OPINION

Army fatigue

Re: "Chadchart's effect on Thai politics", (Opinion, May 28).

Bangkok citizens voting for their governor saw a flicker of freedom from military rule. Rather than "sacred", many see the military as a deeply marbled cancer in all its institutions and polity. It serves the ruling class, its senior officers and the status quo rather than the people.

The army is now redeployed and re-equipped to support coups with little or no regard to its defence role. The governor's election will show what's possible when democracy prevails. Let us all contrast that with rule under our "sacred" masters.

Re: "Sanctions don't work", (PostBag, May 16).

While the writer may be correct to a certain extent that imposing economic sanctions on a country doesn't always lead to the overthrow of that government, they at least make things difficult on the regime, causing them to manoeuvre carefully when making decisions.

One need only look at the results that sanctions have created on authoritarian regimes far and wide such as North Korea, Cuba and Iran.

And sanctions sometimes actually do lead to the overthrow of corrupt regimes!

Witness the fall of apartheid in South Africa or the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime during in Iraq.

Mr Nagi has written on the subject on several occasions, making it seem as if it is the gospel truth that economic sanctions don t work.

Yet if anything, the facts show otherwise. Economic sanctions slowly but surely do make countries falter, be it by direct or indirect means.

Re: "Risk assessment", (PostBag, May 28), "Critical point" and "Made his day", (PostBag, May 14) and "Unliberal liberals," (PostBag, May 6).

Why do you indulge Eric Bahrt's views so much? It is either bad editing choices or you are doing it just to annoy PostBag readers.

Re: "Dhamma helps inmates accept fate" (BP, May 29).

Rather than sending in Phra Khru Phawana Viriyawat, the abbot of Wat Phutthaphot Hariphunchai in Lamphun to teach death-row inmates to "accept their destiny" as imposed by the state, perhaps authorities should instead follow the Buddha's teaching and stop their habit of deliberately killing people.

That would send a clearer message.

Killing by the state according to law made up to do so serves no good purpose.

It does, however, teach the message that such extreme violence is an appropriate response to a perceived problem, a lesson that humans readily follow.

Would it not be better for the law to set the the more challenging but socially healthy example taught by the Buddha?