Surely this has been going on for over a year now? Do any readers recall when this penalty was first imposed on travelers? This must be one of the longest surveys ever carried out, unless of course the survey is now over and it is simply a case of someone forgetting to remove either the monitors or the stickers.

If any senior executive of BTS happens to read this letter, perhaps he or she could inform us just what was being trialed? If it was a technical trial, did it really need more than a few weeks to ascertain that the units worked well, didn't drain too much electricity from the whole system, and could be easily heard above the mobile phone calls? Or, if it was the reaction from passengers that was being tested, dare I ask what sort of feedback is being collected, and from whom? How many questionnaires have been filled in over the past year? How many interviews conducted? How many CCTV recordings scanned to watch if people do in fact cluster round the video units on those rare occasions when the carriage is not so crowded as to make choosing to do this impossible?

BTS really needs to answer this question or some sceptics may infer that it was not a trial and that someone has been economical with the truth. Misleading the public is not a good reputation to have to live with if you also have to talk to them about pricing policies, expansion plans and safety.

Gerald Moore

Tak

Anti-smoking brigade will never give up

Re: "Consider the rights of non-smokers", Letters, June 10.

I am really happy that Tony Ash saw fit to send in this letter because it is a classic example of how non-smokers think.

When I was living in California, the city of Los Angeles saw fit to outlaw smoking in bars. I guess they were running out of places to ban it. The bars, in response, built open-air patios for the smokers so that they wouldn't lose half of their business. What happened would have been comical, if it wasn't so sad. The smokers started hanging out on the patios, so most of the action moved to the patios. The non-smokers, not wanting to be left out of the action, started hanging out on the patios also, and in no time at all, began to complain about the cigarette smoke. If they were unfortunate enough to be in the company of aggressive smokers, their whining was met with some nasty remarks, so they simply resorted to waving their hands over their faces so that they made the smokers uncomfortable without giving them cause to get violent.

Now here we have Tony Ash. Smoking has been outlawed in enclosed restaurants, hotel lobbies, shopping malls and even parks. So where does Tony take his asthmatic wife to eat? Where else, the last refuge of smokers, independent outdoor restaurants. Of course I am assuming this is because all of the enclosed restaurants, including all malls, are already restricted.

Now when you consider that most outdoor restaurants are pretty roomy because there is generally a lot of floor space, that means that he must be selecting the few that do have tables pretty close to one another, because the smoke is somehow getting to his wife before it disappears into the atmosphere.

I am not questioning Tony's veracity, so much as his objectivity. He is worried about his rights not to have smoke blown into his space, but he chooses a venue where it just might happen.

So does he take an objective view and suggest that maybe outdoor restaurants should have non-smoking sections? No, he feels that smoking should be banned everywhere including my home. I have to assume this, because that is where this debate began.

Yet there are people out there who will be shocked and appalled that Tony and his wife were subjected to this horror by smokers.

As for my motives for not quitting, that is no one's business but my own, although people might be interested, because I am interested why Tony quit after 20 years. Was he tired of smoking, or was he tired of being harassed about it? But so long as non-smokers continue to behave like fanatics, rather than rational, fair-minded individuals, I will continue to debate them. Even if some day I do elect to quit smoking. And I assure you that it will be because I elect to, not because some lunatic actually believes that he will die from infrequent exposure to my cigarette smoke and therefore further believes that he has the right to malign me.

John Arnone

Yasothon

Previous constitution is still the best for Thailand

My sincere thanks to the Council for National Security for revealing on Radio Thailand that if the draft charter was rejected at the upcoming referendum, the CNS would revise and use the 1997 version.

That massive concession makes the political landscape a lot clearer and more positive, since the 1997 edition had the most public input before being adopted than any other, and has been hailed as arguably one of the best constitutions we've ever had. It also makes the referendum a genuine race, much more in keeping with a democracy than a take-it-or-leave-it affair.

The CNS should have revealed its choice eons ago, rather than at this very late date, and under pressure. Still, if there's time, the Constitution Drafting Committee and others reviewing the draft charter should consider: should we focus on correcting the shortcomings of the 1997 model, or on revising the draft charter?

Given that the earlier one's been tried for several years, perhaps the first alternative is more promising - and will show the CNS what revisions they should implement should the referendum reject the draft.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

Underestimating the voice of the people

We got a call on Saturday night from a relative who lives close to Rajadamnoen Avenue. At midnight or afterwards she and her family could not sleep because of the noise made by protesters. She felt there were nearly 100,000 people in the streets rather than 10,000.

I don't believe anything I read in the papers anymore. You are all under the control of the dictatorship. I hope the military does not again engage in the wholesale murder of Thais seeking some measure of control over their own lives and livelihoods.

John Francis Lee

Chiang Rai

Junta won't break the will of  the Burmese

The International Movement for a Just world expresses its dismay at the cruel and oppressive decision by Burma's ruling junta to extend by yet another year the house arrest of charismatic opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

The Nobel Prize winner has been in continuous detention since 1989 along with many other stalwarts of her political party, the National League for Democracy (NLD). The NLD had won the general elections in 1990. But the military rulers defied the popular will and rounded up most opposition leaders, including Suu Kyi.

Burma's descent into obscurity and poverty has continued since then. What was a nation of great physical beauty and prosperity has now metamorphosed into a state that is shunned by the rest of the world. Its people live in fear and deprivation. Poverty, corruption, disease and child malnutrition are rampant. On all indices of "development" Burma ranks one of the lowest in the world. It is estimated that nearly 1,000 political prisoners are languishing in Burma's detention centres.

JUST wishes to remind the junta that no power on earth can stop a people who are prepared to die on their feet than to live on their knees. The human spirit cannot be enslaved. Suu Kyi can be physically restrained but the flame of freedom she has ignited will continue to light the fires of resistance.

The present political and economic system has extinguished liberties and has brought no economic development. The proper course is to release political prisoners, promote national reconciliation and restore democracy and human rights.

Economic development will then follow. Only then will Burma be able to re-claim its rightful place in the community of nations.

Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

Bangkok