In his editorial, Kavi Chongkittavorn eloquently wrote on Thailand's diplomatic policy towards Burma. His keen interest on this issue is understandable. Thailand and Burma are neighbours who share a 2,401-kilometre border. The people on both sides of the border have been interacting, not least trading, with one another, over a period of thousands of years. Yet, these facts also mean that a peaceful border and cooperation between the two countries are of mutual benefit.

While adhering to our ideals such as democratic values, human rights and fundamental freedoms, we also have to be pragmatic. To this end, successive Thai governments have been conducting policies that promote friendly relations with Burma, as with our other neighbours, and support Asean's constructive engagement approach.

Such a policy of engagement does not imply that we see eye-to-eye with Burma on all issues. Nor should it be regarded as subtracting from the present government's emphasis on governance and ethical values.

What the Thai government seeks is to advance bilateral cooperation on issues of mutual interest, as well as to work together with Burma within the framework of Asean to address difficulties.

Frustration felt by some with regard to the process of democracy in Burma should not pre-judge the policy choice of the present government to work with Burma to resolve issues amicably, while supporting national reconciliation and participatory democracy in that country.

More broadly, we welcome the constructive role of the UN and other countries to reach the same goal.

Admittedly, many of us working in offices in Bangkok might not feel the effect if problems were to occur along the Thai-Burma border. And the fact that some problems or misunderstandings have been averted through diplomacy can also go unnoticed or unpublicised.

Often, delicate issues need subtle means to address, taking into account a myriad of factors. The key is that the conduct of our foreign policy serves the overall interests of our country and people.

Kitti Wasinondh

Director-General, Department of Information

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Bangkok

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

Burma's dictators will meet their fate in the Asian way

Than Shwe cancelled his scheduled Asean Head of State meetings in the Philippines later this month because he was worried that army commander General Maung Aye would stage a coup and topple him, like Thaksin in Thailand.

Military dictatorships are not removed by "dialogue". General Park in South Korea was assassinated by his military intelligence chief. A bomb was placed on Pakistani president Zia Al-Haq's plane. General Suharto of Indonesia was toppled by a student-led national uprising, which was precipitated by anti-Chinese riots.

One of these traditional methods of removing military dictatorships in Asia will also remove the military dictatorship in Burma.

Than Shwe lost what the Chinese call the "Mandate of Heaven" when the infamous video of his daughter's wedding was widely circulated.

Corrupt leaders who lose the moral authority to rule are usually removed or killed.

Myint Thein

Bangkok

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

A steak may work wonders for both health and karma

Re: "Chiang Mai flora expo is environmentally unfriendly", Letters, December 6.

I am puzzled why poor Eric Bahrt had to suffer from hunger at the Royal Flora Expo when, by his own admission, there were hotdogs on sale. I know that the dear boy is a vegetarian, but those hotdogs were already dead. No longer could they bark and frisk about in the yard. Like Eric, I weep for those poor dead hotdogs. But consider: if nobody had eaten them, their lives would have been wasted, their deaths in vain. By eating them, Eric would have enabled them to gain posthumous merit by providing him with nourishment. Thus he would have helped them to attain a favourable rebirth.

In another context, by eating them Eric would have fulfilled the command of the voice from heaven to St Peter in Acts 11:5-8: "Rise, Peter; kill and eat."

I have read many of Eric's letters, and believe that the dear boy's generally misanthropic outlook would be greatly improved if he would occasionally treat himself to a nice juicy steak.

Constance Beasley (Mrs)

Bangkok

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

America's 'professors' create their own enemy monsters

Re: "Bombing is the answer to Mideast violence and terror", Letters, December 6

Professor Carter might be well advised to consider the following: What if the US agreed to suspend its "pathological" support of Israel "for a period of five years?" Many informed citizens say this unstinting support is, in no small part, the unintended cause of these "schools of hate" the professor alludes to. The US comprises a mere 5 per cent of the world's population, and as such, holds no monopoly on moral clarity. In fact, being a minority in the world community puts the US in a unique, yet very tenuous position. With great power comes a commensurate burden of responsibility. In this, contrary to Professor Carter's view, the US is failing.

The professor also alludes to some kind of wholesale destruction of people who do not share his peculiar worldview - a world of free-market capitalism, secured at whatever the cost. Many find this kind of speech to be inflammatory, thoughtless, and in this writer's opinion, unconscionable. To Professor Carter's chagrin, the US is going to have to make some serious accommodations with its real and imagined enemies. After all, many of these are Frankenstein monsters created by America's own hand. In short, due to the Bush administration's diplomatic blunders and military adventurism, the US has made enemies where there were none before.

As an American, I want just what Stephen Carter wants - peace, freedom, and prosperity for all. However, many Americans do not share the view that these ends can be secured by military intervention.

It's been said that a true ship's captain can tell more from the stern wake than from the view from the bridge in divining the weather ahead. In this, George W Bush has failed. But, on a positive note, I promise you, we Americans will right our ship of state, regain our sanity and do what we do best - business, not war. We did it 30 plus years ago, we'll do it again.

D Ross

Bangkok

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

Serious money at stake in telecom investigation

Re: "Investigators face a tough decision", Opinion, December 7.

Your editorial refers to the potential investigation by the AEC of the 2003 executive decree on the conversion of mobile concessions to excise tax - and the subsequent ruling by the Thaksin Cabinet that the excise tax should be born, effectively by the concession granters, TOT and CAT.

The AEC was created with a specific mandate, amongst other things, to look into policy corruption of the previous administration. Clearly, the biggest leverage in terms of returns on corruption was always AIS. Therefore, an investigation into ways in which the previous government helped to boost its profits, as well strengthen its competitive position, at the expense of the state and the general public, is the most significant part of anything the AEC is likely to achieve.

I would like to stress, however, that the excise tax issue is one half of the policy corruption that directly led to wealth being effectively transferred from the state to AIS shareholders. The other half is the issue of the revenue share agreement, which was amended in 2001, reducing payment from AIS to TOT from 30 per cent to 20 per cent. This amendment not only handed at least Bt80 billion in the concession's lifetime from the state to AIS (already Bt13 billion has been lost), but also ensured that AIS retained an absolute advantage over its rivals. This amendment appeared to benefit nobody but AIS, and needs to be explained by the TOT board at the time. In order for the state to properly safeguard national interest, the revenue share amendment thus needs to be immediately investigated by the AEC. Allow me to note that an estimated Bt25 million is lost in favour of AIS for every day that goes by.

Korn Chatikavanij

Deputy Secretary-General, Democrat Party

Bangkok

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

Even a bloodless coup is still a coup - and is undemocratic

Re: "Rogue politicians behind the rally, Saprang suggests", News, December 6.

General Saprang Kalayanamitr, assistant army commander and assistant secretary-general of the Council for National Security suggests that in addition to Newin's "hired guns" the only people who will attend the anti-coup rally on Constitution Day will be "free-spirited bookish-type people who want to see an ideal democracy that only exists in textbooks". He adds: "I would like to tell the fundamentalist or ideologically-imbued academics to understand that the armed forces love democracy no less than democracy-loving politicians." His statement continues: "The expression 'coup d'etat' did not quite capture what took place on September 19 because the military simply wanted to contribute to the future of Thai democracy."

Well! If you feel the need to pinch yourself and wake up from General Saprang's "Alice in Wonderland" of history and political theory, you are not alone. Just to remind myself about a couple of points: a coup is a coup. It is not a birthday party, to misquote Mao. It is the violent seizure of power using guns. If it turned out that no one was killed in this one, it is because no one resisted it.

Democracy (with all its many faults) is up and running in quite a few places - western Europe (460 million people), the US (300 million), India (1.1 billion) to mention just three. These places do not exist just in textbooks - they are real. I understand General Saprang's star has been rising fast, and that he was a key player in the coup. Who knows, he may even be the new light of the future.

Richard Sproat

Bangkok