I read your front-page headline with interest, which turned to utter incredulity when I came to the part about Public Health Minister Mongkol na Songkhla saying research showed the ban on ads should reduce youth consumption of alcohol by about 24 per cent per month.

Does he actually expect intelligent people to believe this will at a stroke reduce youth consumption by almost a quarter? If he does, he is most certainly living with Alice in Wonderland.

Just who did this research, where and when was it conducted, what controls were used, what parameters were in force, what was the methodology employed and what "data" was collected or used to reach the results?

Just saying something does not make it a fact, though the respect given to age may have drawn the minister to believe whatever he says will be accepted by a grateful public. In a robust democratic society, matters of public interest must be explained to the people for an "edict" to be accepted.

A condescending "we know best" is no longer acceptable. The bully Thaksin is gone now. The country does not need to replace a thug with a band of men who know "what is best for the country".

This is an unelected government, with no popular mandate to rule. If it continues to impose its will on the nation as it sees fit, it will soon become as hated as the man the Army removed. If the minister is so confident of his research, if it is real and of any scientific integrity, then let him make it available on the ministry's website for the people of Thailand to see. Somehow, I suspect that will not happen.

Dr John Patterson

Bangkok

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

Alcohol policy should not be based on irrelevant research

It is my belief there is widespread irresponsible alcohol consumption going on in the Kingdom, and this is backed up by the fact there are a lot of alcohol-related injuries, the majority of them being drunk-driving accidents. So there are good reasons why the Public Health Ministry is introducing this new legislation on alcohol, which is expected to pass without much scrutiny by our unelected government. However, I am not convinced the ministry has done proper research on this matter.

Public-health policy differs from country to country, each one being in a unique situation with different sets of circumstances. Therefore, a policy may work in one place but not in another. So it would be better to conduct a study on the matter in Thailand, where the data collected would be more directly relevant.

Using data collected from countries like Iran, Algeria and Egypt, which have a total ban, and comparing them with the rest of the world to come up with the figures in the ministry announcement really amazes me.

First of all, the countries used in the comparison are widely different from Thailand in many ways. Second, by comparing two groups of countries and trying to observe what one group has done differently from the other to achieve a more favourable outcome does not indicate links. And more importantly, many of those countries are Islamic, where consumption of alcohol is less for religious reasons and not because of the ban.

Out of all of this, it is important to realise that the answer to this problem is education. Regulations will only delay the inevitable, but education will enable people to choose responsibly, for themselves and for others. The World Health Organisation study conducted in other countries should only serve as a rough guideline, while policymaking should be based on relevant research.

Jiraboon Tosanguan

London

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

Temasek knew full well what was what in Shin deal

Re: "Temasek is also a victim and deserves our assistance", Letters, October 18.

The idea that Temasek, the financial arm of the Lee family of Singapore, was taken for a ride by the Shinawatras of Chiang Mai is ludicrous.

The two "families" worked together to take Thailand for a ride!

Knowing full well just how thoroughly they dominate Singapore and the subsequent ease with which they crush opposition there and observing the Shinawatras' apparently successful emulation of their model in Thailand, the Lees went ahead with a pooling of interests with the Shinawatras.

The interests pooled did not include the interests of Thailand or the Thai people.

John Francis Lee

Chiang Rai

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

US, Australia understand Thailand's was a good coup

Many years ago, when I was still a greenhorn in Thailand, it was explained to me by a Thai friend that the fear of allowing General Suchinda Kraprayoon's clique to run Thailand until the next election was they would entrench themselves so strongly, it would be impossible to remove them. Point taken: Adolf Hitler was democratically elected.

I have been in Australia for several weeks, talking to both locals and foreigners. It has been rather frequently necessary to explain to people that despite the US government declaring the coup to be bad and the Australian government wagging its tail by declaring it to be even worse, in fact both governments know better. And moreover that there are bad coups and good coups - and this was a good one.

After all, Thailand has already experienced a prime minister successfully launching a coup against his own government, so who is to say that this or worse, such as Thais killing Thais, was not likely to happen again?

Longhorn

Darwin, Australia

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

Quiet meetings are sensible, heated rallies are not

Re: "Meetings OK, rallies not", News, October 18.

I praise PM General Surayud for allowing more than five persons to gather for political purposes indoors, so the public can participate in drafting a new constitution, revamping the judicial system and improving the education system. This loosening of martial law is vital to enable We the People to become informed and make up our own minds and is to be highly commended.

Universities, whether public or private, should use this opportunity to arrange seminars/debates on issues of the day, to be broadcast live at public cost. Such broadcasts would help the rural majority be better informed and help break our vicious cycle of the provinces electing PMs and Bangkok disposing of them.

It is vital that political parties be allowed to meet indoors to hammer out their own stands, with much input from the general public, whom they seek to represent. They must also be encouraged to participate in seminars etc. - for how else can we decide whom to vote for?

On the other hand, I disagree with Suriyasai Katasila of the People's Alliance for Democracy, who wants to have street protests. To me, the PAD's past protests were no better than the pro-Thaksin ones, both generating more heat than light, neither permitting the other side to be heard, more suited for rabble-rousing than thoughtful discussions. The PAD's points can best be presented in university seminars and debates.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

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

What to say to the tens of millions of TRT supporters?

Before we forget about the past few years, which were like a nightmare for many, I would like to pose some questions to the contributors to the Letters column, who seem to be largely anti-Thai Rak Thai.

What do you say to the millions of voters who voluntarily went to the polls and voted for Thai Rak Thai? How come their wishes are not granted? How come the voices of the elite Bangkokians matter more than the voices in the far-flung provinces? Okay, so the rural majority was deceived, misinformed and propagandised into voting Thai Rak Thai, but why do their votes not count? Why do their votes only matter when the intelligentsia approves?

I don't know how to explain in simple terms how tens of millions of votes were simply brushed aside. The rural people want more of the same Thai Rak Thai treatment they were getting and why wouldn't they?

So they lack information, but with the information they had, they made their decision. So they sold their votes to the local politicians, but hasn't that always been the way? Why is their one vote not counted as one vote? Why is there a conspiracy to undermine the majority from getting their elected government?

I have tried to come up with answers, but they all come out sounding like I am a superior being telling the rural people that I know what is best for the country.

By the way, what ever happened to that guy who tore up the election ballot in a politically motivated publicity stunt? I hope he was found guilty at least, because the evidence was as such.

Salin Pinkayan

Bangkok

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

Some operations are not improved over old airport

I have just returned from a round trip on Thai Airways - Chiang Mai to Bangkok to Chiang Mai - and the new airport is much, much better than many of the letters to your paper have suggested.

But why oh why does one still need to get a bus out to the plane? This suggests:

a. We could still be using Don Muang, where we were used to getting the bus; or

b. The new airport is not any improvement and a third airport is needed after two weeks' operation.

This is not an idle complaint from a frustrated passenger, but rather addresses the issue of why (and how) those billions of baht were spent.

Amazed in Thailand

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