I salute the bravery of the Supreme Administrative Court justices who ruled against the Egat listing. They risked incurring the wrath of our CEO, for whom privatisation is - rightfully, I believe - a major economic policy.

Egat has never dared to publicise its efficiency versus those of comparable independent power producers (IPPs), so you can assume that you're paying substantially more than if you had bought from an IPP. Also, Egat needs massive, low-cost, investment funds, and that what the stock market's for.

Although I favour privatisation, the concerns of opponents must be addressed; eg, through subsidised quotas for low-income taxpayers or transparent distribution of initial public offering shares. Also, the privatisation process must ensure that the public interest remains paramount. Hence, the court ruling, based on Egat's inherent conflicts of interest and flawed public hearings.

The government should completely overhaul its privatisation procedures, listening much, much more to We the People and clearly differentiating public from private interest. Seek to involve and educate us as to the pros and cons and be open-minded. Remember Thomas Jefferson: "That government is the strongest of which every man feels himself a part."

Thank you, court justices, for your courage in protecting our country.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

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

History tends to weigh in on the side of the oppressed

In "The Grapes of Wrath", John Steinbeck wrote, "And the little screaming fact that sounds through all history: repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed."

More than 60 years and an ocean away, peaceful public protests in Bangkok and elsewhere by politically aware middle-class voters against PM Thaksin echo the same belief in their rousing cries of "Thaksin - get out!"

Frank Lee

Nonthaburi

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

We are monkeys having to choose between bad choices

Given a choice between a stale biscuit, a rotten orange and a decayed papaya, even a monkey would have a hard time choosing what to eat.

We are like the monkey. We are given the choices of a stale PM, rotten politicians and decayed elites, and we have a difficult time trying to choose one from the others. The stalemate in Thailand seems a million miles away from being resolved, because the choices put in front of people are all sour.

We have a PM whose goal is to stay in power, and anti-PMs whose goal is to remove the democratically elected PM using undemocratic methods. For whom are we supposed to cheer? Whom are we supposed to choose? Is this all Thailand has to offer? Where are you, our saviour, the knight in shining armour?

They say that a good person will have no interest in politics, because politics is a dirty game. They say a good person will stay away from power, and only bad people looking for personal gain will join politics. But I say this is only an excuse for cowards and the self-righteous.

A genuinely good person will not stand for injustice and inequality. A genuinely good person will not allow him/herself to be silenced or corrupted. A genuinely good person will not fear dark hands. A genuinely good person will speak the truth and not others' lies. A genuinely good person will do what his or her heart says is good for the country. A genuinely good person will have the wisdom and skill to lead the country and not be afraid to do so. And a genuinely good person will recognise other good people and support their actions.

Give the people a chance to see you, our saviour. Let us hear what we need to hear. Wake us up! Speak what all the great leaders before us have spoken. Mesmerise us with your words and actions. Follow what Buddha, Allah or Jesus have been trying to teach for thousands of years. Rise up and lead the people to a righteous goal. Work on putting the people on top, rather than bringing the PM down! Be fair and square!

Surely the monkey deserves better.

Chul "Cho" Chang

Nakhon Pathom

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

Ask international observers to monitor April 2 election

If there are to be elections on April 2, and given all the controversy surrounding them, we should think of inviting international election observers or monitors to help legitimise them in the eyes of both the Thai and the international public.

Having international observers and monitors has become a routine practice. There have been more than 60 observer missions over the past 15 years, and even Thai monitors have been invited to elections in many countries. The US, Australia, the Philippines and other countries routinely invite international observers to monitor their elections.

It is not a disgrace, and there is no loss of sovereignty involved. International observers cannot certify or nullify a national election; they can only comment. But their presence helps deter fraudulent acts, and if an election is conducted cleanly, their approval can help to legitimise the results.

If the caretaker government has nothing to hide, and if they want the people to accept the results of the upcoming elections, they should act quickly to invite international observers.

Larry Clive

Chiang Mai

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

Checking opposition figures' backgrounds may be worth it

Amid the political chaos, one face keeps popping up daily on television and in the newspapers.

Who is Suriyasai Katasila, secretary-general of the Campaign for Popular Democracy (CPD)? Where does he come from? What is his background? What is the CPD? How does the organisation operate? Where does it get its money from? And most interesting of all, what does Suriyasai do for a living?

It is undeniable that he has played a big role in pressuring Thaksin to end Parliament. It would be informative if The Nation would do a feature on this man and his organisation.

Curious

Samut Prakan

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

Circumcision is perhaps the unkindest cut of all

Re: "Siriraj Hospital names Songkhla doctor as the 'finest'," News, March 18.

Congratulations to Arthit Khwankhom for an interesting article. Certainly, Dr Suwat Wiriyapongsakij deserves recognition for his humanitarian interest in minimising harm to children. His interest mirrors Italian physicians who favour a medical environment for female circumcisions for Muslim girls in Italy. Current law bars doctors and hospitals from cutting, forcing it into unclean venues, with serious injuries showing up in hospital.

Perhaps the reference to "modern medicine" intends to confer such a status upon circumcision or only to describe Dr Suwat's efforts to bring safe and hygienic practices from modern medicine to the procedure. But your readers deserve clear information: circumcision is not modern, but an ancient blood ritual, unfortunately imposed on 20 per cent of the males of the world. The 80 per cent of the world's population not practising circumcision includes countries with the most advanced medicine, such as Britain, Japan, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Taiwan, which, along with no circumcision, also have few of the problems circumcision supposedly prevents. The US has the most circumcision of any industrialised country and also the highest rate of HIV/Aids of any industrialised country. Cultures that adopt it find it difficult to give it up, but the US has slowly reduced its rate from the 80-90-per-cent range in the 1970s to around 56 per cent in 2003.

Among English speakers, circumcision began just over 100 years ago, an insane project to prevent masturbation. As time passed, medical reasons were invented but never proven. Now Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand have quit the madness, with no problems. No one should start it now.

Richard Russell

Moreno Valley, California

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

Foreign ownership in US a burden to future generations

The US is now the world's largest debtor nation, meaning that foreigners now hold more US assets than Americans own abroad. According to Federal Reserve data, US$2.2 trillion [Bt86 trillion], or 46 per cent, of "public" debt is owed to foreign investors and foreign central banks, with the federal government 3.5 times more dependent on foreign trade than ever before. Foreign ownership accounts for an alarming 51 per cent of the federal government's debt, which continues to climb. Running up the mushrooming deficit carries a payback cost, at least to future generations. To close the net debt gap, compounded by unfunded obligations for Social Security and Medicare, would require raising taxes, cutting benefits or letting foreigners pay.

Economic disaster has not yet hit. For now, foreign investors still view relatively stable US assets as more attractive than European or Asian investment options. But if alienated foreigners, reacting to biased, protectionist restrictions, suddenly decided to reduce their substantial holdings in treasury securities, corporate bonds and stock-market investments, interest rates could soar, and stock prices would suffer a severe blow.

Before the federal debt principal amount of $7 trillion can be reduced, the general budget must be balanced in a way that precludes using trust-fund surpluses and which actually moves to end tax cuts for the wealthy. A responsible plan must be formulated to pay down the national debt principal, rather than putting the onus on the next, hopefully more accountable administration, which must care for and about young families and their children, as they struggle in the future to make frayed ends meet.

Dr Charles Frederickson

Bangkok