On the contrary, the act of resigning is part of the democratic tradition everywhere. It is something expected of elected leaders. Only tyrants do not give in for the sake of the common good. If a significant portion of society, not necessarily an absolute majority of its members, are vehemently and passionately opposed to him, a leader cannot lead.

On Friday your newspaper carried stories about the deceased John Profumo, the British minister who resigned after a sex and spy scandal, and an Italian health minister who resigned two days earlier because of "mere suspicion" that his staff had electronically eavesdropped on political opponents. Then there is the famous case that has attained folklore status of the Japanese transport minister who resigned merely because one of the trains ran late. All these people could conceivably have been re-elected by their constituents if they had chosen not to resign but to go for an election.

But elections cannot absolve or launder wrongdoing. It is a political and not a legal or moral process. Al Capone could conceivably have been elected from his Italian-dominated Chicago precinct if he had chosen that path. Adolf Hitler was certainly elected by the overwhelming majority of Germans. It is hazardous to draw generalities across time and cultures. But at a certain level it can at times be illuminating, especially when everyone nowadays seem to be invoking democratic standards. The Watergate break-in and obstruction of justice took place before the 1972 US presidential elections. Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon was nonetheless returned to office by a resounding majority. His electoral triumph, however, did not prevent him from subsequently being impeached for the offences and forced to resign. He eventually rehabilitated himself, much like John Profumo, and died with the accolade of statesman.

Resigning from office under heavy criticism and suspicion is not uncommon in the history of democracy. At times and over time, it can come to be regarded as an act of statesmanship rather than a loss of face or a caving in to opponents.

Larry Clive

Chiang Mai

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

Silence of Thai Rak Thai MPs is a disheartening sign

 The silence of Thai Rak Thai MPs over the ethical behaviour of their leader is worrying. It puts Thailand at the bottom of the barrel and indicates that those in power have no real intention of providing exemplary leadership.

Well, Thailand is certainly not an exemplary country. However, as a developing country Thailand should make some effort to develop itself, and tolerating this kind of "leadership" does not seem to do much for development.

Utopia

Bangkok

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

Opposition to Thaksin is fine, but what's the alternative?

 I can sympathise with the anti-Thaksin protestors. The prime minister has stifled press freedom, mishandled the Muslim unrest in the South, ruthlessly prosecuted the war on drugs, and appears to be xenophobic to boot. In addition, his business dealings are unseemly if not actually illegal.

Supporters point to economic progress and his popularity in the countryside, among the poor. This is nothing to sneeze at, but are his economic policies built on a rock or on stilts? Do they actually help the poor or mislead them into dependency? I am not certain but my guess is that Thaksin is using the poor as mascots, not individual human beings worthy of genuine respect.

But the harder questions are for the opposition. Will Thaksin's opponents actually be able to do any better? Are they truly more ethical men than Thaksin? It is not enough to oppose him. They must have better ideas, firmer principles. Since we don't live in a perfect world, we have to choose between real-world options. Even if we don't like Thaksin very much, let's be careful not to choose an option that could be far worse.

Raji

Chiang Mai

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

Early election date could be from ulterior motives

 Some may wonder why the election date has been set so early, on April 2 - the quickest ever after a House dissolution. The obvious answer is the tactical advantage of throwing the opposition off balance. But the paramount reason could be to enable Thai Rak Thai to form a government in time to influence the April 16 elections for the Senate, which plays a crucial role in the country's system of political checks and balances.

Veritas

Bangkok

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

Singapore government must show some sensitivity

 It was typically glib and disingenuous of the Singapore government to dismiss the Temasek takeover of Shin Corp as a normal business transaction over which it has no control. Temasek is headed by the wife of the Singaporean prime minister and the government holds the dominant bloc of shares.

Contrast this to what happened in the United States a few days ago. DP World, a Dubai-based company that purchased for US$6.8 billion [Bt266 billion] a firm that runs the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia, had to announce divestiture from the deal after running into a political storm and public outrage in America because a Middle Eastern company was seen as taking over a key infrastructure sector. It was reported that Sheik Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the UAE prime minister and emir of Dubai, had advised the company to pull out.

If only the Singapore leadership could display similar sensitivity. Long-term relations between Thailand and Singapore will likely not be affected. But the episode again reinforces the image of Singapore as a greedy and insensitive economic animal in the minds of the people of this region.

Prapa Tepchat

Bangkok

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

Thai protesters are not targeting Singaporeans

 Re: "Singaporeans are being unreasonably targeted by irresponsible Thai protestors", Letters, March 11.

The protestors are not targeting Singaporeans. The have asked for the Singapore government's cooperation to get to the bottom of the Temasek deal since the company is a government-sponsored body. The Singaporean authorities have responded that the sale was merely a business transaction. Consumers also have a right to decide where to spend their money.

International issues of corporate social responsibility, transparency, due diligence and good governance are also involved. Demonstrations are routinely held in many cities around the world against corporations that pay bribes, use child labour or degrade the environment. Products of these offending corporations are regularly boycotted.

It is not a question, as the Singaporean letter-writer puts it, of dragging Singapore into our "mess". It is asking for a display of sensitivity and social consciousness from a neighbour whose involvement has contributed to the foul-smelling "mess" in the first place. The neighbour should not brush aside these requests by holding his nose and simply saying this is none of my business.

Atip Munvit

Bangkok

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

US should stop colluding in oppression of Palestine

 I read the article "Colonisation of Palestine precludes peace" by Jimmy Carter [The Nation, March 11] thinking that perhaps I was reading an historic document, one in which a former president of the United States admits the moral bankruptcy of American foreign policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians.

I was encouraged when I read the bald, common-sense proposition, utterly verboten in American politics: "The pre-eminent obstacle to peace is Israel's colonisation of Palestine."

The bottom line, however, was weak-kneed and typically equivocal: "Palestinians must live in peace and dignity, and permanent Israeli settlements on their land are a major obstacle to this goal."

The call must be for an immediate end to all American financial aid to Israel until it has withdrawn behind its 1967 borders and a free and independent Palestine has been allowed to arise on Palestinian land emptied of Israeli "settlers". In fact Israel has need of endless American aid only to defend the basic injustice of its policy toward Palestine.

The US might fund the construction of a tunnel beneath Israel connecting the two pieces of Palestine in an effort to make amends for four decades of financing the oppression of the Palestinian people and the expropriation of their land by Israel.

Since 9/11 we Americans ought to realise that the perpetual defence of an unjust foreign policy has consequences and that any fool can see that it is a US/Israeli axis that is jointly behind the oppression of the Palestinians in their own homeland.

What we need now is a peacemaker as bold as was Alexander the Great who will simply take his metaphorical sword to the Gordian knot that we have allowed to tangle, obfuscate and confuse the issues in Palestine.

John Francis Lee

Chiang Rai

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

Alienated Arabs likely to shun American business

 Foreign investment is critical to the already beleaguered and increasingly globalised US economy, which relies upon trillions of foreign dollars daily to cover its surging deficits and stay afloat.

Alienated Arab capitalist investors will likely shift their funds from oil to more hospitable, less bigoted booming economies, such as India and China.

Incredibly, US firms will find it harder to raise capital, the domestic real-estate market will suffer and the lowly American taxpayer will end up paying for the overlooked costs.

Dr Charles Frederickson

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