M. Randolph's May 4 letter, "Improve content, including letters," and A. Charles Muller's May 8 letter, "Use fewer letters when quality lags," both agree that my letter-writing is an example of how NOT to write an opinion letter, citing lack of supporting ideas or clear logic. Sticks and stones! Letters are a literary form, like a gospel, a haiku poem, or a will, so don't read too much into them. And a 300-word limit does not lend itself to a lot of exposition and fails to constitute an "opinion essay" properly speaking. So these are not essays.
One function of an opinion letters page is to allow members of the public to air their views -- complaints, praise, observations, alternate views, analyses etc. -- safely and freely. One way of limiting this safety and freedom is to limit or regulate the definition of "acceptable" opinion and thereby not only censor people's thoughts but censure them as well. This is a common "security" strategy of some governments, and it seems to be shared by Randolph.
In this country, due to a generally poor level of public discourse on public issues, it seems often to fall to foreigners to provide this, which tends to cast us in a bad light as cranky and eccentric complainers, and this is what often makes it onto the Readers in Council page. But I think The Japan Times does a good job of printing a variety of readers' views that I enjoy reading in letter form -- even those of Randolph and Muller.
As for the recent cosmetic changes to the newspaper, these are mere tweakings that keep the paper looking visually appealing. I don't mind them and everyone will quickly get used to the new format. It's nothing to have a conniption about.
With your current subscription plan you can comment on stories. However, before writing your first comment, please create a display name in the Profile section of your subscriber account page.