Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin said he did not think caretaker Deputy Prime Minister Somkid Jatusripitak's departure would have any great impact on his government, especially when it came to business confidence.

A statement like that from the nation's top politician might make it appear as though there's a strong man in charge who has no need for such quaint notions of leadership as "receive advice and give consent". An outside observer might even surmise that the PM thinks he alone has all the solutions to every problem. But that couldn't be so - because he says he's a "champion of democracy".

Brahmburgers

Chiang Rai

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

Thaksin's Burma trip was not a case study in diplomacy

Re: "Nice to hear objective view on PM, but why the pseudonym?", Letters, August 17.

I think Songdej has misread the subtleties in the letter from "A diplomat aspirant" which, in referring to the long traditions of Thai diplomacy, sought to distance the evaluation of present Thai foreign policy from the personality of the current caretaker prime minister.

Presumably, "A diplomat aspirant" is a Foreign Ministry official and hence has to maintain his or her anonymity. But my own advice to this aspiring diplomat is that policy and personality cannot always be separated. When ambassadors are appointed, for example, they are approved by their heads of state as well as by the head of state in the receiving countries. Certain norms and protocols guide diplomacy in order to maintain some semblance of trust and civility in the conduct of relations between states. Diplomacy should not be conducted in a cavalier manner. Individuals do matter and hence the diplomatic concept of persona non grata - the unwanted or unwelcome person.

When secret missions are undertaken, the personality of the person undertaking it is of the utmost importance. Even a hint of a personal hidden agenda or conflict of interest can cast doubt on the whole undertaking. Based on these criteria, I sincerely do not feel that our current prime minister is an appropriate person to represent our national interests abroad. It seems more questions are raised than issues resolved whenever he takes a trip overseas.

Nisanart Pumpanwong

Bangkok

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

Sweeping powers of PM office are enough to corrupt anyone

The near collapse of democracy in Thailand is likely due more to the failure of institutional integrity than to the morality of individuals.

For one thing, the sweeping powers vested in the prime minister's office with little accountability would corrupt any mortal. As an example of sweeping powers consider the ability of a prime minister, and a caretaker one at that, to micromanage appointments and promotions within the military and the national police without accountability or oversight.

Swapping mortals that are given the very same powers in government is unlikely to achieve the desired results. The charge that certain individuals are morally unfit to lead exposes institutional weaknesses. Government institutions should be designed so that even crooks can govern. No human will ever measure up if the system is designed for angels. There are no angels in politics. Thailand's "Thaksinocracy" Syndrome is due to systemic weaknesses and not imposed by the alleged moral weakness of an individual.

Cha-am Jamal

Phetchaburi

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

PM is suspect number one when politics and money mix

Re: "PM denies funding fixed votes", Letters, August 16.

Thaksin Shinawatra has only himself to blame for his lack of credibility in convincing the public that he was not responsible for the bloc voting in Tuesday's Senate meeting to select members of the National Counter-Corruption Commission, where money was allegedly distributed to influence the outcome of the selection.

As is the case, whenever large amounts of money are rumoured to have been used to buy political favours, Thaksin seems to be the most credible choice as the culprit, due to his wealth, his reputation as a big spender, and his nonchalance.

This credibility problem also suggests Thaksin's political end may be at hand.

He should quit as PM now, or face the consequences for this lack of trustworthiness.

Chavalit Van

Chiang Mai

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

Disarming militant group best done by cutting supply of arms

Re: "No peace unless Hizbollah disarms", Editorial, August 17.

Your editorial hit the nail on the head, however suggesting that the United Nations should back up its resolution by providing a "credible fighting" force leaves me perplexed. Surely you're not suggesting that the UN troops have the mandate to fight Hizbollah in Lebanon? That would be a recipe for an even greater war involving the whole region.

The best way to disarm Hizbollah is to stop the flow of arms to them from Syria and Iran. The solution to a lasting peace in the Middle East can't be achieved in a piece-meal fashion; this truce between the Israelis and Hizbollah is exactly that, just a breather until hostilities resume. The international community must bring strict sanctions against Syria and Iran to show that they can't get away with fomenting wars where innocent people in other countries die, while they are pulling the strings.

Tom Lloyd

Bangkok

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

Give Palestinians their own state to ease Mideast tensions

Re: "International community selective in what it condemns", Letters, August 17.

It is easy to understand why Josh Baker praises The Nation, because this newspaper often publishes his letters, which show him to be a staunch supporter of Israel, in spite of all the war crimes it has committed, its violations of international law, its continuous occupation of a foreign land and numerous other offences along with its constant flouting of many UN regulations.

There will be continuing support against the occupying forces of Israel as long as there is no independent Palestinian state within internationally agreed borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital and as long as the 225,000 colonists in the occupied territories of the West Bank are not withdrawn and the Golan Heights are not returned to Syria. This is the "heart" of the issue.

What is needed is a less short-sighted president in the United States and a stronger united Europe. The history of the past 50 years has shown that Palestinians and Israelis are unable to solve that problem, a problem created by the Allied Forces after World War II. How long will the poor Palestinians have to wait?

Niek Jansen

Bangkok

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

Hizbollah's only achievement was a high civilian death toll

Hizbollah said they won the recent clash with Israel. What did they win? The destruction of Lebanon? The deaths of numerous innocent civilians along with those of their own ranks? I am all for rebuilding Lebanon, so long as Syria and Iran (the cause of it all) pay for it.

Bill Cymbalsky

Bangkok

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

Underreporting on crisis in Sri Lanka reflects media bias

The media has, somewhat discreetly and without too much brouhaha, announced that around 60 Tamil children were killed by the Sri Lankan army which allegedly bombed an orphanage.

In an instant flashback, one remembers Qana and Lebanon. In the Sri Lankan incident there were no BBC reporters on the scene denouncing the "atrocity" live and creating enhanced sympathy for the victims. There were no lengthy interviews discussing the topic of Sri Lankan "disregard for civilian lives".

Why not? Where was BBC World (and indeed Reuters, to name but two of the most "distinguished" names in the rhetoric surrounding the Lebanon war)? Is the blood of Sri Lankan children of less value, presumably for propaganda purposes, than that of Lebanese children? Their deaths were a terrible tragedy, and the Israelis apologised repeatedly - although you couldn't hear their apologies on the BBC. (No Lebanese officials did, or ever will, apologise for civilian deaths in Israel.)

Another propaganda point was the game in numbers. After BBC World trumpeted to the whole world that "60 civilians were killed in Qana, almost all of them children", it naturally created a wave of resentment towards Israel. But when reports came down reducing those numbers significantly, the fact was ignored. The Lebanese claim that 1,100 civilians died in the conflict and this is reported at face value. What about Hizbollah deaths, put at 530 by Israeli sources?

We have all seen the "doctored" photos by the revered Reuters news agency, who have learned a thing or two from their BBC World friends. One of the most infamous reports came from BBC reporter Orla Guerin who reported from Binj Beil - I quote: "When the Israelis couldn't take it [the village], they destroyed it." To the best of my knowledge Guerin was not a witness to the fight, so you might write her off as a not too intelligent person, but the weight behind those venomous lines is enormous. No need to watch al-Jazeera if you can hook up to BBC World.

Martin Wallace

Alloa, Scotland