The government could clash with the Constitution Court or it could change the way it is redrafting the constitution. When Khun Abhisit Vejjajiva brought this issue to parliament, Section 291 of the constitution was applied with the utmost transparency, that is, specify which parts of the constitution would be changed and why _ line item by line item.
The Constitution Drafting Assembly should not be given a blank cheque. If you claim that you are backed by a majority of voters, then you should respect the fact that redrafting the constitution in no way benefits the average man on the street.
The government should do away with the amnesty bills, stop red gatherings, stop with the red villages and stop using government agencies to mobilise people for your own political purposes.
In return the Democrats will stop our political rallies and we can help set a new tone of peace and reconciliation with the people, the media and the community radio stations.
The government should expedite the judicial process for political prisoners, then move forward with the amnesty and reconciliation process.
The government should seriously involve the people and the media in the reconciliation process by holding town hall meetings around the country and using Kanit Na Nakorn's blueprint for reconciliation _ which was accepted by all political parties.
If the government is sincerely working to address the people's needs then there is no need for the Democrats to oppose the government. If the government succeeds in solving the country's problems and the people continue to vote for a Pheu Thai government (and the Democrats keep coming in second in the ballots) then that is fine with us.
The bottom line, the ball is in Khun Thaksin Shinawatra's court.
And he should realise that he can't have his cake and eat it too.
If he wishes to return to Thailand, he may have to serve a jail term, but probably not the entire two-year sentence. He has already received 30 billion baht back from the courts and has already ''broke even'' but to get 46 billion baht back would require taxpayers to flip the bill _ which is unacceptable.
This is my solution to get our great country moving forward again.
Let's all stop the politics, let's stop all the mobilisation and let's all start afresh by giving real reconciliation and the rule of law a chance.
KORN CHATIKAVANIJ
Deputy leader of the Democrat Party
On the edge of an abyss
Regarding ''State attorney backs government'' (BP, June 8). Once again storm clouds are gathering over Thailand's horizons, and this time they look more real than ever. The Office of the Attorney-General is of the opinion that it is not illegal for parliament to consider the passage of the draft resolution on the charter rewrite. The state prosecutor even assures that the rewrite ''won't overthrow the monarchy''.
This is over and above the injunction issued by the Constitution Court about a week ago. Now the country is back to teetering on the edge of an abyss. There is no escaping the fact that street politics will dominate the Thai political scene and, although no blood has been spilt yet, the sharks are already in a feeding frenzy.
What boggles my mind is exactly which agency of the government has the right to interpret the constitution: the OAG or the Constitution Court? Common sense will tell us that when something has to do with the constitution, it should be the Constitution Court because the name itself implies it. Yet the Constitution Court itself has rarely imposed itself on this particular, most vital role, and so the OAG has taken upon itself to do it at this crucial juncture. Admittedly Thailand's judicial system is not perfect, and this is due to the fact that we never really have had a ''permanent constitution'' since the inception of the constitutional monarchy. But most political scientists would agree that, in a democracy, a checks-and-balances system consisting of the executive, legislative and judicial branches must exist. In Thailand where political instability has been of late the rule rather than the exception, therefore, a weakened judicial branch poses an absolute danger that soon our ''constitutional monarchy'' could degenerate into a parliamentary dictatorship if it has not done so already. Eventually this could even evolve into a totalitarian democracy such as those which are being experienced not only in some of our neighbours but also in quite a few Western countries.
In any event, no matter what and how this political saga turns out, it's best to remember the words of Wasan Soipisudh, president of the court, who says: ''The law can be written in any way we want. But the most important thing is that if men are ethical enough, problems will not arise. So changing the proclivity of men is better than changing the law.'' With those brave words coming from the president of the court himself and in the face of a grave crisis, I salute him and his courage.
PRACHYADAVI TAVEDIKUL
Wreck of a conciliation
As a farang outsider looking in, it appears the attempted reconciliation legislation is having the direct opposite effect to that intended. In view of this observation do readers think these efforts should be renamed the WC, the synonym for Wreck Conciliation, proposals?
LONG-TIME RESIDENT
Pattaya
Law applies to everyone
Regarding ''Ignoring court a risk'' (Postbag, June 6), the letter urges the Pheu Thai Party to follow the court's order, arguing that they must respect the rule of law. But how about the judges in following the same rule of law?
The law clearly states the procedures in which the court can review the constitutionality of the bills. The attorney-general must send a request, and the law must somehow undermine our constitutional monarchy. In this case, neither applies.
Judges cannot wield their powers as they like.
They too must exercise their judicial powers carefully and not overstep their constitutionally determined roles. They too must respect the rule of law.
GENG NGARMBOONANANT
Starving dogs a disgrace
My husband and I are visiting from Australia. We were taken on a tour to the main temple in Phuket and it was really shocking to see the starving, emaciated animals which surround the temple buildings.
I understand that people dump their domestic animals at the temples all over Thailand and that the monks are expected to somehow feed them. This is expecting too much from monks and avoids dealing with the irresponsible and heartless people who dump innocent creatures incapable of feeding themselves.
The Thai government needs to address this problem. Buddhism teaches compassion for all beings and what is needed are de-sexing programmes and people who are willing to feed the animals or euthanise them. Something has to be done. Sending tourists to temples surrounded by this awful sight is not in the interests of Thailand.
Please act by funding refuges and vet clinics to deal with the issue and impose severe fines on people who dump their animals who face death by starvation. It's a horrible way to die and creates a total contradiction to the temples and the teachings of the Buddha.
SUE ARNOLD
Byron Bay, Australia
Shame of 'human zoos'
Regarding ''Tour sleight of hand'' (Postbag, June 8), the letter complained about a 500-baht admission to a long-neck ''village''.
These are not villages in the sense that most people believe because, in reality, the villagers are held captive.
So the complaint should be against the existence of these human zoos. And any suggested improvements would be to close them down and allow the ''exhibits'' the same rights as regular citizens including schooling for their children and freedom of movement.
MORAL KIWI
Two sides to the coin
I have faced three phases of ''two-tiered pricing'' in Thailand in my short stay here.
The first phase was as described by Berni Frefel in ''Goodwill stops at cashier'' (Postbag, June 5).
I totally agree with him.
Fortunately I did not know how to read Thai and did not knew I was paying more (ignorance is bliss). In the second phase, I got enlightened like Hans U Luther in ''Goodwill stops at bikers'' (Postbag, June 7) and used my limited knowledge of Thai. Phom pen khon Thai na khap, a huge smile with a wai and copy of my work permit and passport let me in a place at ''Thai rates''. I could enjoy several national parks, museums, etc without burdening my pocket too much.
The third phase was again reverting back to the ''two-tiered pricing.'' It all started with my trip to the Northeast, on the road less travelled. In Phibun Mangsahan, Ubon Ratchathani province, there was a popcorn vendor selling freshly popped corn. My son wanted to have popcorn but not the sweet kind which are generally sold in Thailand. I asked him if he had the salted one. Instead of kluar meaning salt, my pronouncement was klua meaning fear. He called his neighbours and everybody was amused before finally making out what I meant. That guy went away and came back with salt and prepared salted popcorn especially for us. And he refused to take any payment for it! It was a pleasant ''two-tiered pricing'' which I didn't expect. After that it has happened to me several times. No points for guessing that it happens only in cities which are not on the regular tourist map.
SUDERSHAN SINGH GUSAIN
Guide or represent
Regarding ''Fantasy of democracy'' (Postbag, June 5), Arnaud Dubus states that, in a democracy, laws guide the activities of the political and judicial institutions as well as those of the people, with the constitution at the apex of the legal edifice. This may be true as he neglected to name the origin of the constitution at the apex of his argument.
The constitution of the United States is a guide for its government and defines a representative democracy. Representatives exemplify constituencies; they don't guide them. One can either guide or represent. They are mutually exclusive roles. The government is like an official in a game of sport. The official is not consulted when it is time to call a play. The government cannot play favourites.
The government does not even decide what game the people should play. It provides a safe arena for the peoples' affairs; but it does not decide what those affairs might be. America didn't abandon guidance by monarchy for guidance by the elected. It made possible guidance by the people themselves.
This explains the durability of America's constitution, which has had only one constitution in its history.
VINCENT GILLES
Boulder, Colorado
Don't discount republics
Regarding ''Monarchy gives stability'' (Postbag, June 7), I believe it had some inaccuracies. It was suggested that Queen Elizabeth II's 60 years as head of state is also ''a celebration of democracy that without the monarchy could simply not exist''. This is incorrect.
Two of the largest three democracies in the world do not have a sovereign but a ''president'' as head of state. And some Commonwealth countries are seriously considering becoming republics.
And while I can respect the right of ''royalists'' to express gratitude in whatever fashion they think appropriate, let's not ignore another historical fact.
The United Kingdom may not have a written constitution but it had the ''Magna Carta'' of 1215.
And it was not out of love or an outpouring of respect when at the time it was ''forced on to King John'' in an attempt to limit his powers and protect the privileges of ''free men''.
But ultimately it does not matter whether a monarch is the head of a democratic state or not.
Because I agree that within a stable democracy ''every institution knows its place and function for which it is responsible''. I might also add that a ''stable democracy'' requires other values like hard work, accountability, transparency, ethics and rational behaviour.
Just how many of these attributes do we witness in the socio-political landscape of Thailand?
COMMONWEALTH KIWI
The cost of laziness
For centuries, millions of farmers the world over have cultivated rice while following the same traditional steps.
First, seedlings are started in seedlings beds, then approximately one month later, they are transplanted by hand to flooded fields, where they grow in neat rows.
Yet, a few years ago, farmers in Si Sa Ket province, where I live, discovered that it was quite exhausting and time consuming to cultivate rice that way, and that it was much less demanding to simply throw the seeds in the fields at the start of the rain season, then let mother nature do the rest of the work.
It would be wonderful if it was so easy, but taking this shortcut ends up being rather costly.
As a matter of fact, anyone walking along paddy fields cultivated that way will easily spot large empty patches of land, because many seeds won't germinate.
Compared with the traditional two-step cultivation process, this ''revolutionary'' one-step process produces between 30% and 50% less rice.
One may wonder why farmers would be ready to voluntarily incur such losses.
The answer, or at least part of it, is that they find it much more appealing to place bets in bang fai (rockets) festivals, dreaming that their winnings will more than make up for their crop losses.
BRUNO
Si Sa Ket
CONTACT: BANGKOK POST BUILDING
136 Na Ranong Road Klong Toey, Bangkok 10110
Fax: +02 2403666 email: postbag@bangkokpost.co.th
All letter writers must provide full name and address.
All published correspondence is subject to editing at our discretion.