The letter warning Thaksin that he could go the same way as Saddam reinforced an opinion I have held for a while. But, on reflection, I know that nothing of the sort will happen.

The nation has compromised itself too fast in the globalisation of value, with corruption leading the way to reach unparalleled limits.

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont graced the international media with a speech espousing the restoration of the Rule of Law and morality in the country.

I think not. Thailand will remain culturally divorced from both until it can rid itself of its feudal patronage system. It is this that bestows value on a person according to wealth, not deeds. The impression that a man of impenetrable insincerity would somehow go the same way as Saddam is inconceivable. Thaksin's arch critics may live in hope but I think they will be lucky to witness Thaksin even facing a parking fine.

Sucatash

Bangkok

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

Can we expect the military to cede control of the air waves?

I see that Prime Minister Surayud has been buttering up the foreign press by promising people a free flow of information. I wonder if this means he intends to tell the Army and the Public Relations Department to give up control of their radio and TV channels. Somehow I doubt it.

Dom Dunn

Bangkok

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

Prime minister's speech was simply a positive spin

Prime Minister General Surayud Chulanont gave a speech at the Grand Hyatt Hotel entitled "Thailand in transition: challenges and opportunities". This is contradictory when we look at the current political situation in the country.

The prime minister's speech beautifully laid out that the previous government had transformed the media into a state-directed one, and that this government would push forward the "re-establishment" of the rule of law and bring back freedom of expression in the media.

However, what the prime minister did not acknowledge, or pretended not to acknowledge, was that at the very moment he was giving the speech, peaceful protesters were gathered outside the venue to demand an end to martial law, which is a very basic right of any citizen in a society where "democracy and rule of law" is respected.

The protesters were harassed and threatened by the police, who ordered and forced them to leave the compound. Their leaflets were taken away and torn up, and they were summarily detained and questioned.

A recent report by Reporters Without Frontiers (RSF) concludes that Thailand's "freedom of the press" index has plummeted enormously since last year. One reason could be because of the situation after the coup d'etat.

The international human rights organisations are also worried about current abuses of basic rights and rights to freedom of expression.

Perhaps the above action by state officials toward peaceful protesters is one of the concrete examples of the progress toward democracy, rule of law and justice that the PM is pushing forward.

Pokpong Lawansiri

Bangkok

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

Yet again, the United States interferes in Latin America

It is not surprising that a re-emergence of Ronald Reagan's roll-back policies on popular Latin American movements is back in vogue, the latest nation under the spotlight being Nicaragua.

People such as Elliott Abrams and John Negroponte are now back in office and Oliver North has been canvassing against presidential hopeful Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua itself.

The United States' interference in Nicaraguan affairs has resulted in the country being ranked only above Haiti as the second poorest in the hemisphere. (Incidentally, Haiti - the poorest in the hemisphere - has been the recipient of most American intervention in the region over the years). Hotels and shopping malls abound in the elite and expatriate-occupied areas of the country, while your average Nicaraguan lives on less than $2 a day.

The present round of fear-mongering and threats of economic warfare by the United States if Ortega wins is nothing new.

Those who espouse and force upon the unwilling the rapacious "free-market" capitalism that is now synonymous with "democracy" are, at core, terrified of an alternative economic and social model that might create a more harmonious and equitable system of living, one where "democracy" means participatory democracy and not merely following the dictates of "unlevel" level playing fields and "unfree" free-trade.

This assertion carries weight if one looks at countries on several continents that have attempted collective political participation - and I'm not talking communism - and raising the awareness of peasants to their rights. In all cases they have been economically and/or militarily bulldozered into submission. Is your average Nicaraguan, with his $2 from his day's labour, in for yet another round of this cycle?

James Martin

Bangkok

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

Interim government needs to focus on more than honesty

After the Watergate scandal most Americans saw Richard Nixon as a crook, and his replacement by a man as honest as Jimmy Carter was hailed as a blessing. So relieved were the Americans, that it took them a while to see the sincere peanut farmer from Georgia lacked the leadership skills to run the country.

The Carter legacy is that honesty in government is necessary but not sufficient. The new government in Thailand would do well to pay heed and to focus on important political issues during a crucial transition for the country. A preoccupation with alcohol laws in this context seems strangely out of place.

Jamal

Cha-am

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

Definition of 'newsworthy', and other matters

Re: "Letter of complaint failed to give proper explanation", Letters, November 7.

I do seem to have hit a raw nerve with my letter in causing the mysterious "Mr Bill" to rise from his slumber and reach for his pen.

First, let me correct a fatal flaw of comprehension in the second paragraph of his letter when he states that "if The Nation prints it, it must be newsworthy". What the strap line on the letters page says is: "We welcome your views on anything newsworthy." What The Nation prints are readers' views on events that are newsworthy. There is no implication that these views become newsworthy when printed.

Second, the faint introductory praise is, I fear, far from sincere given the reference that my assertions concerning the monotonous America-centric letters suggest I harbour feelings towards Americans on a par with the wholly offensive comment concerning Islam in Al Eberhardt's letter.

I find it impertinent in the extreme that Mr Bill should "explain" my sentiments in this manner. I do not think America and Americans are the source of anything other than a belief that they, and their country, are somehow more important than anything else.

Finally, I offer this quote from Oscar Wilde: "Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."

As interesting a philosopher as Albert Camus was, he did say finally in his truest and most tragic self-analysis: "My whole work is ironic."

Alexander Bartholomew

Bangkok

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

Muslim women might not want Western-style equality

Re: "Applying Muslim law would be a setback for sexual equality", Letters, November 7.

Dean Barrett wrote saying that Islamic law favours men over women and allowing it to be applied in the South is "capitulating to terror" ("All Thais should be subject to one set of laws", Letters, November 5). You published my reply saying that this is not in fact the case as historically these laws have been in force in the region for many years and rightly so ("Muslims entitled to apply own laws in family matters", November 6). However, his riposte studiously avoids this central point of my letter but instead extrapolates on the unequal status of Muslim women, a matter I did not even comment upon.

He seems to be arguing as follows: that as modern Thai women are trying to achieve equality and as Islamic law is detrimental to Muslim women, then allowing Muslim family relations to be governed by Islamic law is "capitulating to terror".

But has he not considered that Muslim women actually prefer their protected status and would not choose the risky alternative of Western-style equality? They might also be grateful to be kept safe from exploitation such as in the adult entertainment industry, where women are reduced to a saleable commodity and which some freedom-loving Westerners in Bangkok so openly promote.

I find it ironic, therefore, that Barrett now sets himself up to champion Thai women against exploitation by males. What's more, I deplore the mindset of those from a dominant culture who seek to impose their own views and assumptions on others in the belief that everyone must of necessity think like them. This lack of cultural awareness is the source of so much strife in the world.

I hope that I voice the popular view that the South will only be peaceful if Muslims there are allowed to conduct their personal affairs in accordance with their own traditions, and I applaud the current approach of the interim government in trying to solve this long-standing problem.

Vox Populi

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