Most of the comments and exchanges about the proposed tightening of rules regarding visas on arrival and visa runs have so far revolved around a narrow perception of whom this policy will affect. Most letters have zeroed in on either side of the tourism sector - the businesses and their patrons - and thus there has also been a caricaturing of those with anything to lose as freeloaders, bar-dwellers, etc.

As an expatriate in Thailand, however, I can picture one other vital sector that will take a hit: the international schools. Specifically, I refer to the smaller schools - not the big, expensive international schools that only subsidised employees and executives of multinationals can afford. There are hundreds of such smaller schools in Bangkok providing a crucial service that is essential to many middle-income families.

Unfortunately, the reality for most of these schools is they cannot get work permits for all of their foreign teachers without skewing their tuition structures beyond what their students' parents can afford. For every work permit they provide, meanwhile, business requirements in Thailand will also compel them to staff their faculty with a quota of Thai teachers that, sorry to say, simply do not have English-speaking qualifications, to keep a school's programme truly international. Thus, it is no secret that many - if not most - of the fully qualified teachers in these smaller international and bilingual schools do go on visa runs every month.

My point here, however, is to ask whether Thai immigration authorities have truly considered all aspects of the potential impact of their proposed stricter policy? All their statements have created the impression they are targeting some specific groups of "undesirables" with the stricter rules - migrant bar girls and bar owners, for example. But have they consulted other sectors? Thai immigration authorities may want to ask other industries, do some consultation and consider the possible impact before handing down something that really seems not fully thought out.

Bob Clairey

Bangkok

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

Nordic models of govt are preferable to US version

Re: "Democracy versus Corruption - the final showdown", Opinion, September 13.

A funny and sadly accurate piece. So what is democracy? For the rich to ensure that the masses are controlled so that their wealth stays in place like it is in the US? Why not follow the Swiss, Swedish or Finnish models of democracy?

These countries are closer in that like Thailand they nearly have one language, one religion, etc. Forget the US model of democracy. It, like Thailand's democracy now, only serves the rich.

Fair Play

Bangkok

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

PM could not have lasted as long in other democracies

Re: "Stars say PM better off bemoaning his lot in a far-away land", Opinion, September 15.

The ethics and morality of a government loom larger than anything else when it comes to implementing the principles of democracy. If Thaksin were to be found guilty of any one of the number of charges that have been brought against him in a democratically well-developed society, he would be sent out of his prime minister's seat for good.

The sad fact about Thaksin's supporters is their blindness and how they are unable to see the hard reality that is coming at the expense of the country and its people. He has made use of his intensive network to shower the ill-informed majority with taxpayers' money and dole out populist schemes to win votes, when in reality no government in its right mind would give out freebies from empty state coffers. Moral principles and democratic processes are opposite sides of the same coin and cannot be separated, as Thaksin's supporters would like to have it.

Subin One

Bangkok

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

Education, not censorship, is vital when it comes to sex

I find that on a certain level, Thais have yet to develop in regard to what is the appropriate amount of Western mentality to adopt. Of course, sex sells, no matter what. However, by censoring certain scenes in a music video, such as has been the case with Tata Young's videos, doesn't necessarily mean teens are going to have less sex or more sex.

Instead of putting emphasis on media censorship, I find it much more important to educate the public. Despite the fact that it surrounds us every day, the topic is still considered taboo. The issue has to be more about teaching the youth of today what is out there and what they should be looking out for.

By educating the youth, it will help them make mature and rational decisions. Tata Young's new sexy music video won't increase premarital sex if Thai teens are already doing it. When I watch Thai soap operas and see the censorship of a gun, I wonder why they bother. People still know it is a gun, knife or alcohol when they see it on television, so what is the purpose of blurring it in the first place?

Therefore, I think the Thai government's censorship efforts are attacking the problem at the wrong point. Prevention is always preferable.

Yes, there should be censorship on a certain level. However, every time a sexy starlet comes out with a racy music video, the government shouldn't make such a big deal of it. People are still able to get their hands on the video, whether walking past a video store in MBK or Siam Square or even at the local Big C.

I hope that someday the government will finally realise it should solve problems at their root.

Sarisa Suvarnasuddhi

Bangkok

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

Proper training essential in bettering Thai-Irish relations

Re: "Letter from Ireland: benefits of Thailand getting to know the Emerald Isle numerous for both sides", Opinion, September 14.

It saddens me to see so much offshore production and services going almost exclusively to China and India and very little to Thailand.

There are so many young and energetic people living in Thailand.

In the case of India, however, they can and do claim to be native English speakers, a big plus in today's global market. This article is thus quite correct when it claims the road to success is through education and training.

Tony

Dublin

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

Treatment of terrorists not likely to spill over to civilians

Re: "Blind acceptance of official actions only fuels tyranny", Letters, September 12.

Sibeymai correctly pointed out the dangers of Orwellian state control of dissidents through arbitrary arrest and detention. He makes the case that the US should act in a morally superior manner to those who wish to destroy it. Sibeymai also fears that arrest, detention and interrogation of terrorists in foreign lands would be habit-forming and spill over into domestic law-enforcement practices by the FBI with US citizens.

Sibeymai pleads for us to see the similarities between capturing terrorists and secretly jailing them and the slippery slope to Orwell's police state. He adheres to the adage that the loss of one man's freedom eventually equates to the loss of freedom for everyone.

Most civilised individuals recognise some of the truths inherent in these positions. However, the fallacy in his arguments is the liberal tendency and frequent inability to discern acute differences between the analogies used. Liberals tend to blur distinctions. The slippery-slope argument does not hold for several reasons. US jurisprudence is so firmly embedded in the American culture that violations against resident civilians, even during this time of war, would be self-corrected by its legions of lawyers. Furthermore, America is at war. Wartime rules apply. The enemy does not wear uniforms. Geneva Convention rights do not apply to non-uniformed combatants. The terrorist prisoners were captured in countries outside their homeland. They are mostly non-US citizens. They do not abide by any measure of normal values of civilisation in regard to the human rights of others. There is no reciprocity from them.

America, with all its faults, has been the shining city on the hill for millions of the world's poor and downtrodden. If the US does not defend itself, by every means possible, in this new type of warfare, where information is paramount, then it will be severely weakened and rendered unable to give this leadership. Patience, persistence and understanding these distinctions are necessary to see this task through, for all future generations on this Earth.

W Knight

Orange County, California

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

Non-aligned Movement lacks power to effect change

Members of the Non-aligned Movement (NA M) are currently meeting in Cuba. On their agenda is a motion to redefine terrorism by broadening its scope to include all attacks on civilians, including those by state actors. This would bring the official definition far more in line with its true definition.

Unfortunately, the NAM being a mere talking shop for many of the world's less-powerful countries, it is unlikely the motion will go any further. To date, only one sovereign government has been condemned by an internationally recognised legal body for acts of terrorism against another country: the United States, with its "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua in the early 1980s. The US ignored the ruling.

It's no surprise then that the NAM's efforts won't get anywhere!

James Martin

Bangkok