Do we have a Ministry of Foreign Affairs that might interest itself in the wellbeing of its citizens abroad? The right to life of a Thai citizen has never been proclaimed in a Thai constitution. But at a time when an august minister of the present government is making a career out of protesting other slights to Thailand's culture, one might expect some response to the cruel beheadings.

The crime of the unfortunate Thai workers killed in such a brutal fashion has been clearly defined to be outside the category of "serious crimes" in international law for which the death penalty might be imposed. This ruling of the UN Commission on Human Rights was clearly spelled out in Geneva to the Thai government on the occasion of their report on Thailand's observation of the International Convention on Civil and Human Rights.

As Thai and other citizens are still condemned to death in Thailand for drug-related crimes, it appears the lesson is ignored. Nevertheless, when Thai citizens are subject to a horrible reprisal elsewhere, one would expect some official or popular reaction.

Saudi Arabia is a state violating the most basic human rights. But at least one may raise a voice of civilized protest. Ironically, Saudi Arabia is presently reacting adversely to the sentence of 10 years' imprisonment passed in a French court against a member of its royal family, Prince Nayef Bin Fawaz al-Shalaan, on charges of importing cocaine into France, and presently residing outside the jurisdiction of the court.

Can we remain silent when simple Thai migrant workers are horribly executed while a Saudi Arabian prince guilty of the same charge is claimed to be inviolate?

Danthong Breen

Chairman, Union for Civil Liberties, Thailand

Bangkok

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

Business as usual for French-Asean diplomacy

Re: "Asia waiting for a sign from Sarkozy", Opinion, May 14.

During a recent visit to Paris, I learned from representatives of the French academic community that there was no apprehension about Asia being marginalised in future French diplomacy. France was the first European country to sign Asean's 1976 Treaty of Amity and Sarkozy's Asian diplomacy will have to follow the official commitments of France. There will be no change of course. More specifically, France will continue to promote its interests in Asia.

This commitment is reflected in a relevant document titled the "Nuremberg Declaration" on an EU-Asean Enhanced Partnership, adopted by consensus by the 37 members of the two regional entities at the end of their Nuremberg meeting in March 2007.

 The 28-paragraph document expresses a clear-cut determination to increase political dialogue between the European Union and Asean for advancing common interests, with Asean as the driving force. The two regional entities will promote closer cooperation in addressing and combating terrorism, trafficking in human beings, drug trafficking, sea piracy, arms smuggling, money laundering, cyber-crime and related transnational crime, by undertaking cooperative efforts in accordance with international law.

Special attention has been paid to promoting people-to-people contacts, involving youth, media, academics, think-tank institutions, parliamentary bodies and civil society, and to building and nurturing friendship and understanding between Asean and EU through dialogue and cultural exchanges.

One of the most important and far-reaching provisions of this document is about developing a comprehensive, mutually beneficial, action-orientated, forward-looking plan of action to implement the Nuremberg Declaration. There are many reasons to believe that France will continue to have an active role in this complex, ongoing process.

Ioan Voicu

Bangkok

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

Thailand is not ready for public-service television

In the recent debate about the future role of iTV - whether it should revert to being an independent commercial broadcaster, or whether it should be transformed into a public-service provider along the lines of the BBC - I find much of the argument has an air of unreality. While I understand and share your yearning for strong democratic institutions in Thailand, of which a public-service broadcaster could be one, I do not think it is possible to establish such a broadcaster at the present time.

The BBC came into being the best part of a century ago, in a wealthy country that was already a long-established democracy with strong political institutions. In addition, the BBC not only had a monopoly of broadcasting in Britain, it was a world pioneer of broadcasting.

The person who led it, the dour and elevated John Reith, was a paternalist, and knew what was good for everyone else. In a position of power, he created the BBC's mission of educational and moral improvement for the masses - in other words, he created the idea of public-service broadcasting.

The BBC remained mostly free from political interference, only because it broadly identified with the British political establishment, a position that has ensured its ongoing support. In recent years it has struggled to maintain its independent voice and has come under great pressure - the most recent occasion being its attempts to give independent accounts of the Bush-Blair rationale for the Iraq war.

If today the BBC didn't exist, and there was a proposal to create it, the proposal would probably fail to win the vote. I say this not because I don't admire the BBC's achievements, but because the BBC is a creation of early 20th century Britain, and its relevance in the 21st century is questionable. Certainly the BBC is not a suitable model for 21st century Thailand.

iTV, along with the 1997 constitution, is one of the two great achievements of Thai democracy. A commercially funded channel, whose commercialisation was limited by its rolling news framework, it was a brilliant invention completely suited to Thailand. For the first time an electronic medium dealt with news and politics at a level similar to the better print media. Between 1998 and 2002 it broadcast documentary programmes of which the best were world standard and innovative.

TITV should not be recast into a public-service channel - Thailand is not ready for it. A public-service broadcaster would not survive the first crisis and would collapse into being another Channel 11 - a mealy-mouthed voice of government.

All efforts should go to recreating something like the original iTV, perhaps with a share structure to protect it from malicious takeovers. A "poison pill" share is one option to explore. Alternatively a trust fund, along the lines of the Guardian newspaper, could be the way to go.

A commercial and relatively independent iTV, although not perfect, would be a pillar to support Thai democracy in its broadest sense.

Richard Sproat

Bangkok

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

Opponents ready to shoot down the government

Re: "TRT demands clarification from CNS," News, May 14.

Though he might have performed much better than the last time around, Prime Minister Surayud apparently still could not fully convince the public that he was more determined than ever to do a better job in a TV interview on Saturday. But in the most recent ABAC poll, the majority of people still wanted him as PM.

The funny thing is that no poll has ever been conducted on the performance of the Council for National Security. It would be interesting to see what the results would be.

In the eight months since the overthrow of the Thaksin government, the CNS still cannot get the monkey off its back, as Thaksin continues to make his "absence" felt, even though he is not in the country. One of the four pillars that were used as justifications for the coup has been broken, while three others are progressing at a snail's pace.

The prime responsibility of the CNS is on national security, and it may be concluded that it is not doing well here, either. More and more violence is breaking out in the three southern provinces daily, with a degree of brutality previously unheard of. In Bangkok, people also do not feel safe, especially as decision days on the dissolution of the five political parties and on the referendum on the draft constitution are approaching.

Suffice it to say, there is a power vacuum in this "Land of Vanishing Smiles", even though the CNS still has enormous firepower. But that firepower is now useless, as the CNS seems to have been out-smarted almost every time by its opposition and members of the old regime.

Last week, when CNS chairman General Sonthi Boonyaratglin said he was "tricked" by a phu yai into meeting representatives of the Assembly of the Isaan People and receiving their paper demanding the removal of the prime minister, he created confusion and gave an open opportunity for his enemies to hit back.

Chaturon Chaisaeng, acting leader of the Thai Rak Thai party wasted no time in driving a wedge into the small hole that exists between the PM and the CNS chairman. "Whose side are you on?" asked Chaturon, or something to this effect.

Suddenly PM Surayud is now the person the TRT would like to keep at all cost, despite Surayud's tirades against Chaturon's former boss in a Tokyo meeting last month.

General Sonthi does not have to answer to this kind of question, for the more he does, the CNS becomes more isolated. At the same time, it will embolden the CNS's adversaries. For the more doubt they create in the public's mind that the CNS is doing everything to hold on to power, the legitimacy it received will soon vanish.

The opposition and members of the old regime obviously know that the CNS is now a sitting duck. If they can shoot down this duck, they know they can shoot down the Surayud government, too.

Lest it be forgotten, the only person who can dismiss the prime minister is the CNS chairman. If the CNS, through its chairman, is to be discredited, and if it gets to the point of dissolution of the CNS, severe chaos and political instability would inevitably result, paving the way for the return of a man most of this country would like to see remain outside it.

Prachyadavi Tavedikul

Bangkok