Timesonline Refuses To Release Thaksin Interview Tape To Thailand

[LaoPo]

I think the issue is about the clarification of his statements.

The Thai government banned the Thaksin Shinawatra interview with The Times and warned............(that's enough now isn't it Animatic ?)

I am not allowed to quote any further since that would be a violation, not only with Thavisa's rules but also with the Government's warnings, so you have to live with what I just wrote

Therefore it's IMPOSSIBLE to clarify his statements and whether they were true or not true.

I've said enough but if YOU wish to continue, discussing an impossible-to-discuss topic, go ahead.

LaoPo

[Publicus]

I think the issue is about the clarification of his statements.

The Thai government banned the Thaksin Shinawatra interview with The Times and warned............(that's enough now isn't it Animatic ?)

I am not allowed to quote any further since that would be a violation, not only with Thavisa's rules but also with the Government's warnings, so you have to live with what I just wrote

Therefore it's IMPOSSIBLE to clarify his statements and whether they were true or not true.

I've said enough but if YOU wish to continue, discussing an impossible-to-discuss topic, go ahead.

LaoPo

The Times editors and high powered legal counsel undoubtedly have played the tapes and read the transcript of the online interview to determine their veracity. If there had been differences they would have had to have fired their Asia Bureau Chief Mr. Parry in Tokyo on the spot. He's still on the job. In other words, Thaksin said what he said, which is what we've all read.

We've also read Thaksin said that when he came to his senses after the interview he wanted to bang his head on the floor because of certain statements he'd made. Further, beyond some loud and vague statements he'd sue, Thaksin seems otherwise occupied in more important matters more immediate to his miserable life such as Bt 76 bn of loot.

[LaoPo]

It's almost amusing how many conclusions are put on (virtual) paper, every single day, by people who are informed as much as everyone else....informed by the media, but at the same time, deep in their hearts, they know that they can't be 100% sure.

LaoPo

[animatic]

100% certainty is rare in any endeavor....

They used to be 100% sure the Sun traveled around the Earth.

We know Thaksin travels around Thailand like a small satellite,

can we be 100% sure no, but we can be reasonably sure that is so, since photo ops

with Hun Sen and assorted others seem real. And all the players seem to say it happened.

Do we blindly rely on only one news source, of course not, one of the reasons to read TVF

is good leads on different points of view. As well as a place to dispute items of the day.

So we can't discus the 'verboten topic' of his diatribe, that is not actually on THIS topic,

and even as it is banned, that doesn't mean the topic of his saying something banned

is also banned by extension.

He clearly made a grave error in judgment.. yet again,

and is trying to wave his lawyers at it and make it go away,

like he used to in Thailand... oops skyking doesn't work in the real world quite like that.

[caf]

I think the issue is about the clarification of his statements.

He went on the record and now whines it wasn't what he said.

If an effort isn't made to find some clarification, then ONLY his printed quotes

are the standard by which his thoughts are judged as valid.

A quote is a quote.

Do we need to know exactly what phrases he uttered, maybe,

but the only one to be able to tell this journal to release his tapings,

is Thaksin himself... seems he is disinclined to give that instruction.

You may read into that which ever motivations you choose.

But it seems he does NOT want his actual words diffused,

but only to blame the reporter for some unknown changing of his words.

And we ONLY have his word that this is the case.

A lot of suppositions there.

Taksin can not tell the journal to release the tapes. They are not his property. So your comment that he seems disinclined is one you have picked out of the air and is at best a wild guess. You do not know

[caf]

I think the issue is about the clarification of his statements.

The Thai government banned the Thaksin Shinawatra interview with The Times and warned............(that's enough now isn't it Animatic ?)

I am not allowed to quote any further since that would be a violation, not only with Thavisa's rules but also with the Government's warnings, so you have to live with what I just wrote

Therefore it's IMPOSSIBLE to clarify his statements and whether they were true or not true.

I've said enough but if YOU wish to continue, discussing an impossible-to-discuss topic, go ahead.

LaoPo

The Times editors and high powered legal counsel undoubtedly have played the tapes and read the transcript of the online interview to determine their veracity. If there had been differences they would have had to have fired their Asia Bureau Chief Mr. Parry in Tokyo on the spot. He's still on the job. In other words, Thaksin said what he said, which is what we've all read.

We've also read Thaksin said that when he came to his senses after the interview he wanted to bang his head on the floor because of certain statements he'd made. Further, beyond some loud and vague statements he'd sue, Thaksin seems otherwise occupied in more important matters more immediate to his miserable life such as Bt 76 bn of loot.

I actually agree with you for once. Good that you are now giving facts.

[LawnGnome]

Bottom line is media organisations all around the world create more news than they report.

Remember when all the news could be reported in 30 minutes at dinner time. 24 Hour news is not a good thing. Its partially responsibile for the hysteria around, otherwise, nonstories. Balloon Boy in the US, etc. The "End Times" plague of H1N1 (swine flue). In fact, the story i hear reported most is " Are we the media covering xxxxxx story to much?" Listen for that story on the 24hr news channels. It airs almost every day.

[MrsExpat2B]

I am Thai. I have read the article and I did not feel hurt. Nor did I see anything offensive to the Thai monarchy. If anything I thought Thaksin was licking arse!

[toptuan]

As a fully paid up pedant the word continually mispelt is "Kudos"....

While we're at it it's 'toe the line'...

Actually, the mental picture I was evoking was the Volga River boatmen pulling (towing) the heavy rope lashed to barges. Not putting the toe of your foot on a demarcation point.

[TAWP]

I am Thai. I have read the article and I did not feel hurt. Nor did I see anything offensive to the Thai monarchy. If anything I thought Thaksin was licking arse!

I think the term 'insincere praise' comes to mind and 'covering his behind' after each attack on the people around is attacked.

But irony isn't a LM.

[endure]

As a fully paid up pedant the word continually mispelt is "Kudos"....

While we're at it it's 'toe the line'...

Actually, the mental picture I was evoking was the Volga River boatmen pulling (towing) the heavy rope lashed to barges. Not putting the toe of your foot on a demarcation point.

[Publicus]

I think the issue is about the clarification of his statements.

The Thai government banned the Thaksin Shinawatra interview with The Times and warned............(that's enough now isn't it Animatic ?)

I am not allowed to quote any further since that would be a violation, not only with Thavisa's rules but also with the Government's warnings, so you have to live with what I just wrote

Therefore it's IMPOSSIBLE to clarify his statements and whether they were true or not true.

I've said enough but if YOU wish to continue, discussing an impossible-to-discuss topic, go ahead.

LaoPo

The Times editors and high powered legal counsel undoubtedly have played the tapes and read the transcript of the online interview to determine their veracity. If there had been differences they would have had to have fired their Asia Bureau Chief Mr. Parry in Tokyo on the spot. He's still on the job. In other words, Thaksin said what he said, which is what we've all read.

We've also read Thaksin said that when he came to his senses after the interview he wanted to bang his head on the floor because of certain statements he'd made. Further, beyond some loud and vague statements he'd sue, Thaksin seems otherwise occupied in more important matters more immediate to his miserable life such as Bt 76 bn of loot.

I actually agree with you for once. Good that you are now giving facts.

Agreement is good.

On the other hand, your self-appointment as fact verifier and judge impremateur of my posts is a more than dubious self assigned not to mention arrogant charge.

The post you so gratuitously endorse as fact is a combination of two components. One element is indeed fact, ie, Mr. Parry is still on the job and Thaksin's headbanger statement. The second consists of my own reasonable and rational analysis of likely events at the Times predicated on my professional experience, academic credentials and real life knowledge. In other words, I meld fact, sound professional judgment and rational extrapolation in the above post to which, in this particular instance, you choose to lend your patronizing high and almighty definitive stamp of approval.

As I said, agreement is good but next time you might want to consider presenting your definitive validation or rejection of the basis of any post I make, know that you haven't the position to do so. Except of course in a self-appointed capacity as the omnicient one.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Publicus

[animatic]

I think the issue is about the clarification of his statements.

He went on the record and now whines it wasn't what he said.

If an effort isn't made to find some clarification, then ONLY his printed quotes

are the standard by which his thoughts are judged as valid.

A quote is a quote.

Do we need to know exactly what phrases he uttered, maybe,

but the only one to be able to tell this journal to release his tapings,

is Thaksin himself... seems he is disinclined to give that instruction.

You may read into that which ever motivations you choose.

But it seems he does NOT want his actual words diffused,

but only to blame the reporter for some unknown changing of his words.

And we ONLY have his word that this is the case.

A lot of suppositions there.

Taksin can not tell the journal to release the tapes. They are not his property. So your comment that he seems disinclined is one you have picked out of the air and is at best a wild guess. You do not know

No so, most subjects can ask that their original taping be made public, since they are the subject.

Not always responded to positively, but often yes it does happen.

Usually because in house council recommends they would have liability if they do it.

Other wise the press protects it's source.

Much of what is debated here in TVF IS supposition, but by logical inferences.

I make only one supposition.

And the qualifier 'seems' makes it fair play postulation.

And you make two in your rebuttle, Mr. Kettle.

[Publicus]

As a fully paid up pedant the word continually mispelt is "Kudos"....

While we're at it it's 'toe the line'...

Actually, the mental picture I was evoking was the Volga River boatmen pulling (towing) the heavy rope lashed to barges. Not putting the toe of your foot on a demarcation point.

Over several decades I've seen each "tow" and "toe" used to mean essentially the same thing. Sure, 'tow' clearly indicates work, perhaps even slave labor, while "toe" could suggest obedience and adherence to rules. The common element would seem to be compliance as required rather than self initiated free and independent action (how many of us want to tow a barge, but how many of us have toed the line literally or otherwise?).

There of course are a diversity of 'origin' accounts of the meaning of these two words, as with so many other words and terms in language. First I knew of it, I understood it to mean 'tow' cause it was in primary school and we'd just studied about the Erie Canal in the US and learned the Erie Canal Boat Song about towing barges, but for some time since I've read and heard the meaning 'toe' the line, which of course also has applicability.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Publicus

[caf]

I think the issue is about the clarification of his statements.

He went on the record and now whines it wasn't what he said.

If an effort isn't made to find some clarification, then ONLY his printed quotes

are the standard by which his thoughts are judged as valid.

A quote is a quote.

Do we need to know exactly what phrases he uttered, maybe,

but the only one to be able to tell this journal to release his tapings,

is Thaksin himself... seems he is disinclined to give that instruction.

You may read into that which ever motivations you choose.

But it seems he does NOT want his actual words diffused,

but only to blame the reporter for some unknown changing of his words.

And we ONLY have his word that this is the case.

A lot of suppositions there.

Taksin can not tell the journal to release the tapes. They are not his property. So your comment that he seems disinclined is one you have picked out of the air and is at best a wild guess. You do not know

Not so, most subjects can ask that their original taping be made public, since they are the subject.

Not always responded to positively, but often yes it does happen.

Usually because in house councel recommends they would have liability if they do it.

Other wise the press protects its source.

Much of what is debated here in TVF IS supposition, but by logical inference.

I make only one supposition.

And the qualifier 'seems' makes it fair play postulation.

And you make two in your rebuttle, Mr. Kettle.

I wrote that Taksin could not tell the Times to release.

I do not think he is merely disinclined to give an indtruction, I think he has thought carefully and not done so.

I agree your points about supposition from logical inference on TV but my point is that many posts are not based on logical inference but on a wild scenario from the poster s imagination. I prefer your definition of supposition.

[caf]

Quote

The Times editors and high powered legal counsel undoubtedly have played the tapes and read the transcript of the online interview to determine their veracity. If there had been differences they would have had to have fired their Asia Bureau Chief Mr. Parry in Tokyo on the spot. He's still on the job. In other words, Thaksin said what he said, which is what we've all read.

We've also read Thaksin said that when he came to his senses after the interview he wanted to bang his head on the floor because of certain statements he'd made. Further, beyond some loud and vague statements he'd sue, Thaksin seems otherwise occupied in more important matters more immediate to his miserable life such as Bt 76 bn of loot.

I actually agree with you for once. Good that you are now giving facts.

Agreement is good.

On the other hand, your self-appointment as fact verifier and judge impremateur of my posts is a more than dubious self assigned not to mention arrogant charge.

The post you so gratuitously endorse as fact is a combination of two components. One element is indeed fact, ie, Mr. Parry is still on the job and Thaksin's headbanger statement. The second consists of my own reasonable and rational analysis of likely events at the Times predicated on my professional experience, academic credentials and real life knowledge. In other words, I meld fact, sound professional judgment and rational extrapolation in the above post to which, in this particular instance, you choose to lend your patronizing high and almighty definitive stamp of approval.

As I said, agreement is good but next time you might want to consider presenting your definitive validation or rejection of the basis of any post I make, know that you haven't the position to do so. Except of course in a self-appointed capacity as the omnicient one.

I am not self appointed. I am not a fact verifier. I give opinions of course and ask for facts where appropriate. Nothing to do with verifying. I am also not a self appointed impremateur whatever that is. If you use a word try to understand its meaning first. As for arrogance, you write " my own reasonable and rationale...." "my professioanl judgment, academic credentials..." ( qualifications ?) ...

Giving a persoanl opinion on a forum is not being omnicient (sic) or being an impremateur (sic)

I can not decide whether you use long words and odd grammatical constructions to sway your audience and make smoke screens or whether you do not want to write simply to give a clear meaning. Your posts often seem biased and almost like propaganda. Look in your pocket for a coin, you will see it has two sides.

[Publicus]

Quote

Your posts often seem biased and almost like propaganda. Look in your pocket for a coin, you will see it has two sides.

You quite single me out, thanks. My posts do slam the guy for sure, so maybe that's a particular aspect that gets your goat. Indeed, you are the only person at TV who has tried to communicate to me about TVF rules, much less tried to read me the riot act concerning my Thaksin posts. So it is clear you're just gonna have to get used to it, tuff as it may be for you.

As to your second point above, my father told me long ago the best thing to do with unsolicited advice from the self appointed is to pass it on immediately. So I'll send a Bt 10 coin to Kuhn Thaksin, because I think the Bt 10 coin is of especially high quality and has the clearest and best two sides.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Publicus

[Arkady]

The slightly frightening thing here is that the request came from the Prime Minister's Office.It is inconceivable that Abhisit himself, well aware from his long UK exposure how a free press operates, would have thought for a moment that The Times would hand over the transcript.One is left with the possibility that some half witted underling took the initiative though it would presumably have been relayed through the Thai Embassy in London.My theory however is that it was known by the PM's Office that The Times would politely tell the Thai diplomat fingered for this fun assignment to mind his own business or as it is put in technical language "go screw himself."Nevertheless the ritual move would have been completed, rather like the request for Thaksin's extradition from Cambodia, and no right wing nut job could accuse the Thai Government of not following up.

You've hit the nail on the head. Abhisit and Korn, at least, would know well that the Times could not comply with such a request, otherwise they would have trouble getting people to do interviews in future, not to mention that they might be roasted by the rest of the UK Press for meekly handing over an interview recording to a third world country complaining of collectively hurt feelings (assuming any one in the UK cares about this story). The first rule of journalism is "protect your sources". Meawhile, by going through the motions the government has protected itself from crackpots at home. It is a logical and shrewd political move and those taking it at face value and slagging the government for making the request have a rather shallow understanding of politics.

The only way to get at the recording might be to charge Richard Parry with LM and hope he would produce it in his defence but that's a very long shot. Without the recording a prosecution against Thaksin is unlikely to succeed as he can just deny he said it.

[Publicus]

I know in the US a newspaper article per se is not admissible in a court of law as evidence. I dunno the law in Thailand (or the UK) on this point, to include the transcript or the tape. The rationale of course is that a news story, editorial or opinion piece happens to be the take of a given writer of a situation, person etc. We know a transcript can be mistaken or, in this instance, misinterpreted or erroneously translated and that a tape can be doctored (and that technically any doctoring can be detected). Libel laws do apply however.

Thaksin anyway hasn't given any serious indication he is going to sue.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Publicus

[webfact]

UPDATE

DSI board votes to probe Thaksin's interview with Times Online

The board of directors of the Department of Special Investigations voted Wednesday to have DSI investigate and take legal action against former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra for having given an interview to Times Online.

DSI spokesman Pol Col Narat Sawettanan said the DSI board decided to take up the criminal case against Thaksin for investigation because his interview allegedly affected the monarchy and thus was deemed detrimental to the national security.

-- The Nation 2009/11/25

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[scorecard]

The slightly frightening thing here is that the request came from the Prime Minister's Office.It is inconceivable that Abhisit himself, well aware from his long UK exposure how a free press operates, would have thought for a moment that The Times would hand over the transcript.One is left with the possibility that some half witted underling took the initiative though it would presumably have been relayed through the Thai Embassy in London.My theory however is that it was known by the PM's Office that The Times would politely tell the Thai diplomat fingered for this fun assignment to mind his own business or as it is put in technical language "go screw himself."Nevertheless the ritual move would have been completed, rather like the request for Thaksin's extradition from Cambodia, and no right wing nut job could accuse the Thai Government of not following up.

Do you have any reason to use comments like 'go screw yourself'? If you do then please share.

There's very likely another point. No newspaper would reveal such a tape because it would create a precedent which newspapers wuld not want going into the future.

Additionally, they very likely want to protoect themselves from any possible claim that the written words whih appeared are in fact different in meaning from the spoken words on the tape.

Additionally I suggest there's another point which seems to have been forgetten or missed. Surely the journalist would have done some research about the man before the interview, and I can't believe that the journalist didn't know that T is a pretty contraversial character, after all he's been banned from entry to the UK.

If you go back to the original interview as it appeared on the'timesonline' website, the journalist asks a number of questions which are answered by T with statements which are untruths or severe twists of the real truth, or even blatant lies. If the journalist is a professional then he should have challenged T, but he didn't.

I wonder why? Was it all a set-up which in the end went horribly wrong for T?

[Asa]

UPDATE

DSI board votes to probe Thaksin's interview with Times Online

The board of directors of the Department of Special Investigations voted Wednesday to have DSI investigate and take legal action against former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra for having given an interview to Times Online.

DSI spokesman Pol Col Narat Sawettanan said the DSI board decided to take up the criminal case against Thaksin for investigation because his interview allegedly affected the monarchy and thus was deemed detrimental to the national security.

-- The Nation 2009/11/25

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

Do that, it may clear up the bad air here. And hurry up! manhour spending on it would waste our money.

[caf]

Quote

Your posts often seem biased and almost like propaganda. Look in your pocket for a coin, you will see it has two sides.

You quite single me out, thanks. My posts do slam the guy for sure, so maybe that's a particular aspect that gets your goat. Indeed, you are the only person at TV who has tried to communicate to me about TVF rules, much less tried to read me the riot act concerning my Thaksin posts. So it is clear you're just gonna have to get used to it, tuff as it may be for you.

As to your second point above, my father told me long ago the best thing to do with unsolicited advice from the self appointed is to pass it on immediately. So I'll send a Bt 10 coin to Kuhn Thaksin, because I think the Bt 10 coin is of especially high quality and has the clearest and best two sides.

Good idea

You seem to have forgotten you tried to give me unsolicited advice in your post. Perhaps you should have listened to your father more diligently.

I suggest we move on and debate the issues and not let opinions we do not like result in one sided attacks.

[jayboy]

The slightly frightening thing here is that the request came from the Prime Minister's Office.It is inconceivable that Abhisit himself, well aware from his long UK exposure how a free press operates, would have thought for a moment that The Times would hand over the transcript.One is left with the possibility that some half witted underling took the initiative though it would presumably have been relayed through the Thai Embassy in London.My theory however is that it was known by the PM's Office that The Times would politely tell the Thai diplomat fingered for this fun assignment to mind his own business or as it is put in technical language "go screw himself."Nevertheless the ritual move would have been completed, rather like the request for Thaksin's extradition from Cambodia, and no right wing nut job could accuse the Thai Government of not following up.

Do you have any reason to use comments like 'go screw yourself'? If you do then please share.

There's very likely another point. No newspaper would reveal such a tape because it would create a precedent which newspapers wuld not want going into the future.

Additionally, they very likely want to protoect themselves from any possible claim that the written words whih appeared are in fact different in meaning from the spoken words on the tape.

Additionally I suggest there's another point which seems to have been forgetten or missed. Surely the journalist would have done some research about the man before the interview, and I can't believe that the journalist didn't know that T is a pretty contraversial character, after all he's been banned from entry to the UK.

If you go back to the original interview as it appeared on the'timesonline' website, the journalist asks a number of questions which are answered by T with statements which are untruths or severe twists of the real truth, or even blatant lies. If the journalist is a professional then he should have challenged T, but he didn't.

I wonder why? Was it all a set-up which in the end went horribly wrong for T?

None of the points you make are foolish but they're not really germane to the central issue which is that a reputable newspaper always protects its sources.If there is a legal requirement to hand over evidence that's a different matter but in developed countries it's very difficult even with a court order.For example in the past honourable journalists have preferred to go to jail rather than reveal details of sources and their stories.If quite hypothetically a little pipsqueak from a South American embassy asked the Times for transcript details of an interview with a political exile (or criminal fugitive from justice as I expect they would call him) the newspaper concerned would politely tell him to piss off.Why the strong language? Because only a banana republic moron wouldn't understand about long fought for freedom of the press.

[TAWP]

The are not protecting any source, the source is Thaksin!

It isn't a case of 'deep throat' spilling the beans.

[jayboy]

The are not protecting any source, the source is Thaksin!

It isn't a case of 'deep throat' spilling the beans.

You don't seem to grasp the point.It doesn't matter whether the source is anonymous or as in this case a specific person.A decent newspaper doesn't hand over this kind of material.It doesn't even matter whether as in this case no apparent offence has been committed and that the Thai Government's position seems comical and absurd to outsiders.

(Of course we farang experts know that the Thai people have been deeply hurt.I was in Chiang Mai today and one couldn't help noticing the rumbling voices all around complaining about Times Online.I'm sure this is replicated in every changwat .)

[TAWP]

The are not protecting any source, the source is Thaksin!

It isn't a case of 'deep throat' spilling the beans.

You don't seem to grasp the point.It doesn't matter whether the source is anonymous or as in this case a specific person.A decent newspaper doesn't hand over this kind of material.It doesn't even matter whether as in this case no apparent offence has been committed and that the Thai Government's position seems comical and absurd to outsiders.

I am very able to grasp the point, but don't excuse the 'not handing over anything' due to 'protecting a source', that isn't what it is about.

They don't hand anything over as they don't have to and neither should they.

[Publicus]

Quote

Your posts often seem biased and almost like propaganda. Look in your pocket for a coin, you will see it has two sides.

You quite single me out, thanks. My posts do slam the guy for sure, so maybe that's a particular aspect that gets your goat. Indeed, you are the only person at TV who has tried to communicate to me about TVF rules, much less tried to read me the riot act concerning my Thaksin posts. So it is clear you're just gonna have to get used to it, tuff as it may be for you.

As to your second point above, my father told me long ago the best thing to do with unsolicited advice from the self appointed is to pass it on immediately. So I'll send a Bt 10 coin to Kuhn Thaksin, because I think the Bt 10 coin is of especially high quality and has the clearest and best two sides.

Good idea

You seem to have forgotten you tried to give me unsolicited advice in your post. Perhaps you should have listened to your father more diligently.

I suggest we move on and debate the issues and not let opinions we do not like result in one sided attacks.

Let's move on by all means to where we all were previously.

It's no surprise you don't like unwelcome advice either, given you are the initiator of the exchange I'm pleased to accept the present initiative to resume discussion of the issues. The indefinite postponement of the reds street actions should provide everyone with a breather to step back and take stock in an atmosphere of a welcome calm and relief.

[endure]

The Times is subject to UK law. It is not subject to the laws of alien countries no matter how much those countries might wish it to be. The UK has no lese majeste laws. It also has some of the most lax libel laws. Anyone is free to instigate a libel suit if they wish. Nobody seems to want to.

Edited November 25, 2009 by endure

[roundeye]

I've taught journalism at the university level for six years running now, and one of the units I teach is regarding government control and censorship of the media. Disturbingly, each year I have more and more current examples of problems in Thailand to share with my students. In that time, I've had editors at the Bangkok Post and producers at Channel 11 tell me that they have no choice but to tow the government line on most controversial issues. As a westerner, it's a continual shock to me. My students handle it better than I do--like water off a duck's back--it's normal to them.

Seems to me there is much the world has to learn about the Media. Here in the U.S.many know that there is very little truth and much corruption in the News media. We have reached the time of "1984" by Orwell. We look to outside sources for news as we cannot get the real story from the U.S. news. It seems that the same is starting to happen in Thailand now. It is neauseating but do not be shocked. Just keep looking for the truth. "T" may have a relationship with the Interviewer as with the foregien countries who are not returning him to Thailand and using a name change as an excuse. A.K.A is how we fix that here in the U.S.