Contrary to your editorial, there is a fair dose of truth in Meechai Ruchuphan's likening of the 1997 charter to a Rolls-Royce. The Rolls is a symbol of elitism, and a constitution that explicitly bars the great majority of citizens from any direct role in formulating policy or legislation, as Section 107 (3) does, cannot reasonably be called a "People's Charter". The anti-democratic requirement that members of parliament have a degree is nothing but elitism masquerading as meritocracy.

It is false that a degree guarantees either intelligence or education. It is equally false that the lack of a degree entails either stupidity or ignorance. If there were some down-to-earth, honest, hard-working people like farmers in parliament, some of the more foolish and unjust ideas that crop up might be squashed at inception. If farmers could actually represent themselves, they might not then be so susceptible to the wiles and bribes of "educated" politicians. It is the people's right to choose whether the candidate with a degree has proved himself a better representative than the one without one.

A more general elitist defect in the 1997 charter is that it gives far too much power to the state, and that excessive power is what makes it possible for people like Thaksin to do what they want once elected. There are not nearly enough sections in the 1997 constitution that begin with something along the lines of "the government shall make no law …", and there is correspondingly little to protect the rights of citizens and businesses against the overbearing might of the state. Again, these are not the characteristics of a "people's charter".

The 1997 draft may be much better than previous Thai constitutions, but there remains much room for improvement, and Meechai's Rolls-Royce comments are a fair assessment.

Peter Filicietti

Bangkok

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

An Asean anti-terror pact would boost global fight

 Re: "Anti-terror pact a test for Asean solidarity", Opinion, October 30.

Forging a display of solidarity and renewed interest in a regional anti-terrorism campaign is, indeed, a difficult political task for the 10 Asean members. However, solidarity is a recognised fundamental value both for Asean and at the global level. It is only through genuine proactive solidarity that the war on terrorism can be won. Unfortunately, global solidarity is in deep crisis and, as emphasised at recent diplomatic meetings, the biggest problem is that there is much greater solidarity between organised criminals than between political structures, countries and peoples. Therefore, if Asean can draft and adopt an anti-terrorism convention in the near future, it would be a demonstration of solidarity in action to be reflected also in the forthcoming Asean Charter.

Moreover, a comprehensive regional legal instrument against terrorism that is accepted by all Asean countries would be in harmony with the consensus resolutions of the United Nations, which strongly condemn all acts, methods and practices of terrorism, in all its forms and manifestations, as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and committed by whoever. It would also help Asean nations to be more responsive to the UN appeals to become parties to the 13 universal legal instruments against terrorism, including the most recent one: the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.

News from the UN is not encouraging. Agreement on the outstanding issues holding up a comprehensive convention on terrorism remains elusive. In this context, the international community should seize on the momentum gained through the adoption on September 8 of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.

Asean's efforts to give tangibility to this strategy in its geographical area might have a beneficial impact on strengthening global cooperation against terrorism. The UN Strategy is considered to be a unique instrument that will enhance national, regional and international activities to counter terrorism. It is the first time that all 192 UN member states have agreed to a common strategic approach against terrorism by resolving to take practical measures, individually and collectively, to prevent and combat this negative phenomenon.

Ioan Voicu

Bangkok

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

Americans need to think deeply before voting

 Re: "Americans need a more graphic reality check on the situation in Iraq", Letters, October 26.

Al Eberhardt quotes an American soldier recently returned from Iraq as saying, "I wish they [the American people] could do more... They don't have to serve in the military, but they could volunteer for community-service projects. Anything that would make them aware of what America in its world leadership position means."

Eberhardt's proposal that daily attacks and casualty counts in Iraq be reported as though the attacks had taken place in American cities presents a potentially excellent way to shock Americans out of the "outrage fatigue" many of us are feeling after six years of the Bush administration and three years in Iraq. But it is not enough: merely imploring Americans to support the troops fails to question why those troops are in Iraq in the first place. As the mid-term Congressional elections approach, I hope that Americans will consider the continuing quagmire in Iraq, the North Korean nuclear imbroglio, the global energy crisis, the growing lack of American legitimacy abroad (not to mention a long list of administration-linked domestic scandals, from Enron to former Republican Congressman Mark Foley), and the threats that these issues and many more pose to our continued security and work for a better future.

The soldier Eberhardt quotes was correct. At this critical juncture, Americans need to break free of our outrage fatigue, recognise "what America in its world leadership position means", and assess the current world situation and the United States' role in it. And we need to vote accordingly.

Sarah Sieloff

Nakhon Chaisri

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

All those deaths in Iraq are not making anyone safer

 Re: "Americans need a more graphic reality check on the situation in Iraq", Letters, October 26.

Al Eberhardt described a scheme to remind Americans about the suffering going on in Iraq. Good idea! But then he closed with, "Remember, every day at least two of our soldiers in Iraq are paying the 9/11 Twin Towers price. They are dying to keep citizen US safe."

Even the US President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have acknowledged that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Every single one of the reasons given for invading Iraq has been proven false. The suffering Eberhardt describes is a direct result of the US invasion. We have created a terrorist training ground, haven and recruiting magnet where none existed before.

US soldiers are dying alright, along with scores of Iraqis, but they aren't making anyone safer.

John M Baker

Pathum Thani

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

Baht's rise - or dollar's fall - unlikely to deter all tourists

 Re: "Strong baht may deter tourists from Thailand", Letters, October 30

George York writes from the USA to say that the rising baht may affect tourist arrivals in Thailand and that he is thinking of taking his next holiday in the Philippines instead of Thailand. But is it not the fall in the dollar rather the rise of the baht that is responsible?

If York thinks he can no longer buy the Land of Smiles on the cheap because a holiday here costs a few percent more, then the threat of his loss is one that Thailand can easily handle.

Andrew Hicks

Surin

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

How about an amnesty for visa overstayers?

 There was a proposal to grant some form of "amnesty" to those who have broken the law in respect to the "nominee" systems used by many foreigners to structure their companies here. Might it not be appropriate to grant an amnesty to all the many foreigners who have found themselves on visa overstays, many of whom cannot leave without either paying the fine of Bt20,000 at the airport or surrendering to the Immigration Department and having to be processed through the Immigration Detention Centre, with the consequential loss of everything they have in Thailand. This is also followed by a court appearance, possible blacklisting to prevent them returning, and the payment of a smaller fine in court. In addition they have to purchase a one-way (expensive) air ticket to their home country, where they may well find themselves in further hardship.

Many cannot afford the cost of leaving, having had to pay out so much after losing all their money in Thailand and being denied the opportunity to earn anything here without further breaking the law.

The hardship and humiliation of being treated like a hardened criminal by the immigration authorities procedures leaves nothing but a bad impression of Thailand. This is in turn passed around when the unfortunate gets home. Wouldn't it be in everyone's interests to let everyone clear their slate and start afresh? Or would this be too expensive for certain parties who make money out of the present situation?

If the authorities are serious about "cleaning things up" they should have an amnesty and allow those who are at present classed as illegal an opportunity to arrange everything so that they don't lose out, comply with the law without fear and leave with the opportunity of coming back.

Many language teachers who have Thai wives and families are in this terrible situation, due mainly to unreasonable and ever-changing rules and regulations. They have not earnt sufficient income to meet their obligations here and at the same time comply with the government requirements. They are not in the same position as their fellow countrymen who work here for multinational companies, with the associated protection and extraordinarily high salaries and benefits. Clean things up, yes, but show some respect and give people a fair chance to get their house in order without fear.

D Amaan

Bangkok