Look at the Miss Thailand, Miss Teen and Miss Transvestite contest. Surely they show contestants in scanty outfits, walking seductively on stage. Kids can watch them on television, but the organisers of those events never donate a satang to help Aids victims; maybe that's why the Culture Ministry leaves them alone.

I suppose the fact that Fame magazine's intention to donate the proceeds to the temple that cares for Aids patients is a bigger sin than promoting nudity. This reaction shows the wrong-headed way the Culture Ministry looks at these things.

Meechai Burapa

Chiang Mai

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

Prudish Culture Ministry has finally gone too far

Over the past few months, we've had the misfortune of seeing the Culture Ministry bare it's ugly teeth from time to time in order to maintain social order, protect the integrity of Thai culture, or, whatever it is they do. First, they took offence to the Coyote Dancers, then they laid their righteousness upon Chotiros Suriyawong, who had the gall to wear a sexy dress at a movie awards function and then they got after university students for dressing sexily and talking to black foreigners at a temple.

Watching as the starlet and the students had to publicly apologise for their "transgressions" made me think of the double standards of Thai society, but this latest development makes me furious. The Culture Ministry in this instance is not targeting only personal freedom of expression, as has been their wont, but it is going after a plan that could raise thousands of baht to help those who need it most, Aids patients.

The people in the Culture Ministry must be incredibly insecure to want to prevent funds being raised from beautiful women baring it all for charity. They will trot out the defence "Well, it will harm the children!" How exactly and where is their proof that this would be the case?

It's utter prudish nonsense and the actions of the Culture Ministry are doing no more than to discourage people from supporting a very worthy cause. Shame on you Culture Ministry and I hope the next time we have the misfortune of hearing from you it is about something that does not affect people's health and wellbeing.

Bernie F

Bangkok

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

Justice must come first in Pojaman investigation

Re: "Writer contradictory in points made about Pojaman case", Letters, March 29.

The writer says that I contradict myself when I call for a single standard for all, then call for harshest punishment "because she is the wealthiest woman in the land, our former leading lady, with the best advisers money can buy, including her husband, who holds a PhD in criminal justice and was a former police lieutenant-colonel" ("Transparent process must be observed in Pojaman case", Letters, March 28).

My point is that made by John Jay: "Justice is indiscriminately due to all, without regard to numbers, wealth, or rank." Here, the high and the mighty are often exempt from the law, and, if guilty, I suggest that Pojaman should not be exempt. On the contrary, she cannot plead mitigating circumstances like poverty. The lady should know that we expect public figures to lead praiseworthy lives. She cannot plead ignorance of the law when surrounded by excellent advisers, including her well-versed husband. (The writer misquoted me when he said that I suggested she be punished harshly because "she was Thaksin's wife"; it's his legal expertise that I focused on.)

When I suggested that "justice must be seen to be served", I didn't think that anybody would take me so literally as to have the lady put on a 24-hour realty TV programme. What I meant was that if found guilty, her guilt must be made evident, so we the people - especially in rural areas - could be convinced that the verdict was in fact legitimate as well as legal. I also recommended freeing her if her guilt could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I trust that the writer now agrees that my points were consistent, and in line with the rule of law that I have always advocated.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

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

'IHT' piece on anti-foreigner sentiment made valid points

Re: "'Tribune' reporter's fallacy: Thai anti-foreigner sentiment", Opinion, March 23.

I believe that Thomas Fuller, one of the International Herald Tribune's regular reporters on Thailand, was objective and careful in this thoughtful report.

From personal experience, I happen to agree with many expats here who also feel that Thailand is less friendly to foreigners here than it was in the past. For example, anyone who wants to retire here must show that they've had at least Bt800,000 in a domestic savings account for at least three months.

That severe requirement was enacted within the last 12 months.

Foreign citizens who cannot meet this new standard must leave, even if they are married to a Thai citizen, own a condominium here, or have served as volunteers.

The comments by the woman in Thomas Fuller's article were quite revealing. Older foreigners are described by others here as "misfits", especially if they marry a younger Thai citizen.

After one younger man was deported (but not convicted) back to the US for aberrant behaviour back in Colorado, the Thai government now requires unmarried men who apply for renewed employment as teachers here to fill many new requirements proving they are not paedophiles.

As Fuller points out in his article, those foreigners who have a lot of money are welcome to come and stay a long time. Thai government officials, however, don't realise that virally every nation in the world is competing for these precious few people who enjoy big bank accounts. Yet, Thailand should not assume that this coveted jet set will flock here just because they will be given special treatment. They can and will take their diamond credit cards to other nations that have cleaner environments.

Investors in very expensive resort spas are suffering from record low occupancies - 10 per cent or even less up here in Chiang Mai during the latest crisis this month from air pollution. Water pollution and filthy beaches are also hitting resort and spa owners in Phuket.

Thailand as the promised land for the rich and famous? Don't hold your breath!!

Dan Swift

Chiang Mai

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

Ahmadinejad's rule nothing like enlightened Persian times

Re: "300's depiction of Persia driven by 'vicious stereotypes,'" Letters, March 31.

Iranian embassy spokesman Akbar Khodaei claims that "Iranian history records celebration of life, light and love. Iranian civilisation from the beginning up until now respects all religions and beliefs".

It's true that ancient Persia attained great heights of civilisation, most notably under its Zoroastrian kings.

The prophet Isaiah extolled the noble-minded Persian king Cyrus the Great as a messiah anointed by the God of Israel to restore the exiled Jewish people to their homeland (see Isaiah 44:28; 45:1). But his modern counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map.

You will pardon me if I see in this a certain deterioration in the Persian affinity for life, light, and love. Iran nowadays is famous mostly for its nuclear aspirations, its taking of hostages and its Holocaust-denying president. Quite a comedown from the glory days of yesteryear.

As for contemporary Iran's "respect for all religions and beliefs", I wonder if Khodaei would be so good as to edify us with a report on the Islamic Republic's treatment of the Baha'is.

Chelo Kababi

Bangkok

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

Seizure of sailors offers ideal chance to deal with Iran threat

Prime Minister Tony Blair is facing crunch time. He has about two weeks to face down Iran, or get mired in a reprise of Iran's abduction/blackmail form of diplomacy. We all remember the pathetic, lame, shameful response of former President Carter to a similar crisis in 1979. This was an artificial crisis engineered by Iran then; it's an artificial crisis now. It does not have to be this way. Blair has another model he might follow.

When Thatcher faced Argentina's illegal seizure of the Falklands, she wasted no time in taking mincing, tentative, apologetic steps through the diplomacy garden.

She issued a clear, unequivocal statement to the government of Argentina. "You have a simple choice: withdrawal or war." Argentina chose war, and lost. Iran should receive a similar statement from Blair. "You have a simple choice: extradition or war."

Will Blair have the gumption to do this? Or will he prove his critics right, and sink deeper into the role of a poodle? It doesn't look good so far. He has already asked the UN to issue a statement condemning Iran. When a national leader turns to the UN for the moral authority, and spine, to hold a terror regime accountable, it's clear he isn't prepared to back up his words with steel.

A great opportunity is being missed. Iran has clearly provoked a Western state in an inept, illegal, absurd manner. This is the perfect chance to launch a swift, lethal and sustained bombing campaign against the world's foremost terror-state, the premier sponsor of and training and staging centre for global terrorist operations.

There really is no need to spend 38 months pirouetting through the graft-strewn halls of the UN. All it requires is the decisiveness to act. A failure to act will send a very clear message.

Stephen Carter

Chiang Mai