So now we have the Thai government talking about taking back the Shin satellite communications businesses from another Asean member, Singapore. Surely this is a test of Asean, and an emergency meeting of all member states should be convened to discuss the issues arising out of the Thai government's continuing verbal attacks on Singapore.

If this cannot be resolved amicably then Asean is a dead duck as far as free trade is concerned and at best may limp along as an expensive talking shop where members' representatives can talk and enjoy themselves in the comfort of five-star resorts while their peoples scrape along on Bt200 a day.

The European Union permits companies of any member state to buy 100 per cent of assets, providing monopoly laws are not breached.

For example, most of Britain's airports are owned by a Spanish company - and you cannot get much nearer a strategic asset than that. Likewise, public water supply is owned mainly by French and German companies, as is power generation and some communications networks.

The Thai government could, of course, simply nationalise the Shin assets, but then it would face problems all around - finding the money, for example, when it cannot find enough cash to finish Suvarnabhumi Airport (the real reason for the problems there). This would severely damage relations not only with Singapore but also the outside financial markets. Much of Singapore's investments in Thailand are owned by Temasek, and dumping their Thai assets on the market could do a lot of damage to the Thai economy.

At the end of the day though, it's mostly hot air, a diversion from the pressing needs to deal with corruption and criminality, issues the Thai government would rather steer away from.

David Harrison

Hong Kong

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

Don't look to the BBC for broadcasting excellence

Your expatriate readers reminiscing about the BBC as a model for Thailand are living in a time warp.

The BBC lost its reputation for integrity, independent and objective reporting a long time ago. One doesn't have to be a right-wing extremist to recognise that in its obsessive hatred of George Bush and Tony Blair and their policies, and its patronising distaste for all things American, the BBC has compromised its previous standards for honesty and accuracy.

Where once it was a beacon of truth and unbiased information, especially for millions throughout the world suffering under tyrannical regimes during the 1940s and up to the 1970s, now the BBC has become captive to an anti-American intelligentsia which has pervaded and distorted most of Europe's cultural institutions.

Sadly, the BBC in its present format is not an appropriate model for any national broadcasting service.

Rodney Sheaves

Sydney, Australia

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

Confused and angry yet again by Thai censorship

I've watched "The Legend of King Naresuan I", "The Legend of King Naresuan II" and "300" over the past few weeks or so. These three films are very similar in a number of ways. All three are based on some facts about legendary battles and kings, all are about freedom and liberation, and all include violence and nudity.

I distinctively remember two very different ways of handling nudity in these films. I wasn't exactly on a lookout for these scenes, but let me explain and you'll understand why the differences stuck to my mind.

I recall a little girl sitting next to me during "The Legend of King Naresuan II". She was saying to her dad, "Look daddy, I can see her breasts". This was accompanied by some whispering from her father and some laughter from her brother. If I recall correctly, the scene depicted the Hongsa King with his half-naked consorts.

In "300", scenes depicting similar nudity - an oracle high on drugs, the Spartan king making love to his queen, and the Persian emperor offering a Spartan outcast his prize - were blurred out. One would have had to be blind not to notice (and get irritated) by this, and it was for this reason that I remember the censorship.

I've tried to find some logical reason for this but can find none. Morality-wise (and historical accuracy aside), I would say that in terms of promoting morality and monogamy, the scene of a king making love to his queen is more appropriate for children (if that's even the right word to be used here) than the scene of a king surrounded by half-naked consorts.

Perhaps this is a case of an "influential movie" and double standards.

Perplexed

Bangkok

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

Global warming is big business for vested interests

Some people are blaming the press for expressing doubt over global warming. I recommend that these people watch "The Great Global Warming Scandal". 

I also suggest that they visit the websites where many of the scientists "quoted" in "An Inconvenient Truth" deny ever saying what they are supposed to have said, and other places where the real graphs shown in the film are compared.

The real problem with the global warning issue is the huge amounts of money involved. This has, for quite a while now, had a serious impact on the academic community worldwide. If you are writing a paper on climates and it does not support global warming, the chances of getting funding or getting published are very low.

There are council positions in places like the UK for a "global warming person". Are these people going to kill their own jobs? Are universities going to risk a lack of funding? Are the companies making a fortune on alternative energy going to admit the truth?

Yes, in the case of global warming the truth is indeed inconvenient to a large number of stakeholders hoping to make large sums of money out of the issue. If you want the "science" behind the process, pick up a book like "Voodoo Science" or "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science" for some insights.

Christian Lloyd

Bangkok

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

Don't believe a word the Bush administration says

The Bush administration will attack Iran, even if they say that they have no intention to do so. They misled everyone when they claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They went into this war alone, without the blessing of the UN and the rest of the world. They outed CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson after her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, wrote a commentary in The New York Times asserting that the Bush administration, to build its case for the war, had lied about Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium in Africa. When will Bush, Cheney and their chief political strategist Karl Rove be indicted with Lewis 'Scooter' Libby? Bush said that he was the decision-maker, he didn't care about public opinion (as long as his wife and his dog were behind him), and Cheney said you can't stop us now. Haven't they challenged Congress to impeach them with this rhetoric? The US Constitution implicitly states that Congress shall have the power to wage war, the president shall enforce the law and the courts shall interpret the law. The honouring and enforcement of international treaties are also the duties of the US. To get re-elected in 2004, Bush deceived the American people by telling us that we were winning the war in Iraq. The president of Venezuela called Bush "El Anti-Christo". Bush is a mass murderer, the most hated and evil terrorist in the world.

If the Bush administration is saying that it will not attack Iran, then you can bet that the US is about to attack 68 million Persians!

Michael J Bruner

Chon Buri

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

Jail for the corrupt? Don't make us laugh!

I have read many letters recently from people wanting to know when someone is going to go to jail for corruption. I'm sorry to inform you that you will not see that happen. Let me explain why. There is an inner circle in Thailand that consists of about 10 per cent of the population. It controls the country and holds around 90 per cent of the wealth, and they intend on keeping it that way. But to do so there are rules that are unwritten, yet understood by those in the circle. The most important of those rules is that no one in the circle goes to jail. The reason for the rule is because if Khun A sends Khun B to jail, then it is possible that tomorrow Khun C can send Khun A to jail. They may have their spats and they may even resort to coups to solve them, but no one goes to jail. The present situation is simply another spat.

I don't know what Thaksin did to anger the other clans within the 10 per cent, but he has created a difficult situation for them because in order to justify the coup he is going to have to be indicted for something, as is his wife. So the only solution to this problem was to let him escape with his ill-gotten gains. If he is not here, he can't be tried nor incarcerated. Yet the situation will appear as though someone in power was finally trying to dissolve the code. Until this situation plays itself out we will see a lot headlines about investigations and new constitutions and a lot of people will be dismissed or sent to inactive posts and a few members of the bottom 3 per cent of that 10 per cent might even be tried and put on probation - but I assure you, no one will go to jail. And during this time, the only concrete changes that will occur is that more liquor laws will be passed, and more cigarette laws will be passed, and more apologies will be made to the southern insurgents and more restrictions on western immigrants will be enacted.  Because after all, it must look like they are doing something to save the country.

John Arnone

Yasothon

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

Please, let's not hold a new election just yet

Some people are pleading for elections now, because of the stumbling of this government. I disagree with elections now. I agree with the stumbling. Elections now would mean the return of the Thaksin clique, who destroyed the moral fibre of Thailand and smothered its democracy.

Egon

Bangkok