Under this practice, the outsourced employee officially remains an employee of the job broker, and is entitled to the compensation package afforded by the broker.  But at the same time, the employee is expected to perform on the outsourcing company's premises and in exactly the same objective conditions of schedule, discipline and supervision - the same work as regular employees of the outsourcing company. 

The purpose of the outsourcing company, obviously, is to pay less for the employee than it would under its own regulations.  The resulting profits go to the outsourcing company, with a commission paid to the job broker.  Outsourced employees accept the deal because, rightly or wrongly, they are under the impression that they're getting paid more than they would otherwise under prevailing local conditions.

The practice just described is in direct contradiction to the human-rights principle "Equal pay for equal work" enshrined in article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which Thailand ratified on 5 September 1999.  It has to stop, and all "outsourced employees" should benefit from the same compensation package as that of regular employees, or an equivalent package.  I remember that some time ago the Thai government made noises to that effect. 

To their shame, even some intergovernmental organisations headquartered in Bangkok are resorting to the system I have described as a convenient way to get around tight budgets, although the promotion of human rights is one of their natural functions.

The only fair thing to do is for the outsourcing company to treat the employees so recruited in exactly the same way as its other employees, and to pay the appropriate fee to the job broker for doing the recruitment job that it could not do itself.

It is hoped that the government of Thailand will soon adopt a specific law on this matter, which should then apply to everybody in Thailand - to intergovernmental organisations as well as to private businesses.  It is further hoped that the International Labour Organisation, as it is well represented in Bangkok, will make a special effort to educate all concerned, including its sister organisations, about the meaning of the "equal pay for equal work" principle.

Hubert Felin

Chiang Mai

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

SEC's failure to pin Yingluck to suspect dealings baffling

Re "Yingluck ruling shows watchdog failing the public", News, April 30.

It is incredible that the Securities Exchange Commission has taken over a year to come to the conclusion that Yingluck Shinawatra really had no idea about the impending sale of Shin Corp to Temasek when she was selling her Advance Info Service (AIS) shares in the weeks ahead of the deal. This, despite the fact that she was involved in the deal herself as a seller and was president of Shin Corp's main operating company.

Due to the SEC's extremely generous ruling (at the expense of AIS's minority shareholders) that Temasek was not required to make a separate tender offer for AIS under the "chain reaction" rules, the shares plummeted immediately after the deal, as this article pointed out. Her argument that she knew nothing about the deal until virtually moments before she sold her Shin shares to Temasek is simply not believable.

It is also surprising that the SEC chose to overlook the fact that Yingluck sold her AIS shares in the period when the results for the 2005 financial year were known to her as the president but not yet released to the public. In jurisdictions such as the US, UK, Hong Kong or Singapore, this alone would be considered an open and shut case of insider trading. In these markets, companies are obliged to impose a black-out on staff dealing in the company's shares during such periods. Yingluck's defence that she similarly insider traded AIS shares after exercising stock options in prior years only compounds her guilt.

Political Analyst

Bangkok

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

Wealth amassed as premier fuelling Thaksin's football bid

Re: "Thaksin in £108m bid for Man City", News, April 29.

I understand when a billionaire wants to buy a professional sports team, usually it means they are satisfying their ego. I'm sure this is true in the case of our former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, whose ego knows no boundaries.

Yet what makes his efforts to purchase Manchester City so reprehensible is that he is probably buying the team using our hard-earned tax money.

No one seems to be able to prove this yet. Yet hopefully, some guilty consciences out there will eventually come forward and tell the truth about how his administration manipulated the democratic process for personal gain.

I just hope our justice system is robust enough to give him a fair trial and a fitting punishment.

Outraged Taxpayer

Bangkok

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

Religious sensitivity does not extend to paid holidays

Re: "Minority faiths already get to observe their holidays", Letters, April 30.

I owe Songdej Praditsmanont thanks for pointing out one fact I have overlooked regarding Buddhism and the constitution. Songdej was right; there is no need to declare Buddhism a state religion. The fact speaks for itself. Ninety-five percent of Thais are Buddhists, and most websites say Thailand's state religion is Buddhism. Moreover, Muslims and Christians know they are in a minority, thus there is no need to underline that fact.

Nonetheless, I don't understand when Songdej said: "All state and private enterprises and schools are already tolerant and sympathetic towards the religious holidays minorities take." I wish you were more specific. Do you mean all state enterprises and all commercial banks give Muslim employees days off with pay during Ramadan? Or do they just tell them, "We are tolerant and sympathetic. Now you may go back to work."

Meechai Burapa

Chiang Mai

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

Malaysia's state religion only serves to stifle dissent

Re: "Where are the supporters of Buddhism as state religion?", Letters, April 30.

My theory is that nobody complains of Malaysia having defined Islam as its state religion because it is a different country than Thailand... just to the South, I believe. Also, it is a country where "letters to the editor" complaining about Islam being the state religion would not be printed as they would be judged as causing "religious disunity", which is considered a crime.

That is what state religions have the power to do.

Christy K Sweet

Phuket

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

Article misstated number of seats won by TRT in 2005

Re: "Constitutional Exercise" Opinion, April 29.

Thanks for the article on Komsan Podhikong. Just a brief remark: Thai Rak Thai did not receive 51 per cent on the party-list system in the 2005 elections, and 77 per cent of MP seats.

Rather, the percentages were 61.17 per cent and 75.4 per cent. If the German system of calculation, preferred by Komsan, had been used, Thai Rak Thai's majority would have shrunk from 377 MPs to 336 MPs, while the Democrats' number of seats would have increased from 96 to 128. Chat Thai would have had 36 MPs, instead of 25.

In terms of percentages, Thai Rak Thai would have decreased from 75.4 per cent to 67.2 per cent; the Democrats would have increased from 19.2 per cent to 25.6 per cent, and Chat Thai from 5.0 per cent to 7.2 per cent. Thus, Thai Rak Thai would have prevailed with 336 to 166 seats, compared to the actual 377 to 123.

Thus, there might indeed be a point using the party-list votes as the basis for calculating the distribution of all seats in parliament. In the German system, this makes the total number of MPs vary, because a party might get more constituency MPs than it could claim on the party-list result.

Obviously, this sort of system, in which we have a number of political parties, will most probably lead to coalition governments, unless it happens again that a person with the diverse qualities of Thaksin and his amount of money can centralise MPs to the same extent. But this seems to be improbable.

Michael Nelson

Bangkok

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

Compliments on outstanding service at private Thai hospital

Good news about Thailand seldom gets airtime in the Australian media. In a small way I want to revolutionise that state of affairs. Last year, after obtaining outrageously expensive quotes from several Australian doctors I decided to have a nine-hour elective plastic surgery at a well-known hospital in Bangkok. This type of operation is frightening at the best of times. In my case everything went wrong. Just about all the body bits the surgeon touched finished sagged, out of symmetry or affected by gravity.

To the credit of the hospital, I was offered a complementary trip to Bangkok, accommodation at the hospital's own apartments, had all the operations rectified and was sent home to recuperate with a big smile on my face. I have now achieved about 90 per cent of my original plan.

This well-known private hospital is not only a first-class medical institution but sets such a high standard of service that many Australian hospitals would find hard to match.

Everything about this place screams: "We are here to make your stay a good experience." The ratio of patients to registered nurses is about four to one, 24 hours a day. As well, they have a multitude of nursing aides, cleaners, people whose job it is to bring you flowers every day, others who wash your hair, or deliver food and medicine. During my 10 days in hospital I counted about 470 visits from doctors and other hospital staff. Would I have another operation at that place saving 75 per cent of the cost charged in Australia? Yes!

Maria

Bangkok