Over the past several months I have read numerous articles in the press related to ethanol and/or gasohol. Most of the articles have accurately defined the situation, but some have been somewhat misleading to readers. I would like to state why I feel that gasohol is good for Thailand based on the facts as I currently understand them.

1) The ethanol portion (10 per cent) of gasohol is made in Thailand for Thais by Thais. So instead of sending all of your hard-earned money to Oman and the United Arab Emirates for crude oil, you can now buy 10 per cent of your gasoline sourced from Thai tapioca or sugarcane in baht. The choice is with the consumer, and the purchase of gasohol is a vote for Thailand (and its farmers), and not the Middle East.

2) Energy supplies are more secure. The ethanol portion of gasohol is produced in Thailand and therefore is not controlled by foreign crude oil producers.

3) Over the next five to seven years, Thailand could produce 50 per cent of its gasoline requirements in the form of domestically produced ethanol.

4) It's a cleaner burning fuel. Ethanol is an oxygenated hydrocarbon with zero sulfur content. Therefore it produces much less air pollution than normal gasoline.

5) It recycles carbon dioxide, a main greenhouse gas, thereby reducing the net amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Thailand is both helping itself, as well as helping the world, in minimising the impact of global warming.

6) Gasohol was (and is) a royally sponsored undertaking. It is uniquely compatible with the sufficiency economic model.

7) Agricultural commodities, tapioca and sugarcane, are upgraded into a high value, premium energy product. Value creation in Thailand, for Thailand.

Stephen B Williams

President, Applied Trading Systems, Inc

Bangkok

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

Surayud proves his integrity by upholding law in iTV case

Re: "Public Relations Dept being primed to run station as govt vows to return it to the airwaves", News, March 7.

Not only has iTV been consistently in breach of every court ruling for years, they have broken their own promise to abide by the decision of the Supreme Court. More importantly, they have been operating without a broadcasting licence; allowing them to remain on air utterly defeats the purpose of having such a licence.

Perhaps the premier was hasty to promise earlier that the station would remain open; however, the fact that he is prepared to uphold the law despite personal embarrassment is exactly the kind of integrity this country's political leaders have lacked in recent times, and of which Thailand is sorely in need of more, not less.

Phil Stokes

Bangkok

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

Government has no business interfering in commercial TV

The government of any country, including Thailand, has no business owning and operating TV and radio stations, save for one or two that are strictly for use only during emergencies as an information disseminating and coordinating tool for the government and service for the public.

It is not the duty or responsibility of governments to run these stations. The government can license bandwidths that are used by these stations in their broadcasting activities and charge appropriate and reasonable licence fees, just as they would do for cell phones and Internet services. It is most inappropriate for government to compete directly in the business with private investors.

As for iTV's employees, all I can say is that they should start looking for new jobs. They should have started doing so long ago, so there is no sympathy whatsoever for them. They are just like any other employees whose employer has gone under. They have no right to insist that the government bail them out. We taxpayers will not allow ourselves to be dragged into this mess, which the bosses and powers to be at iTV created in the first place. They will be paid severance payments by iTV, which is already considered good because many bankrupt employers cannot even pay such severance to their laid-off employees.

Thai Investor

Bangkok

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

PM's Office Minister in over her head in station saga

Re: 'Sorry' sight as govt bungles again, Opinion, March 7, 2007

Before her appointment as PM's Office minister, Khunying Dhipavadee Meksawan ran the Civil Service Commission, a powerful organisation in the human resources domain. The new position is a big leap for Khunying Dhipavadee. She is practically the chief of staff for an inexperienced prime minister who comes from a military background. Virtually all files going to the prime minister cross her desk.

The iTV saga indicates that she is in over her head. Dhipavadee has not grasped the complexity of iTV's problems and has kept changing her position almost daily. She should have involved the Council of State long before the deadline for iTV approached. Her partner in the fiasco was former deputy prime minister MR Pridiyathorn Devakula who insisted the government should take over iTV and hire all iTV employees "for the sake of continuity … they are very good".

This line of reasoning resulted in Premier Surayud promising iTV employees that their jobs are safe, ignoring the fact that the government would create an indefensible precedent. Later the prime minister had to apologise to iTV employees for his inability to keep his pledge to them. There are a few notable events flowing as water under the bridge here. Dhipavadee and Bank of Thailand Governor Tarisa Watanagase, both high profile female executives, now know that they were left holding hot potatoes by Pridiyathorn who bailed out under ambiguous circumstances.

In the years ahead, Premier Surayud will be long remembered for his courage and willingness to apologise. This apology is also very sincere. His deputies and staff misled him. Taken together, we have a low-competence, sorrowful Cabinet.

Netirat Intira

Bangkok

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

Consumers the ultimate losers with Foreign Business Act

Re: "Thailand is not the only country to place restrictions on foreign businesses", Letters, March 6.

It was a pleasure to read Netirat Intira's response to my proposal to replace the Foreign Business Act (FBA) with industry-specific measures targeted against whatever we fear ("Replace Foreign Business Act with industry-specific policies", Letters, March 5). Hers is one of the rare thought-out pieces I've read on the topic.

She justifies the FBA on the basis that Thais cannot compete against foreigners' greater know-how, capital, etc. Yes, but the FBA has failed abysmally if that was its purpose. For proof, the original FBA was enacted over two decades ago; which field would she say has advanced enough over that period to be open to foreigners? Farming? Why rely on a proven failure?

If she believes that television/radio broadcasting is now competitive, then she should agree to have them opened up - but others may raise security concerns, thereby revealing that competitiveness is just a red herring. Also, for how much longer should these fields be closed - bearing in mind that nobody's clamouring for measures to force becoming competitive as a condition for shelter? During protection, the losers are the 64 million Thais who are consumers, not the industrialists who cannot compete. Why must we continue losing?

Yes, other countries have FBA-type legislation also, but two wrongs never made a right. We should do what's best for our people as a whole, not any one occupation, and if others aren't enlightened enough to do likewise, that's their tough luck. Yes, the free market economy I aim for doesn't really exist - but the ideal can, and should, still guide us.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

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

An open letter to the editor of 'The Nation' by the AHRC

Re: "Human rights record improves", Editorial, March 6.

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) completely rejects the assertion in this editorial that the human rights record of Thailand has improved since the interim government took power through a military coup on September 19 last year. In it The Nation shows a deep misunderstanding of the meaning of human rights and a bizarre denial of reality.

Human rights are not obtained by the establishing of special committees and apologies for abuses, or by subscribing to the establishment of a new regional human rights mechanism, as you appear to believe.

Participation depends upon internal communication. By communicating among themselves, people obtain voices with which to speak out against coercion. Where people speak out loudly about their problems, they obtain confidence. Where they have confidence, institutions that previously enforced inequality are obliged to change. People in Thailand have fought for many decades to overcome heavy feudal traditions and centuries of enforced silence. A great landmark was reached with the constitution of 1997. The subsequent years saw many new difficulties and challenges, but these were accompanied by increasingly vigorous debate from all parts of the country and all quarters of society.

September 19 put an end to all that. Whereas before the coup there were more intense exchanges on the wrongs of the former government, now political party activity is banned, the media remains closely monitored and restricted, and soldiers have been sent into the provinces to explain the good intentions of the military regime to the people; communication is "divisive". Whereas the 1997 constitution was written with widespread public participation, people have been invited to join in giving opinions about a new constitution under a rigged process, culminating in a referendum: yet another popular ruse among autocrats. The enormous increased budget that the armed forces awarded itself after taking power has also gone mostly undiscussed.

Thailand today is characterised by non-public participation, institutional recidivism, sharp reverses in the rule of law and declining prospects for human rights. The attempted fraud perpetrated by the coup group and its appointees is in their claim to be working for democratic change, the rule of law and human rights while being radically opposed to all of these values.

Basil Fernando

Executive Director, Asian Human Rights Commission

Hong Kong

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