The time for factionalism has passed. We must pursue a peace process that is inclusive and engages fairly with all sides. We must resist parochialism and stand united against those whose words and actions seek to drive a wedge between countrymen and undermine a peaceful dialogue.

The peace process should focus on achieving justice and overcoming the historic marginalisation of the people of the southern Thai region. This can be achieved through a new political arrangement and an improvement in the socio-economic conditions of the region.

It is my hope that both the Thai authorities and all parties and groups in the South work together to end the violence. The change in the Thai government must be appreciated as providing a new window of opportunity to achieve a lasting and just peace for the betterment of the local population and for the stability and prosperity of the Asean region.

Anwar Ibrahim

Washington, DC

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

Public confidence in police would lead to cooperation

Last Saturday, an unarmed black man was killed in a hail of 50-plus police bullets in Queens, New York. Mayor Bloomberg promptly called an extraordinary meeting of black religious leaders, to defuse the situation. The Queens district attorney will convene a grand jury to hear evidence in this case, and the officers involved, if guilty, could be jailed. The NY Police Department will review the police tactics employed to see if they conformed to department policies.

Compare the above case with the 2,500 or so extra-judicial killings during ex-PM Thaksin's anti-drug war and the 78 "accidental" suffocations at Tak Bai. Which society is holding its so-called guardians accountable for their acts? Why are PM Surayud and we the people not more concerned about the killings and disappearances? Given our lack of action, how can we really expect southerners to trust us enough to give us information about the terrorists who plague their lives?

PM Surayud has bravely apologised for the past indifference and abuses of you and I and our uniformed representatives. But much more than words is needed to earn the locals' trust - and time is very rapidly running out.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

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

Thai police, willing to die for country, get only bad press

Re: "Dire need for a reformed law enforcement agency", Opinion, November 28.

I just read Thepchai Yong's insults to the Thai police. Is he willing to give 24 hours each day, seven days a week to risking his life for the country, as do the Thai police? Every week Thai policemen are hospitalised and killed and he dares to say, "sadly, there aren't many good cops around that can serve as inspiration" for the other police officers.

What about the three men who died last week fighting against narcotics on the Thai-Lao border? What about the police sergeant major who lost his eyesight to a bomb while picking up the severed head of a Burmese worker killed by terrorists?

I have been privileged to teach English here in Chiang Rai for the police and their families.

Narcotics are down to 30 per cent of what they were before General Jamnong took command of the Chiang Rai Provincial Police. Burma is cooperating with Thailand on stopping narcotics. That cooperation did not exist before Jamnong took command. Laos is sending police for training in Thailand.

Some of the finest people I have met in my life have been here at the Chiang Rai Provincial Police Headquarters. I asked a Narcotics Suppression officer in Bangkok: "Doesn't it bother you that the newspapers never say anything good about the police?" He answered: "They do not make any money by saying good things about us." This young captain could be making more money in corporate Thailand than with Narcotics Suppression, but you see, Mr Yong, he loves his country. And he is willing to die for his country. Are you?

I dare you to print this, or did the Lord Buddha tell you to say only bad things about the Thai police?

Om Harp Saint

Chiang Rai

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

Myth between educational resources and attainment

Re: "Education Ministry to scrap one laptop per child project", News, November 28.

The Education Ministry's decision to scrap the "one laptop per child" project may seem to some people like the right thing to do. Yet I would bet my very own laptop that there are more people - especially those on the receiving end - who are less than pleased with the ministry's change of heart. Surely every child deserves an equal distribution of educational resources regardless of their social background?

 I would have no quarrel whatsoever if the main purpose of the "one laptop" policy is to increase the level of equity in child welfare for all. However, given that the budget is under the Education Ministry's supervision, my best guess is that such a populist policy was originally and primarily designed to give each child a better chance to achieve higher educational attainments at school.

 At first glance, this does not seem like a crazy idea. There is substantial evidence, in US and European data, of a positive and strong correlation between educational attainment and the number of books (as well as the presence of a laptop) a child has access to. So, surely, by giving each child a laptop, we can definitely raise their IQ and subsequently their test scores?

 Probably. But more probably not. After all, there is no clear evidence to date that the presence of a laptop in the house brings higher educational achievement; it says only that the two are correlated.

A more probable theory is that children who have a laptop at home are those whose parents are smart and well educated to begin with (and they pass on their genes and work ethic to their kids). Or perhaps they care more about education and about their children in general, which means they create an environment that encourages and rewards learning for their children. For these reasons, it is more likely that a laptop is less of a cause of intelligence than an indicator, and thus it may be more fruitful for the government to direct resources elsewhere that can guarantee a cause and effect outcome.

Dr Nattavudh Powdthavee

London

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

Decoration ban not in the spirit of the festive season

This is taken from a web-based news source in the United States: "And in Colorado, a home-owners' association is threatening to fine a resident for putting up a Christmas wreath with a peace sign on her house because it could be considered divisive. The owner of the wreath - Lisa Jensen - has vowed to keep the wreath up until after Christmas even though it will result in a fine of about 1,000 dollars." Merry Christmas.

James Martin

Bangkok

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

Singer seems to muddle the words to his own tunes

Regarding the letters about Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam), I would like to point out that the singer did in fact endorse the fatwa against the writer Salman Rushdie. He later claimed to have been misquoted but then reiterated his support for the death sentence on a television show produced by the Christian Science Monitor in which he said that "It's [the death sentence] got to be seen as a deterrent". As a writer I take that very personally and I don't think anyone who values free speech and freedom of expression should attempt to whitewash the likes of Muslim fanatics like Cat Stevens.

Dean Barrett

Bangkok

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

Alcohol advertising ban will lead to increase in drinking

As a consumer in Thailand, I would like to request protection from the inane policy being promoted by the so-called Office of the Consumer Protection Board. This policy is the proposed ban on advertising of alcohol. The issue of alcohol use is one best dealt with by the education, effective programmes for problem drinkers, and strict enforcement of drink driving laws. Yet in a classic case of poor policy and muddle-headed thinking, we have this Board trying to tackle all this by banning advertising. All this will do is give alcohol manufacturers more money (since they won't be able to spend on advertising) and incentives to compete in other ways - such as by cutting prices, which will encourage more drinking. Yet again in Thailand, the easy fix is preferred - and people's rights to information and choice are infringed in the name of a policy solution that will not fix the problem it purports to be designed for.

In the spirit of making suggestions to the PM, I have a few. First, the Consumer Protection Board should be renamed the Consumer Rights Restriction Board. Second, doctors at the Health Ministry should be instructed to concentrate on preventing real health problems (like bird flu, HIV/Aids, malaria, etc.) and leave social policy questions to those better qualified. And finally, the PM should tell the policy opportunists who are pushing this ill-considered ban that the country has bigger problems to solve, and drop the whole matter. 

Philip Robertson

Bangkok

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

Crusading politicians should get their priorities straight

What is Chamlong Srimuang up to? He is meddlesome, pushing his own counter-productive agendas. This is not the time for Thailand to go on a morality crusade. Some sense of priority needs to be established. 

Pim Kemasingki

Chiang Mai