Freedom of the press is an inalienable right enshrined in the United Nations bill of rights. I support press freedom wholeheartedly, being an armchair libertarian who says "give me liberty, or give me death". But how much of it do we need, and do we all need the same amount?

I think that Singapore presents a unique case, just as Germany and Thailand also are unique cases. In Germany there are restrictions on the support of Nazi ideas, and everyone (except Neo-Nazis) thinks this is right. Thailand also has press restrictions unique to itself, and again no one questions the righteousness of this limitation.

For a developing country, having unbridled press freedom is like an adolescent having unbridled premarital sex. It's good if you can get it, but shouldn't you be playing, or studying, or working? Shouldn't every country have the right to choose ingredients for their particular flavour of democracy, so that eventually everyone can have the cake and eat it too?

For The Nation to characterise Singaporeans as being victimised under the iron-fisted rule of its government is to indulge in hyperbole. Most Singaporeans are too busy pursuing the Singaporean dream to care about press freedom. I'm not saying this is good, just that it is. Thai farmers and wage earners can only yearn to be victimised with one of the highest living standards in the world.

Singapore, with its limited resources and its fine socio-economic balance, has opted for security to be in the vanguard. If Singapore were to face the same trauma caused by mass protests and political boycotts, it would probably collapse. Should we blame Singaporeans for choosing the money over the ballot box?

How much press freedom does a Thai farmer need? Most are totally ignorant of the concept. The press, on the other hand, demands rights but preferably without the responsibility. The potential loss to Thai farmers due to the collapse of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks, according to one report, would amount to an estimated US$1.2 billion (Bt44.8 billion) annually. But most Thai farmers have never heard of the WTO and the collapse of trade talks last month. The Thai press treated it as a non-event. Isn't this a failure of the press to educate and inform so that farmers can at least form an opinion, as Western and Japanese farmers who oppose the WTO do?

However, my condolences go to Chee Soon Juan, the leader of the Democratic Party (a real hero as opposed to an armchair one) who's gone bankrupt opposing the Singapore government. We should invite him here where criticising the country's leader has been honed to a fine art. He'll be quite at home.

Trirat Petchsingh

Nonthaburi

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

UN's exclusion of Taiwan goes against body's Charter

Re: "In a Nutshell", World, August 12. The Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations states that the mission of the United Nations is "to reaffirm faith in the fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations, large and small". This commitment to the principle of universality, for all peoples and all nations, is at the centre of the international system established by the founding fathers of the United Nations in 1945. Furthermore, Article 4 of the Charter invites "all other peace-loving States" to join the Organisation.

Since the end of the cold war, the work of the United Nations has become increasingly important, and the realisation of the principle of universality has taken on a new urgency. With the admission of East Timor and Switzerland, almost all the countries of the world have become members of this ever more truly global organisation - all except one, Taiwan.

Over the past 50 years, through hard work and sacrifices, Taiwan has today become the world's 17th largest economy, the world's 16th largest trading country, and the holder of the third largest foreign exchange reserves. It is the home base to companies that, collectively, are the world's largest producers of notebook computers, motherboards and LCD monitors.

With a population of 23 million, which is larger in population than three quarters of the 191 member states of the UN, and a territory consisting of the islands of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, the Republic of China (Taiwan) enjoys an efficient government and solid institutions that have proven their capacity to conduct friendly and constructive international relations with many countries throughout the world.

The continued exclusion of Taiwan from the UN violates the basic human rights and harms the dignity of the 23 million people of Taiwan, and thus poses a moral and legal challenge to the international community.

Indeed, it is the common wish of the 23 million people of Taiwan to participate in the United Nations. Based on this strong public enthusiasm, securing such participation has become a paramount task of the democratically elected Government of Taiwan. In this age of globalisation, all members of the international community should welcome the aspiration of the 23 million people of Taiwan and help them achieve this goal.

David Tzou

Director of the Information Division

Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Thailand

Bangkok

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

Reader happy to see  return of 'Humanity Wrap' on Sundays

Re: "Human nature in action", Opinion, August 13. Bravo, Roger Beaumont! Your humane wit has returned to the Big Mango, city of angels and devils.

The Nation is a better newspaper for Roger Beaumont's accurate and intriguing observations. His insights regarding the prime minister for life, whose caretaker days may well span the rest of this decade and the next in this land of palm trees, are welcome.

Mike Tucker

Ayutthaya

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

Hizbollah manipulates the media to serve its own ends

Re: "Notes from a volunteer evacuated from Lebanon", Letters, August 14.

In real disasters, the death toll rises. In propaganda stunts, the death toll drops as the scam is uncovered. Even Lebanese sources now admit the death toll at Qana was not 57 (including a supposed 37 children) as the original propaganda stated, but actually 28. This fact has been known in the international media for quite some time. So, why would Kerry Wills, who spent all of one week in Beirut, bring up this number, which is known to be erroneous, again now?

Qana was, in fact, a Hizbollah stronghold, and over 150 rockets per day were launched at Israel from there. After Israel leafleted and warned civilians that a strike was imminent, Hizbollah prevented civilians from leaving Qana and used them as human shields, knowing they would become valuable human fodder for propaganda. Israeli Ambassador to the UN Dan Gillerman, made that very point while issuing a statement deploring and regretting the loss of innocent lives.

The folks at Hizbollah are very aware that maximising Lebanese civilian casualties is the most effective way to disarm Israel and its military, using international "outrage", the media, and duped short-term volunteer aid workers as its instruments. Hiding its combat operations among helpless civilians is an old and proven tactic for Hizbollah and its fellow jihadis, as are faked photos and faked videos.

Funk Soul Bruvha

Bangkok

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

Fanaticism, not Western policies, to blame for terror

Re: "Terrorist mind-set alive and well", Editorial, August 12.

This editorial hit the nail on the head. Islamic extremism seems to have no limits and certainly no scruples.

Imagine the scale of the tragedy had it not been for the amazing intelligence job of both the British and Pakistani security services and we all owe them our thanks.

It seems like the Armageddon vision of World War III is finally hitting home. Radical elements of Islam are in fact waging a war on the free world. Their foot soldiers, brainwashed and imbued with hatred, will destroy as many human lives as possible. It is time for us to stand up and fight back. The likes of al-Qaeda, Hamas, the Kashmiri and Indonesian terror groups and indeed Hizbollah are only the military arm. Behind them are the masterminds and weapons suppliers.

The ultimate horror in this context is nuclear weapons in the hands of the likes of Iran - from which the road to the terrorists would be very short. The ultimate cynicism in this context is the claim made by groups in the UK which blame the Blair government's policies for the wave of worldwide terrorism. Similarly, the blame falls on Israel, India, foreign troops in Iraq and Afghanistan etc - but these excuses shall not fool us.

Andy Leitner

Haifa, Israel

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

Creating a secular state in Mideast a worthy, far-off goal

Re: "The Israelis and Palestinians should coexist in a single state", Letters, August 12.

I agree with Gershon that the only really fair solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be for Israel to become a secular state where all religions are regarded as equal.

Just imagine the outrage American Jews would feel if George W Bush declared America to be a Christian state. So why should we have expected Muslim and Christian Palestinians to have responded any differently when in 1948 their homeland was declared a Jewish state?

 While I believe it's hypothetically possible for a two-state solution to work, it's hard to imagine the current leaders of Israel agreeing to such a solution that would be truly fair and just to the Palestinians.

 But if people are going to push for a secular one-state solution, they better have a fantastic amount of patience. It may take a hundred years or more before the majority of Israelis and their American supporters agree to it.

Eric Bahrt

Chon Buri

Send us your views in an instant E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to the Editor' in the subject box, to: letters@nationgroup.com