Seven pillars and a roadmap to peace

I suggest that since both sides have democracy as the alleged centrepiece of their platforms, they focus negotiations on implementing Anand Panyarachun's Seven Pillars of Sustainable Democracy - elections, political tolerance, rule of law, freedom of expression, accountability and transparency, decentralisation and civil society.

Thus, under political tolerance and freedom of expression, they would negotiate how to allow voters to hear all sides of the issues of the day, with no provinces being off-limits, and all parties being able to present their platforms in peace. Under the rule of law, accountability and transparency, they would negotiate how to get all parties - like politicians, businessmen, the military and police - to follow the spirit and letter of the law, such as paying all taxes due and being accountable for their acts, including corruption, tax evasion or manslaughter. Under decentralisation and civil society, they would negotiate the direct election of governors, or control of police by those they are sworn to protect and serve.

As Gothom proposes, both sides should formulate a roadmap with key milestones so that they could reach a consensus without being bogged down by the details of some of the issues, which are complex and difficult to agree upon at this stage. The mass media, including outlets of both the government and reds, should open up more public space for the exchange of opinions from both supporters and opponents of the anti-government movement. I suggest that universities, being credible and neutral centres of learning, should play a key role as a moderator in this exchange of opinions.

After both sides agree upon a roadmap to implement the Seven Pillars and the government has had an agreed-upon period to show that it could implement the Seven Pillars more effectively than the reds, we would have new elections.

BURIN KANTABUTRA

BANGKOK

The hollow promises of a billionaire

Ref: "How can a billionaire speak for the poor?", Letters, March 20.

I have to agree with the writer that Thaksin is not a fit spokesman for the poor of Thailand, or anyone in Thailand, or anyone at all, for that matter. His behaviour towards the Kingdom has been utterly lamentable. The companies that he built up into Shin Corp, he happily sold in toto to a foreign government regardless of the question of national security.

He now boasts about owning gold and diamond mines in Africa, real estate in Dubai and hotels and islands in Europe, and is supposedly buying vast tracts of land in Cambodia. Is this the behaviour of a patriot, a man who can say he champions the lot of the dispossessed poor in Thailand, when he happily invests out of Thailand so prolifically and to the exclusion of his homeland?

Is he investing in water-saving or rice-development programmes or irrigation projects in Isan or any community project benefiting Thailand and its people? No, he is only looking for fast, easy money in countries whose politics and the rule of law are sufficiently pliable so as not to inconvenience his endless lust for money.

One does however not have to look far at all to see a figure that has tirelessly and selflessly invested in his country throughout his life, and continues to do so unquestioningly and with the sole objective of helping ordinary citizens directly and with no need for any form of return save to see Thai citizens prosper.

I see now that Thaksin is apologising to the citizens of Bangkok for the traffic chaos this weekend because of the demonstrations and is saying that it can only be solved permanently when he returns and fixes it. Well he said that last time and nothing happened. The man's promises are totally hollow and not to be trusted.

JAMES DUNDASS

BANGKOK

Three acts changed the image of Thailand

Ref: "Abhisit questions Thaksin's role as voice of 'peasants'", March 20.

Thaksin Shinawatra said he earned his money by "having a brain - which is useful, not dangerous".

This reminded me of Sir Alec Douglas Home, one British prime minister, branding his opposition leader, Mr Harold Wilson, as being too clever by half. Without a shadow of doubt, Thaksin is brainy and Machiavellian in accumulating his fantastic wealth by legal and dubious means. But he is dumb in political manoeuvring, otherwise he would not be in this sorry state now. As they say, IQ (intellectual quotient) is less important than EQ (emotional quotient). In life, empathy is the keyword to survive and prosper.

Is he dangerous? Can anyone tell me that he is not dangerous now? What did he do in the past to justify that word "dangerous"? Without citing all sorts of innuendoes, three occasions as spearheaded by him through his hired hands in Thailand have changed our country's image completely. Amazing Thailand in a negative sense!

One was the ugly scene at the Royal Cliff Hotel where one saw women officials from Malaysia or Indonesia in the lobby shaking like leaves. Second was the Songkran mayhem last year. Third was the recent splatting of collected blood from his supporters on the private residence of PM Abhisit, whose only fault was not giving amnesty for his jail sentence. The three occasions were bordering on madness.

Yes, I like his brain - the part that has been well used but not the part that is evil.

SONGDEJ PRADITSMANONT

BANGKOK

Playing colour games a silly ploy

It is foolish of Thaksin Shinawatra to sexualise the current situation by spraying the odour of "lavender".

Some will observe that low intellect and a sense of desperation have led to the use of this silly little ploy. Or, that by playing the psychological games of 14-year-olds, he is demonstrating immaturity and shallowness.

Others will go as far as to suggest that, even at 60, he is projecting his very own sexual insecurity.

The problem is that while red is quite clearly red, what seems to be purple is not always purple. However, red can sometimes turn out to be purple, often most unexpectedly.

Thaksin is playing a very dangerous game. Eventually, these ridiculous accusations may come back to haunt him and someone could well spill the beans about people from his own "red" circle of friends, acquaintances and close family who are also members of the "lavender club".

JOHN SHEPHERD

BANGKOK

Laws, not coups, the answer to corruption

In the early 80's there was an interesting court case in Florida in the US. Police stopped a car and found several pounds of marijuana in the trunk.

  During the trial, a police officer testified that he stopped the car because "the driver looked suspicious". The court ruled that the police violated the man's right to privacy, stopping him without due cause. The case was then dismissed on grounds that the police violated the US Constitution when they arrested the man. I don't remember what they did with the cannabis though. I wonder, when the coup toppled Thaksin, didn't it violate the Constitution? I mean, he was elected, endorsed and sworn in and all.

I know some people are itching to argue that the coup revoked the Constitution before it toppled Thaksin, therefore, no constitution to violate.

Moreover, Thaksin's corruption charges all came from the coup's appointed committee, consisting of his enemies.

When the court punished Thaksin, it sent a message that toppling the government is a just cause.

People say Thaksin was corrupt and he bought votes, but don't we have laws to deal with that? Do we need a coup every time a prime minister is suspected of corruption or vote buying? If so, there would be coup for every government.

MEECHAI BURAPA

CHIANG MAI