with playing golf, checking on their mia noi, and looking over their shoulders to see who might figuratively stab them in the back. Even so, hemp is for farmers what financing is for businessmen. Its myriad practical uses are being developed by China, Canada, Australia and many other countries. Meanwhile, Thailand is out to lunch on the topic, and its farmers are cut off from partaking in a golden opportunity.

Ken Albertsen

Chiang Rai

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

War years not as smoky as some may remember

Re: "The insidious use of personal restrictions", Letters, June 19.

Mr Bill offers a distorted picture of the post-war years. I was born in the middle of World War II. I can remember clothing and food rationing which went on until 1952 and 1954 respectively. In one sense yes, those were special times! The system of allotments was introduced to make use of any square foot (as it then was) of land to grow food to help overcome the food shortage started by the Germans attacking the ships bringing food into the country. I still do not like to see food wasted, even in this country with its relatively cheap, plentiful supplies of food.

On buses most people sat or stood on the lower deck. You did not risk the upper deck because people were allowed to smoke up there. Railway trains were divided into smoking and non-smoking compartments and heaven help anyone who tried to light up a cigarette in a non-smoking compartment. Those were my experiences of the same era that Mr Bill refers to. No not nearly everyone smoked and I grew up to consider smoking the dirty harmful habit which we now know it to be and hated the stench of stale smoke on the clothing and skin of smokers.

In later years when I rose to using aircraft it was most annoying being seated in the boundary row next to smokers. I was much relieved when smoking was banned on all internal flights and international flights into and out of Australia, which by that time was my country of nationality. The push for that did not come, as Mr Bill would probably like you to think, from a dictatorial interfering government. It came from the organised workforce, ie the trade unions who won their case on the basis of workplace safety.

With all the fuss about smoking at home I would suggest that no one who cares about their family members would smoke at home anyway because of the effect smoking would have on the health of their loved ones.

Gareth Clayton

Bangkok