Deputy Public Health Minister Anutin Charnveerakul was reported as saying on Monday that "Bt4 million was as good as the family was going to get from the ministry without going back to court".

What could they possibly gain by paying Bt700,000 less than what the court ordered? On the other hand, the child's family will have to care for and nurse the child for the rest of his life. The money could be invaluable to them. It just seems to me the deputy minister for public health is simply trying to demonstrate his "control" of the situation. However, such a childish action only proves his arrogance and lack of understanding.

These politicians make me sick.

A Reader

Bangkok

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

People don't kill people, but rather guns do

Re: "Costly oil not a bad thing; neither is capital punishment", Letters, May 8.

Bill Cymbalsky claims that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to would-be murderers. If that is so, can he explain why the countries of Europe, which do not have the death penalty, have a far lower rate of murders per head of population than countries like the US, which executes people with such enthusiasm?

Could the reason be the unthinkable, that the Europeans make gun ownership much more difficult?

Dom Dunn

London

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

Capital punishment only leads to further violence

Re: "Capital punishment keeps society free of murderers", Letters, May 9.

There are many cogent arguments in favour of and against capital punishment. Most seem based on intuition, and many, like John Arnone's letter, focus on tactical rather than strategic goals. Surely the key is the question: how do you create a society that offers the lowest possible murder rate, given the nature of the human animal?

The evidence, though counter-intuitive, is quite clear. Countries that employ capital punishment have relatively high murder rates compared with those that do not: America, China, Singapore versus the European nations, Australia, etc.

The reasons can be debated, but the facts are undeniable.

Bob Deverell

Bangkok

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

Story on Anzac Day captured the true spirit of the occasion

Re: "Death, youth and character", Sunday Style, May 7.

I would like to thank Roger Beaumont and congratulate him on his very fine article on Anzac Day.

I am quite familiar with the annual dawn ceremonies at Hellfire Pass and later in the day at the Commonwealth War Graves sites in Kanchanaburi.

Having lived and worked in Kanchanaburi for many years, I have come to know a number of Aussies, as visitors and as local residents.

I feel you have portrayed exactly many of their national characteristics encapsulated on Anzac Day and the events of World War II.

A splendid piece, well written!

TR Moore

Kanchanaburi

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

A perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black

Re: "Democrats blamed for 1997 sell-off", News, May 7.

Here's a riddle. What is the difference between 56 bankrupt financial institutions and Shin Corp? Answer: a tax-free windfall of Bt73.3 billion.

By drawing a comparison between the two, and by filing a complaint with the Department of Special Investigation in regard to the former, Thai Rak Thai seems hell-bent on losing its last vestiges of credibility.

Nigel Pike

Phang Nga

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

Court verdict is welcome but could mean more street mobs

Re: "Court orders new poll; pressure mounts on EC", News, May 9.

For those who've been advocating that we should stick to the democratic process come hell or high water, the Constitution Court's invalidation of the April 2 election and call for a fresh election comes as sweet vindication.

All factions agree they will abide by the court's ruling, and the major opposition parties will now contest the election.

This is what some of us were demanding all along just prior to April 2: that all parties should contest the election. So we've dithered more than a month, been subjected to a display of mob power and arrived back on square one again, just so the recalcitrant spoilsports can join in, too.

The opposition parties cannot easily wash away their culpability in having boycotted the April 2 election, and it will always be a mark against them that they had to have their knuckles rapped to get them in line, not to mention the bad precedent that's been set.

Rather than having been dealt a blow by the Constitution Court, I have a feeling Thaksin has once again outclassed his opponents, having painted them into a corner that this time they can't sidestep. It's a foregone conclusion he'll come out the winner, but this time the result cannot be brushed aside, since all have agreed to play ball and let the referee's (read voters') decision be final.

If the opposition and the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) want to make Thaksin history, they have two options - not counting winning the legal cases pending against him, which would disqualify him from politics for five years.

One is to turn the election into a contest between Mr Clean and the other brand and trust that the majority of voters realise Mr Clean is preferable to the other brand and his activist policies. (It would be too much to ask Mr Clean to come up with an alternative economic and social platform, seeing that he couldn't do any better at the recent Democrat Party caucus than say maybe he'd keep some of Thaksin's policies.)

The second option is to keep Thaksin from contesting the election in the first place, if he is so inclined, at all costs. The argument that he promised to take a break from politics would only be valid if the April 2 election had not been invalidated.

Unfortunately, the PAD will probably choose the second option, because mob rule seemed to have worked once and might work again. That would mean further angst for us who want to see democracy prevail.

Trirat Petchsingh

Nonthaburi

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

Competition for oil drives US attempts to topple regime

Unlike in the previous century, today's international crises and confrontations have little to do with political ideology. It's all about power, money, the economy. Capitalism reigns supreme. The current conflict between the US and Iran is no exception. It is not about non-existent nuclear weapons, nor about democracy. It is about what drives the economy: energy.

In 2004, world oil production was about 80 million barrels per day (bpd). Of this, the US, with just 5 per cent of the world's population, consumed 20 million bpd, or 25 per cent. China, with a population of 1.3 billion, four times that of the US, was a distant second, with a consumption of 6.5 million bpd. But US demand is expected to grow to 28 million bpd by 2025. Domestic production only covers one-third of current demand. This means growing dependence on foreign supplies. China's demand, due to its booming economy, will grow even faster. It currently produces half of what it consumes. Most economies in the rest of the world are also growing, and global energy demand is constantly rising.

What we are now witnessing is fierce competition for every barrel of oil, not only in West and Central Asia, but also in other parts of the world, especially Africa.

The Bush administration's declared strategy to topple the regime in Iran must be seen in this broader context. The US now faces a geostrategic alliance between China, Iran and Russia. Unlike the US, China and Russia have had long-standing friendly relations with Iran. This did not change after the Islamic revolution in 1979. In recent years, the new alliance has invested hundreds of billions of US dollars in economic development, particularly in the energy sector. Russian oil and natural gas are flowing to China in increasing amounts. In March 2004, China's oil-trading Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp signed a 25-year deal to import 110 million tonnes of liquefied gas from Iran. A few months later, China's state oil giant, Sinopec, signed a US$100-billion (Bt3.77 trillion at today's rate) deal to develop and exploit the Yadavaran Oil Field in Iran. Even in recent weeks and days, new joint ventures in regard to energy have been signed between members of the alliance. Most important, the "Chinese-Iranian-Russian axis", as some analysts call it, has a common foreign policy. Its objective is to counter US unilateralism and global hegemonic intentions. Therefore, there is also close military cooperation in the alliance. China and Russia have supplied Iran with sophisticated weapons, in order to counter any attack on its territory.

The predicament of the US is that since 1979, it has had no relations with Iran. Furthermore, the US has been trying to demonise and ostracise the country in the international community by calling it a member of an "axis of evil" and a "rogue state". For the US, the doors to Iran are definitely closed.

From the perspective of the Bush administration, the unfavourable status quo will only end with a "regime change" in Tehran. "All options are open." Some politicians in Washington seem to believe that crippling UN economic sanctions against Iran could lead to a popular revolt against the current regime. But it is significant in this context that President Bush has explicitly rejected any sanctions that would be aimed at Iran's oil sector. The oil must flow! Besides, it is not more than wishful thinking to believe that a new regime in Tehran would necessarily be pro-American.

Manfred Liebig

Germany