Thaksin Shinawatra's much-publicised attempt to launch a takeover of the UK's Manchester City football team is yet another attempt by this man to stay in the news. Does anybody seriously believe the deal will go ahead?

He will, of course, plead that the Thai government is blocking the move to bring the Thai people an asset which would boost the sport in the country to truly international standards. But in essence it is no more than an indication of his wish to re-enter politics.

Thaksin well knows that he will, for exchange control reasons, be unable to pull off the deal and indeed it is doubtful that there is any such intention to succeed. Like many politicians before him, with recognition waning, he is attempting to jump back into the headlines with some measure of credibility and there will be differing views on how deserving that credibility is. At the level of the masses though there is no subject like football to stir the passions and Thaksin knows it.

If Thaksin really wanted to buy Manchester City, he could quite easily get over the money problems by introducing the dynamics of a consortium to help him. But that will not happen will it?

David Harrison

Bangkok

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

AEC dragging its feet in Shinawatra land deal case

Re: "Criminal case looms nearer over land deal", News, May 15.

It took a long time for the Assets Examination Committee (AEC) to hand the Ratchadaphisek land deal involving the Shinawatras to the office of the Attorney General. It is so blatantly clear that articles 100 and 122 of the anti-corruption law were broken.

Even though she was the highest bidder, and caused no loss to the Financial Institutions Development Fund, the fact of the matter is that the law was broken and it does not matter what price was paid. I am disappointed that it took the AEC eight months to put this case forward for prosecution. It might take a few years to handle a case with highly complex transactions. No more elementary excuses such as this being an honest mistake please.

Surasak Piputtana

Bangkok

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

Ex-PM could put cash to better use in his homeland

For almost a month there have been continual rumours about the aims of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra to bid for the British football club Manchester City. It would cost him over Bt7 billion to be called the owner. There would be no question of how he could afford this as the Shinawatra family has owned many business entities. However, questions have arisen about whether the money being transferred out of Thailand to buy the football club is appropriate for the nation's interests or not.

In turn, this money could be used within this country for various purposes. Business entities could be established to generate income from outside or investments made into financial marketing services to help entrepreneurs finance business projects and so on. Such moves would definitely improve the economic situation during this period when we face numerous threats such as the unrest in the southern part of Thailand or the impact from the uncertain political direction.

Some people might point to the other millionaires who own British football clubs like Roman Abramovich, the owner of Chelsea football club, or Malcolm Glazer, the owner of Manchester United. I would say yes they have purchased football clubs, but they could afford to do so because their countries face a lesser impact from the loss of their investment money than Thailand would that of Thaksin's.

Thailand is a country that still needs a money injection from various sources that it will be able to generate income-generating projects to boost economic growth as a whole. As a former prime minister who once devoted himself to governing the country according to its best interests, he should recognise this and rethink his goals. The assets owned by his family are more than enough for them to spend for the rest of their lives. Wouldn't it be better to utilise it for the benefit of the country? This is what Thai people do for Thai people.

Niphot K

Bangkok

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

Drug stand a short-term fix for a long-term problem

Re: "Why not a two-tiered price system for patented drugs?", Letters, May 13.

There are some fundamental lessons to be learned from this Aids/Abbott brouhaha. The most basic of which is that decisions have consequences.

As a sovereign country, Thailand's government has the perfect right to decide its policies, rules and laws and how to spend the people's money. But government officials also must live with the consequences. It seems like they want to have their cake and eat it too.

Thailand can set any policy it wants regarding immigration, finance, intellectual property and so forth but they can't expect there not to be consequences as a result. They fired the first salvo in this "trade war". But it's a war that they cannot expect to win - even a short-term win will likely result in a long-term loss.

If their policies are deemed to be unfriendly to open trade, they will find themselves without more than a few expensive drugs. Could fallout in the tourism sector be far behind?

Grandpa in Chon Buri

Chon Buri

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

Platitudes easy until HIV debate becomes personal

Re: "Theft of patents is theft; it's as simple as that", Letters, May 13.

I have a vested interest in this Aids discussion. Over the years I have watched so many young people of both sexes go back to their villages to die untreated. This is because the cost of the Government Pharmaceutical Organisation (GPO) manufactured antiviral is too expensive for them to consider a lifetime commitment.

Three years ago I chose two lads in Pattaya, out of many, to keep alive by paying for the first line GPO medicine. This has cost me an average of Bt1,400 per month each since then.

One of the two is becoming resistant to the basic GPO and will need to move to a second-line drug. I face the dilemma over what to do. However that is my problem alone.

But, if I, as a comparatively rich Westerner, face this problem, can Hyde Parke, the writer of the above letter, imagine the dilemma for ordinary lower income families?

I can only hope Hyde Parke is unaware of the real situation in Thailand rather than appearing simply heartless.

While breaking the medical intellectual property rights of a few rich countries is unfortunate, Hyde Parke seems to equate lifesaving activities with software piracy. Most civilised countries and the World Trade Organisation specifically allow for this to happen. No European country would have such qualms.

It is probably the only realistic option unless Hyde Parke can offer an alternative or put his money where his mouth is and be prepared to help.

Anon

Chon Buri

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

Compulsory licensing permissible under WTO

Quite a few people have called the recent action on HIV drugs theft. It is patently not. Compulsory licensing is perfectly legal under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules and one could argue that it was inserted there precisely so that countries like Thailand could legally produce cheaper drugs.

The lack of any legal action from affected parties is also telling - even when the US downgraded Thailand's status on a priority watch list, it quickly issued a statement that the downgrading was not related to the drugs issue.

In fact retaliating in such a manner against compulsory licensing would be illegal under the WTO and the US was aware of that.

The background history of one of the drugs in question, Kaletra, is also interesting. Its basic ingredient, sold by Abbott as Norvir, was developed with grants from the US National Institutes of Health (so much for "no new investment" argument). Norvir, however, had serious side effects and that's when Abbott invested money in developing Kaletra.

Other companies have their own drugs to mitigate Norvir's side effects but they have to prescribe them in combination with Norvir. To ward off competition Abbott increased the price of Norvir by 400 per cent while keeping Kaletra's price the same. Abbott also planned other disgraceful actions like withdrawing Norvir pills from the market and producing the drug in the least palatable, liquid form.

For these practices Abbott is currently being sued by American consumer organisations.

Stan

Bangkok

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

Blair's successor must show same spirit of conviction

British Prime Minister Tony Blair's pending departure from office will leave a void that is already beginning to extend beyond his native shores.

In Britain, his exit sets the stage for political havoc, as the left's usual assortment of clowns with clownish ideas strut more freely about without Blair's foil to their ill-conceived social schemes and myopic world-view. His unparalleled facility with public words, long resented by that leftist faction which yet fails to embrace any moderation which might redeem them, will come to be missed by many who'll then rue their own roles in bringing about his absence.

But in the Middle East, if Blair's successor proves unable to stand as firmly with America in the breach against both Islamist extremists and Iran's determined drive toward nuclear armaments, prospects for long-term peace must become only more arduous and uncertain, as the region's countries are then compelled to appease the former and copy the latter.

Upon the shoulders of Blair's successor falls the fate of comparison with a paragon; our own fates will be spectators at the contest.

Ron Goodden

Atlanta, Georgia

Send us your views in an instant E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to

the Editor' in the subject box, to: letters@nationgroup.com