Now that the issue of Suvarnabhumi Airport is settled, let us see what we all have managed to accomplish.

l More money was spent on preparing Don Muang.

l Confusion and uncertainty was created among airlines and tour operators worldwide.

l A lack of credibility was shown to outsiders, locals and any potential visitors.

l Major incompetence was shown from all previous governments, not only that of Thaksin, as the Suvarnabhumi project went on during more than one government.

l It displayed the lack of decisiveness of the current government.

 Final conclusion: we're still back using Suvarnabhumi Airport, but now we have managed to discredit the country as a whole. Hope it was worthwhile in discrediting one man.

Frequent Flyers

Bangkok

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

Govt seems to pull its airport explanations out of a hat

Try your luck with the "Old Ginger Airport Lottery". Choose from among the following answers:

l Suvarnabhumi is 100 per cent okay.

l Suvarnabhumi is a ruin and will be closed immediately. Don Muang will reopen as the country's international airport.

l Suvarnabhumi is to be partially closed for repairs, while Don Muang will reopen for domestic and low-cost flights.

l Suvarnabhumi and Don Muang will be used together for both international and domestic flights.

l International flights in Suvarnabhumi, except Thai Airways and discount carriers - from Wednesday to Friday - low cost - except Air Asia - in Don Muang from Monday to Wednesday but not for international flights except if shorter than 1500 km (to be re-evaluated every week).

l No decision until we hear from foreign experts.

l Thai experts have been commissioned, but no decision has yet been made.

l Up to you!

Drawing every six hours, each time with a different result guaranteed!

Toto

Bangkok

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

Foreigners should not be made scapegoats in debacle

Re: "'Foreign experts' responsible for much of the problems currently plaguing airport", Letters, February 16.

Sumet Jumsai might wish to look a little more deeply into the history of Bangkok development before making the ludicrous claim that foreigners are somehow responsible for everything from traffic jams to the bungled airport. The Litchfield plan of 1960, which he cites, did indeed make a number of recommendations regarding Bangkok's urban development. These suggestions were proposed with a keen eye to improving both efficiency and long-term liveability standards. Much to our current detriment, most of these recommendations were completely ignored. The plan did, however, serve one useful purpose: it provided countless Thai governments a way to dodge accountability for the policy decisions that created the city many of us reluctantly call home. As for Suvarnabhumi, suffice it to say that this location was first proposed nearly half a century ago, when the city was smaller and there was ample available space to divert runoff and reclaim the swamp. In the intervening time, the city and the facts changed dramatically but not a single Thai official considered a rethink advisable, despite several academic studies that suggested both flooding and subsidence problems affecting the runways would result. "Runways on stilts" would not be necessary if the swamp had been properly drained before construction commenced, runoff diverted during the process, and the correct grade sand used. None of these things were done.

Finally, who designed Suvarnabhumi? The MJTA group of consultants, comprising Murphy Jahn Architecture, TAMS consultants (US) and ACT Engineering (Thailand), drafted the original design. Thai architects, passed over in the original selection process by fellow Thais, then filed numerous objections to the MJTA's design. A government committee was formed, and significant structural, as well as cosmetic, changes were made. The final design was then further modified by Thai engineers, implemented by Thai contractors and overseen by Thai government officials. Did I mention that this was all done in Thailand, in the capital city of Bangkok, and spearheaded by a government twice elected by the Thai people? With the facts now properly in perspective, I ask the question again, who is responsible?

Smoke But No Mirrors

Bangkok

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

Somkid appointment an effective counter to Thaksin

Re: "Doubts about the Somkid comeback", News, February 17

Of all the actions taken by the junta, the appointment of Somkid Jatusripitak as a roving economic ambassador was definitely the best ever and a master stroke in killing two birds with one stone. The action was a great public relations move and served to counter Thaksin's CNN interview with the least expense. In addition, it is a good sign of an attempt being made towards national reconciliation by all political sides without hurting the credibility of MR Pridiyathorn Devakula's economic team unduly. It showed great sportsmanship on the part of government officials, and that they no longer believe in damning a person for his past association.

I was therefore flabbergasted to read in your news piece of the comments from the leading political veterans who lambasted the junta for an insignificant appointment of their former foe with feeble reasoning. In turning to the business news, "Mixed views on Somkid's appointment to the government", (February 17) businessmen and academics lauded the action. That shows us a different level of maturity.

Songdej Praditsmanont

Bangkok

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

Surayud shouldn't reward Thai Rak Thai remnants

The appointment of Somkid Jatusripitak as the chairman of a special committee to promote the sufficiency economy model to the international community is an inspired move that should be extremely enlightening to foreigners. Presumably Somkid's work will mainly involve making presentations to the section of the international community that is most concerned about the Thai economy: foreign investors.

Somkid will most likely embark on a high-profile global road show to talk to foreign fund managers who invest in Asian stock markets. Naturally these people, who have responsibility for hundreds of millions of dollars of their clients' money are highly educated, intelligent investors, well versed in economic theory. Most are, in fact, already very knowledgeable about the Thai sufficiency economy model and understand that it is an excellent philosophy for guiding all kinds of economic behaviour from the micro to the macro level.

On the other hand, Somkid will unfortunately not be able to answer the questions that they will ask concerning the government's showcase external economic policies, namely capital controls and giving teeth to the Foreign Business Act, since he is not involved in policy formulation.

Nevertheless, foreign fund managers will gain valuable insights from meeting a man sent as an envoy of the government, in spite of the fact that he is a suspect in a serious corruption investigation and was the chief architect of Thaksin's populist economic policies, which Finance Minister MR Pridiyathorn Devakula says have created ruinous debts for the country. The main insight will be that the remnants of the Thaksin regime are not going to be purged from Thai society by the Council for National Security and the interim government. They and, in all probability, Thaksin, himself, will be back in power soon.

Political Analyst

Bangkok

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

University should worry about standards of dress on campus

Re: "Chotiros pledges to shed sexy dress", News, February 16.

I'm confused with regards to Thammasat University's reaction to Chotiros Suriyawong's choice of attire at a recent awards presentation. Is Chotiros in the paid employ of Thammasat University? Was she appearing in an official capacity as a special representative of the university the evening she wore the dress in question?

Personally, I'm in favour of tasteful, modest dress for men and women. However, if Chotiros wanted to draw attention to herself and cause a stir by wearing a skimpy dress to a public event, it seems to me to be perfectly within her rights to do so. I am therefore surprised to learn of the university's summoning of Chotiros to explain her choice and the subsequent sentence meted out to her to perform community service as a penance.

I see nothing wrong with a university setting dress codes and guidelines for behaviour for its students and teachers to follow while on campus. And yet, I have lived in Thailand for eight years and can't help but to have noticed the uniforms of university women, which appear to grow shorter with each passing year.

Many of these black skirts, often worn with high heels, are cut so short and worn so tight that I truly wonder how those wearing them manage to sit down in their classrooms!

So, perhaps before a university tries to dictate how its student body dresses when "school's out" and goes as far as to punish one of its better-known students for wearing a revealing number out in public, they might start by setting appropriate codes of dress for students while they are at school. I imagine these sorts of guidelines would be far more effective in instilling a sense of "appropriate dress" in young Thais both on and off campus than this ridiculous public shaming of Chotiros will ever do.

Puzzled

Bangkok