I agree with you that "the Surayud government must rise above vested interests and make broadcast media reform a top priority".

Your article also mentions the BBC in the UK as one of the desirable models for Thailand.

From my experience working for the BBC for more than 20 years, I am wondering if the Thai public in general and those broadcast journalists are ready for the much debated "public-service broadcasting" to be established in the Kingdom.

There are two key factors to make it a success: public ownership and professional integrity.

The public, on an individual basis, will have to make financial contributions for the costs of running this service (in the UK this takes the form of a TV licence fee) and those who practise broadcast journalism will have to subscribe to BBC editorial values and standards. The BBC values and standards are in our DNA. And track records show that most BBC journalists are ready to stand up and challenge those in power to protect the public's interests.

I do not believe that the government can establish a BBC-style broadcaster in Thailand by simply issuing a decree as demanded by many public service media advocates.

The BBC was established by a "Royal Charter" guaranteeing its independence, but it needs more than legislation for its success and survival.

Somchai Suwanban

Essex, United Kingdom

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

Remembering an innovative banker and humanitarian

Re: "Boonchu, first 'economic tsar', dies", News, March 20.

I feel sad at the news of Boonchu Rojanastien's death. He introduced many modern management techniques at Bangkok Bank that helped it to become one of the most successful businesses in Thailand during his time that continue to this day. His ultimate interest was not only in business, but also the well-being of the general public, especially the poor. While at Bangkok Bank he introduced loan services for poor farmers who did not have collateral. When Indochinese countries became communist, he decided to build the highest office building in Thailand to help shore up confidence in our political stability.

His many speeches and actions indicated his genuine concern for the rural poor, who did not know that under the democratic system they had the right to make their voices heard. He believed that unless the poor could get out of poverty, Thailand would never be truly democratic as they could be exploited easily, even if we had elections. Public policies he announced and implemented during his time in government are now copied today and not many people know about this.

He was a man who never stopped thinking or working for the well-being of the rural poor. Even his death cannot stop him from doing good - he donated his body for medical study. He was one among many business and political leaders whose contributions were not appropriately appreciated. 

Prichar

Bangkok

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

No surprise that insurgency has worsened on junta's watch

I never quite understood why it was expected that the southern insurgency would ease following the military coup. After all, it was the Thai military that was responsible for the biggest two massacres during this latest period of the insurgency. It would be difficult to imagine therefore why southern Muslim residents who have suffered at the hands of the military would be relieved to see their nemesis, the military, take direct control of the government.

The situation in the South has been continually deteriorating since the military coup and is now at crisis point. Recent atrocious events have been immediately attributed to Islamic insurgent groups, with negligible evidence provided and are now used as justification for curfews and mass roundups of Muslin teenagers (again with little evidence provided of their supposed roles in any attacks). As the track record of the authorities in the region for massacres and apparent disappearances of opponents is poor, to say the least, one would like to see more evidence provided before "supporting" what ultimately looks like a military-controlled clampdown on the insurgent region behind "closed doors".

London John

Bangkok

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

Bring foreign intelligence agencies into deep South

Re: "War-torn region now requires a hard-handed approach", Letters, March 21.

Given the escalated violence in the deep South, the xenophobic government of Thailand must think the unthinkable: getting assistance from other countries.

No, I am not suggesting that Bangkok should ask Malaysia to act as a mediator. Here in Malaysia, politicians generally blame poverty and discrimination for the insurgency. They simply don't understand, or refuse to acknowledge, the motives of the militants.

There is speculation that Malay Muslims are forced to collaborate with the militants. If this is true, the "soft approach" employed by interim Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont and coup leader Sonthi Boonyaratglin can only go this far.

Thailand should now consider getting help from western intelligence agencies such as the CIA to track down the elusive militants. Thailand's own agents lack the necessary know-how to get the job done.

Khengsiong Chew

Kuala Lumpur

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

Criteria needed before govt's performance can be judged

Re: "Government 'report card' a barometer to its survival chances", News, March 19.

In this comment piece, you assert that six months is a long time for the public to wait in suspense for the fulfilment of pledges to rid the country of corruption, install good governance and convict those who are guilty of committing lese majeste within a one-year timeframe.

Well what do you expect, really? You can't evaluate the performance of the government unless you have defined what good performance is. Sure, not a lot has been accomplished, but what constitutes a satisfactory performance? Is it eradicating corruption in year one? Is it complete convictions? How do you fairly measure what the government has accomplished, unless you know what the criteria are for success? I am frustrated that the government is moving at a glacial pace, but I also recognise how deep-rooted these problems are. Corruption has been a way of life and although most of us abhor it, the few who practice it are unwilling to let go. Firm decisions need to be made, but expectations also need to be defined.

Resolving all the accusations of corruption against team Thaksin is the objective. Let's set some measures for success before we jump on the bandwagon to condemn the efforts of the interim government.

Outraged Taxpayer

Bangkok

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

AEC has little to be proud of  in its six months of probes

Re: Harsh sentences and vigilance needed to stop corruption, Letters, March 21.

The writer seemed to have his day made after the Assets Examination Committee came up with the latest accusation against one of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's men for taking a bribe. "Heartiest congratulations to the AEC for doing a fine job," he exalted. What fine job is he referring to? Accusing someone of taking kickbacks? Since its inception, after the September 19 coup last year, all the AEC has done is churn out accusation after accusation. There have been no convictions, nor has there been even a single indictment. All the committee does is brag about the tonnes of evidence it has to get the old regime, telling the public that "We'll have good news soon", and "The butcher block is set, the cleaver has been sharpened".

I am 54 and I hope I'll live to see Thaksin and his men locked up. Of course, that depends on whether the AEC is competent enough to get the job done.

Meechai Burapa

Chiang Mai

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

Govt fully within its rights to enforce ownership rules

Re: "Fresh look at amendments", News, March 20. Today, BBC News reported on the Thai government changing the rules for foreign business ownership.  They said the changes undermined the confidence of foreign investors because many companies had to relinquish some of their shareholdings to comply with the rules.

In fact responsibility for this mess does not lie with this or any previous Thai government. Most countries doing business in Thailand must comply with clear limitations in certain sectors, such as land purchasing and dealing, telecommunications, and agriculture.  Also professions - engineers, doctors, lawyers -are restricted to Thai nationals.  These same rules have been in force since I arrived in Thailand over 30 years ago.

What exactly motivated this government to enforce the law may be questionable but obviously they have a legitimate right to do so.  The question really is: How was the blatant evasion of the law allowed to germinate to the point where foreign investors know they are technically breaking the law but think it's so widespread that they will get away with it?

The answer is possibly that they went to a foreign international law firm that they knew back home and trusted.  The foreign lawyer based in Bangkok (not allowed to practice law) told them, for a very fat fee, the law could be circumvented to allow 100 per cent ownership of a company, or even for foreigners to own land.

The majority of such involve land ownership, ie. illegally formed foreign companies buying and selling land illegally, forming illegal companies (through unknown nominees) to allow foreign individuals to own property.

Would it be wrong for the government of Thailand to reclaim such properties? Would it be right for the misled foreign investor to seek compensation from the Thai government for enforcing the law, or should they sue the crafty lawyers and foreign property companies who asked for their trust?

Ginger Ninja

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