You cannot distinguish between broadcast/print journalism media outlets and those on the Web by saying that those on a Web platform are only about "childish mudslinging, meaningless feuds", etc, while public media is not. They are simply different forms of communication. In fact, Web platforms, if anything, are supplanting broadcast/print media outlets.

The writer is attacking the Internet and saying it is more liberal than conventional media. I am attacking any form of communication that is offensive, regardless of where it originates from and who communicates it. My point is that if a message is offensive enough it should not be communicated. Does the writer really think the National Enquirer and zillions of gossip magazines are not guilty of "mudslinging, meaningless feuds", or poor journalism?

If anything, the writer's argument is about allowing people to communicate anonymously. But why are both of us using aliases instead of our real identities in this "Letters to the Editor" column? Perhaps because anonymity protects our identities and allows us to say things we would not say if our identities were revealed.

My point is, regardless of whether we use our real names or not, if our comments are too offensive, the media will not communicate them, because they would fear angry backlash from their "consumers" and advertisers, rather than because it is right or wrong.

Additionally, for your information, Google does not derive direct profit from YouTube videos. What Google does derive is a captured audience, which it will eventually use to lure advertisers, the way they currently do for the Google search engine. Those advertisers will pay millions just so that they can post their ads on YouTube and you can click on them.

The writer simply does not understand the business model. Google did not buy YouTube as a hobby. They purchased it to expand their audience reach and make money off advertisers who previously used other media such as broadcast and print. Ask any media planner whether they are spending more money on the Internet today versus 10 years ago.

Outraged Taxpayer

Bangkok

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

YouTube users are entitled to ignore videos that offend them

In your haste to prove your point with MSNBC's firing of Don Imus for racist comments, that capitalism, and not free-speech concerns are at the root of the recent YouTube scandal in Thailand, you omit one very important fact. MSNBC broadcasts on US public air waves, which are the property of the citizenry. It is the public who, through the Federal Communications Commission, dictates what is considered objectionable.

However, YouTube is a private enterprise and one has to seek out their site and select a video for viewing. So, please, Outraged Taxpayer, simply do not go to YouTube if you are offended.

I, however, don't mind risking offence, but now cannot.

Christy K Sweet

Phuket

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

Site should stay banned until it adheres to Thailand's laws

Some suggest that Google's refusal to delete some of its material is in some way admirable. With respect, this is absolute rubbish.

There is only one thing admirable about Google and that is the technical system it employs to spread itself around the Internet. The system is not unique to Google. The directors are simply people intent upon making money - lots of it; that is all! In this connection, I wish them good luck. However, I firmly support the government's decision to ban YouTube in Thailand until such time as the company is prepared to abide by Thailand's law.

If the people who run Google had any sense of responsibility at all, they would totally censor out material at the source which is known to be insulting - thus alleviating these kind of problems; they can certainly afford to do so! As for the foolish author of the material in question, I sincerely hope that he is discovered and placed where he deserves to be.

Henry Ashe

Bangkok

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

Time to panic when govt seeks help from feng shui experts

Re: "Geomancy to the rescue", News, April, 19.

Our prime minister's advisers believe that adjusting the feng shui of the Thai Kufah Building will help.

Well, either the country's problems are as good as solved, or it's time to panic. Seriously.

Foreigner With Thai Family

Chiang Mai

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

Having a vision for the job essential in Cabinet posts

It's fine that Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont realises that his Cabinet's not performing up to par, but he'd never run a platoon the way he's managing the Cabinet. In that, alas, he's like most other prime ministers we've had, who seemingly believe what Robert Louis Stevenson once said: "Politics is perhaps the only profession for which no preparation is thought necessary."

Thus, when we hire a driver for a VIP, we ensure that he has a driver's licence, and check his references - but when we hire a communications and information technology minister we don't even make sure he knows his way around the Internet, or what his vision is as it relates to the job. No wonder we change Cabinets with the season. I suggest that our selection process for ministers needs a complete overhaul - starting from the premier's position itself. If a firm's board of directors were to select a new president, they'd want to know the candidate's accomplishments and vision for the firm. They'd grill that person to make sure he or she could probably turn that vision into reality - and would expect the candidate to select top execs with similar care. In the US, candidates for top positions, such as cabinet secretaries, are chosen by the president but must be approved by the Senate before assuming office.

I suggest that within a month of taking office, an elected prime minister must present his vision for Thailand to Parliament, complete with measurable milestones, for approval. Ministerial candidates must present their visions and milestones before being approved by the Senate. (We have no choice if the premier has taken power at the point of a gun.)

What I propose is far from perfect, but at least we'll know what to expect.

Burin Kantabutra

Bangkok

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

Taiwan, a part of China, not entitled to WHO membership

Re: "Taiwan fits all criteria for state entry into WHO", Letters, April 18.

Reading David Tzou's said article, I find it misleading and legally groundless. I am writing to share with readers some facts concerning this issue.

History tells the truth. Since ancient times, Taiwan has never been a sovereign state, but an inseparable part of China. Japan forcefully occupied Taiwan in late 1900s. After World War II ended, the Cairo Declaration, Potsdam Proclamation and Instrument of Surrender signed by Japan all reaffirmed in unequivocal terms that Japan returned the sovereignty of Taiwan to China. These documents of international law establish the legal status for Taiwan as part of China.

Tzou intentionally mixes things up by substituting the concept of "sovereignty" for "capacity to enter into relations with other states" when talking about criteria for so-called statehood. Anyone with a little common knowledge of international law knows that besides defined territory, permanent population and government, sovereignty is the most important qualification for a sovereign state. "Capacity to enter into relations with other states" can never be termed as sovereignty. Following Tzou's logic, can we view New York, a metropolitan city with broad connections with other countries and regions across the globe, a sovereign state? The fact is: among the world's 193 recognised sovereign states, 162 states have diplomatic relations with China and recognise Taiwan as part of China.

It is common sense that the World Health Organisation (WHO) - the United Nations specialised agency for health - has a Constitution stipulating that only sovereign states are eligible for membership.

As part of China, Taiwan has no qualification whatsoever to participate, as a "state", in WHO activities.

As a matter of fact, the central government of China always attaches great importance to addressing Taiwanese people's health concerns and desires to participate in international health affairs. In 2005, the Chinese Ministry of Health and the WHO signed a memorandum of understanding on Taiwan experts' technical exchanges with the WHO Secretariat. For the past year, Taiwan experts have participated in several exchange programmes.

The communication channel between Taiwan experts and the WHO is open and thorough. It is the Chen Shui Bian authorities who have hijacked the health concerns of 23 million Taiwan people to make a profit. Any attempt to create "two Chinas" or "One China, One Taiwan" in the world arena by politicising public health is doomed to failure.

Tiger Ho

Bangkok

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

Parents not allowed to play on grass with kids in city park

I wish to comment on some recent changes to a small oasis in the middle of Bangkok, Chuwit Park on the corner of Sukhumvit Soi 10.

I am sure it was never Chuwit Kamolvisit's intention to effectively ban families from his park but it appears that park managers have recently implemented new rules which have had that effect. A park once bustling with parents playing with their children is now nearly empty because adults are not allowed on the grass (even though young children are).

This presents problems for parents who wish to closely supervise their children, especially toddlers who need to be closely attended at all times. This is a great disappointment for me and others, as this was our only local green space and now we have nowhere close by to take our children.

Chuwit, please do not relegate your park to a museum piece - parks are best enjoyed when being used, not looked at!

Kiwi Mum

Bangkok