Happy to use and then abuse

Meechai Burapa writes: "This letter's purpose is to irrationally glorify the PAD and blindly attack Thaksin, inciting hatred between the two sides."

The sad part is that the letter came from the Open Forum for Democracy Foundation (Poll Watch), an organisation I have admired and respected."

Perhaps Khun Meechai should consider why an organisation he purports to admire and respect would write such a letter. Instead of dismissing the content he should consider why it was composed and signed. Part of showing respect is accepting other opinions instead of blindly criticising simply because they are not your opinions.

Is this any different to Thaksin being critical of the justice system when it goes against him, but being happy to use it to crush those who oppose him, or even abuse it when it suits? Again, you can't have it both ways.

Bernard

Chonburi

----------

Re-broadcast of Thaksin's speech must be stopped

I agree with most of the open letter from the Open Forum for Democracy Foundation ("Poll Watch") (Letters, November 4) and have the greatest respect for its directors, some of whom I know and am honoured to count as friends.

I agree that any government which allows a convicted fugitive to challenge the legitimacy of the judiciary that convicted him without a vigorous response, and lets his broadcast be played without seeking an injunction, has itself lost the legitimacy to rule and should be replaced through legal means.

As Poll Watch points out, such replacement must be peaceful as well as constitutional. But I would add that just as my right to swing my fist stops where my neighbour's nose begins, the PAD, which seeks to oust PM Somchai, must not infringe on the rights of others, e.g., our right to have a functioning government. If it seeks to take away that right, the PAD must be held accountable according to the law.

Poll Watch calls for dissolution of Parliament. This is fine, but we must not think, as ex-PM Surayud seemingly did, that elections are the beginning and the end of democracy.

PM Somchai acts as if his government exists to benefit one convicted fugitive: his brother-in-law. Would he let other fugitives like ex-Bangkok Bank of Commerce advisor Rakesh Saxena call in from overseas to a stadium full of supporters, claiming that our judiciary was biased against him, and that his only hope of returning home lay with higher institutions or the power of the people - especially when the country is a ticking time bomb, sliding towards civil war? Why, then, is he letting pro-government satellite television MV5 re-broadcast Thaksin's speech? Why does he not seek a court injunction to stop Veera Musikaphong, co-host of the "Truth Today" talk show on the state-controlled NBT channel, from re-broadcasting the talk?

Himself an ex-judge, PM Somchai seems content to put family ties first and foremost, even if it means undermining the rule of law.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

---------

Presidential loser sets an example to Thai politicians

"McCain concedes presidency, congratulates Obama," said a headline yesterday. "The American people have spoken and they have spoken clearly," said McCain. He also said, "Senator Obama has achieved a great thing for himself and for his country."

Imagine if a Thai politician were in McCain's shoes. What would he say? "All my votes are clean." Or, "If Senator Obama is unable to form the cabinet, I am ready and willing to do it myself." Or, "It's all about who has more money." Or, "I'll call for a re-election on the grounds that … uh … I'll think of something."

Thai politicians just don't lose well, do they?

Meechai Burapa

Chiang Mai

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

G W Bush; well, what did you expect?

As the curtain falls on the reign of George W Bush, one thing must be said: he did not disappoint.

His resume spelled it out loud and clear from the beginning: a blustering saloon bar galloot with a less than distinguished record in the military, business or political office.

He performed exactly as his record predicted - and therefore cannot be blamed.

The electorate must learn from this 8-year disaster and remember forever, the danger of giving halfwits (even female ones in red costumes) the chance to hold the reins of power.

A Warner

Bangkok

-----------

LETTERS END

I suggest that we learn from democracies elsewhere. For example, before the Democrats decided on their standard-bearer, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in 22 gruelling debates, and afterwards, McCain and Obama went through the same tests. Our universities should take the lead in arranging such debates, both at local and national levels, for they are credible as neutrals and are our centres of learning. The Open Forum for Democracy could expand beyond its nickname of Poll Watch, and help coordinate such debates.

Another thing that we can learn from other democracies is that after there's a clear and fair winner, all must unite behind him, rather than keep at each other's throats. Our opponents are not our foes.

Burin Kantabutra