According to this article, the Students Federation of Thailand (SFT) demanded the government stop plans to turn state universities into autonomous bodies and gave a few claims to support their demand. I would like to use your space to rebut their claims.

Nitiwat Wannasiri, an SFT board member, said that university lecturers take up teaching jobs at various institutes other than their own. Accordingly, classes are scheduled based on the lecturers' convenience. As I am presently an assistant professor at the state-run Chiang Mai University,

I can attest to readers that this situation has been going on for as long as the university has existed. I also know for a fact that other state-run universities are in the same situation. Forcing public universities to become autonomous, on the other hand, is expected to solve this problem because university lecturers will face regularly strict performance evaluation and, therefore, must seriously devote time to teaching and research at their own institutions.

Nitiwat also claimed that students will have to shoulder higher tuition fees, and this means some poor students will not be able to attend public universities. Realistically, the cost of education will rise proportionately with the cost of living, and quality education needs investment.

It is unreasonable to expect the cost of education to remain constant. As such, the government has already provided student loans with low interest for poor students. The current minister of education often says in public that Suranaree University of Technology, an autonomous body, has never raised fees whereas several state-run universities have already done so.

I would like to conclude this letter with some facts. A recent survey has found that lecturers in the autonomous system are far more productive than their bureaucratic counterparts. It is also a well-known fact that people of quality are not attracted to work in universities in the bureaucratic system and that bad and under-qualified people are not easily eliminated from these universities.

A lot of unjustified compromises are being made in these universities at the expense of taxpayers. If this situation is allowed to persist, students will ultimately be the ones to pay the price.

Sanpawat Kantabutra

Chiang Mai

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

Youths need protection from evils of alcohol advertising

Re: "Alcohol advertising ban will lead to increase in drinking", Letters, November 29.

The allegation that a ban on advertising will lead to more drinking is totally absurd. The role of advertising is to increase the sales of drinks and not the opposite.

Drinks advertising these days mostly portrays a fantastic lifestyle and status gained via drinking - which is nothing but a marketing gimmick. Alcohol advertising particularly targets youngsters, who flock to local drinking hubs. A majority will end up addicted to alcohol.

What else can these young people gain apart from feeling high when the alcohol takes effect? They will perhaps do silly things they would not do sober. They might even injure themselves while they are drunk.

But nothing is more damaging than the valuable time young people lose when they are supposed be engaged in proper education and growing up in a healthy manner. A ban on advertising is to discourage drinking.

This is not a ban on drinking. Those who can afford a sip of wine for leisure will not be bothered much by the disappearance of advertising. For those who benefit from selling alcohol or advertising, they should consider the younger generation. Please make sure young people have a chance - by not letting them see alcohol advertising.

Yingwai S

Bangkok

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

Suvarnabhumi as good as other airports in the region

Re: "New airport is a bad first and last impression of Thailand", Letters, November 26.

William Fyfe seems to have some strange ideas of airports, especially as he comes from Hong Kong, where they already have a new airport using similar ideas of design to the new Suvarnabhumi International. Having now travelled to and from Suvarnabhumi a number of times, how anyone can say they prefer the old Don Muang beats me. I travelled using Don Muang almost weekly over the last nine years and saw it gradually declining in its ability to handle passengers. It even got to the state where it became depressing just to be there. It was cramped, dirty and slow.

Yes Suvarnabhumi may have some teething problems. It shouldn't have done if the correct risk analysis had been done - dirty windows being one of the main problems - but at least it is airy and spacious, although some walking is required to reach the aircraft. Check in and Immigration is far easier and quieter.

I'm not sure where Mr Fyfe checked in; it must have been a different airport. He may have been closer to the old airport before, but I suggest he changes his hotel now. He should try Kuala Lumpur International, at least one hour from the city centre. Even Hong Kong is quite a distance and takes time to get there and back by train.

Get real, Mr Fyfe, Thailand finally has an international airport it can be proud of - and one that will compete with Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong and Singapore. Just give it time.

George David

Bangkok

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

Foreign philanthropists set an example for Thai tycoons

Amata Corporation chair Vikrom Kromadit will bestow most of his Amata shares and other investments on the Amata Foundation. His Amata stake alone is worth Bt3.27 billion, and will be one of the largest instances of personal philanthropy in Thailand. The Foundation's philosophy is that we are born with nothing and die with nothing. So, while we breathe, we should offer benefits to society and create value for our country. I suggest that this philosophy is one that HM our beloved King would wholeheartedly endorse - and one that we should, too.

Through his generosity, Vikrom will be remembered long after he is gone.

You and I, dear reader, are among the 20 per cent of Thais, ranked by wealth, who own a staggering 59 per cent of our gross national product, while the poorest 20 per cent of our brothers and sisters eke out a meagre living on the 4 per cent of GDP that they have. Dear reader, how will Thais remember you decades after you're gone - if they remember you at all? For example, Thaksin, now that you've vowed to stay out of politics and won't need to buy votes or MPs, think of your legacy. It's better to follow Vikrom's example, or those of Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, and live forever - rather than be remembered as the founder of the party that lost 90 per cent of its members at its first major defeat.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

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

Deciphering biased opinion and balanced reporting

Re: "News of the people, for the people and by the people", Opinion, November 29.

This was a truly excellent piece of foresight journalism. Insightful in the way it looked forward to a totally new information-transfer era and so free of vested interest and criticism. You praise the vehicle of blogging and refrain from lamenting the loss of your omnipotent control of The Nation, in whatever form it is currently morphing into, as editor. It deserved better acclaim than the half-baked letter from Ajarn David ("Mind the difference between journalism and blogging", 30 November).

I am not sure as to exactly his point, save for a fallacious and sweeping statement that only the weather remains unbiased in The Nation. This is untrue, as the weather report contains a column marked "outlook". This is the opinion of some forecaster and therefore not pure reporting (unbiased writing).

As to the suggestion that your entire newspaper is infused with rampant opinion, that is clearly as flawed as the suggestion of only the weather being unbiased.

The trick to reading a newspaper critically is having the ability to discern reporting from opinion. That comes with education and experience and is actually really not that difficult after a while, as the emotive verbs and florid language tend give the game away.

Dr John Symons

Bangkok

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

Time drags on and no charges brought against suspects

Why have there been no charges against the former PM? The fluff about Thaksin's doings and his diehard supporters is irrelevant. Why have charges still not been filed against him? It would be a great precedent for Thai democracy to prosecute a former prime minister, and it should have been done quickly - as in a month or two ago.

Why the growing delay? Either the evidence existed at the time, and should already have been used, or it did not exist and the coup was not justified. Which is it? Or is there some other reason for not immediately making use of all the "strong evidence" that is being talked up?

AntiThaksin, But ...

Bangkok

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

Beware violations of privacy in news reporting of crime

Re: "Youth killed after row over girl's telephone number", News, November 30.

It was wrong to put the girl's name in your paper. She was a victim. The Nation has a duty to protect her and not use her name. Change your editorial policy - don't publish the names of victims.

Peter Gamache

Bangkok