At Thammasat last week, in the midst of the media circus something else happened: Taweekiet Meenakanit, a university law academic, publicly offered his disturbing views on the right of Thai men to rape their wives.

"Many wives in this country still have to depend on their husbands. They might be upset by their husbands but if asked whether they want to divorce or put their husband in jail, they would say 'no'," he said. He disagreed with the proposal to make it a crime for a man to rape his wife. This law academic is telling half of his students and staff that it's okay for them to rape their wives and telling the other half bad luck if you get raped by your husbands. This was at Thammasat!

If I were one of his female colleagues I'd be uncomfortable around a man like that, and I'd be concerned at the lack of response from the rector, vice rector and department heads!

So why the silence on this from Thammasat, especially its Law Department? Does Thammasat not think that comments like this deserve our attention somewhat more than a student's perceived dress-code violation?

What's the matter Thammasat? Cat got your tongue? You had plenty to say last week about a student's dress!

Rape is a cruel and violent crime, and the university should come out and condemn Taweekiet's comments.

Please speak up, Thammasat: after your public claims to the moral high ground, your moral values look threadbare this week.

Get Taweekiet to publicly apologise to the females of Thailand, especially his colleagues, then make him visit some shelters for female victims of violent rape and do some volunteer work there. It may educate and humanise him.

Thailand must ban rape 100 per cent, marital or otherwise, and enshrine that ban as a basic human right in the Constitution. It's a national disgrace that it is not banned already.

Boris Loosebrain

Bangkok

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

Militants often members of communities they later attack

Re: "Militants are hiding out in universities", News, February 23.

I read with disbelief in your article the comment by Pattani academic Chidchanok Rahimulla, who said of students who sympathised with the militants: "I believe their perception of the situation will expand as they are exposed to the world outside of their community ... Besides, active militants are not people who study at universities or colleges."

Anyone who believes this has not learned the lessons of September 11, 2001. Virtually all of the hijackers had spent many years living and studying in European and American societies, even acquiring graduate degrees. They did not allow their perception of the societies that allowed them to live in freedom to change their determination to destroy those societies.

Farang Rak Thai

Bangkok

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

Negotiating a truce not a practical option in deep South

Re: "I was just seconds from death: Viriya", News, February 23.

Few places in the world today have witnessed innocent people being murdered in a more arbitrary and brutal manner than Thailand's deep South. The Thai people are finding it increasingly hard to combat. To quote Her Majesty the Queen's aide Viriya Chavakul, "I am not angry and forgive those involved in the attack. They should have understood that we come to help. I would like to ask that they don't do this again."

The new head of the junta is a thoroughly nice man, an absolute gentleman; however, this will not help solve what is happening in the South. Does the junta not read The Nation? This paper has been proactive in taking the message to the junta and the people, with a series of extremely well documented editorials.

The junta is now seen to be playing politics while doing little for people in the South. Many are clamouring for negotiations! Negotiate with whom? We don't know. The second rule of negotiations is to always work from a position of strength. I know where the strength lies at the moment, and it is not with the Thai police or military. There has also not been a shred of evidence that the insurgents want to negotiate .Why should they?

There are, however, countries that have been successful in defending themselves against terror. In nearly all instances these countries have gone on the offensive. That is no simple task. Failure to act and act decisively now will only result in these evil tentacles reaching out across the country, if that has not already happened.

AJ Haupt

Chon Buri

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

Despite faults, govt preferable to Thaksin administration

Re: "Public paying the price for coup support with junta's constant reversals", Letters, February 21.

We are quick to draw conclusions on every misstep by Surayud Chulanont's interim government. The aforementioned letter depicts him and his staff as the "mythical Hydra, talking and biting each other at the same time", changing direction and leaderless. Yet we forget the prime minister he replaced.  Yes, the guy who was labelled a manipulative dictator. I do not condone Surayud's tentativeness or his inability to make firm decisions to guide Thai politics and the economy. Advice from sources such as this newspaper are enlightening, and often I am puzzled by why he does not plan more effectively.

However, I am very glad he is in there rather than Thaksin Shinawatra. Maybe political and popular pressure will ultimately force Surayud to resign in favour of a leader with a firmer grasp of our country's problems, guided by a stronger moral code than Thaksin. This would be a natural change and one that is good for our country. It is certainly better than being at the mercy of a selfish prime minister whose only mandate for change is to exploit our country for his own good.

Outraged Taxpayer

Bangkok

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

Limited freedoms sometimes equate to financial well-being

China may be "communist" in name, but according to some ethnic-China watchers, it is following the state-directed development model of Singapore. Singapore has a capitalist economy and since independence has followed a state-guided capitalist development. Singapore's ruling People's Action Party is a social-democratic party, though it adopts corporate-statist developmental policies similar to those of Mussolini and Hitler, with legislative features of the British parliamentary system. In corporate-state fashion, the government of Singapore ensures class collaboration between the capitalists and workers by regulating labour relations. It outlaws strikes but encourages negotiation and litigation in courts. Basically, it is a social contract, which gives the workers a tangible improvement in their standards of living and requires employers to comply with certain labour standards, and as long as the economy prospers, most people are quite happy.

Back to Thailand, economic development is one of the most important things, which lots of emerging countries recognise, and it's even more important in my mind than pure, unfettered democracy and free speech. After all, was it not democracy which brought the National Socialists to power in Germany in the 1930s amidst the depths of the worst economic recession? So what prevailed at the time, democracy and freedoms or the economic imperative?

So would it be preferable to have unfettered democracy amid economic hardship or do you want economic development, a reasonable living standard for all, economic security, no poverty, affordable or free healthcare and education, decent housing, all in return for some regulation on freedoms? Thailand has to find its own path to democracy and economic development, and the worst thing it can do is to transplant a model of democracy and freedoms from somewhere else directly into Thailand. This path must be based on its history, culture, demography, state of economic and political development and many other factors that only Thais know and understand fully.

Charles F Moreira

Bangkok

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

Kingdom gives citizens relatively large political space

"One in the pocket is better than a lot in the field." So goes the saying.

In the end, one way or the other, many people come out with the vague suggestion of empowering the people but not the nuts and bolts of how to go about doing that.

Whether you accept it or not, the political space for the democratisation process is there. Thailand's situation in this regard is even better than so-called Asian democracies like Singapore and Malaysia, not to mention Cambodia, communist Laos and the military dictatorship in Burma. The question here is: why don't we make use of the existing political space and widen it to be more responsive to the people's needs and values? I think it is more important to build and nurture this awareness once the problem or problems have been pinpointed.

Curious

Bangkok

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

Has Thailand ever had a truly representative democracy?

Reading "Emerging democracy needs to work in a Thai context" with its comments on Dr Anek Laothamatas' observations that Thais are used to a patronage system, together with Chang Noi's analysis of Dr Anek's prophecy makes me wonder: has democracy ever been tried in Thailand?

Perhaps I'm just showing my ignorance of Thai politics, but when I read in The Nation that provincial governors in the North have been replaced by politicians in Bangkok or that the present government thinks that 10-year terms for tambon heads are appropriate, I get the impression that Thais' choice at the polls is limited to this or that potential Bangkok "patron" who will run things "for them" from afar, from Bangkok.

Is this the case? Is it true that provincial governors, even tambon headmen are not elected but chosen in Bangkok? If so in what sense is it that you speak of democracy in Thailand?

John Francis Lee

Chiang Rai