On his April 4 radio show, Don Imus, a controversial talk-show host, referred to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos". This, according to the team's coach, was a "racist and sexist remark". It sparked anger in the African-American community and strong rebukes from celebrities, such as presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama.

Following the broadcast, MSNBC said it would drop Imus' radio programme, responding to public outrage over his remarks. This decision came after sponsors, including American Express, Procter and Gamble, Staples and General Motors, said they were pulling ads from Imus' show for the indefinite future.

The network also issued an apology to the Rutgers women's basketball team and viewers for the "pain this incident has caused".

I wonder why Google's sponsors didn't pull their advertising off of YouTube and why Google didn't issue an apology when one of its YouTube members loaded that offensive video of His Majesty the King? Perhaps because there was not enough of an outrage against such denigrating slander, even though the slander was equally vicious as that spoken by Imus.

Unfortunately, corporations only react when there is profit involved.

Had the YouTube video insulting the Thai monarchy inflamed more "consumers", especially Americans who use Google, then I am certain Google's sponsors and the company itself would have reacted differently.

The fear of alienating consumers would have forced Google to do what it should have done all along. For example, with the risk of losing consumers and advertising revenues, I am sure Google would have pulled the video off immediately, booted all members posting copycat videos and issued a profound statement of apology to His Majesty and all those who were offended.

Perhaps the Thai government should appeal to Google's sponsors here in the Kingdom for more effective action. Perhaps we should start boycotting products and services from Google sponsors. I'll bet we'd get a different result.

It is sad when standards based on what is profitable and what is not are more important than what is right and what is wrong.

Outraged Taxpayer

Bangkok

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

Taiwan fits all criteria for state entry into WHO

Re: "China attacks WHO bid", News, April 17.

China tries again to pull the wool over the eyes of the world to the effect that Taiwan is not eligible to join the World Health Organisation (WHO), because it is not a sovereign state. Nothing could be further from the truth. Taiwan is a 100-per-cent sovereign state.

Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States sets out four criteria for statehood that have been recognised as an accurate statement of customary international law:

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a permanent population; a defined territory; a government; and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

With a population of 23 million, making it the 42nd-largest population in the world, 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 its capacity to conduct friendly and constructive international relations with many countries throughout the world.

Based on the above, anyone with even a little intelligence would say Taiwan is a sovereign state.

As a democracy and newly developed economy, Taiwan confronts a wide variety of issues and needs in areas like environmental protection, demographic shifts, the provision of healthcare, the control of infectious diseases, food and energy security, safer and speedier international air travel and transportation and efficient telecommunications.

In a world of increasing interdependence, these issues and needs must be adequately addressed via international mechanisms and cooperation under the leadership of the United Nations and its specialised agencies.

The WHO's constitution enshrines the principle that enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being.

Under this principle, the 23 million people in Taiwan, including more than 400,000 foreign nationals residing on the island, should have the same rights as all other human beings to normal and regular access to the WHO.

David Tzou

Bangkok

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

Thailand best served by a Japanese approach to West

Re: "Foreign investment doesn't only mean industrialisation", Letters, April 17.

What Bruce Janis says is true in many ways. If he continued to scan the letters of April 17, he would have seen a letter from me ("7-Eleven stores can give small retailers pointers") citing the positive lessons that 7-Eleven is teaching Thailand regarding merchandising and service, but unfettered investment is not the way to solve the problem of a lack of professionalism and know-how in Thailand.

I was living in Los Angeles back in the 1950s and 1960s, and it was impossible to go anywhere without seeing a team of Japanese businessmen and government people studying American business concepts. They learned their lessons, but one thing they didn't do was grant Western businessmen open season in their own country.

Anyone who has ever done business in Japan will tell you the Japanese are the most cordial people in the world to deal with, but also the most distant.

Because of the way they went about it, they have progressed and kept control over their own country. Unfortunately for Japan, the country has never had the weather or space to be able to feed its people without imports, and it is not a major tourist destination, so it was necessary to industrialise. Bruce has already conceded that this is not necessarily the way to go for Thailand, but he does continue to cite China as his shining example of what Western investment does for foreign countries.

That's all well and good, but we might remember that with a 2-billion-strong population and the country going nowhere for decades, it made sense for Japan to open its doors to investment and development. And considering that it is still a fledgling Western-style economy, it might serve us to study it for a while and see what the impact of what it has been doing will be.

What I am suggesting is that Japan, with its geographical area and population, is a better comparison with Thailand than is China. And it has never allowed uncontrolled Western investment.

I have been suggesting for years that the proper way for Thailand to go is to send teams to Hawaii to see what has been accomplished there.

If Thailand is to find the answers, that is where it will find them. But to allow unchecked foreign investment in Thailand is to seal its doom, because that investment will bring a measure of industrialisation and Western consumerism - neither of which Thailand needs.

There are things to be learned from the West. And there are things not to be learned from the West. As most people do not have the skills to disseminate, they generally accept the entire package. Keep the controls, Thailand.

John Arnone

Yasothon

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

Action needed to warn visitors of scams at transport stations

Somchai has a large home that is always open to guests. He also has several mean dogs that harass the poorest guests who come to visit, often biting their ankles. The bitten guests know that complaining to Somchai would do no good.

As head disciplinarian of his home, he likes getting licked on the face by the dogs and doesn't want to jeopardise his chummy relationship with his dogs by being strict.

Just as Somchai is a bad host, so too are the police who allow shakedowns on their beat.

The story above relates to the situation at public-transport stations in Thailand, where the most vulnerable travellers are shaken down for several thousand baht each - by hoods dressed in khaki uniforms who falsely identify themselves as immigration officers.

The fact that everyone working in the transport station knows about the scam and doesn't do anything to help the victim is understandable, as this is "mai pen rai" land, where avoiding hassles is the law of the land.

However, if the real police allow this theft to happen under their watch, that's despicable. If they claim they're unaware of it happening, then they know less about their beat than do the vendors and everyone else who sees it happening on a daily basis.

There should be a campaign to make all travellers aware that if anyone approaches them in an official capacity, they are within their rights to demand to see official identification and write down that person's name and ID number.

Furthermore, travellers should have the phone number of the local police station with them, in order to verify whether there's a questionable activity going on.

Ken Albertsen

Chiang Rai

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

Design centre deserves continued public funding

I have heard several rumours that the world-class Thailand Creative and Design Centre (TCDC) is under threat from people within the government and some media outlets.

The reason lies in the high cost of running such a great publicly funded institution in the context of the sufficiency-economy model.

Although some expenses might be cut, it should not affect the overall quality of the exhibitions held there, and unfortunately the current one about Thai modern design is poorly done.

Knowledge is essential to the sustainable development of any society, and the TCDC is one of the few quality places in Bangkok that fulfils this mission.

I sincerely hope some prominent members of the advisory board will reflect on their strong negative feelings towards this fantastic centre of culture and knowledge.

Frederic Loyat

Nonthaburi