In more civilised societies, a person who steps forward with crucial information is called a state’s witness, and the authorities will try to keep that person’s identity under wraps. Furthermore, in a show of appreciation (from officialdom) that person stands a chance to gain from a silent-witness programme, whereby officialdom relocates that person under a new identity and pays for that person’s living expenses.
In Thailand, the opposite appears to take place: someone who assists in mitigating violent acts is publicly identified, paving the way for the bad guys to take him out. Furthermore, it’s doubtful any payment or assistance is offered to someone who proves to be of assistance to Thailand. It’s the same for whistleblowers. A person who dynamically helps expose corruption should be commended, but in Thailand that person will likely lose their job and be ostracised.
Hap Hazard
Chiang Rai