Your correspondent Omkar completely misunderstood the event. It is impossible to "stuff one's face" with a million baht's worth of food; even the most exquisite and expensive food would not amount to more than several thousand baht per person.

Such events are not new, they are held all over the world. The well-to-do "elite" are invited to take part in a charity event at a hugely inflated price, the proceeds of which go to various charities or the election funds of political parties. It is nothing more than a formula to entice the "elite" to part with their money.

The "elite", on the other hand, keen on being seen in the right places, feel honoured to have been asked to take part in the event. They are therefore happy to part with their money, which they know goes to a charity of which the details are made known to them.

So Omkar should not attack them as being shameless and vulgar - it has nothing to do with vulgarity. On the contrary, it is a smart way to get the super rich to part with their money so that various charities can benefit, and most people understand and appreciate that. One hopes Omkar will regard his remarks to have been ungracious and unwarranted.

Croft

Bangkok

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

Million-baht meal is for the likes of Posh and Becks

 Re: "Bt1-million meal a disgusting display of shameless vulgarity", Letters, February 12.

The prim reprimand "think of the starving world" used to irk me no end whenever I left an uneaten piece of cabbage on my plate, but this Bt1-million dinner literally sickens me, so it is with cheer that I join Omkar's camp in this matter.

Worse than the media's crowing were the mediocre menu and the cliched wine list on offer, the caterers (I hesitate to call them chefs) and organisers and those who "flew from all corners of the world" to be present at the function. But alas, today's is the world of Becks and Posh and footballers' wives. Ugh!

Sunida

Bangkok

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

An enlightening attitude to sex for a Westerner

 Re: "Why get all hot and bothered", Editorial, February 11.

Being a first time visitor to Thailand - Pattaya and beyond - I would like to share an outsiders' view on the editorial. Moral values in "puritan" North America are such that people's attitudes are in fact far from the perception of "loose Western behaviour".

I find Thai behaviour to be refreshingly open and think that North America, in particular, has a lot of catching up to do - and it might even happen.

As for "commercial sex having been relegated to the choice of desperate men", it should be noted that for a short-time visitor of a few weeks or months such a choice is often the best one given that relationships take some time to foster and, contrary to what some might think, sex is never really "free"!

It seems to me that the men who are really desperate are the ones that are stuck in their own repressive societies and have never had the pleasure to experience Thailand's friendly customs and belief system.

Wolfgang Uhden

Canada

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

Serious attempts being made regarding teenage sexuality

 Re: "Why get all hot and bothered", Editorial, February 11.

I read your editorial on all the hype about teenage sexuality, and I'm not really sure which side to take as I know that Thailand's teenage pregnancy is the fifth highest in the world and that every year around 70,000 students must leave school due to pregnancy.

I guess all of this polling is just an attempt to catch parents' attention. Of course, at the end it's entirely up the kids' mental maturity.

Anyway, there is another group that is taking a very liberal view on teenage sexuality - it's forming among Thai bloggers and like-minded people. They are interested in finding more innovative solutions to teen online sexuality. Please check out their thoughts at http://www.thairuralnet.org/yousex. They even have a video podcast on there!

Sunit Shrestha

Bangkok

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

Sufficiency economy not the reason for tough business law

 There has been much debate about the sufficiency economy theory expounded by His Majesty the King that the junta-backed interim government refers to when justifying its policies. As a non-Thai, I am not aware of the sufficiency economy theory, but would like to offer my views based on Buddhist perspective.

We know that Anathapindika, Buddha's supporter who built the Jeta Grove, was a millionaire. The important point here is not how much money we make, but how we acquire it and how we spend it. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, two of the wealthiest people in the world, are also well known philanthropists.

While moderation is encouraged by Buddhism, nationalism is not. The interim government's policies such as limiting foreigners' stakes in Thai companies are driven more by nationalism and hatred against former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra than by Buddhist values.

Khengsiong Chew

Kuala Lumpur

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

Thanks to premier, diplomats for not deporting Hmong

 The attempted handover of the 152 Hmong refugees at Nong Khai immigration detention centre to Lao government officials on January 30 was a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which, as United Nations member states, the Laos PDR and Thailand governments should respect.

We at the Hmong International Human Rights Watch strongly believe that this group of 152 refugees, or any other group of Hmong who have well-founded fear of persecution, should be protected under this international human rights law.

On February 9, the Lao PDR government announced that the group of 53 Hmong that was deported on November 15 last year had returned home safely, and that the group of 152 would receive the same treatment. However, it is critical to understand that the situation for the group 53 is different from this group of 152. Real refugees should not be confused with economic opportunists. The group of 53 revealed that they had houses and businesses - one of them is the owner of a guesthouse in Vientiane. In addition, the group of 53 consisted of victims of human trafficking, while the group of 152 are victims of political persecution and should therefore be treated individually case by case. This applies to the Hmong living at Huay Nam Khao in Phetchabun as well.

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont has earned the respect he deserves for making a wise decision to help save the 152 Hmong refugees' lives and for acting according to international laws. He deserves praise.

On behalf of the 152 refugees in Nong Khai, we would also like to express our sincere thanks to the diplomatic community for their intervention in the life and death situation on January 30. I also would like to thank Prime Minister Surayud for his great leadership in protecting these vulnerable refugees and giving them the chance to live and enjoy a life free of fear.

The Hmong people are brave and have strong relationships and loyalty to their allies. All they ask is to be able to live in peace, enjoy freedom and equal rights and have the opportunity to integrate with the general population without fear of persecution.

Laura Lo Xiong

Executive director, Hmong International

Human Rights Watch

NEW YORK CITY

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

Fuming over the folly at Suvarnabhumi Airport

 This is not a politically correct letter. It speaks on behalf of the pariahs of modern society, those of us who make very significant tax contributions by purchasing (and smoking) the dreaded weed and polluting the air of those more sensible than we.

Suvarnabhumi Airport is already, for many reasons, the laughing stock of the aviation world. That saddens me because I love Thailand and its people. I fly around Asia exclusively (where possible) by Thai Airways. Unfortunately, nowadays that necessitates very frequent encounters with Suvarnabhumi.

The needs of smokers are very sparsely catered for in this new airport, so it was with some relief that I discovered a snack bar that had a large accompanying smoking room. On a recent departure from Suvarnabhumi, I headed immediately for this smoker's oasis and, after purchasing a small beer at the bar, began to make my way into the smoking area. A staff member stopped me saying, "Sorry sir, no drinks or food allowed in the smoking room now, new airport management policy!"

Now, this smoking room consumes perhaps 70 per cent of the overall area of the establishment. You can still go in and have a cigarette, but you have to leave your beverage outside.

Who arrived at this inane and totally pointless idea? Is the recent 40-per-cent increase in passenger-service charges being used to fund "think-tanks" whose sole task is to find ways of making the paying passenger's transit through the airport as uncomfortable and inconvenient as possible? Would it harm non-smokers to allow beverages to be consumed in the smoking room? And why is there not a consistent policy? On the last viewing, this past weekend, it was possible to take in whatever food and drinks one wished and consume them whilst puffing on the forbidden fruit. Utter bureaucratic, self-righteous, ill-considered nonsense is what this is really about.

For my part, this, together with the other gross inconveniences of this grotesquely-conceived airport, will simply result in lost revenue to Thai Airways and enhanced revenue to Singapore Airlines, who have the singular advantage of the experience, common sense and organisation at Changi. The Singaporeans must be rubbing their hands with glee.

Michael Flannery

Kuala Lumpur