Kemadist Chiaracharuwat's question was: "Have we really exhausted all the legal avenues for the accusations against caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra?"

My gut response was no. But this must have been exactly the same question posed to the Filipino people under Ferdinand Marcos and the Indonesian people under Suharto. Both the Philippines and Indonesia had good institutions and good laws in place but were unable to check the blatant abuse of power by Marcos and Suharto by judicial means. That both Marcos and Suharto were able to stay in power for decades nearly crushed the spirit of decent Filipinos and Indonesians and set back these countries' democratic aspirations for years.

Decent Thai people look at Thaksin with extreme suspicion that he'll run Thailand his manipulative way, no ifs ands or buts. And he'll pay lip service to institutional checks along his merry way. Thaksin knows and thinks he is master of the political game. He plays by the rules: his rules.

The answer to Kemadist's question is no, we haven't exhausted all legal avenues, because we feel continuing this course would be of no use.

Adiz R

Bangkok

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

Nothing beneficial about Singapore owning Shin Corp

Re: "Singapore-owned Shin Corp could be boon for consumers", Letters, March 20.

I read Andy B's letter with chagrin.

"Singaporean businessmen did nothing wrong in buying something that was put up for sale."

The Lees of Singapore are not Singaporean businessmen; they are the hereditary rulers of the "benevolent" dictatorship in Singapore. It is the Singaporean government, whose policy it is to bankrupt its opponents with costly libel suits - and it has never lost one of these in the compliant courts of Singapore - having passed a law that prevents bankrupts from running for office, that has now taken possession of the Shin empire! These guys now own not only AIS, but also iTV and the iPSTAR satellite.

"Behaviour like this seems very counterproductive in that it certainly does not gain friends for Thailand and many foreign businessmen are likely to conclude that doing business with Thais is fraught with problems and not worth the trouble."

Behaviour like this - and I speak of the insider trading that resulted in Thaksin delivering these assets to a foreign government - leads foreign businessmen to conclude that the laws of Thailand are bent at the whim of the current tycoon in power, just as in Singapore, that Thailand is a family-owned business, just as is Singapore.

"In the end what does it matter who owns a company if it still employs and pays Thai workers and provides a service to millions of customers?"

This is the same damning praise offered to Benito Mussolini: he made the trains run on time.

John Francis Lee

Chiang Rai

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

City-state should realise it is a fair target for protesters

Judging by the letters to you from your Singaporean readers, the backlash against their country and the protest at their embassy must have hit a raw nerve. Maybe they are not used to seeing people exercising their democratic rights. However, to compare the Shin deal to a shopping trip at Mah Boonkrong Centre ("Singaporeans are being unreasonably targeted by irresponsible Thai protesters", Letters, March 11) is disingenuous and misguided. A deal of Shin's magnitude must have gone through several rounds of due diligence before it was concluded. The buyer must have assessed various risks, including political risks, especially as the seller has direct ties to the Thai prime minister, and the deal was structured in such a way that the seller could exploit a loophole in the tax laws.

I have no problem with Singapore doing business with any country based solely on its commercial interest. However, when you enter into a business deal, you accept certain risks. So, please do not come crying to a newspaper when the deal backfires.

Katha

Canada

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

Laws preventing foreign ownership keep Thais down

Re: "Protesters target Singapore", News, March 18.

Why? If Thais could sell to foreigners, they would become rich like Thaksin. Why do you think he sold to a Singaporean company? Because it made him a lot of money, that's why.

Thai laws blocking or barring foreign ownership only hurt Thailand. These laws do nothing to the rest of the world. I know perfectly well that low wages and low standards of living would disappear if the Thai government would do as I suggest. However, wealthy Thais will never allow the economy to open up. An open economy would require the idle rich to compete with hard-working farmers and shopkeepers.

Michael Weldon

Udon Thani

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

Happy holidays in Kingdom are possible amid this crisis

Re: "Hopes for a happy holiday despite political agitation", Letters, March 19.

Jonathan Chew wrote from Kuala Lumpur that he is worried about visiting Bangkok as a tourist during the present political unrest. May I offer a personal view that he and other potential tourists might care to consider?

I lived in central Bangkok during the 1992 demonstrations, when the Army fired on and killed many people, including one New Zealander. But those people were part of a massive political demonstration, and the New Zealander was foolish enough not to stay away from the area after dark as the confrontation and slaughter took place.

During every morning of that confrontation, I strolled around central Bangkok looking at the damage the crowd had caused. Over a wide area, every traffic-police box had been vandalised, but nearby shop windows were not broken, and commercial property was, so far as I could see, untouched. Only government buildings were damaged, the tax office being an obvious target, and the Radio Thailand office because there was a widespread perception that it was suppressing news and propagating lies.

My point here is that Thais are Buddhists and quite unlike demonstrators in countries that are not Buddhist. I hesitate to name such countries, but anyone who follows the news knows perfectly well which ones they are. Thai people do not run riot. They are not easily excitable. They do not rampage through the streets, screaming and looting shops and bystanders alike. Thai anger is directed towards a known target, which means that others are safe.

Perhaps common sense suggests that a tourist would be wise to avoid an area where demonstrations are actually taking place. That would normally mean just central Bangkok at Sanam Luang, the Democracy Monument, the Royal Plaza and nearby streets. It is not difficult to see and then avoid a crowd, and there are many interesting places for a tourist to visit in Bangkok without getting involved in a political stand-off.

John Benson

Brisbane, Australia

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

Most Taiwanese wish to have their own country

Re: "People should oppose Chen Shui-bian's scheme", Letters, March 19.

Someone from the Embassy of the People's Republic of China wrote that China consisted of 1.3 billion people, 23 million of whom were living on the island nation of Taiwan. The writer claimed that it was the will of all of these people that Taiwan should be reunited with the mainland.

But if you ask the majority of Taiwanese if they wished to have their own country, a super majority would answer with a resounding "Yes!" The volume would even be louder if they could be assured that China would stop its veiled threats of violence against them.

As for the question of why other nations support China's aggressive stance, the answer is simple. The other nations fear the political economic fallout if they stand by Taiwan. They fear the loss of open markets in China. The US also fears the loss of an ally in its misguided war on terror.

But what about all the other people in China? Don't they have a right to determine the fate of Taiwan? Well, compare this world view with the philosophy of the slave owner who says, "Look, just because you escaped to live somewhere else, I still legally own you. I will hunt you down until you return to me. Since the law is on my side, so is morality."

Linus G

Chiang Mai

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

China's road traffic is reckless beyond all belief

Re: "Forget politics, let's talk about traffic mayhem", Letters March 18.

Ian Cruickshank complains about the traffic in Chiang Mai and refers to (I couldn't believe what I read) "civilised countries such as China" not allowing bikers in cities. Which Chinese city did he live in? I have been working for an entire year in Shanghai, and China is in fact one of the least-civilised countries in the world when it comes to traffic.

Many of my colleagues have been injured by reckless bikers and rollers over the past year. Heavy motorbikes drive on pedestrian footpaths and cars do not even reduce speed when approaching a zebra crossing or even upon seeing a family with small children crossing the road. Traffic in China is savage at best. Human life doesn't count for anything on these streets.

There were more than 70,000 fatal accidents reported on China's streets last year, compared with 6,200 deaths in Germany for the same year, although it has 20 million more (!) registered cars on the street than China.

Besides, since when is traffic a reason not to talk about politics?

John Kompa

Shanghai, China

Send us your views in an instant E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to the Editor' in the subject box, to: letters@nationgroup.com