In the debates raging whether or not a given university should leave the system and go independent, many opponents say that tuition fees will rise sharply, thus denying a quality university education to many.

I suggest that costs will increase, but whether quality of tuition does is a different matter. We should apply Stephen Covey's "7 Habits of Highly Effective People", one of which is: begin with the end (goal) in mind. Our objective is to have as many qualified Thais as possible achieving the best they're capable of. Our goal is not to have low tuition fees.

When I applied to the University of Chicago, at first I was deterred by the very hefty fees, but they told me, "Don't worry. If you're good enough, we'll find funding for you". And they did. All top-tier US places follow the above philosophy of quality tuition and extensive financial assistance, to help assure the highest quality of their output (graduates). Thailand should follow suit. Thus, the best and the brightest Thais will flock to our highest-quality schools - the poor will be on scholarships while the rich who meet the same entry standards will get in but pay high costs. And what's wrong with that?

For their part, Thai universities will have to become much more adept at fund-raising to offset their rising costs (eg, seeking corporate donors for chaired professorships, naming faculties after the donor, or building strong alumni networks). The Revenue Department's cap on tax deductions for donations to educational institutions should be doubled or tripled.

Top universities will continue their focus on quality, not quantity, since that's what employers want. Middle- and non-ranked higher education institutions will have to find niches for themselves, as the market increasingly differentiates between having an education and merely possessing a diploma. And that's fine for the country.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

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

You can't take it with you, so relax Thai property laws

David Simister of the CBRE is absolutely right when he talks about the need for overhauls of the property ownership laws to make it more attractive for foreigners to own property legally.

Relevant to property ownership, I have heard that in the UK, where foreign ownership of property is completely legal, that only one half of 1 per cent of property is owned by foreigners. If ownership was opened up here in certain restricted areas and types of property, then Thailand would benefit substantially through the investment, the creation of more jobs in all aspects of construction, in house staff and other service providers, as well as in property taxes. As has often been said, the actual property cannot be packed in a suitcase and carried out of the kingdom, so where is the objection to it?

Graeme P Laird

Bangkok

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

Proposal to ban the sale of  95 Octane needs a rethink

A recent telephone call to Shell and Esso petrol companies proved most interesting. I enquired if 95 Octane petrol would be phased out or not? Furthermore, I asked why my modern car does not run well on gasohol? Their initial reaction was wary, as they asked if I were a journalist. Staff of both petrol companies said they had experienced problems using gasohol in their own cars! Gasohol is derived from sugar beet. It is a well-known fact in the automobile industry that when sugar gets into an engine, the heat causes it to set hard like super glue. Are the Thai government or petrol companies going to be responsible for the damage caused to our engines?

Looks like the government had better rethink this one, as there are millions of cars out there that need octane 95.

J Saunders

Bangkok

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

US neo-conservatives play a dangerous game with bombs

In April of this year the president of the US and his administration sought out the Pentagon to make plans for a strategic air strike on Iran. This demand has been renewed, as evidenced by the assertions of the neo-cons in recent weeks:

"Make no mistake, President Bush will need to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office."

"We must bomb Iran, the path of diplomacy and sanctions have led nowhere ... our options therefore are narrowed to two: we can prepare to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, or we can use force to prevent it."

The neo-con doctrine of "strength with idealism" that distinguished G W Bush's foreign policy from his father's, has failed miserably. Of course, the great minds of the neo-con think tank are quick to point out it is not because of their ideas that affairs in the Middle East are a mess but rather the administration's conduct over the last three years. Whatever - it is evident neo-conservatism, given the day-by-day state of affairs in the Middle East, needs a lift. So let's get the Beltway pundits and corporate media warmongers to begin the drum beat for bombing Iran.

Everyone has a favourite something - shoes, football team, or beer; the US has its favourite military persuader/enforcer and 'peace maker' - namely air assault with bombs and missiles. As an example, way back in 1965, the US bombing assault "Rolling Thunder" in just three years managed to drop one million tons of bombs on North Vietnam. The bombing escalated and continued  until 1973, and totalled out at eight million tons of bombs delivered and had included Cambodia and Laos as targets. This was over three times the amount of bombs dropped throughout the whole of WWII. This was an attempt, as the strategists of the air war catch-phrased, to "bomb them back to the Stone Age".

Be it "strategic" or "surgical" bombing or systematic "carpet" bombing, such assaults on sovereign nations will always be sheer folly. Morality aside, such actions only result in death and destruction to the recipients. Never mind, for the powers that be, it doesn't matter because, as the saying goes in the conservative world, "rubble don't cause any trouble". As long as Dick Cheney is still calling the shots for G W Bush, such operations will most likely continue.

Mr Bill

Bangkok

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

UN diplomatic missions will never succeed in Burma

UN envoy Ibrahim Gambari's diplomatic mission to Burma has clearly failed. Yet Gambari thinks he is making small progress and wants additional time for continued dialogue. During the past decade, several UN envoys have wasted time and effort trying to engage in dialogue with the "Monkey-King" of Napyidaw [Pyinmana] who pretends to be the 21st century version of Hanuman. Unfortunately, the UN has become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution, in Burma.

The November 25 issue of The Economist stated that "these days, Nato looks ever more like a kind of UN in military uniform". The press release on November 27 that the US will seek a UN Security Council resolution on Burma was issued by the US mission to Nato, and not by the US mission to the UN. This is a subtle, but clear, message that Nato is our Plan B option if China vetoes the US-sponsored UN resolution on Burma.

Myint Thein

Bangkok

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

Study does not prove malaria accelerates HIV/Aids

Re: "HIV, malaria fuel cross-infections", World news, December 9.

The study in question is based on data from Malawi gathered in 2004 by recruiting 367 adults who were infected with HIV-1, 33 of whom also had malaria. Of the remaining 334 subjects, 148 eventually became ill with malaria. The data for the study are measurements on 77 of these individuals before, during and after their malaria episodes. The data show that those that had relatively low HIV virus counts before malaria suffered a dramatic increase in this measure if the malarial episode was severe, while those that had high counts to begin with did not appear to be much affected. That's about all they found.

The headline-grabbing part of the press release with regard to the spread of Aids being accelerated by malaria appears to be conjecture rather than data.

Cha-am Jamal

Cha-am

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

Pridiyathorn is holding a weak hand in lottery game

Re: "Pridiyathorn takes a gamble on the lottery law", Opinion, December 8.

Jeerawat Na Thalang may have missed seeing the "Casino Royale" poker tournament. You can bluff your way only so often. When the opponent is ready with "I am all in", you have to deliver. James Bond came up with a straight flush to beat aces full house, which is the mother of all full houses. It takes a calculated risk and nerves of steel to buy the last card for the straight flush in the final showdown. Can Pridiyathorn produce a straight flush? Right now he is squirming in his seat. His body language signals weakness. The most he can produce would be two pairs. Smart money says he will fold.

Netirat Intira

Bangkok

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

No improvement at Thaksin's great monument to aviation

After three months, the Suvarnabhumi Airport has got worse instead of better. All appropriate duty in care and maintenance has been neglected or superficially conducted. Structurally impressive, its working systems deserve only an F grade. I just wonder whether it is because Suvarnabhumi Airport is the monument of Thaksin's brainchild that the government prefers to let it rot - and to let it become Thaksin's monument of shame, the shame of corruption.

The cost of Suvarnabhumi amounted to Bt155 billion. I wonder how much it cost Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia for their airports. Discounting the inflationary cost, we should know whether we have overpaid.

Spade

Bangkok

Send us your views in an instant E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to the Editor' in the subject box, to:

letters@nationgroup.com