Many calls have been made for the eight elephants planned to be taken to Australian zoos to be genetically tested, in order to establish their parentage.

Such suggestions may sound simple, but in fact they are not.

Selection and identification of these domestic elephants were undertaken with extreme care and under the guidance of respected Thai elephant experts.

The origins and identity of the elephants have been more closely scrutinised than probably any other transfer in Thailand's history and found to be lawful by the governments of Thailand and Australia, in accordance with the international Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

A separate and independent Australian Court re-examined the entire process, subsequently verifying the captive-born status of the elephants.

Additionally, the zoos have provided four blood samples from each elephant over four years. These were voluntarily supplied as the first samples for a proposed national DNA database of Thailand's domestic elephants. The Australian zoos have been proud to be part of this important project.

However, this database does not yet exist. Verifiable evidence, using genetic testing, of the eight elephants' origin would require samples from both their parents (in some cases, their parents are now dead) and many other family and non-family members. It may also need to include wild-elephant populations, in order to satisfy animal activists that none of the parents was from the wild. This could take many years.

The Australian zoos have at all times respected Thai and international law. They have complied with every regulation and gone to extreme lengths to ensure that the planned transfer has been transparent and legitimate.

For activists to try to hold the Australian zoos hostage in order to force a change in Thai domestic legislation is wrong and detrimental to the welfare of the animals concerned. The zoos can only comply with and respect the law of any nation as it stands.

The zoos have made a long-term commitment to work in partnership with the government of Thailand and non-governmental organisations to assist in a wide range of measures for elephant conservation. This includes current projects to protect wild elephants and an offer of assistance in the establishment of the DNA database for the domestic herd, if that is desired.

The elephants, their carers and their Thai mahouts have been forced to wait for nearly two years by a handful of activists whose actions are totally contrary to real conservation endeavours.

The Taronga and Melbourne zoos have a proud history of caring for wildlife for almost 150 years. They have been privileged to have the guardianship of elephants since 1883, when His Majesty King Rama V gave the first elephant to the Taronga Zoo as a gift.

The zoos look forward to progressing in a partnership with Thailand for a genuine and meaningful contribution to the future of this magnificent species.

William Meikle

General manager for life sciences

Taronga Zoo

Dr Karen Kirestone

Conservation biologist

Australasian Conservation Genetics Centre

Sydney, Australia

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

Was assassination rumour a means of silencing critics?

Re: "Assassination plot - or ploy?" News, July 14. Your commentary on the real or imagined plot on the caretaker prime minister's life misses one alternative explanation.

Yes, he may be looking for sympathy and trying to paint his opponents as violent and extreme by association, but could he perhaps just be learning from other embattled leaders in the region? One of our neighbours recently declared a state of emergency and arrested known opponents, banned rallies and restricted press freedom following very sketchy and vague coup rumours. Is it so very unlikely that similar tactics might be used here? The early military reshuffle seems to suggest a desire to be sure of military support in the event things worsen further.

Worried Farang

Bangkok

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

PM fully aware of implications of diplomatic correspondence

The caretaker prime minister's letters to world leaders must not be taken at face value. Thaksin, a former deputy foreign minister, knows basic diplomatic protocol very well, but the contents of the letters conceal a very dangerous scheme. It is my belief he intends to lay a foundation for his ambition to do away with the "extra-constitutional" elements in a drastic way. Then the world would not be shocked, since he would turn around and say: "See, I told you so!"

Old Observer

Bangkok

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

Leak of Bush letter may point to  'deep throat' syndrome

Caretaker Foreign Minister Kantathi Suphamongkhon must now be feeling the heat after the controversial Bush letter and others like it surfaced to become a subject of great public debate last week. His explanations of those letters as being "personal" did not find many believers, because the essence they conveyed to the addressees suggest otherwise, and therefore they were not "routine exchanges" as claimed by caretaker Government Spokesman Surapong Suebwonglee.

What is more troubling is the admission that the letters were sent through the Foreign Ministry, which confirms the official nature of the documents. Moreover, the fact that some, if not all, of them were leaked to and subsequently published in the press suggests that a "deep throat" of sorts now exists in the Foreign Ministry, and he or she is ready to challenge the powers that be at all cost.

I would like to believe that ministry officials did not draft the letters, for if they did, they would have destroyed all integrity and honour normally associated with foreign service. Letters written by officials at the Foreign Ministry must make national interests, not personal ones, paramount in the performance of their duties.

One of the founding fathers of modern Thai diplomacy, Thanat Khoman, always insisted on not only the perfection of the written language, but also the clarity of purpose it was intended to achieve. If those elements were present in Thaksin's letter, Bush's response would not have been so bland. Out of "friendship", Bush might have at least indicated some understanding of Thaksin's plight, even if he did not support Thaksin's point of view. Instead, Bush stayed clear of meddling in Thai politics, even though he was cryptically invited to do so, because he probably did not know what consequences such an action might entail. This incident has undoubtedly compromised the dignity of the Foreign Ministry, so much so that this "deep throat" is fed up with the way the ministry has been treated by the Thaksin government over the years. The Foreign Ministry has become a "political instrument" for the Thaksin government. Hopes were raised when the ministry's favourite son, Kantathi, replaced Surakiart Sathirathai as foreign minister. But that hope has faded quickly as the ministry is usually bypassed, and its only focus is to push Surakiart to the top job at the United Nations. There have been no spectacular initiatives in any direction over the last year and a half.

The "deep throat" syndrome may well spread into other ministries, as it is known that all the permanent officials who are not with him have not been spared the wrath of the caretaker prime minister.

Prachyadavi Tavedikul

Bangkok

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

Impartiality in trial of parties crucial to ending divisiveness

Re: "Thai Rak Thai and Democrats will face trial", News, July 14.

It gives me hope in reading the statement from the new Constitution Court president of the promise of transparency and accountability in judging the public prosecutor's request for dissolution of the five political parties. In his interview, he said the Court would centre on the presented facts based on legal principles without being swayed by bias or personal feelings. In this divisive air, this impartiality and openness are wanting and crucial in untying the knots that have impeded our economic progress for nearly six months. Whatever the decision, lessons shall be learned by all parties concerned.

In this historical case, justice must not only be done, but also be seen to be done, in order to command public respect. It is not sufficient to believe that one is fair; one has to give the public reason to believe it, as well.

Songdej Praditsmanont

Bangkok

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

A referee who would restore honour to 'the beautiful game'

Re: "Sloppy play and unbalanced TV coverage marred Cup", Letters, July 14.

Again a call is made for more referees on the pitch. A writer points out the downward spiral of "the beautiful game". Perhaps one referee like me would reverse this unhappy situation.

As referee, I would:

1. Keep my whistle zipped in an inside pocket.

2. "Injured" players would remain where they fell, until they could shake off their injuries or crawl or hobble to the touch-line. Only exceptions: unconsciousness or limbs at unusual angles.

3. Only the team captain would be allowed to approach me and then only for an interpretation of the laws, not to dispute, as is the case with rugby.

4. A penalty would be a rare event, only awarded when even the most bigoted supporter would find it hard to disagree.

5. A free kick would never be awarded when a player falls due to bodily contact. I notice they can proceed after scoring with half the team piled on their backs.

That Christiano Ronaldo could even be considered as best player is sadly indicative of the state of the game, as is the fact that the man who excused his antics, and incidentally those of the deplorable Rivaldo four years ago, should be considered to manage England.

The great Pele defined a good football player as "a man, an athlete and skilful" - how unfortunate that so few measure up to the first requirement.

John Angus

Chon Buri