Ferangled

What you have completely failed to comprehend was those were just thrown up examples. If they have generators now, great. If they aren't government schools, great. Perhaps they were poor selection to demonstrate the dilapidated government schools, but It doesn't somehow magically exclude all the other schools that absolutely have no electricity.

Apparently you are as naive and inexperienced with Thailand's length and breadth as the poster borovik who very revealingly posted:

among Thai staff - half a dozen of foreign teachers,comp.lab,school wi-fi network,town has fm station,asphalt streets,running water everywhere.I have been in plenty of places in Thailand and I have to admit with shame - I have not seen any place without electricity.

Come to Thailand. Travel around a bit. To find astoundingly poor schools is not difficult to do where the notion of having 21st century tablet computers is absurd, given their existing infrastructure.

What you seem to completely fail to comprehend is that, your poorly chosen and incorrect examples aside, this has actually nothing to do with the actual topic at hand which isn't "lack of electricity in Thai schools" or "how to derail any thread with multiple links and politically motivated meanderings".

I already admitted my examples were poor examples.(see the post you quoted).

Your other nonsense and over-personalizing aside, you sound like another borovik and Triplet by naively thinking there are not schools in Thailand that lack basic rudimentary essentials.

That is the entire crux of the point, which isn't changed by your over-harping on something already admitted to.

If you unaware of this. As said. Travel around a bit.

Some more blatant hypocrisy by the master! Did you even read my posts... clearly not!

I did read yours... "What you have completely failed to comprehend was those were just thrown up examples. If they have generators now, great. If they aren't government schools, great. Perhaps they were poor selection to demonstrate the dilapidated government schools, but It doesn't somehow magically exclude all the other schools that absolutely have no electricity."

They weren't "perhaps a poor selection" they were completely false and misleading and that's ignoring your deliberately condescending tone that one might take as "over personalising nonsense"! That's a classic; it's your fault that my examples were false, you didn't understand that they were simply "thrown up"!!! What a gracious acceptance of error on your part!!!

They weren't even Government schools and they aren't without electricity! As an example of Government schools without electricity they were a complete sham not a poor selection!!!

I get your point and it's mute, backed up by false information. I'm afraid it is you that miss mine. Try actually reading the posts and thinking about the content rather than accusing others of "nonsense and over-personalizing" whilst doing the exact same thing yourself... If you stick to rational thought rather than trying to politicise every single topic you might be better understood.... or possibly lose the very motivation that leads you to post in the first place

Apparently it is Buchholz; even with your extensive database and prolific posting abilities, you failed to provide even two actual examples of schools without electricity. You posted photos of a school "without electricity" (but with fluorescent lighting!) and another that is having a generator installed. So actually two examples of schools with electricity! I don't think there is any doubt about it, those were definitely very poor examples of schools without electricity, quite a stupid blunder for someone with such an "extensive" knowledge of all things Thai!

Where are the abundance of photos of schools that have no electricity that you have personally visited... seems strange to me as you rarely take a break from posting on here but somehow you manage to get power and internet access 24/7 during your travels to the most remote, isolated parts of Thailand... hmm something just doesn't add up!

What you seem to completely fail to comprehend is that, your poorly chosen and incorrect examples aside, this has actually nothing to do with the actual topic at hand which isn't "lack of electricity in Thai schools" or "how to derail any thread with multiple links and politically motivated meanderings".

Perhaps if you could shelve your political bias for a moment and deal with topics based on there own merits and not purely as a platform to voice your political agenda, your posts would smack of less lunacy...

It is all about having priorities in line. What is more important, upgrading a school with basics or spending money on computers?

Buchholz's pictures are examples of a government NOT having priorities in line. What comes first: computers or a good curriculum and decent teachers, buildings and infrastructure?

You and TKT know exactly why those images were provided in the first place (and why I used them as an example to show this government doesn’t have it’s priorities in line) and are trying very hard to flip it into a "how dare you make fun of these schools/children" !!!! How dare you!

Almost but not really! Don't waste time.

Er no, quite clearly Buchholz's pictures weren't examples of "a government NOT having priorities in line" as you put it! That was my point but you seem to have then applied some misguided comment about making fun of school children.... what relevance has that got to my post?!

So your argument is that because the infrastructure of a distinct minority of remote rural areas is behind the times we should hold back the majority of the population? And similarly, the lack of infrastructure is a direct result of the current Government's tablet scheme?! Logic is a rare commodity amongst TV's expats it seems...

Priorities my friend priorities. What comes first, second... Nevermind if you don't get it.

Sorry what priorities are you alluding to? What a bizarre response to my post. Did you not understand anything I wrote or did you hit the reply button to the wrong post perhaps? Not the strongest case to prove logical thought....

You have a class of 100 students. 1 of them is behind the learning curve, was clearly neglected as an infant and is holding back the entire class. What would the logical thing to do be in this situation, hold back the entire class so that this lone student is not left behind or take the lone student as an exceptional case that requires attention but not at the expense of the 99% majority's education?

To make that analogy easier to understand I have included a simple key for you:

Class of 100 students = Thai schools

1 student behind the curve = Thai schools without electricity

Neglected as a infant = Thai schools that have no electricity because of the lack of action by previous administrations not because the current one have simply turned the switch off!*

99 students = Thai schools with electricity

* Something that the anti-brigade keep skipping over but is quite pertinent, ironically given the intention behind B-U-C-H-H-O-L-Z's post, is that these infrastructure improvements are now being motivated by this very scheme! Schools that B-U-C-H-H-O-L-Z informed us have been ignored and kept without electricity under previous Governments have actually been "switched on" under this administration! This scheme has highlighted the neglect of these areas by previous Governments and is bringing about the change.

As I see it the modernisation of Thai education is a good thing, whether or not that was the intention of the scheme is irrelevant; a constructive by product is that as the neigh sayers bring such hurdles to the light, the present administration is forced to address them. This is something that previous Governments haven't accomplished; perhaps you would be happier if education had been ignored and all schools simply kept in the dark...

Apparently it is Buchholz; even with your extensive database and prolific posting abilities, you failed to provide even two actual examples of schools without electricity. You posted photos of a school "without electricity" (but with fluorescent lighting!) and another that is having a generator installed. So actually two examples of schools with electricity! I don't think there is any doubt about it, those were definitely very poor examples of schools without electricity, quite a stupid blunder for someone with such an "extensive" knowledge of all things Thai!

Where are the abundance of photos of schools that have no electricity that you have personally visited... seems strange to me as you rarely take a break from posting on here but somehow you manage to get power and internet access 24/7 during your travels to the most remote, isolated parts of Thailand... hmm something just doesn't add up!

What you seem to completely fail to comprehend is that, your poorly chosen and incorrect examples aside, this has actually nothing to do with the actual topic at hand which isn't "lack of electricity in Thai schools" or "how to derail any thread with multiple links and politically motivated meanderings".

Perhaps if you could shelve your political bias for a moment and deal with topics based on there own merits and not purely as a platform to voice your political agenda, your posts would smack of less lunacy...

It is all about having priorities in line. What is more important, upgrading a school with basics or spending money on computers?

Buchholz's pictures are examples of a government NOT having priorities in line. What comes first: computers or a good curriculum and decent teachers, buildings and infrastructure?

You and TKT know exactly why those images were provided in the first place (and why I used them as an example to show this government doesn’t have it’s priorities in line) and are trying very hard to flip it into a "how dare you make fun of these schools/children" !!!! How dare you!

Almost but not really! Don't waste time.

Er no, quite clearly Buchholz's pictures weren't examples of "a government NOT having priorities in line" as you put it! That was my point but you seem to have then applied some misguided comment about making fun of school children.... what relevance has that got to my post?!

So your argument is that because the infrastructure of a distinct minority of remote rural areas is behind the times we should hold back the majority of the population? And similarly, the lack of infrastructure is a direct result of the current Government's tablet scheme?! Logic is a rare commodity amongst TV's expats it seems...

All that is missing from those state-of-the-art school buildings in Sangkhlaburi is a tablet computer for EACH kid.

"The Thailand Hill Tribes Education Project is presently embarking upon a project to construct a classroom/general purpose room at the primary school in Ban Huay Plakang, Mae Sariang District, Chiang Mai Province. Since there is no electricity in the entire village, a generator will also be provided which will be shared with the whole community"

We already have tablets and soon we will have electricity too. LOL.

No, you have completely missed the point - Buchholz had decided he would provide examples of schools without electricity which would not get tablets because they did not have electricity.

What you have completely failed to comprehend was those were just thrown up examples. If they have generators now, great. If they aren't government schools, great. Perhaps they were poor selection to demonstrate the dilapidated government schools, but It doesn't somehow magically exclude all the other schools that absolutely have no electricity.

Apparently you are as naive and inexperienced with Thailand's length and breadth as the poster borovik who very revealingly posted:

among Thai staff - half a dozen of foreign teachers,comp.lab,school wi-fi network,town has fm station,asphalt streets,running water everywhere.I have been in plenty of places in Thailand and I have to admit with shame - I have not seen any place without electricity.

Come to Thailand. Travel around a bit. To find astoundingly poor schools is not difficult to do where the notion of having 21st century tablet computers is absurd, given their existing infrastructure.

.

Apparently it is Buchholz; even with your extensive database and prolific posting abilities, you failed to provide even two actual examples of schools without electricity. You posted photos of a school "without electricity" (but with fluorescent lighting!) and another that is having a generator installed. So actually two examples of schools with electricity! I don't think there is any doubt about it, those were definitely very poor examples of schools without electricity, quite a stupid blunder for someone with such an "extensive" knowledge of all things Thai!

Where are the abundance of photos of schools that have no electricity that you have personally visited... seems strange to me as you rarely take a break from posting on here but somehow you manage to get power and internet access 24/7 during your travels to the most remote, isolated parts of Thailand... hmm something just doesn't add up!

What you seem to completely fail to comprehend is that, your poorly chosen and incorrect examples aside, this has actually nothing to do with the actual topic at hand which isn't "lack of electricity in Thai schools" or "how to derail any thread with multiple links and politically motivated meanderings".

Perhaps if you could shelve your political bias for a moment and deal with topics based on there own merits and not purely as a platform to voice your political agenda, your posts would smack of less lunacy...

Sorry I think you might have misunderstood what I was saying. The point was using your household guard analogy. The guard started the problem, but you say he holds no responsibility. I am saying if he hadn't caused the problem (pissing off local thugs) there would have been no problem at all. Or do you think it is okay to piss people off, agitate them and then wash your hands of the consequences?

In effect what your stating is people who cause the problem (the guard [as an analogy for the MIB] ) are not responsible for the fallout the follows when people react.

So if i turned up at your house repeatedly late every night of the week and made you and your family feel unsafe, by various types of anti social behavior and piss you off, you come and and smack me one. It's all your fault. I hold no blame

Your analogy is too simplistic and poor and simply doesn't hold up - sorry

As for the cynical bit - spot on - that's what living here does to you when yo follow Thai politics!

Sorry but we seem to be losing each other here, probably my fault for using a poor analogy to begin with. I have to conclude however that your's is no better; a more accurate response in terms of the actual events would be that I didn't smack you but randomly smacked your neighbour, who actually didn't do anything to incite my anger but was guilty by proxy! Fair comment?

Clearly action and reaction are in practice here but you are effectively saying that the action absolves any reaction against anyone, no matter if they weren't responsible for the initial action! It's patently just absurd. Let's leave the analogies alone for now. Inciting violence is one thing, shooting groups of unarmed civilians is another.

Oh I get it, so you are just selectively applying your comment to the people you choose to... great stuff, it's called selective reasoning by the way!

You knew all along precisely the people i was referring to. What you were doing is what is called "feigning stupidity"; pretending to think you genuinely thought i was of the view that reporters were in fact armed terrorists.

Yes, I knew all along that you were grasping at straws in trying to apply some sort of reasoning that would rationalise your belief that unarmed peaceful protesters were fair targets for the military. Stupidity? Well I wouldn't have gone that far, I was hoping you might just be having a bad day...

If you were present, and you were there of your own free choice, you were participating in armed terrorism, by not leaving.

Really? Actually I was staying at a friend's condo that happened to be in the area... participating in terrorism? What are you banging on about?! So all the reporters were guilty of armed terrorism by proxy as were any peaceful protesters caught up in the escalating violence.... ok, clearly your are taking a holiday from reality once again!

I am not talking about residents or reporters, i'm talking about people who were there, on the streets in which the fighting was taking place, and who were there entirely of their own free choice. Not because they lived there, not because they had to work, but because they wanted to be a part of what the red shirt movement was doing.

Oh I get it, so you are just selectively applying your comment to the people you choose to... great stuff, it's called selective reasoning by the way!

Sorry you felt the need to rant about the use of one word "bystanders"; with reasonable reading comprehension skills you might actually have taken it in the correct context that is was used in ie. they were present but not participating in armed terrorism.

If you were present, and you were there of your own free choice, you were participating in armed terrorism, by not leaving.

Really? Actually I was staying at a friend's condo that happened to be in the area... participating in terrorism? What are you banging on about?! So all the reporters were guilty of armed terrorism by proxy as were any peaceful protesters caught up in the escalating violence.... ok, clearly your are taking a holiday from reality once again!

I am saying you tend to ignore a guy that could let loose at any time with a bloody machine gun, provided he is happy to ignore you.....and given the Thai penchant for avoiding confrontation.....this action does mean you agree with the violence perpetrated by such men

Yes, you are right, it does.

If all the red shirts had gone home in disgust at the way their peaceful protest was being sabotaged by these men in black, at the way their lives, and the lives of the wives and children were being put in danger by their presence, well it is hard to imagine the men in black, in the numbers they had, would have had any other choice but to disappear back down the rat holes from which they had come.

As for the Thai penchant for avoiding confrontation.... seems a funny thing to be saying in light of what we are discussing.

Sorry not getting into a who was first argument........the peaceful protestors had a right to remain without becoming targets for live amnunition in a compound where there were only limited actions (have only seen the one video incident) by the men in black

You disagree, you are of course welcome to your opinion

"The Peaceful Protesters had a right to remain" what holding the Country to Ransom for 3 months? you must be having a laugh !

Yes god dam_n those peaceful protesters, anyone would think it was their country... demonstrating on the streets? Whatever next, the poor voting? Quick someone get me a gun....

I'd like to echo the sentiments expressed here, these men and women are truly an inspiration! Well done to all that competed, you are the embodiment of the Olympic spirit and an example to us all

If I was a cynic i'd reply to you analogy by saying that if you didn't have the guard in the first place would the thugs have killed your family and robbed your house. No guard = no one to annoy the local thugs which following the chain of events you describe means your house remains un robbed and your family alive.

I think directly comparing the army to thugs and murderers, who are by definition and action, as the name suggests implicit law breakers is slightly unfair and is a biased starting point for your analogy.

Fair point with regard to the military but similarly I wasn't trying to portray my family as red shirt supporters either (in fact the opposite is true). That said anyone that shoots randomly into a crowd of unarmed protesters is perhaps befitting of the title "murderous thug". I wouldn't extend that to the entire armed forces of Thailand but most baskets of apples have a few that are rotten to the core...

The point was that while the guard provided the initial spark for the reaction the responsibility for their actions rest firmly with those that pulled the trigger.

BTW as you did actually make this reply is it fair to label you a cynic?

I shall ask again - how do you know it was a "terrorist with a machine gun" and not a youth with a plastic toy?

Edit... sorry really not worth responding to, this thread is on a downward spiral of idiocy. I notice that any valid points made have been skipped over in favour of dragging this thread off the rails.

I have heard from a man in a bar that George Bush did it.. He did not know if it was the father or son

About time one of those murderous, conniving, <deleted> were arrested for something...

So just who does these penis inspections? It would seem that implants would require a rather close inspection.

Are you volunteering your services?!

I think to be fair one might reasonably expect that the soldiers might actually shoot a few armed terrorists and not just peaceful, unarmed bystanders and reporters... sorry but all those that were shot on both sides are worthy of my sympathy, please don't be so offensive.

Bystanders? Who are you trying to kid? Were you in the centre of Bangkok during those weeks? The place was a battlefield. The situation didn't erupt over night and out of the blue. It escalated over many many days. People weren't just strolling along with their dogs and then finding themselves in amongst it. Everybody in Bangkok knew the areas that were dangerous. Unless you had a job to do that gave you no other choice (those are the people my heart goes out to), you stayed away from those areas. It wasn't rocket science.

Sorry you felt the need to rant about the use of one word "bystanders"; with reasonable reading comprehension skills you might actually have taken it in the correct context that is was used in ie. they were present but not participating in armed terrorism.

"the first death on April 10 had taken place in front of the Education Ministry when a red-shirt protester was killed by a bullet from an unknown assailant. This was well before the men in black showed up."

I suppose that by definition of "unknown assailant," it means that it is quite possible that the protester was killed by the as yet unobserved MIB?

Who puts a time on their arrival? And what was their purpose if not igniting violence?

Does it not occur to you that just perhaps the MIBs were called in because of incidents like this, for the protection of the protesters and to create a visible deterrent to the heavily armed military that had the protesters out numbered.... no I guess not.

They were clearly very successful then as a deterrent if, as one is led to believe, most protesters died after the MiB turned up and the military become more violent. Perhaps had they not turned up .....less lives might have been lost... but that is just speculation and hyperbole as is you claim they were a deterrent.

If you want to reply to a post I've made please quote the entirety of the post rather snipping it and taking it out of context. Thankyou.

I actually think there's a lot of truth to what you wrote. I believe their presence did escalate the situation but to then hold them accountable for the military's shooting of unarmed civilians is just irrational. Were they a contributing factor to the escalation of military violence? Sure.

Let's say I employ a guard as a deterrent to burglars and this guard happens to piss off a bunch of neighbourhood thugs. These thugs lock and load, ignore the guard but kill my family and rob my house... would it be rational to blame the guard and therefore absolve the actions of the murderers?

Where else in the world has this problem? As if Thai police don't have enough to be embarrassed about...

Try Japan; earlier this year the Governor of Osaka started "inspections" of all public servants. Any found to have a tattoo (no matter where on their body, visible to the general public or not) face the stark choice of have the tattoo removed or resign.

To be fair aren't tattoos in Japan a Yakuza trait; traditionally the only Japanese with tattoos were the Yakuza; Mafia?

A good mate of mine has been working in Tokyo for a few years now and was really surprised by the overtly negative responses to his "body art". In contrast tattoos in Thailand are actually very popular and quite fashionable for some groups... they are no longer solely the realm of the bar girl.

As far as preventing anyone stupid enough to inject paraffin or olive oil into their penis from becoming a policeman, well fair play, it's direct proof of complete stupidity let alone an inferiority complex!

"the first death on April 10 had taken place in front of the Education Ministry when a red-shirt protester was killed by a bullet from an unknown assailant. This was well before the men in black showed up."

I suppose that by definition of "unknown assailant," it means that it is quite possible that the protester was killed by the as yet unobserved MIB?

Who puts a time on their arrival? And what was their purpose if not igniting violence?

Using your rational it's equally possible that the unknown assailant was in fact a ninja pygmy with a grudge to bear against those taller than him and a particular hatred for the colour red... it's just not very likely is it?

It's far more plausible that they were shot by one of the thousands of armed soldiers that were readily observed by everyone in the area, armed to the teeth for what? Crowd control of unarmed, peaceful protesters?

Does it not occur to you that just perhaps the MIBs were called in because of incidents like this, for the protection of the protesters and to create a visible deterrent to the heavily armed military that had the protesters out numbered.... no I guess not.

In answer to those that deem there were no peaceful protestors because they allowed the MIB to move among them.......

I was watching a local football match in Sri Lanka during the Tamil confrontations, a Tamil guy came and stood alongside me......

He had a machine gun slung over his shoulder.......

I didn't ask him why he was there with a machine gun, but just gave a polite nod and carried on watching the football.......

An analogy that would only start becoming comparable were the football pitch to become surrounded by security forces who demanded that any arms or weapons be put down and the area evacuated by all. At which time, your Tamil "friend" refuses to put down his weapon, refuses to leave, and instead makes some demands and remains stubbornly sitting where he is for the next month or so. You inexplicably stay sitting next to him for this entire period, despite having free will to leave, and despite security forces telling you your life is in danger by staying where you are.

Yes and if we're to continue the analogy in this fashion the security forces would then have to start randomly shooting the football supporters, armed or not, using live rounds, managing to kill unarmed supporters, reporters and indeed everyone but the Tamil guy..

Of course later they would go on to claim that only rubber bullets were used contrary to the evidence of the corpses littering the stadium with obvious gunshot wounds...

Is that before or after the Tamil guy has murdered the Army guys sent to control a seemingly unarmed event?

Well, if you care to read the OP, they actually would have started firing before the Tamil guy even entered the stadium...

"the first death on April 10 had taken place in front of the Education Ministry when a red-shirt protester was killed by a bullet from an unknown assailant. This was well before the men in black showed up."

Yes and if we're to continue the analogy in this fashion the security forces would then have to start randomly shooting the football supporters, armed or not, using live rounds, managing to kill unarmed supporters, reporters and indeed everyone but the Tamil guy..

Of course later they would go on to claim that only rubber bullets were used contrary to the evidence of the corpses littering the stadium with obvious gunshot wounds...

Well yeah, after the weeks and weeks of stand-off, shit does tend to happen in these sorts of situations, and if you place yourself somewhere between armed soldiers and armed terrorists, there's always a chance things might not go well for you. The trick is, when you realise you are in amongst people who are acting in a violent manner you don't agree with, and when the government tells you for the fifth time to get out for your own safety, to remove yourself immediately.

The only people who deserve sympathy and justice are those who had no choice being there.

I think to be fair one might reasonably expect that the soldiers might actually shoot a few armed terrorists and not just peaceful, unarmed bystanders and reporters... sorry but all those that were shot on both sides are worthy of my sympathy, please don't be so offensive.

Of course there were peaceful protesters, but by having armed people among you you are part of a violent uprise! The red siege was, therefor, per definition a violent protest!

Yes clearly being in the vicinity of armed people makes you part of a violent uprising.... the utter abandonment of logic on this forum never fails to amuse me!

Will someone kindly explain why, faced with this terror group of armed MIBs the military managed to shoot everyone but the MIBs themselves? I don't know about you but if I am getting shot at by groups of black clothed militants I would concentrate my fire on them and not randomly shooting everyone but them.

Have I read the same article as everyone else here? From the comments it appears not...

"it led to the confusing and out-of-control use of weapons by soldiers", the report said. It added that soldiers then used rifles and fired "many" live bullets in the direction of the red-shirt protesters. "Many protesters died from bullet wounds," the report stated"

So we have soldiers firing many live bullets into protesters, described as out of control use of weapons. Seems somewhat contrary to the press releases and statements since the event...

"the first death on April 10 had taken place in front of the Education Ministry when a red-shirt protester was killed by a bullet from an unknown assailant. This was well before the men in black showed up."

And we have use of live ammunition against the protesters before any involvement from the MIBs...

some 4,000 people had entered the temple, which had been declared a sanctuary area.... "It was discovered that officers aimed at and shot in the direction of Wat Pathumwannaram.What's more, a senior monk at the temple said he had seen a number of soldiers on the Skytrain track and had heard many gunshots fired around the front of the temple at dusk.

It is highly likely that this was the cause of the deaths and injuries around Wat Pathumwananram," the report concluded, adding that one soldier told the TRCT that he had fired into the temple because there was an armed man in black on a tree inside the temple.

Then we have the military shooting up a temple that was declared a sanctuary by the Government. c. 4,000 protesters inside and the reasoning for opening fire on them was that 1 lone MIB was apparently seen up a tree?! Surely one round would be adequate, why the multiple gunshots? There's not even a statement claiming that anyone was firing back from the temple, just that someone saw someone up a tree...

Peaceful protest by butt.

Now that's one sort of protest I'm sure we can all agree would make a refreshing change... a peaceful bum protest; I have images of a throng of thongs marching on Parliament!

Thanks, having trawled through the dire string of posts on this thread it's nice to have something to smile about

In countries where the Lambo doesn't attract ridiculous taxation a 2012 model sells for around £160,000... c.8 million baht.

Similarly the Nissan GTR 2012 sells for around $90,000... c.3 million baht.

How do they reach a combined value of 30 million?

And the answer to the question that most who followed the link really want to know.... drum roll please....

Surasaku Sudoplasat (or Surasark Sudprosert) was measured at 7.33 feet which I assumed was 7 and one third of a foot which is 7'4" (223.5 cm). He won the title of tallest man in Thailand in a competition held in 1989.

and

Placide Pattitto is said to be the tallest man born in Thailand, and was alive in 1991. Was measured at 7'4.6" (225cm)

http://www.thetalles...usudoplasat.htm

"Police drained the pond to look for further clues and found a stick of wood at the bottom that's about the same size as the bruise on Pawana's left eye. They suspect she fell into the pond face down and her face hit the stick."

Seriously?! That's the best that they can come up with? Now I'm no police investigator but surely it is more likely she was first hit with the stick and then fell/ pushed into the pond?

"The lawyers said the assets of Pawana would be given to the adopted son and the boyfriend would be allowed to keep the assets he could prove ownership for. Before the two sides reached the agreement, Natthapong was seen squabbling with Apicha and his father loudly. At one moment, Pawana's friend shouted at them to wait until after the funeral."

Right, so an obvious conflict about the estate and overcome with grief the ex, son and boyfriend start arguing about it during her funeral, days after the "shock" of her death. Really hard to narrow the suspects down here... what could possibly be the motive I wonder? Follow the money...