“Actions speak louder than words” this common saying should be incorporated into the LM laws . When Thai politicians swear an oath to the Royal Institution to be loyal and honest to the people and country and then go and do the opposite through corruption and bribery nothing is said of their promise to the King.
I always thought lying especially to the highested institution would be seen as one of the most disrespectful acts and must be incorporated alongside that of inappropiate speech and media.
The actions of past and present governments have been shameful and disrespectful towards an institution that represents the whole country. Why arent the actions of those that govern seen as defaming what the King is suposed to represent.?
Well, the temple belongs to Cambodia, on the grounds that French have wrestled it from Thais, along with a lot more real estate. The IC ruling legitimizes that.
The lands around the temple are still in dispute, however, even though Siamese should have admitted the loss of those, too, but, crucially, they don’t.
At this point Cambodia has no other option but to get cooperation from the Thai side if they want to exploit the temple’s tourist/historical value.
Going it alone is not going to work for them, or for Thailand, for that matter. Thailand has little to lose, and relatively small potential gains.
Cambodians should start talking business, not borders and invasions, if they want to move it along.
Unesco, on its part, can say anything it wants, without Thai cooperation it’s not going to happen. If they wanted to make PV into some historical park, ignoring Thailand’s concerns, it didn’t work. In fact they have achieved just the opposite.
I’m not disputing the election results, but just pointing out your flawed analysis.
The results show that both parties gained more votes than 2007 election which contradict your suggestion that the Thai people judged PTP as “guilty”. On the other hand, this would also mean that the May crackdown by the army was seen by some as legitimate.
I was talking about ad hominem attack on Amsterdam, you poor fellow.
That guy, the Amsterdam, clearly has credibity issues.
You think that representing Thaksin is enough to address those.
Really? That’s what brings balance and impartiality to the debate?
Or does it raise credibility issues and provokes ad hominem accusations? I don’t know anymore.
Anrdew Walker #46,
Did you just wait three months to label my comments as pro PAD? In the Amsterdam entry, of all places?
Is it, like, you final argument here? You can’t accept a word about Amsterdam anymore because you’ve got some anti-PAD gripes that you project onto me?
Do you see the difference between two subjects, even if they both could be legitimate?
Neither Dems not PTP can say they lost in this election. That’s the most important conclusion.
Reds have obviously managed to keep their folk in herd, with 86 thousand votes going for a “terrorist”. Dems have no stats to talk about loss, too.
A 150 thousand voters in suburban Bangkok on a long holiday weekend abstained, a lot more than votes for either of the rival parties. More than 150 thousand abstained comparing to the last election, not the total voters, mind you.
It is a mighty powerful silent force.
Which way it could potentially vote? In a middle class Bangkok suburbia that moved out/couldn’t give a shit for a holiday?
Dems are not going to lose their sleep over their potential vote.
Reds, too, can be proud that they have lost only about 15-20 thousand votes. Means their supporters still stay with them, no matter what.
The division goes on, and the minor parties risk being totally wiped out in the capital. That’s the big boys turf.
There were less than 1000 votes for each of the alternative candidates.
If find Lèse majesté discussions generally irritating, because to my mind government officials by and large and the army, so much loved by HM the Queen, in particular, treat the pleas she has so often made to help protect Thailand’s forests with utter contempt.
Yet nobody drags army officers into court whose units are responsible for allowing forests to burn when they have the power and resources (dspite their lies to the contrary) to prevent and control this destruction.
I wonder what pathetic excuses people can come up with for this sad state of affairs?
I’m wondering if this result is going to result in a military coup, which throws Abhisit out, and installs Anand for the third time as care-taker PM to sort out this god awful mess.
Given more than half did n’t even vote, it seems such a move would not meet much resistance, especially if quickly approved from on high.
I haven’t been here for a week or two, and missed this renewed discussion on this topic. Let me join in and clarify a few points of facts.
Khun Hinke #95 Of course, everyone knows that the pistol found with King Ananda was a gift from the OSS (predecessor of the CIA) station chief in Bangkok.
Actually, as far as I can remember, I don’t think that’s the case. (My books and documents are in a mess now and have no time to check, but I’m quite sure of this info). The pistol was originally part of the amunition that the Americans provided for the Free Thai movement (largely by air drops). It was presented to King Anan as a gift, a mememto, by Pridi, when the latter took the king for a ‘tour’ at a former Free Thai training camp (at Sattahip naval base). Pridi’s bodyguard, Watchachai Chai-sitthiwet, who the royalists accused of being the ‘assassin’, was also assigned to train the youg king (and presumably his brother) how to handle and use the gun.
Khun Thomas Hoy #98 none of these three men, as far as I’m aware, has received an official pardon.
The three convicts had submitted a petition for royal pardon, but it was rejected by HMK. Royalists please note (it’s important for me to emphasize this, because of the LM law), this is NOT my interpretation (let alone accusation); the official document of rejection, sent from the Royal Secretariat to the Cabinet, stated: “р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Чр╕гр╕▓р╕Ър╕Эр╣Ир╕▓р╕ер╕░р╕нр╕нр╕Зр╕Шр╕╕р╕ер╕╡р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕▓р╕Чр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕з р╣Вр╕Ыр╕гр╕Фр╣Ар╕Бр╕ер╣Йр╕▓р╕пр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕вр╕Бр╣Ар╕кр╕╡р╕в” (roughly translated, “His Majesty has learned of the petition, and has graciouly ordered it void.” )
Khun Ralph Kramden #99 Not sure they were pardoned, but I do recall – and for the life of me can’t find it – a statement some years ago about the palace acknowledging that these three were not the culprits and that their families had received some kind support from the palace.
First, about the statment you refer to, I’m sure it’s actually an article by one of Pridi’s key supporters, Mr.Suphot Dantrakun. I don’t have it in my hand right now but have quite good memory of it. Mr. Suphot interprets certain statement by some royals (e.g. prince, or mom chao) who in turn, claims that certain gestures by HMK ‘indicated’ that HMK considered the three innocent. Mr.Suphot’s aim is clear: he wants to present Pridi as at once innocent of the regicide charge and a loyal subject. I have great repect for Mr.Suphot, but I totall disagree with his strategy of defending Pridi here.
More recently, we have Stevenson’s The Revolutionary King, in which he presents HMK as realizing the innocence of the three from the days of trial, and that HMK had intended to intervene in the last minute (presumably by grantin pardon), should the three get convicted. Stevenson claims that HMK was prevented from doing so by Police General Phao Sriyanon (Phibun’s right-hand man) who cunningly withheld the pettion for royal pardon of the three and rushing them to the firing squad without HMK’s knowledge. HMK was, writes Stevenson, ‘in silent rage’ because of this. But as the letter of the Royal Secretariat I cited above shows, this is definitely un-true. Where or whom Stevenson got this un-true story from, I don’t know.
A few years ago, on the 50th anniversary of the execution, I published an article (in Thai) in Faw Diew Kan magazine dealing with the whole issue surrounding the royal pardon as well as providing narrative of what happened on the day of the execution itself. You can read it online at my blog here: http://somsakwork.blogspot.com/2006/06/blog-post.html
Now, about the rumored ‘support’ from the palace after the execution of the three, which Khun nuomi #100 also mentions: It is also rumored that the three families have recieved (unofficial) support from the palace.
I can definitely say that the rumor is false. I have in my hand, a commemorative volume of the cremation of Khun Chuchua Singhaseni, wife of Chit Singhaseni, one of the three convicted. In the volume, there’s an interview with Khun Chuchau, five years before she died in 2006, conducted by one of her granddaughters. In this moving interview, Khun Chuchau recalled how the family had fallen into extreme difficulty socially and financially after her husband’s execution. (They had five daughters.) The family was helped by various relatives, and by Phibun, who ordeded his secretary to contact Khun Chuchau, telling her that the Field Marshal wanted to help because her husband “was dead [executed] for political reason” [р╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Хр╕▓р╕вр╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕З]. Phibun ordered a payment to the family of two-thusand baths each month. It’s not his own money; I presume he found some official channel for the payment. Khun Chuchau had to go to the government house on the first day of each month to sign and receive the money. Now, I’d suggest that Phibun had his own political reason to help the family I’m not saying he had no ‘altruistic’ motive; I simply cannot judge that. But politics certainly played a part. It was precisely at this time, that Phibun tried to contact Pridi, in exile in China, with a proposed pact against the so-called ‘Sakdina’ clique, by re-open the case of Anan’s death. The plan was cut short by Sarit’s coup of September 1957. I detailed this in my article too.
But apart from such help from Phibun and despite the interview repeatly discussing how HKM felt about the family (both Khun Chuchau and the interviewer tried to speculate whether HMK believed Chit quilty and so on), neither Khun Chuchau, nor the interviewer, nor other relatives presented during the interview mentioned any help from the palace whatsoever. In the context of the interview, they would have proudly cite such help if there was any.
Veera says “the star made a touching speech about the role of the “father”….
Frankly the word ‘unctuous’ seems like the more appropriate adjective to me. Though ‘moving’ might also apply, seeing as how it moved a bunch of people to try to burn down Channel 3.
I noticed that there was no mention of the gerrymandering done between the 1990 constituencies and the 2010 constituencies, which has led to a higher percentage of parliamentary seats in 2010 for the states (as compared with the regions/division) than was the case in the 1990 elections. This issue would seem relevant in discussions of ethnic politics.
Also, what, if any, will be the difference in status and opportunities between non-elected political parties post-2010 elections and political parties (elected or not) post-1990. Meaning, will political parties, even if unelected, be able (more so than previously) to engage in policy development and policy advocacy on ‘non-sensitive’ issues (economic reform, finance, etc.), even if not holding seats in parliament (at any level), and attempt to influence government policy indirectly in this way?
The Democrats
1. billed the opposition as “terrorist”.
2. locked the opposition in jail.
3. refused to allow the opposition to campaign.
4. refused even to allow the opposition to play a 3 minute recording in lieu of a “campaign”.
5. colluded with the NPP and coalition parties to remove their candidates from contention.
6. held the election under conditions of lawlessness.
7. counted the ballots.
8. Abhisit can claim some endorsement of his government’s position.
If Abhisit believed that… he’d have a real election, wouldn’t he?
“My real point is that he doesn’t look quite so bad in comparison with the current incumbent.”
I have heard this reaction from some other observers as well. One factor seems to be that, with the passage of time, memories of the past become blurred, and Thaksin undergoes a process of romanticization fuelled by a dislike for the incumbent. I must also admit, however, that I did not see the election of 2005 as a fight between evil Thaksin and virtuous Democrats, as a choice between dictatorship and democracy. Maybe, Thaksin wasn’t all that bad, or maybe many had gotten used to him. Anyway, this perspective led many to reject the PAD’s actions as even worse than Thaksin.
Now, your question re the prospects of a fair and decent political leadership in the near future can really make one depressed…
Weird how the likes of Andrew Marshall at Reuters – someone with a great record of being anti-Thaksin , who has never done so hiding behind anonymity on a blog and who also has a huge knowledge of Thailand as well as being Reuters Chief Correspondent – completely and utterly disagrees with your review of the report.
As polarised as ever, but at least in this case that was being worked out by ballots not bullets and burnings, though most did n’t even vote – do they represent the size of the so-called “middle ground” which takes a-curse-on-both-their-houses attitude ?
“I wonder if the author of the Thailand-specific content will ever show his or her hand?”
Matichon quoted RA as having said that many authors contributed to the report, amongst them a number of Thai experts (phuchiewchan thai). So, yes, I would also really like to know their identities (Thai, farang). He was also quoted as saying that he would take all responsibility, because the political situation in Thailand did not allow to say who those experts were.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The logic of lese majeste
“Actions speak louder than words” this common saying should be incorporated into the LM laws . When Thai politicians swear an oath to the Royal Institution to be loyal and honest to the people and country and then go and do the opposite through corruption and bribery nothing is said of their promise to the King.
I always thought lying especially to the highested institution would be seen as one of the most disrespectful acts and must be incorporated alongside that of inappropiate speech and media.
The actions of past and present governments have been shameful and disrespectful towards an institution that represents the whole country. Why arent the actions of those that govern seen as defaming what the King is suposed to represent.?
Temple of gloom
Well, the temple belongs to Cambodia, on the grounds that French have wrestled it from Thais, along with a lot more real estate. The IC ruling legitimizes that.
The lands around the temple are still in dispute, however, even though Siamese should have admitted the loss of those, too, but, crucially, they don’t.
At this point Cambodia has no other option but to get cooperation from the Thai side if they want to exploit the temple’s tourist/historical value.
Going it alone is not going to work for them, or for Thailand, for that matter. Thailand has little to lose, and relatively small potential gains.
Cambodians should start talking business, not borders and invasions, if they want to move it along.
Unesco, on its part, can say anything it wants, without Thai cooperation it’s not going to happen. If they wanted to make PV into some historical park, ignoring Thailand’s concerns, it didn’t work. In fact they have achieved just the opposite.
Bangkok Constituency 6: judgement day
Vicente #28
I’m not disputing the election results, but just pointing out your flawed analysis.
The results show that both parties gained more votes than 2007 election which contradict your suggestion that the Thai people judged PTP as “guilty”. On the other hand, this would also mean that the May crackdown by the army was seen by some as legitimate.
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
Pad boy, #41,
I was talking about ad hominem attack on Amsterdam, you poor fellow.
That guy, the Amsterdam, clearly has credibity issues.
You think that representing Thaksin is enough to address those.
Really? That’s what brings balance and impartiality to the debate?
Or does it raise credibility issues and provokes ad hominem accusations? I don’t know anymore.
Anrdew Walker #46,
Did you just wait three months to label my comments as pro PAD? In the Amsterdam entry, of all places?
Is it, like, you final argument here? You can’t accept a word about Amsterdam anymore because you’ve got some anti-PAD gripes that you project onto me?
Do you see the difference between two subjects, even if they both could be legitimate?
Do you?
Bangkok Constituency 6: judgement day
Neither Dems not PTP can say they lost in this election. That’s the most important conclusion.
Reds have obviously managed to keep their folk in herd, with 86 thousand votes going for a “terrorist”. Dems have no stats to talk about loss, too.
A 150 thousand voters in suburban Bangkok on a long holiday weekend abstained, a lot more than votes for either of the rival parties. More than 150 thousand abstained comparing to the last election, not the total voters, mind you.
It is a mighty powerful silent force.
Which way it could potentially vote? In a middle class Bangkok suburbia that moved out/couldn’t give a shit for a holiday?
Dems are not going to lose their sleep over their potential vote.
Reds, too, can be proud that they have lost only about 15-20 thousand votes. Means their supporters still stay with them, no matter what.
The division goes on, and the minor parties risk being totally wiped out in the capital. That’s the big boys turf.
There were less than 1000 votes for each of the alternative candidates.
The logic of lese majeste
If find Lèse majesté discussions generally irritating, because to my mind government officials by and large and the army, so much loved by HM the Queen, in particular, treat the pleas she has so often made to help protect Thailand’s forests with utter contempt.
Yet nobody drags army officers into court whose units are responsible for allowing forests to burn when they have the power and resources (dspite their lies to the contrary) to prevent and control this destruction.
I wonder what pathetic excuses people can come up with for this sad state of affairs?
Reconciliation, Thai style
Michael # 22 :
“Who is there to take the reins, who can be trusted to be fair & decent?”
Anand Panyarachun – that is who !
Bangkok Constituency 6: judgement day
I’m wondering if this result is going to result in a military coup, which throws Abhisit out, and installs Anand for the third time as care-taker PM to sort out this god awful mess.
Given more than half did n’t even vote, it seems such a move would not meet much resistance, especially if quickly approved from on high.
The Devil’s Discus – in Thai
I haven’t been here for a week or two, and missed this renewed discussion on this topic. Let me join in and clarify a few points of facts.
Khun Hinke #95
Of course, everyone knows that the pistol found with King Ananda was a gift from the OSS (predecessor of the CIA) station chief in Bangkok.
Actually, as far as I can remember, I don’t think that’s the case. (My books and documents are in a mess now and have no time to check, but I’m quite sure of this info). The pistol was originally part of the amunition that the Americans provided for the Free Thai movement (largely by air drops). It was presented to King Anan as a gift, a mememto, by Pridi, when the latter took the king for a ‘tour’ at a former Free Thai training camp (at Sattahip naval base). Pridi’s bodyguard, Watchachai Chai-sitthiwet, who the royalists accused of being the ‘assassin’, was also assigned to train the youg king (and presumably his brother) how to handle and use the gun.
Khun Thomas Hoy #98
none of these three men, as far as I’m aware, has received an official pardon.
The three convicts had submitted a petition for royal pardon, but it was rejected by HMK. Royalists please note (it’s important for me to emphasize this, because of the LM law), this is NOT my interpretation (let alone accusation); the official document of rejection, sent from the Royal Secretariat to the Cabinet, stated: “р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Чр╕гр╕▓р╕Ър╕Эр╣Ир╕▓р╕ер╕░р╕нр╕нр╕Зр╕Шр╕╕р╕ер╕╡р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕▓р╕Чр╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕з р╣Вр╕Ыр╕гр╕Фр╣Ар╕Бр╕ер╣Йр╕▓р╕пр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕вр╕Бр╣Ар╕кр╕╡р╕в” (roughly translated, “His Majesty has learned of the petition, and has graciouly ordered it void.” )
Khun Ralph Kramden #99
Not sure they were pardoned, but I do recall – and for the life of me can’t find it – a statement some years ago about the palace acknowledging that these three were not the culprits and that their families had received some kind support from the palace.
First, about the statment you refer to, I’m sure it’s actually an article by one of Pridi’s key supporters, Mr.Suphot Dantrakun. I don’t have it in my hand right now but have quite good memory of it. Mr. Suphot interprets certain statement by some royals (e.g. prince, or mom chao) who in turn, claims that certain gestures by HMK ‘indicated’ that HMK considered the three innocent. Mr.Suphot’s aim is clear: he wants to present Pridi as at once innocent of the regicide charge and a loyal subject. I have great repect for Mr.Suphot, but I totall disagree with his strategy of defending Pridi here.
More recently, we have Stevenson’s The Revolutionary King, in which he presents HMK as realizing the innocence of the three from the days of trial, and that HMK had intended to intervene in the last minute (presumably by grantin pardon), should the three get convicted. Stevenson claims that HMK was prevented from doing so by Police General Phao Sriyanon (Phibun’s right-hand man) who cunningly withheld the pettion for royal pardon of the three and rushing them to the firing squad without HMK’s knowledge. HMK was, writes Stevenson, ‘in silent rage’ because of this. But as the letter of the Royal Secretariat I cited above shows, this is definitely un-true. Where or whom Stevenson got this un-true story from, I don’t know.
A few years ago, on the 50th anniversary of the execution, I published an article (in Thai) in Faw Diew Kan magazine dealing with the whole issue surrounding the royal pardon as well as providing narrative of what happened on the day of the execution itself. You can read it online at my blog here:
http://somsakwork.blogspot.com/2006/06/blog-post.html
Now, about the rumored ‘support’ from the palace after the execution of the three, which Khun nuomi #100 also mentions:
It is also rumored that the three families have recieved (unofficial) support from the palace.
I can definitely say that the rumor is false. I have in my hand, a commemorative volume of the cremation of Khun Chuchua Singhaseni, wife of Chit Singhaseni, one of the three convicted. In the volume, there’s an interview with Khun Chuchau, five years before she died in 2006, conducted by one of her granddaughters. In this moving interview, Khun Chuchau recalled how the family had fallen into extreme difficulty socially and financially after her husband’s execution. (They had five daughters.) The family was helped by various relatives, and by Phibun, who ordeded his secretary to contact Khun Chuchau, telling her that the Field Marshal wanted to help because her husband “was dead [executed] for political reason” [р╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Хр╕▓р╕вр╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕З]. Phibun ordered a payment to the family of two-thusand baths each month. It’s not his own money; I presume he found some official channel for the payment. Khun Chuchau had to go to the government house on the first day of each month to sign and receive the money. Now, I’d suggest that Phibun had his own political reason to help the family I’m not saying he had no ‘altruistic’ motive; I simply cannot judge that. But politics certainly played a part. It was precisely at this time, that Phibun tried to contact Pridi, in exile in China, with a proposed pact against the so-called ‘Sakdina’ clique, by re-open the case of Anan’s death. The plan was cut short by Sarit’s coup of September 1957. I detailed this in my article too.
But apart from such help from Phibun and despite the interview repeatly discussing how HKM felt about the family (both Khun Chuchau and the interviewer tried to speculate whether HMK believed Chit quilty and so on), neither Khun Chuchau, nor the interviewer, nor other relatives presented during the interview mentioned any help from the palace whatsoever. In the context of the interview, they would have proudly cite such help if there was any.
ANU Burma election forum
for not informed readers http://www.scribd.com/doc/23383062/How-the-USDA-Will-Become-the-New-Face-of-Burma’s-Dictatorship
The logic of lese majeste
Veera says “the star made a touching speech about the role of the “father”….
Frankly the word ‘unctuous’ seems like the more appropriate adjective to me. Though ‘moving’ might also apply, seeing as how it moved a bunch of people to try to burn down Channel 3.
ANU Burma election forum
[…] http://www.newmandala.org/2010/07/26/anu-burma-election-forum/ from → Burma ← TaiFreedom monthly JournalJune2010 RCSS.Shan No comments yet Click here to cancel reply. […]
ANU Burma election forum
Thanks for making this available.
I noticed that there was no mention of the gerrymandering done between the 1990 constituencies and the 2010 constituencies, which has led to a higher percentage of parliamentary seats in 2010 for the states (as compared with the regions/division) than was the case in the 1990 elections. This issue would seem relevant in discussions of ethnic politics.
Also, what, if any, will be the difference in status and opportunities between non-elected political parties post-2010 elections and political parties (elected or not) post-1990. Meaning, will political parties, even if unelected, be able (more so than previously) to engage in policy development and policy advocacy on ‘non-sensitive’ issues (economic reform, finance, etc.), even if not holding seats in parliament (at any level), and attempt to influence government policy indirectly in this way?
Bangkok Constituency 6: judgement day
The Democrats
1. billed the opposition as “terrorist”.
2. locked the opposition in jail.
3. refused to allow the opposition to campaign.
4. refused even to allow the opposition to play a 3 minute recording in lieu of a “campaign”.
5. colluded with the NPP and coalition parties to remove their candidates from contention.
6. held the election under conditions of lawlessness.
7. counted the ballots.
8. Abhisit can claim some endorsement of his government’s position.
If Abhisit believed that… he’d have a real election, wouldn’t he?
Bangkok Constituency 6: judgement day
46 percent!? These must be the most popular terrorists ever.
Bangkok Constituency 6: judgement day
A serious candidate from the PAD party might have changed the result…
Reconciliation, Thai style
Michael #20
“My real point is that he doesn’t look quite so bad in comparison with the current incumbent.”
I have heard this reaction from some other observers as well. One factor seems to be that, with the passage of time, memories of the past become blurred, and Thaksin undergoes a process of romanticization fuelled by a dislike for the incumbent. I must also admit, however, that I did not see the election of 2005 as a fight between evil Thaksin and virtuous Democrats, as a choice between dictatorship and democracy. Maybe, Thaksin wasn’t all that bad, or maybe many had gotten used to him. Anyway, this perspective led many to reject the PAD’s actions as even worse than Thaksin.
Now, your question re the prospects of a fair and decent political leadership in the near future can really make one depressed…
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
Portman
Weird how the likes of Andrew Marshall at Reuters – someone with a great record of being anti-Thaksin , who has never done so hiding behind anonymity on a blog and who also has a huge knowledge of Thailand as well as being Reuters Chief Correspondent – completely and utterly disagrees with your review of the report.
Bangkok Constituency 6: judgement day
As polarised as ever, but at least in this case that was being worked out by ballots not bullets and burnings, though most did n’t even vote – do they represent the size of the so-called “middle ground” which takes a-curse-on-both-their-houses attitude ?
“The Bangkok Massacres: A call for accountability”
Nich #57
“I wonder if the author of the Thailand-specific content will ever show his or her hand?”
Matichon quoted RA as having said that many authors contributed to the report, amongst them a number of Thai experts (phuchiewchan thai). So, yes, I would also really like to know their identities (Thai, farang). He was also quoted as saying that he would take all responsibility, because the political situation in Thailand did not allow to say who those experts were.