Civic groups could provide a vital public input in Thai society

As citizens and taxpayers, the people have the right to monitor and ask questions about the state of affairs of the country. Even without a crisis, people have the right to set up any organisation that serves the public interest. Such organisations can focus on issues like taxation, fiscal policy, the safety of life and property, healthcare, education, equal opportunity and many others. It is certainly the right of the people to closely take part in the administration of the country. And the government should welcome such public participation, so that it understands the needs of people.

I have been a member of the Planetary Society in Pasadena, California, which advocates space exploration. When President George W Bush cut the budget for some space programmes, members of the society, including myself, sent petitions to members of Congress.

Eventually, some of the budget was restored and a spacecraft is now on its way to Pluto. If a non-US citizen like me is allowed to make pleas to members of the US Congress, surely US citizens must have a far greater say in the affairs of their country. This kind of public involvement in the affairs of the country is totally missing here, so we should encourage the formation of civic groups through which people can exercise their rights and make things happen. These groups should be open to all.

Prichar

Bangkok

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

No hidden agenda in reports on Pai shooting

Re: "Pai reporter's comments out of place in 'letters'", Letters, February 11.

Oh dear. I am not going to get involved in a rant here on the letters page. So please take this as my final say.

Yet another anonymous correspondent using the first name "Carl" seems to think there is a hidden agenda in the Pai murder.

Carly Reisig has indeed given different accounts to a reporter who interviewed her in Chiang Mai and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the court.

There is no secret here. Both accounts have been published in The Nation. They are not as different as "night and day" but there are discrepancies, which The Nation has properly recorded and which will remain on file.

What is significant in both cases is that she insists the policeman was shooting down at Leo Del Pinto when the policeman put a bullet through his head. So do two independent witnesses whose testimony I was invited to listen to. Their testimony also fits with the forensic evidence.

The policeman's claim that he was attacked from above is seriously compromised, even without the evidence of Carly Reisig or the other witnesses.

If Carl is suggesting that the NHRC is rigging the evidence, he should take it up with them. I am not holding a torch for anyone but I do trust the people at the NHRC, who might want to ask Carl what his knowledge is of the case or whether he is just another pundit.

There are similarities to the case in Kanchanaburi (though the personalities are widely different). In both cases, police say they were trying to break up an argument between two foreigners. In both cases, they say they were hit by people bigger than them. In both cases, both foreigners were shot. In both cases, the policemen fled the scene. In both cases, they were given extraordinary support by fellow officers. In both cases, the morals of the female victim were questioned.

Of course, when he went to court, the policeman in Kanchanaburi changed it all and said he was not there at all when the shooting happened. It was done by his informant "Mr Yaa".

If Sergeant Uthai Dechawiwat was knocked to the ground as he claims, this would certainly put the shooting into the "loss of face" category. That of course was speculation and stated as such.

Readers, I am sure, will make up their own minds on all this.

I'm closing this correspondence as another Canadian has been murdered in Ranong.

Andrew Drummond

Bangkok

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

Show of good faith needed from Burmese junta

The Burmese junta's announcement that the time has now come to change from military rule to democratic civilian rule and that a multiparty election is planned for 2010 is a surprise, although the move could be seen not as a step forward, but rather just the usual stalling tactics on the part of the junta to cling on to power indefinitely.

Most of the regime's critics are not convinced that the election will be held in 2010 as planned when the result of the constitutional referendum, which is due in May of this year, is still far from certain.

Perhaps, looking at it from the junta's perspective, the referendum might be considered a done deal.

If the rigged 1974 constitutional referendum, which was stage-managed by the military regime of the time and sailed through unopposed, is any indication, the junta will push it through by hook or by crook.

And if the referendum can be manipulated, the junta might as well do the same with the 2010 nationwide election.

Regardless of such speculation, the junta should be given the benefit of the doubt. To prove its goodwill, sincerity and seriousness to all stakeholders, the junta could definitely implement some basic confidence-building measures that are within its capacity.

The first thing the junta can do is improve or create a favourable political climate. This would involve, among other actions, the unconditional release of Aung San Suu Kyi, Khun Tun Oo, Hsur Hten and all other political prisoners, declaring a nationwide ceasefire with all ethnic resistance armies and facilitating freedom of expression and the freedom to form and operate political organisations.

With the improving political climate, the junta's constitutional blueprint could be discussed in an open and transparent manner leading to an acceptable constitution after some adjustments or amendments are made by all stakeholders within Burma.

After this, the agreed draft constitution would be ready for a referendum, which would preferably be held under the auspices of the United Nations.

Once this gets started, it will gain momentum and the rest will fall into place.

What is urgently needed now is the sincere political will for a change for the better from the junta.

The junta needs to understand that the key words to real reconciliation and democratisation include all-inclusiveness, political accommodation and a level playing field. Anything less would only mean the continuation of a tyrannical rule and total control of the populace, which in turn would be met with resistance again and again, as was made evident by the recent September Saffron Revolution, as well as the 1962, 1974 and 1988 mass uprisings.

It is high time for the junta to seriously push for a civilised and smooth change in real words and deeds.

Sai Wansai

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

The Nation