jayboy

The danger is that 'Sufficiency' is just a cod-philosophy that tries to hoodwink the poor into believing its okay to stay poor.

I think this "danger" is overrated.

The main thrust is not to borrow beyond your means to repay and manage available resourses instead.

The one obvious alternative is the US style consumption bubble where everybody borrows to become rich. See how that played out, and it's not the end yet.

I would have thought that current economic developments have amply demonstrated the merits of the sufficiency economy philosophy.It's important to grasp this as the genuine worth of the message can be masked by the sickening hypocrisy of some its proponents who in effect say "Do as I say, not as I do."

Although I am not particularly in need of meeting 'nice women' in Thailand, I meet them all the time and they are interested- VERY interested-

May I make a few suggestions?

1. Have a job

2. Have a job involving Thai people

3. Have a job involving real Thai people, not people dependent on you or tourist-oriented people

4. Have a job which involves meeting new groups of people often

5. Be relatively close in age to your target group

6. Be socially functional

7. Be interested in long-term connections with those who date you (they are 'nice women,' after all); i.e., MARRIAGE.

Then you should have no problem.

Wow you certainly seem 'hooked' on working ....sounds like you need to stop teaching and start learning a little

Actually this is brilliant advice which I would completely endorse, especially the working part.Do you really think that "decent" Thais aren't a little wary of people who have no obvious reason for being here?

The focus on the working issue is interesting given that the last two are probably the most important out of the entire list and of those two, number 6 of top priority.

6. Be socially functional

7. Be interested in long-term connections with those who date you (they are 'nice women,' after all); i.e., MARRIAGE.

No, you've missed the point.The last two are important requirements for being a decent human being.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are critical for foreigners in Thailand in establishing relationships.Working is fundamental and Ijustwannateach was bang on the money.

Although I am not particularly in need of meeting 'nice women' in Thailand, I meet them all the time and they are interested- VERY interested-

May I make a few suggestions?

1. Have a job

2. Have a job involving Thai people

3. Have a job involving real Thai people, not people dependent on you or tourist-oriented people

4. Have a job which involves meeting new groups of people often

5. Be relatively close in age to your target group

6. Be socially functional

7. Be interested in long-term connections with those who date you (they are 'nice women,' after all); i.e., MARRIAGE.

Then you should have no problem.

Wow you certainly seem 'hooked' on working ....sounds like you need to stop teaching and start learning a little

Actually this is brilliant advice which I would completely endorse, especially the working part.Do you really think that "decent" Thais aren't a little wary of people who have no obvious reason for being here?

Yes, he spoke from the stage there,

but he had no control there, only to the crowd.

He didn't march on it or actively take over the airport.

It was done before he ever went to speak.

So you are saying:

Just his presence is action enough right?

Planning and actual taking control is not the line of demarcation for responsibility?

Kasit was only a guest speaker, never a leader of PAD,

as some insist on painting him for their own ends.

Sorry but I can not hold one person responsible for the actions of several others.

And it would appear that multiple NATIONS so far are taking that SAME EXACT POSITION.

Have we seen any nations ban Kasit from coming as FM. NOPE, not a one.

This is an an internal Thailand issue only and virulently partisan.

Completely unconvincing attempt at a riposte.

Here's my last word on the subject because I've said my piece.Yes his presence and - particularly- active speaking participation at the airport with the PAD mob is sufficient for questioning his judgement and suitability for the FM post.Of course all this is entirely an internal matter for Thailand, and it is out of the question that any country should even comment on the matter let alone refuse to deal with Kasit.I thought that this discusssion understood the context, but your response suggests some do not.Nobody is saying that Kasit is a criminal or even a bad man, far from it.My own view for what is it worth is that he is a competent and decent person, and is not to be compared with the rather unappetising and self-serving bunch comprising the PAD leadership and their high level backers.The problem in Kasit's case was a singlular lapse in judgement, compounded by any kind of apology or even softly expressed regret.I entirely accept that his motives for involvement were prompted by a sense of moral outrage at the abuses of Thaksin and his successors.But he lacked judgement and failed to see the bigger picture of Pad's quasi-fascist tendencies. illiberalism, and contempt for the rule of law.That's why he's badly compromised, and should not be FM.

Since they went to talk about economy and not politics, choice of economic minister over foreign minister is reasonable.

It's not just reds worried about Kasit's appalling international image.

Who else? Thaivisa posters?

I don't see any evidence that anyone important cares about his speeches at the airport. As time goes by it becomes more and more distant past.

I also have seen nothing major to suggest anyone at G20 or other wise

cares about his speachs at `PAD rallys.

He didn't run PAD, sat on no PAD action committees,

he did do little more than agree with some of their points and say so.

But he is being made to look like a wedge issue,

but only in Thailand by the virulent opposition

the neutral parties could care less, thet want some one

doing the job and that's that.

Well I'm sure everyone important is keeping you in the loop.

Kasit attended and participated in the illegal seizure of an international airport with huge damage to the country's economy and reputation.He has issued no apology, indeed has seemed proud of his activities.He's damaged goods.

Since they went to talk about economy and not politics, choice of economic minister over foreign minister is reasonable.

It's not just reds worried about Kasit's appalling international image.

Who else? Thaivisa posters?

I don't see any evidence that anyone important cares about his speeches at the airport. As time goes by it becomes more and more distant past.

I'm sure Abhisit will always have a plausible reason to leave Kasit behind on foreign trips.The fact is that, competent though he is, his presence makes life more difficult than it need be for the government.These decisions are taken in a fairly cold clinical way.His dismissal will I think be carefully stage managed to minimise loss of face.As earlier noted I still give him six months but perhaps I was too emphatic on this.I don't think Abhisit will drop him if this is perceived as weakness, and it's possible Kasit might stagger on - wounded and ineffective, unable to form serious relationships with China, Japan, the US and the EEC because of his "terrorist" past.

But you may be right -for who really knows these things? - that as time goes all this may be forgotten especially as the economic agenda becomes all important.And as I think of it -help, you're beginning to change my mind- wasn't the last German foreign minister a street police assaulting Marxist as a student?

I have to agree with Plus on this (we don't always agree). While I think that Kasit has turned out to be a liability for this government, he is very well known in diplomatic circles and nobody considers him to have a "terrorist" past. The foreign community is forgiving as most don't want long memories into their own pasts. I think your last sentence bears this out.

Now, if Kasit f's up somewhere else, then his PAD past will come back to haunt him, but right now Plus is right "as time goes by it becomes more and more distant past." It isn't like we are talking about Samak or so many others.

I'm not sure what you mean that the "foreign community is forgiving", nor exactly what you mean by "foreign community", nor for that matter what you are implying by noting "he is well known in diplomatic circles".He was certainly by report a competent ambassador notwithstanding his dubious temperament which still worries the Dem leadership.However that has very little to do with the way he is viewed now for what at very least was a shocking lapse of judgement.As was evident from the censure debate yesterday he is an embarrassing liability to the government.You cannot have a foreign minister who has international respect who has a track record in conniving at mob rule.I think it is fairly obvious how Western governments view this fellow.What is less apparent perhaps is the strong distaste governments like China have for Kasit's type of irresponsible behaviour.The difference between Kasit and Germany's Joscka Fischa is that the latter apologised for his foolish behaviour in the 1970's.Kasit's stupidity is much more recent and what is more he refuses to apolgise, indeed revels in it.I can understand why the usual suspects on this forum won't hear a word against him but am slightly puzzled why you defend him.Anyway let's see where he is in six months, and perhaps in particular how much international exposure Abhisit allows this tainted figure.

^^The killings were only illegal and actionable if Thaksin ordered them.

If someone else was involved in the process of green-lighting the slayings - and that person is still in 'play', then this entire issue is a no-no.

Remember: there are only ever war criminals on the losing side.

Whatever the politcal point surely journalists should question someone who claims to be a democrat and yet oversaw the biggest human rights abuse in recent Thai history. The number of dead is close to the number claimed in the official Chilean report into Pinochets death squads.

By international standards the head of governmennt bears ultimate reponsibility for government policies.

Thaksin is responsible for this and yet constantly gets a free pass from an international journalist corps admittedly discredited by their willingness to cheerlead the gulf war and various other littel embarrassments. Hwoever, one hopes sometimes for a higher standard. Surely exposing mass murder at everyu opportunity would be such a case.

Of course there are only war criminals on a losing side - the just following orders defence worked well in the case of the Chegnogne massacre - however in spite of Thaksins constant use of the description "civil war" there is actually no war in Thailand just a poltical battle and supporters of the ex-PM seem to be doing well enough getting their story out, and both sides seem to be trying to revise histroy to their viewpoint. However, dont journalists have a different duty or are they just pawns to peddle convenietns myths, memes and tired old politcal lines these days? I would be interested to hear what a journalist thought on this If indeed we can believe the labels people give themselves on anonymous web boards.

.Anyway it wasn't mass murder and to describe it in this way doesn't help your cause (which actually is mine too)

On the other major human rights issue, the Tak Bai massacre there is a similar constraint given the refusa of the Thai army to investigate and punish its own human right abuses.Abhisit has made the right noises but so far zero action.

What do you mean 'it wasn't mass murder'? Do the figures of those summararily executed - without trial which run into the thousands, not count as 'mass' by your definitions? Or do you mean that because it was a protracted affair which spanned a number of months (while being scrutinised by Thaksin and his cronies with warnings given out to those governors whose death squads hadn't hit their designated targets) meant that it didn't qualify as mass murder as the Thai people weren't all executed at the same time? Perhaps you think that being accosted, tied up and shot execution style with no access to the judiciary process doesn't constitute 'murder'?

Please clarify your comments?

The killings offend me as much as anyone.I'm not at all sure "mass murder" is the right term (think Bosnia, Rwanda, Armenia) but I'm certainly not prepared to argue the toss on it.

Since they went to talk about economy and not politics, choice of economic minister over foreign minister is reasonable.

It's not just reds worried about Kasit's appalling international image.

Who else? Thaivisa posters?

I don't see any evidence that anyone important cares about his speeches at the airport. As time goes by it becomes more and more distant past.

I'm sure Abhisit will always have a plausible reason to leave Kasit behind on foreign trips.The fact is that, competent though he is, his presence makes life more difficult than it need be for the government.These decisions are taken in a fairly cold clinical way.His dismissal will I think be carefully stage managed to minimise loss of face.As earlier noted I still give him six months but perhaps I was too emphatic on this.I don't think Abhisit will drop him if this is perceived as weakness, and it's possible Kasit might stagger on - wounded and ineffective, unable to form serious relationships with China, Japan, the US and the EEC because of his "terrorist" past.

But you may be right -for who really knows these things? - that as time goes all this may be forgotten especially as the economic agenda becomes all important.And as I think of it -help, you're beginning to change my mind- wasn't the last German foreign minister a street police assaulting Marxist as a student?

I

Now there's no need to replace Kasit at all, after Asean summit under the belt talk about him being compromised is irrelevant. The worst, the first couple of month and introduction to the wolrd, has passed.

Reds worries about his image didn't materialise.

Time to move on.

It's not just reds worried about Kasit's appalling international image.If it was just their opinion it could be safely ignored.The man, as any but the most partisan of PAD zealots can understand, is damaged goods.Abhisit's comment that his actions in support of PAD were committed before his appointment don't convince.I'm guessing his appointment was part of a package agreed (Faustian comes to mind) when the Dems came in but he's surplus to requirements now and can be discarded.

The claim that he survived the Asean summit -that meeting (Indonesia and Malaysia apart) of gangsters, despots. crackpot dictators is a comical concept.When something really matters (eg G20 in London) you can be sure the tainted FM is left behind and Korn accompanies the PM.

Didnt Abhisit say something on the BBC about the Prachathai case may be a misunderstanding of legal enforcement and that he had spoken to the owner? I may be dreaming but I have some recollection of this.

You weren't dreaming.This is exactly what he said and reading between the lines he was pretty pissed off with the goons who authorised/made the raid.

David Streckfuss article has been discussed already. All his concerns can be addressed by amending the law to prevent abuse, as Abhisit wants.

There's no reason why the monarchy should be left open to any kind of libel or defamation without any legal recourse whatsoever. People who campaign against LM law seems to be looking for an excuse to abuse the monarchy in every twisted way without accepting any responsibility.

Their demands are totally unreasonable.

Here's an interesting take on Thai "democracy"

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/03/19...on_30098257.php

I doubt whether Abhisit would be considering reforms unless there had been a campaign but in essence I agree with what you say (although among the campaigners you unfairly lump in the crazy republicans with concerned loyalists).It is the cynical abuse of LM by politicians that is the real scandal.I suspect that future historians will squarely blame not only Thaksin but also the coup makers and the quasi fascist movement it spawned for creating a major issue where only some minor reforms were needed.

In short and in the real world of real politik, Thailand will have a good image unless one of the street gangs decide to "have a go" against a government not to their liking. Most politcal pundits in Thailand now seem to think the country is a lot calmer and becoming more so by the day, so this eventuality may not actually happen. Remember too that world leaders are only really concerned about economics, so Thailand needs to be seen in this context.

One could plausibly argue that Abhisit came to power as a result of a "street gang" having a go against the government of the day.He's definitely aware that his connection with PAD is potentially toxic and at the same time conscious of the sympathies of some of his middle class constituents:it's a difficult balancing act.My guess is that none of the PAD leaders will come to trial or that if they do the issue of their guilt will be fudged: they have been protected in the past and will be in future.At the same time Abhisit will need to make some gesture that he does not go along with domestic terrorism.Step forward Kasit who will be the likely scapegoat in my opinion (scapegoat probably being the wrong word because his presence at the PAD mob's seizure of the airport is inconsistent with his post of Foreign Minister).He's toast.I give him 6 months maximum.

Thanks all especially Sabaijai.

The argument that Thaksin is a force of nature signifying something bigger than one man aspirations is not new. It looked naive back in 2005-2006, it could have been promising with red movement last year, but now it looks completely bankrupt.

The only legacy he left is egg throwing mobs wheeping for the sound of his voice that no one takes seriously anymore.

You may well be right.

As to his legacy it's difficult to say but very recently the PM made some comments which suggest it might be more substantial than you suggest.The trouble with your position is that it really only becomes tenable if Thaksin morphs into a non person like Trotsky to the Stalinists.In that case it required the despatch of an axeman to Mexico City.Perhaps it will come to that, or at least a hired gun to Dubai.

There are more and more analysts now saying Thaksin is a man of the past and looking forward to future developments in Thai politcs. An interesting change in direction in politcal analysis.

I think that's right although only a fool would write him off altogether.His influence on Thai politics is however permanent, not least given the adoption of many of his policies by other parties.However in addition to Thaksin's ebbing fortunes surely the way Abhisit is consolidating his position is also relevant.Only yesterday the FT reported Abhisit's sensible comments on reforming the world's financial institutions specifically the IMF to ensure a continued flow of trade and services, as opposed to just raising capital.How long since a Thai leader had this kind of attention on the world stage.His political capital -ok from a lowish base - is growing fast.We know the Palace is fond of him.Leaders like Gordon Brown and others are impressed, as I'm sure Obama will be when he meets Abhisit in London next month.This isn't just a schoolgirlish fan letter.My point is that Abhisit has the chance to transcend the rather murky origins of his current position.

While I fully agree on your comments about Abhisit, call me a fool, but you can write Thaksin off. The Thai military is much too strong and they will never let him back into a situation where he can, once again, assume power. Whether one agrees with Thaksin or not is a different issue, but as far as Thai politics is concerned, he is finished.

Looking at your posts, characterised by sanity and common sense, I wouldn't dream of calling you that.You may very well be right.What I was trying to say is that Thaksin is something of a force of nature and I wouldn't write off his future or a come back.Remember despite his current predicament he still has the support of many millions of Thais.Remember also that there have been more surprising come backs in political history -Nixon and Churchill to name but two.

There are more and more analysts now saying Thaksin is a man of the past and looking forward to future developments in Thai politcs. An interesting change in direction in politcal analysis.

I think that's right although only a fool would write him off altogether.His influence on Thai politics is however permanent, not least given the adoption of many of his policies by other parties.However in addition to Thaksin's ebbing fortunes surely the way Abhisit is consolidating his position is also relevant.Only yesterday the FT reported Abhisit's sensible comments on reforming the world's financial institutions specifically the IMF to ensure a continued flow of trade and services, as opposed to just raising capital.How long since a Thai leader had this kind of attention on the world stage.His political capital -ok from a lowish base - is growing fast.We know the Palace is fond of him.Leaders like Gordon Brown and others are impressed, as I'm sure Obama will be when he meets Abhisit in London next month.This isn't just a schoolgirlish fan letter.My point is that Abhisit has the chance to transcend the rather murky origins of his current position.

Ok, let's start with executing bystanders who didn't raise the alarm when unknown, armed untis were enforcing Prime Minister's policy. They are they ones who should go down first.

Next on the list should be Abhisit.

That would be satisfying to some of our members, I think.

No that's inappropriate, and in any event nobody's talking about execution here.I take your point (and agree with it) that those ordinary citizens who stood by and did nothing have committed no offence

Thaksin clearlyseems to be the most culpable person, although one should be careful not to rush to judgement before judicial process.

As to others involved -obviously we're talking about very high level people in politics, the police and army and elsewhere, they too must be brought to account if active participants or gave overt public support (whether hedged with qualifications or not).

urban intelligentsia in Thailand

There's a joke here somewhere along the lines of titles the world's shortest books

• The Code of Ethics for Lawyers
  
• The Australian Book of Foreplay
  
• The Book of Motivated Postal Workers
  
• Americans' Guide to Etiquette
  
• The World Guide to Good American Beer
  
• Royal Family's Guide to Good Marriages
  
• Safe Places to Travel in the USA
  
• Bill Clinton: A Portrait of Integrity
  
• Jerry Garcia's Guide to Beating Drug Addiction
  
• Contraception by Pope John Paul II
  
• Cooking Gourmet Dishes With Tofu
  
• The Complete Guide to Catholic Sex
  
• The Wit and Wisdom of Dan Quayle.
  
• Consumer Marketing Ethics
  
• Al Gore: The Wild Years
  
• America's Most Popular Lawyers
  
• Career Opportunities for History Majors
  
• Detroit - A Travel Guide
  
• Dr. Kevorkian's Collection of Motivational Speeches
  
• Easy UNIX
  
• Everything Men Know about Women
  
• George Foreman's Big Book of Baby Names
  
• Mike Tyson's Guide to Dating Etiquette
  
• The Amish Phone Book
  
• Great Women Drivers Of Today
  

I'll leave it to mc2 to point out specifically who and what he meant.

Lets just say that many of the people involved, from the ones that fired the guns to the ones that gave the orders, to the ones that gave their implicit and explicit support, are still in the current government, or military or in other very high ranks in Thai society, so unfortunately I don't expect any action to be taken soon or ever, as there will be too much resistance from these people, (who are the ones who pull the strings).

I think most of us got your point originally.It doesn't go over well with those who believe Thaksin is totally responsible for every evil that plagues the country.

He'll only learn that staying in the UK on his British citizenship sucks compared to staying in Thailand on his Thai citizenship. Perhaps, during an especially bitter British Winter night, he may one day realize that following the rules and traditions of both countries is necessary to enjoy the privilege of moving back and forth freely at will between the two.

Leave the poor fellow alone.He's just been humiliated in public and in any case he's a marginal figure most Thais have never heard of.What is more despite his redundant and out of date ideology he is from what I understand a decent human being, and not lacking in courage either.In a way you might not understand he is also very much of the Thai family, well connected and a "belonger" in a way that Thaksin never could be.I think the people who matter sigh when they hear about Giles' latest escapade: they don't hate him.More to the point the rules and traditions you refer to were largely invented in the recent past.Even Khun Abhisit concedes the law in question has been abused and needs to be changed.

Incidentally after more than 20 years in the Kingdom I often miss a brisk English winter night.

The PAD/Dems have not prosecuted any of their men, military and otherwise, who were responsible for the drug war killings. Indeed, a full indictment of the current administration is warranted over this matter in addition to previous administrations.

First things first... a top down approach starting with Thaksin works best.

The ones running the government are arguably of more immediate concern I would think. We might be waiting years before anything happens to Thaksin (holed up in Dubai) meanwhile the other perps are at large.

Besides, a top down approach clearly wouldn't work, there is enough evidence to suggest there was at least implicit support from all corners of thai society, from the very very top to the bottom.

Thaksin, as the top leader, head of the government and who initiated the program of mass murder needs to be the first indicted.

I think when mc2 talked about the top down he meant the top down.

But none of that should effect international journalists from raising this issue when questioning Thaksin as he speaks about democracy. Indeed it is a question that goes to the heart of is Thaksin a supporter of democracy.

I am not commenting on whether it will ever be prosecuted or not but a willingness of so called professional journos to ignore a relevant question.

I agree with you.However it would help if the current Thai Government takes up these human rights issues seriously.That means bringing both army and police to account.Let's see whether Abhisit's words are empty or not.

It is going to be an interesting time. If the country is a lot calmer as Chang Noi argues and if the economy doesnt hit bottom then Abhisit will be in a lot stronger position. Then we will see what he really is. If the economy collapses or the calm returns to a storm then I doubt even with a will anything will be done about human rights.

I still await journos to ask Thaksin the question about the drugs war though;) They do seem to be doing a better job of questioning Abhisit right now.

Slightly off topic I just looked at Abhisit's performance at Oxford on Youtube -quite brilliant and in the course of which he made mincemeat of Giles who was thorougly skewered though without rudeness.It just shows that intelligence,charm and civilised values can go a long way in making friends.We can get too caught up in the New Mandala view of Thai politics, interesting though it sometimes is.Abhisit's definitely making good progress: let's hope it doesn't come horribly unstuck for economic reasons.

But none of that should effect international journalists from raising this issue when questioning Thaksin as he speaks about democracy. Indeed it is a question that goes to the heart of is Thaksin a supporter of democracy.

I am not commenting on whether it will ever be prosecuted or not but a willingness of so called professional journos to ignore a relevant question.

I agree with you.However it would help if the current Thai Government takes up these human rights issues seriously.That means bringing both army and police to account.Let's see whether Abhisit's words are empty or not.

^^The killings were only illegal and actionable if Thaksin ordered them.

If someone else was involved in the process of green-lighting the slayings - and that person is still in 'play', then this entire issue is a no-no.

Remember: there are only ever war criminals on the losing side.

Whatever the politcal point surely journalists should question someone who claims to be a democrat and yet oversaw the biggest human rights abuse in recent Thai history. The number of dead is close to the number claimed in the official Chilean report into Pinochets death squads.

By international standards the head of governmennt bears ultimate reponsibility for government policies.

Thaksin is responsible for this and yet constantly gets a free pass from an international journalist corps admittedly discredited by their willingness to cheerlead the gulf war and various other littel embarrassments. Hwoever, one hopes sometimes for a higher standard. Surely exposing mass murder at everyu opportunity would be such a case.

Of course there are only war criminals on a losing side - the just following orders defence worked well in the case of the Chegnogne massacre - however in spite of Thaksins constant use of the description "civil war" there is actually no war in Thailand just a poltical battle and supporters of the ex-PM seem to be doing well enough getting their story out, and both sides seem to be trying to revise histroy to their viewpoint. However, dont journalists have a different duty or are they just pawns to peddle convenietns myths, memes and tired old politcal lines these days? I would be interested to hear what a journalist thought on this If indeed we can believe the labels people give themselves on anonymous web boards.

Let's be honest for a moment.The problem with prosecuting the drugs war charges is the huge popularity the programme had with most Thais, including support from some of the most influential people in the country.That doesn't condone it but it places the delay in moving forward with charges against Thaksin in some kind of context.Anyway it wasn't mass murder and to describe it in this way doesn't help your cause (which actually is mine too)

On the other major human rights issue, the Tak Bai massacre there is a similar constraint given the refusa of the Thai army to investigate and punish its own human right abuses.Abhisit has made the right noises but so far zero action.

Thaworn to look into drug war killings

Deputy Interior Minister Thaworn Senneam is promising to look into questionable extra-judicial killings during the Thaksin Shinawatra government's war on drugs that claimed over 2,500 lives six years ago.

Mr Thaworn said he would see if the killings were connected to the former prime minister.

''Many parties viewed that Pol Lt-Col Thaksin Shinawatra was behind the orders [of the killings]. I guarantee that if evidence proves the connection, legal action will be taken. This government will return justice to every party,'' Mr Thaworn said in Nakhon Si Thammarat yesterday.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/1...ug-war-killings

Khun Abhisit at his recent Oxford talk also mentioned that these crimes would not be overlooked which was very welcome.

However Thaworn's comment as reported puzzled me a little not least because what a defence lawyer could make out of it.He appears to be justifying all the paranoia of the Thaksinistas by stating legal action will only be taken if evidence proves the Thaksin connection.Surely it's better to have an open ended enquiry and as a consequence seek legal action against those responsible.It's inconceivable that others were not involved.What is more in a trial/enquiry, assuming it's not rigged, there will inevitably be examination of who provided overt or covert support.