Ensuring justice in road rage killing is in the best interest of all Thai people

I was disgusted by the attack on public transport users by a private transport user, and in such a manner for one thing. But I was even more disgusted to learn that his family is doing everything possible to pervert the course of justice, pleading their son's diminished responsibility and starting a cynical campaign of contrition; even going as far as perversely setting up a "Mooham fan-club" website.

But I was yet more disgusted and physically nauseated when they actually won cooperation for their twisted cause from Channel 3 and in particular Sorayuth Suthassanajinda, who conducted an "interview" with the suspect's father. I will never watch that man or that channel again - and I urge a boycott. And I will be literally heartbroken if the Thai people themselves do not stand up and say 'enough is enough', people with influence cannot get away with murder anymore.

There are many ways that the public can do this and win - boycotts, street protests and petitions.

I am genuinely filled with horror at the thought of that family's campaign bearing fruit and the suspect getting off in some way. This is 2007; take a stand now and save your self-respect, save your names, save yourselves. Please remember, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". The responsibility to act does not lie with someone else, it lies with all citizens of Thailand. To use a fitting metaphor for this time of year: the ball is in your court.

Breaking Heart

BANGKOK

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

Son's acts partly explained by father's disrespect

As a bystander when the "out-of-control" rich kid ran over people disembarking from a bus, I would like to add this: I have read the rude and disrespectful response from his father and now know why his son is so out of control. He got his "condition" from his father.

Michael Robertson

BANGKOK

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

Privatisation a safer guarantee for tap water

Re: "Bangkok's tap water claimed safe to drink" Letters, July 9.

From what I have read about the safety of Bangkok's public water supply, it does seem that the city's tap water currently meets international standards and is therefore safe to drink. But what happens if things go wrong?

The domestic water supply in Bangkok is controlled by a government agency and is not subject to commercial interests. I wonder how well quality is monitored, particularly if the main source of Bangkok's domestic water supply (rivers and canals) is considered, and if crucial safety features are properly ensured. Who would be made accountable if critical mistakes were made in the water purification process, such as cleaning filters, chemical treatment, water analysis, illegal dumping of industrial effluent into rivers, prevention of sabotage, etc? Householders will still have to pay for their domestic water supply whatever happens.

Government agencies in Thailand are historically not well known for transparency, solving safety problems, admitting blame, compensating victims of disasters or learning from past mistakes. I believe water produced by a reputable national or international company would be inherently safer because the company has everything to lose if even one of their bottles of water were found to be contaminated to any degree. It's all about checks and balances for commercial companies versus government agencies.

Peter Moseley

BANGKOK

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

Columnist wide of the mark in Thaksin critique

Re: "Thaksin surely has a new sinister game in play", Opinion, July 8.

More often than not, editorials from the staff of The Nation are well researched, well thought out and well written. The editorials normally present information from different viewpoints and provide the reader with food for thought on pressing issues. Sopon Onkgara seems to have missed the mark on Sunday with a discourse condemning his profession, colleagues, the Thai people, and of course the former prime minister, his extended family and Manchester City's new team manager.

He first attacks his colleagues who play golf and travel abroad, calling some of them "chummy columnists on his [Thaksin's] payroll to cause more damage to Thailand". Why doesn't he go along and investigate his suspicions? Next he states planning might be in the works "to fool gullible rural people" into participating in plans to further the former prime minister's cause. Near the end of the column he states, "Thai people do not want Thaksin to be extradited to face the due process in Thailand and the justice system here. It's not worth the trouble". The writer thinks the Thai people would prefer that the English High Court deal with Thaksin. Without any empirical evidence I find all of these statements questionable.

Sopon tried to portray parallels between Thaksin and the deceased former American entertainer and legend, Frank Sinatra. History has shown that Frank Sinatra was not in the Mafia but he did socialise with people who were.

He was an entertainer and performed in Las Vegas, which was mob controlled at the time. Sophon says his new nickname may be his way of demonstrating to the world that he has something to do with Mafia-type activities. That is quite a stretch of one's imagination and I really don't think the "gullible rural people" are going to make a connection.

Sopon first tells Sven-Goran Erikkson that he should be wary of being paid with Thaksin's "questionable hoard of money" and then launches into references to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act (RICO) of 1970 in the United States. While it is true that RICO is "much dreaded" by organised crime in the US, the other 300 million people don't dread it at all. What does a US law have to do with this column? From what I read in the international press some of this "hoard of money" has been accessed in England already.

In my humble opinion justice will be sure but not swift in this very convoluted assortment of investigations and prosecutions. I respect Sopon's right to have opinions but he should back them up with facts and not sarcastic humour. May I suggest he relax a bit, and perhaps learn to play golf.

David Barkdull

BANGKOK

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

Up minimum meter fare to improve taxi service

It must be at least eight years since the minimum fare for taxis was set at Bt35 and like most things in life you get what you pay for - frequent refusal ratio when you state your destination, coupled with often atrocious driving. If they were to double the minimum charge but enforce a mandatory test for drivers, plus guarantee that a driver, once he stops his vehicle, must take a potential customer to a stated destination as long as it is within the metropolitan Bangkok area.

In return you would, theoretically, get rid of the chaff and get far more professional and conscientious people behind the wheel. Who knows if the same theory would hold in politics or with the police force?

Dr Kill-Patient

BANGKOk