Wise thoughts on |democracy from Thaksin

This would be in agreement with Aristotle: "If liberty and equality are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost."

Thus, his brother-in-law, of all people, should quickly decentralise the reins of power, encouraging all persons to share in government. For example, the new Constitutional Drafting Assembly should follow the process done a decade ago under Anand Panyarachun, and hold extensive public hearings nationwide. Citizens should be encouraged to debate the issues of the day, whether it be a dam, our education system, or corruption.

Issues should be debated at the local level, for it is those in each locality who are impacted most by a dam, poor education system, corrupt police, etc.

PM Somchai Wongsawat, your brother-in-law's speaking the truth for once. Listen to him.

BURIN KANTABUTRA

BANGKOK

Will dumping Yaowapa make Somchai better?

Because he is Thaksin's brother-in-law, Somchai Wongsawat has been chastised daily that he is unfit to be prime minister.

Will it help ease the tension if Somchai divorces his wife?

MEECHAI BURAPA

CHIANG MAI

A few points that explain the guilty verdict

Re: A verdict, but some questions are still to be answered, News, October 24

Here are the answers to the questions posted by Pravit Rojanaphruk about the guilty verdict on Thaksin Shinawatra.

The law prohibits Thaksin from transacting business with a government agency. The genesis of the law is to prevent undue influence and corruption.

Thaksin faced charges of abuse of power and conflict of interest for helping his wife purchase a lucrative plot of land from a state agency. It is not difficult for the court to believe that Thaksin approved, helped or colluded with his wife to buy the land. He signed off on the deal and lent his signature as the prime minister for all the world to see. The same conclusion will be reached if, instead of Pojaman, there is another agent working on behalf of Thaksin to acquire the land. This should not be difficult to comprehend.

Pravit also posed a question about the conflict of interest between the coup group and Thaksin or the legitimacy of the Asset Examination Committee established by the coup regime.

He wants the court to rule on the appropriateness of the coup d'etat.

Here are some facts of life. A successful coup topples the existing government by military power. They can tear up the constitution and adopt a new one more to their liking. They can issue legislation by edicts. They have seized power and, in effect, become sovereign of the day. They can even set up a new court or do away with one.

The court is not in a position to nullify their action much the same way the court cannot refuse to enforce the Penal Code or Civil and Commercial Code enacted by the national legislature.

Pravit may continue to have questions, but the court's decision is correct and it is beyond the court's authority to invalidate actions or creations of the coup group, even though the court may find military takeover immoral, unconstitutional or distasteful.

We have had nineteen military takeovers. The court cannot undo governmental action during military rule. It is up to Parliament to pass legislation to remedy the problems and the court can enforce such legislation.

For example, the current legislature probably wants to grant amnesty to Thaksin and his family if they can get away with such a move.

VEHARACHAN

BANGKOK