Allow me to clarify some points made in the article ''Where OIC was correct'' published in the editorial section on Dec 3.
The main point about the OIC resolution is not whether the OIC was correct or incorrect, but whether the resolution provided a balanced and fair reflection of the government's efforts in the Southern Border Provinces (SBPs). Our regret is that the OIC resolution failed to reflect the sentiments of OIC member states which have generally been supportive of the government's efforts in the SBPs.
We had hoped that the OIC resolution would have included some acknowledgement, as expressed by the OIC Secretary General's Adviser in a joint press release issued at the end of his visit in May 2012, of the ''positive developments since the visit of the OIC Secretary General in 2007'' and that ''the policy of the Thai government is moving in the right direction''.
Such an acknowledgement would have made the OIC resolution more balanced. At the very least, we certainly expected a more vocal condemnation of the violence against innocent people, such as the recent spate of attacks on teachers.
Regarding the article's suggestion that ''now is the time to drop the confrontation,'' I wish to point out that the government has no intention of pursuing a confrontation with the OIC.
In fact, as an observer to the OIC, Thailand has always tried to engage with the OIC constructively and transparently. This includes visits to Thailand, at the invitation of the Thai government, by a special envoy of the OIC in 2005, by the OIC Secretary General in 2007 and in May this year.
We certainly believe that we can gain the support of the OIC and its member states by working together with the OIC.
MANASVI SRISODAPOL
Director General
Department of Information
Booze laws inconsistent
The government is proposing new alcohol laws and, at first glance, one idea is hard to fathom. The first draft bans sales of drinks at roadside stalls but says nothing about consumption.
Does this mean if I order a meal at a stall and buy alcohol at a local convenience shop, keeping the receipt as proof I am not breaking that law? Such a situation will not reduce consumption so banning sales of booze at stalls seems to make no sense.
In fact, much of our alcohol legislation is stupid and hypocritical, most notably the ban on advertising, yet beer companies are major sponsors of many sports events, where their logos are there for all to see.
KOIRUNG THONGKOW
Bangkok
Forget about coups
Re: ''Boonlert: Thaksin audio authentic'', (Breaking News, Dec 10).
Boonlert Kaewprasit, former leader of the Pitak Siam group, said that if Thaksin Shinawatra wants to return home and is still rich, he can hire people to stage a coup for him. What a bold remark.
Not long ago, rumours abounded that a group of men planned to stage a coup against their own leader, then install him again after the automatic annulment of the constitution _ to coincide with the staging of the coup _ took effect.
Even though there is no connection between the two stories above, I brought the matter up to show that all coups are bad.
Hence, any idea of a coup should be forgotten. Better not mention it again.
VINT CHAVALA
Lamphun
Target drinking habits
Re: ''Alcohol sales in public places face restrictions'', (Dec 13).
I am not against ideas to control the sale of alcohol. But alcohol should not be considered the same as tobacco and narcotics.
Most alcohol-related problems are caused by over-consumption by individual drinkers. Such drinking habits must be targeted.
I urge new legislation to double the penalties for any crimes committed under the influence of alcohol.
R H SUGA
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.