There is almost no chance Surakiart will be selected, not least because Thaksin is his main sponsor. And even if he were selected, Thailand would stand to gain very little direct benefit.

It would have been better if Thaksin had used his time in Kazakhstan to talk about issues like cooperation in the fields of energy and food supplies, as well as international terrorism.

If the main purpose of this trip by special plane was to lobby for Surakiart, it was an awful waste of time and money, particularly when there are other pressing issues to deal with back home like the situation in the South and ongoing political uncertainties. In addition, many foreign royal dignitaries were still in the country and one of Thaksin's main excuses for resuming his post was that he had to oversee their welcome and security.

Could it be that the real reason for this hastily scheduled trip was that the caretaker prime minister cannot stand not being the centre of attention for too long?

Nisanart Pumpanwong

Bangkok

-----------------------

Fifa should check referees' constant whistle-blowing

 In the past I have been disgusted by simple things in football like pulling the opponent's shirt as a defensive tactic and remember vividly and sadly such acts at the last world championships in South Korea and Japan. But the actions of the referees at the current World Cup right are approaching the limit, even though they are probably following internal Fifa instructions.

Now any attempted shirt-grabbing and, worse, almost any action to recapture the ball from an opponent results in the whistle being blown and often a yellow card.

On the television it is clearly visible that in at least 50 per cent of the cases there is no offence. Recapturing the ball is considered an offence if the opponent simply falls over the tackling player's leg. In more than half the cases the players get penalised for perfect behaviour, often with yellow cards.

It's annoying for the players as they might have to miss a match, but more annoying for us viewers is that the game drops dead each time.

I sure hope Fifa looks at the TV images and analyses them before we get to the second stage of the championship. If not then by halfway through this round acting academies around the world can start giving certificates to players who have learned how to play with the referee's mind.

Another thing is that for each so-called offence the game stops dead for 20 seconds. Maybe this is sponsored by the advertisers, who have their name slipped onto the screen whenever the game stops.

Gerrit

Bangkok

------------------------------

Astounding conclusion on southern bomb blasts

 What an amazing piece of police work. Within 48 hours of the bombings in the South, a deputy prime minister was able to ascertain that none of the explosives were smuggled in from a "neighbouring country".

I am confident that calls will come in from around the world for Thailand to share this revolutionary expertise.

When protecting "friends" in the region becomes more important than protecting the Thai people, some clear orders must be issued. These perhaps should start with one such as: "Do not speak of what you think or hope to be true, but only of what you know."

US Army Major Mark A Smith, Rtd

Bangkok

----------------------------

Death penalty opponents should think about victims

 Re: "Philippines sets an example for Thailand", Opinion, June 17.

Danthong Breen, president of the Union for Civil Liberty in Bangkok, says Thailand should follow the Philippines and abolish capital punishment. I'm not for or against on the issue, and I'll leave that to our legislators. What annoys me though is that foes of the death penalty always present one side of the argument.

They say capital punishment is wrong; that it won't deter crime; that we have no right to take human life; that if we kill murderers, we are no better than them. And, of course, the favourite argument is that we may put the wrong person on death row.

But while they devotedly argue against the death penalty, not once do they point out that the victims also had the right to live. Not once do they say that the victims had the right to grow up, marry and have kids. Not once do they mention that the victims' families had the right to have their loved ones around. Not once do they show sympathy for the victims and their families.

Somsak Pola

Samut Prakan

----------------------------------

Many reasons why the US will never invade Burma

 There have been many reports from Burma in the past year citing rumours that the leader of the country's unpopular junta, General Than Shwe, fears an invasion by American forces to oust the military dictatorship and restore democracy.

American politicians might claim noble intentions but they will not send armed forces into Burma to oust an oppressive military dictatorship or to restore democracy and human rights.

It is hard to imagine an invasion of Burma by any armed foreign force to back up pro-democracy forces, even during a popular national uprising like that of 1988.

This is because Burma does not bother anyone beyond its borders. Burma does not pose a serious threat to the security of other countries.

If anything, it is more likely that the US and other countries would invade Burma to back the junta and reinforce repressive anti-democratic measures in order to protect their commercial exploitation of the country. They would claim to be combating international terrorists and ensuring international security - or to be combating international drug traffickers.

Indeed, American and French corporations hired foreign mercenaries to protect the Yadana gas pipeline, which they constructed with corvee labour, against possible attacks by minority ethnic groups that are seeking democracy or independence. Japan funded industrial projects that relied on corvee labour and forced tens of thousands of inhabitants to flee their homes. The US supplied poison-spraying equipment to the junta to eradicate opium, which the junta then used against ethnic minorities instead.

Ideally, a military invasion of Burma by the US - or Britain or any other country - would best be undertaken by an international force under the banner of the United Nations. The international force would have to remain in Burma for many years to maintain peace nationwide, arrange referendums and protect any new independent states.

It would be a huge, long and costly operation.

Rif Andaman

Trang

---------------------------

Good diction essential for English language teachers

 I write as a fully qualified but recently retired native English university lecturer with many years experience teaching legal English to foreign lawyers and business English to foreign MBA students. Your recent correspondence regarding English teachers is therefore of considerable interest, particularly the various comments made in relation to strong regional English accents.

I have to state most emphatically that in my experience, language teachers from Scandinavian countries, Australia, New Zealand and to a lesser extent the United States are often (but not always) superior to local English teachers, simply because of the clearer diction and pronunciation of their English. In the case of the Scandinavians, of course, English is taught as a second language in their excellent public schools - superior, regrettably, in every way to those in the United Kingdom's public domain. These comments are of course, generalisations and naturally, there are many exceptions.

In teaching English as a foreign language, clear diction is of paramount importance, perhaps more so than a slight accent. It is unfortunate, however, that in the United Kingdom, we have a few regions where the accents can be so strong as to make them almost unintelligible to even the average Englishman. If pressed, I would particularly pick out strong Glaswegian and strong Newcastle accents. Regrettably, a few people suffering from these strong regional accents turn up as English teachers in foreign countries, so that one occasionally finds the ridiculous situation where, for example, a Thai national attempts to exhibit his skill in English by pronouncing his words with a strong Thai/Glaswegian accent. The result, of course, is that his listeners can scarcely understand a word.

Such English teachers, with so poor a command of their own language, should not be teaching English, if only because it is totally unfair to the students. To illustrate the point further, it is as if a farang attempted to learn Thai with a teacher from the deep South of Thailand and with a strong regional accent. Absurd? Of course!

No, the suggestion that simply being a native English speaker somehow qualifies one to be the best teacher is clearly nonsense. The important questions are whether the teacher has been properly trained and, regardless of accent, do they speak with clarity? Because that is what the students require. After all, most teachers will be working from the same kind of textbooks. There should be some method of grading the suitability of native speakers to teach, at least in regard to their clarity of speech - but of course, there isn't!

It is quite true that standards of teaching English in Thai institutions are abysmally low. I would suggest that, as in nearly every other sphere of life, the teaching institutions only get what they are prepared to pay for. The other important requirement that is so often unavailable to the student is - practice, practice, practice!

Henry Ashe

Bangkok