The revelation about senior government officials holding posts on the boards of numerous state enterprises has called into question both their ethical and professional standards. Government officials are not supposed to make money in the way that corporate business executives do, but somehow the law allows them to do so. Even so, I find it repugnant that, because of the lucrative meeting fees and other allowances and fringe benefits entailed, senior government officials, according to the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG), are likely to extend their reach to be on the boards of directors of as many state enterprises as possible.

Leaving the money aside, it is simply unthinkable that someone with, say, six to 10 board memberships can really perform effectively on each board they sit on, not to mention at their government job. Simple arithmetic tells us that there are only 22 working days in a month. If a senior government official, especially one reportedly holding 19 board memberships, attends just one meeting a month for each board, he will have already used up 19 working days. This leaves him with just 3 days to tend to his more important job, which is to run the ministry that he heads. What is more, board memberships, up until the time of the Thaksin government, are not granted on consideration of merit but are mostly political favours for those who serve the government well, and they do not come without strings attached.

Perhaps it is because of the fact that so many boards are represented by so few capable people that many state enterprises have been notoriously weak and are not generating the profits that are expected. Those enterprises that make the grade do so on the strength of their management, not because of the policy-makers or those who sit on their boards. It goes without saying that state enterprises need "professional hands" and those with business vision, which government officials normally lack because the nature of their job is not to make profits but to run their organisations effectively. I would say that it is time to leave the decision on board memberships to the management of individual state enterprises instead of having them imposed by the ministries that control those enterprises.

This is not to say that senior government officials should not or must not sit on any board. Of course they can, and as many as they want or are entitled to. But because they are paid handsomely, then if the state enterprises that they direct happen to fall short of expectations they must be responsible for the decisions they have taken in the same way that corporate executives are responsible. This is not the case at present.

The Ministry of Finance, after the whistle was blown by the OAG, suggested that board memberships for senior government officials should be limited to no more than three, but I think that this is not the right answer to the problem. After all, these senior government officials already have permanent jobs and enjoy salaries, prestige and honour that are endowed by their respective offices that are already more than substantial. What these officials should do is to serve on whatever board they are selected for or entitled to without pay, to show the spirit of public service that is associated with service to His Majesty the King, a service to which they belong. And if they do not want to do so voluntarily, it is time to make them understand and abide by that spirit.

Prachyadavi Tavedikul

Bangkok

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

Senator Kerry's comment was a reference to Bush

 Re: "The United States at war with itself", Editorial, November 6.

Democrat Senator John Kerry's comment that American high-school students should study hard or else they could end up in Iraq was a slip of the tongue. In fact, the intended meaning was that people who didn't study hard could end up getting us into a war in Iraq.

The comment was intended not as a critique of American soldiers, but of the US president.

Kelly Nuxoll

Bangkok

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

Applying Muslim law would be setback for sexual equality

 Re: "Muslims entitled to apply own law in family matters", Letters, November 6.

Someone hiding under the Latin "Vox Populi" tells us that Thai Muslims should be entitled to apply their own law in family matters. Really?

The Koran says men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's and that a son's inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter.

My understanding is that modern Thai women are trying to achieve equality between the sexes and I think the mindset of Muslim men settling "family matters" on their own might prove very detrimental to Muslim women indeed.

The fact that Vox Populi urges newspapers to ban views of those he doesn't agree with shows his true colours and defeats his own argument.

I suspect that Vox Populi is anything but "the voice of the people".

Dean Barrett

Bangkok

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

People of N Korea must be free of Kim Jong-il's rule

 Like a fading daguerreotype from another era, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il's grotesque autocracy presents to the world the image of a Stalinist society that could be viewed as comically cliched were it not for the murderous repression and callous disregard of its own people that buttresses its existence, or the calculated threat it poses to the rest of us.

And is it self-delusion, misplaced socialist solidarity or just obstinacy that moves the political left to embarrass themselves in defence of this last remaining example of a malignant communism elsewhere long since consigned to history's ash heap?

Kim Jong-Il's subjects - they can hardly be regarded otherwise - deserve something more than the appeasement and passive coexistence some would have us serve up in place of the heavier sanctions needed to finally force change.

How many more generations of stunted, malnourished and misled North Korean children are we prepared to underwrite by our reluctance to effectively confront his regime?

And how much longer will the leaders in Beijing decline to do their part and thereby show just how far they have progressed beyond ideological madness?

Ron Goodden

Atlanta

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

Letter of complaint failed to give proper explanation

 Re: "Thailand is not the best forum for discussing US policy", Letters, November 2.

There are many points in Alexander Bartholomew's letter that are well taken. However, the whole issue about what is newsworthy or what purpose the printing of a letter to the editor serves is a huge can of worms.

For the sake of simplicity I support the "we welcome your views on anything newsworthy" solicitation - if The Nation prints it, it must be newsworthy.

Apparently, this is an unsatisfactory rationale for Bartholomew, who, expressing his right to a contrary opinion, admonishes The Nation for printing the letters from Al Eberhardt on October 26 ("Americans need a more graphic reality check on the situation in Iraq") and November 1 ("Electorate should get behind the president they voted for"). And then, astonishingly, uses these very same letters to launch a diatribe about "navel-searching self-indulgent missives from dispossessed Americans" and how The Nation indulges Americans while boring him and other readers with their domestic squabbling".

As the French author Albert Camus warned "To justify himself, each relies on the other's crime".

It makes one wonder if perhaps the justification for such assertions regarding America and Americans is really not that much different from the basis on which Eberhardt makes his dismaying statement on Islam.

Bartholomew's opinion regarding the printing of the statement on Islam has merit, but his comments on America and Americans are something "extra" and have nothing to do with either the statement on Islam itself or its publication. Explaining why the statement on Islam was so serious an error would have been of far more value to readers than whining about the world revolving around America.

Mr Bill

Bangkok

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

Try to avoid continuing front-page stories inside

 One thing I do not like in your otherwise excellent newspaper is that front-page stories are almost never complete but are continued in mid-sentence on inside pages. It makes for uncomfortable reading, especially when the headline of the continuation and the tagline that points to this continuation are not identical. The tagline picks out one random word of the new headline. I would prefer that the story ended on the front page or, if it is continued inside, ending the first part at the end of a sentence and having the continuation headline identical to the one on the front page.

Fred Kaminsky

Bangkok

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

Foreigners aren't whining, they're taking an interest

 Re: "Foreigners stop complaining about Thai politics and get on with your own lives", Letters, November 6

I was astonished to read the letter from A L Gordon which, in effect, said he is enjoying his "small" life and the rest of the world should shut up! Perhaps Gordon also thinks that journalists should stop investigating the news and corruption, both of which I think are a hugely important part of the democratic process.

What I would say to Gordon is this: enjoy your "small condo, small car, small bills and small Thai wife", stop reading the letters page and take no part in the community you are lucky enough to live amongst.

The rest of us will continue to observe and comment on the bigger picture.

A Voter

London