If bus-leasing project is good, why hide the TOR?

The more the NESDB and other financial analysts take the proposal apart, including the terms of reference (TOR), the clearer it should be that all the party has at heart is our welfare. We will then see for ourselves if the TOR don't favour anybody; the bidders are all independent; that there is a reason for assuming revenues of Bt10,000 per bus per day, when the BMTA has only been able to average between Bt6,000 and Bt7,000, and vote for Bhum Jai Thai in the next election.

So, why does Transport Minister Sophon Saram object to having the Office of the Attorney-General scrutinise the TOR? Why is the party putting up billboards touting the deal's benefits, not its costs, and distributing a million booklets about the project? Just put the TOR, feasibility study, including the justification of assumptions, and winning bid on the ministry's website.

Bhum Jai Thai, why fear the truth? Are the allegations of Bt35 billion in commissions true? PM Abhisit Vejjajiva must have the courage to get to the bottom of this matter, for as Hamlet said, "To be honest, as this world goes, is to be one man picked out of ten thousand." Is Newin that one in ten thousand?

BURIN KANTABUTRA

BANGKOK

The law is how you see it

Re: "Do not expect Thai land laws to change", Letters, June 10

Somsak Pola's prediction that land laws will not change for the next 100 years is no doubt accurate. However, the current discussion is in fact about the shifting interpretations of existing laws by civil servants, not about changing them in Parliament.

To understand the recent confusion, we need to delve into the history of the interpretation of the law. Although the Land Act of 1954 and its subsequent amendments have never contained any gender bias, until 1999 regulations prevented Thai women married to or cohabiting with foreign men from owning land or passing it on to their children, while Thai men married to foreign women enjoyed full rights.

In recognition of the fact that this discrimination against Thai women was incompatible with the 1997 Constitution, the regulations were amended in 1999 to restore land-ownership rights to Thai women married to foreigners and their children. A form was introduced for foreign and Thai couples, whether married or co-habiting, to sign confirming that the funds used to purchase land were the property of the Thai spouse and that the land will not become part of conjugal property, ie, the foreign spouse would have no claim over it. The notes to this ministerial regulation explained clearly that the Interior Ministry's intention was to ease the burden of Land Department officials in checking sources of funds and ensure fair treatment for citizens married to foreigners.

The form introduced by the Interior Ministry was seemingly a means to ensure that land remained under Thai ownership. That was until the recent remarks by Land Department director-general Anuwat Meteewiboonwat. Now, it seems that the Interior Ministry needs to clarify whether this regulation and the intention behind it are going to be rescinded and replaced with something similar to the status quo prior to 1999, or whether Anuwat just meant to point out that foreign and Thai couples who fail to sign the declaration are breaking the law.

GEORGE MORGAN

BANGKOK

Little the govt can do if your spouse plays up

Re: Misplaced fear, misguided rules ruining Thailand; 'Make policies more relevant', Letters, yesterday

Many foreign writers are livid about the comments made by the Land Department's director-general on the source of funds of a Thai wife as the basis of invalidating land acquisition. A case of this nature has never been tested in a court of law. However, in a couple checks with most reputable lawyers, it is not that easy to return land to the state especially, under Thai legal concept, a husband and wife is basically regarded as one "legal" individual. Furthermore, Thai laws favour human rights in a lopsided manner.

In my opinion, it is not the Land Department official that foreign husbands need to fear - it is their Thai wives who can wreak havoc on their husbands, especially when a marriage is based on utopian love.

SONGDEJ PRADITSMANONT

BANGKOK

A case in point

In reference to letters concerning foreigners owning Thai land, I have a case that maybe one of your readers can clarify.

I am currently divorcing a Thai. While married, I paid for the purchase of land and a home built in Kalasin for her mother. The land and house are registered in my wife's name. Since we are divorcing, I would like to know if I can report this case so the land can be confiscated by the state. My payment is well documented and substantial.

Someone please clarify how I can take the Thai government for their word?

WILLIAM ALLEN

BANGKOK