Before the marriage registration, I had a discussion with Khun Tou (Nantida) and my daughter as well as my beloved father, Khun Vatana."

Vatana is now in exile, fleeing the punishment related to the Klong Dan corruption case. Department of Special Investigation chief is now pondering if it should pressure Chonsawat and Janie for Vatana’s whereabouts.

Earlier, a photo was released, showing the three persons in the same room.

So he does communicate with his fugitive father and no doubt knows where he is hiding.

Why on Earth would DSI not pressure the son to reveal his fugitive father's whereabouts?

Why on Earth would DSI not puruse aiding and abeting charges against Chonsawat?

Or are they too busy trumping up another bogus charge against Abhisit?

Allo Allo, nobody is responsible for other one's actions. The son loves his dad and it is his good right. Why does the son have to reveal the whereabouts of his dad. Would you do so?

Department of Special Investigation chief is now pondering if it should pressure Chonsawat and Janie for Vatana’s whereabouts.

Pondering...and pondering... and pondering.... I think this is where the word and meaning "ponderous" derives.

People who saw the photo of the three people together -- Ae, Janie and the father -- already recognized the location as being a place in Macau, if I remember the prior news reports correctly. Of course, that doesn't mean the father is still there now.

But it certainly seems the Thai government is trying just about as hard to bring this guy back to face justice as the are to get back the OTHER guy (absent any offer of amnesty).

There's no Thai bashing involved.If you want to say someone is a superstar in Thailand,that's fine.But to refer to a superstar without such a qualification implies a global reach.At present no Thai artist has that.I hope one day one will.

'Qualification' like in a diploma, or based on definitions? Do you qualify to make such qualified statements?

'Implies a global reach' based on? Your understanding? Your stomach? Again, you can't use the term 'it is implied' to describe a general consensus, when the general consensus is clearly otherwise.

It seems your understanding is a one-way street - out, but not in.