Sophon Onkgara has written that caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra appeared to be the "sole casualty" of last week's alleged bomb plot. While the investigation is still ongoing, and even though the caretaker prime minister has insisted that four more military officers were also involved, I would not be surprised if Lt Thawatchai emerged as the "sole mastermind" of the so-called brouhaha.

This leads me to fear for the life of this soldier if he is not able to pinpoint anybody else.

The Army, instead of dismissing the accused out of hand, should have taken him under its own custody just so he would be protected and given a fair investigation.

Prachyadavi Tavedikul

Bangkok

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

Why does the US continue to work with big tobacco?

Your report ["Anti-tobacco body slams Boyce action", News, August 26] that US Ambassador Ralph Boyce lead a group of tobacco and alcohol company representatives to meet Thailand's public health minister is disgraceful. The US government has consistently worked to destroy tobacco control efforts in Thailand and this kind of interference must stop.

Thailand is known to have, and believes in, strong tobacco regulations. In contrast, the US-based tobacco industry was recently found guilty of deception and racketeering in a seven-year court case brought against it by the US government. The judge's decision stated that the US tobacco companies "marketed and sold their lethal product with zeal, with deception, with a single-minded focus on their financial success, and without regard for the human tragedy or social costs that success exacted".

If Ambassador Boyce wishes to join the conspirators against his government and his people, then he clearly is on the right track. Otherwise, I wish he would act in accordance with his own government's directives not to assist tobacco interests that promote tobacco sales in other countries like Thailand.

Stephen Hamann

Bangkok

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

Voting rule does not really penalise non-voters

Re: "Mandatory voting is bad for a good democracy", Letters, August 27.

John Arnone was somewhat mistaken. Thailand does not have mandatory voting. One has the freedom not to vote if one does not aspire to be in public office. In not voting, you can be disqualified as an MP. Non-voting is not a legal breach. Theoretically, this only affects the very small percentage of our electoral population that hopes to become an MP. Still, turnout has been most encouraging under this Constitution.

The national turnout at the recent general election was 72.3 per cent, while in Bangkok it was 72 per cent. Even more encouraging was the turnout of the recent local council election in Bangkok, which got 42 per cent.

In my younger days, it was a big yawn and, a turnout of less than 10 per cent was not unheard of.

Yes, there are a lot of good rules under the current Constitution. All it needs is some pruning.

Songdej Praditsmanont

Bangkok

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

Education is the only cure for cheap populism

Re: "Mandatory voting is bad for a good democracy", Letters, August 27.

If voting were optional in Thailand, less people would have to be paid to vote. It would be much cheaper to corrupt the electorate. In the US, 40 per cent of the people don't vote, so how can the winner have a proper mandate?

John's letter suggests that uneducated people in Thailand would not vote if they didn't get their Bt100 to do so. That's utter nonsense. People in all elections, regardless of where they take place, get incentives by way of the policies favouring different interest groups. This influences voting patterns. Western democracies also have populism. Trying to engineer the disenfranchisement of the poor in Thailand, when they are already disqualified from holding elected office, would be to further discriminate against them.

Education is the key to a better political system and more participation in political life, not the retrograde step Mr Arnone is suggesting.

Tom Lloyd

Bangkok

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

Racism, bad manners are not welcome on aeroplanes

My 23-year-old son sported a goatee when he flew from Singapore to New York in 2002 to take up an internship at the UN. In his suitcase was a kris [Indonesian-Malaysian dagger] that an Australian friend had bought in a Malay village as a parting gift. Recalling September 11, everyone advised Deep to shave off his beard and leave the kris behind. He did neither and faced no problems. Changi officials were pleased he was taking a Singaporean souvenir to the US.

This is not to say that American airlines welcome kris-carrying, bearded young Asians. But it does suggest that stereotypes are harmful and there might be more than meets the eye in incidents that provoke outraged cries of "ethnic profiling".

It also draws attention to the campaign by the Chinese Communist Party's Spiritual Civilisation Steering Committee (SCSC) to instruct Chinese tourists on deportment. By bridging the cultural divide, this might help to avert clashes that feed Western fears of "a vast fifth column" (William Shawcross in the Wall Street Journal) and provoke diplomatic incidents. When two British-born Muslim students were offloaded from a Malaga-Manchester flight because Caucasian passengers thought their heavy clothes and foreign language were suspicious, one of them, Sohail Ashraf, pleaded they were "just two ordinary lads who wanted a bit of fun".

In the latest episode, prompting India's foreign office to summon Dutch ambassador Eric Niehe for a formal protest, 12 Indian-born Muslims were taken off a Northwest Airlines flight at Amsterdam, handcuffed and reportedly manhandled. The plane had left Schipol airport for Mumbai when fighter jets escorted it back from German air space.

Several such episodes have been reported from Britain and the US or involving British or American airlines. In all instances, the offloaded or manhandled passengers were found to be innocent.

Of course, governments, airlines and sky marshals cannot afford to take risks. Terrorism is not child's play. Every care must be taken to protect innocent lives and public property. Vigilance is the price of security.

What authority must ponder, however, is whether this inescapable duty is effectively discharged by polarising cultures and alienating the 20 per cent of humanity that is Muslim. The logical conclusion would be separate aircraft for them and other Asians. President George W Bush's mention of "Islamic fascists" partly explains the YouGov survey that 53 per cent of Britons think "Islam poses a threat to Western liberal democracy". Expectedly, they respond with hostility to Islam's practitioners.

Act Now for Harmony and Democracy spokesperson Shabnam Hashim fears a "calculated systematic denomination of Muslims". Six British Muslim members of parliament, including three peers, claim that current policy "risks putting civilians at increased risk". Others complain that beards, caps, veils, languages like Urdu and Arabic and even brown skin are becoming synonymous with terrorism. An airport's security drill is any day more reliable than the subjective suspicions of lay persons.

Many such clashes arise from the over-reaction of American sky marshals. They should study Israel's El Al national carrier which first introduced the system without provoking complaints of discrimination.

Nor must the authorities jump to conclusions when passenger behaviour seems eccentric by Western standards. The 12 men in the Amsterdam incident reportedly walked up and down the aisles, talking excitedly to each other and exchanging mobile phones. It did not occur to the marshals that this was just South Asian gregariousness. Nor to the 12 that their exuberance was misinterpreted.

The gulf is cultural. As the China Daily laments, many Chinese tourists spit, clear their throats loudly, smoke in public places, shout into their mobile phones and take off their shoes in planes. So do many Indians. Such "uncouth" behaviour, quoting China Daily again, doesn't make Chinese or Indian innocents abroad terrorists. Conformist (by Western standards) conduct goes a long way in avoiding misunderstanding. That's why Deep's beard and kris passed muster.

Other Asian countries should consider instruction in air etiquette such as the SCSC plans. Meanwhile, Sechuan Airlines' 70 kung-fu-trained hostesses - a variant of sky marshals - can handle unreconstructed yokels. Physical disciplining might be preferable to repeated terrorist scares that encourage race polarisation. Worse, they can be counter-productive like crying wolf too often in the fable.

Sunanda K Datta-Ray

India

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

Thanong should respect the rules he's supposed to uphold

Re: "Committee casts its net far wider", Business, August 24.

I think the comments made by caretaker Finance Minister Thanong Bidaya on the investigation into Kularb Kaew were very inappropriate.

He said that putting too much emphasis on trying to uncover whether nominees are being misused may deter foreign investment. This is nonsense. Foreign investors are well aware of the fog surrounding this rule, that is why they are spending a lot on legal experts in this country. Those with successful joint ventures here know that the most important factor in running a business is to have a reliable Thai partner. Thanong's comment suggests he cares less about the alien business law than he does about foreign investment.

This sort of thinking will hurt the development of technology and human resources here, which is why we have this law. Anyhow, this case looks more like an effort to save income tax so any judgement must be worked out in conjunction with investigation into the Revenue Department. The authorities need to think about setting up stronger rules against tax evasion.

KT

Bangkok