Thailand Totals Up Bill For The Red-Shirt Riots

[webfact]

NESDB totals up bill for the red-shirt riots

By THE NATION

The Department of Special Investigation has submitted to the Criminal Court a report detailing the economic impact of the recent political turmoil to support its case against red-shirt leaders charged with terrorism and inciting unrest, DSI director-general Tharit Pengdit said yesterday.

He said the report was an analysis by the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB), prepared at the DSI's request, outlining seven areas of impact on the country's economy from the red-shirt protests between March 12 and May 21.

These included impacts on tourism, businesses in the protest areas and their employees, small-time vendors and local residents, tour agents, airlines and mass transit operators, the financial sector and the money market, and the country's credibility.

The protests and the subsequent violence deterred prospective tourists, after warnings by 52 countries advising their nationals against coming to Thailand, according to the NESDB report. Nine countries still retain that warning three months after the unrest.

As a result, the country's tourism earnings this year were estimated to have fallen by Bt18.75 billion from the original target of Bt600 billion, the report said. The number of tourists for the entire year was estimated at 15.5 million, about 500,000 below the original target.

According to the NESDB report, five hotels in the Rajprasong shopping area had to close for business during the red-shirt protests. Also affected were five shopping malls, 10 medium-sized retail stores, and more than 2,000 small-time vendors. About 800 employees of the affected businesses lost their jobs, and the government spent more than Bt400 million to help them along with more than 30,000 other employees affected by the unrest.

The hotels and shopping malls suffered combined damage of more than Bt2 billion to their properties, some of them destroyed, by fires started by rioters.

The total damage to 2,951 small-time vendors and Bangkok residents who registered with the government was valued at Bt3.4 billion.

Eighty-eight flights were cancelled during the Songkran festival in April and the loss was estimated at Bt600 million.

The report said the stock market index was down 7 per cent after the state of emergency was imposed in early April. The stock market was forced to close for two days after the riots and the index fell to a record low of 720 points a few days later. The country's credibility rating was reduced after the political unrest, from A+ to A.

Rights and Liberties Protection Department deputy director-general Pasit Asavawattanaporn said holders of 1,005 insurance policies had complained that insurance companies declined to pay compensation of Bt198 billion sought for the damage from the unrest.

-- The Nation 2010-08-31

[Robby nz]

So who gets sent the bill?

Or do the Thai people as a whole have to foot the cost through the Govt?

[givenall]

Send the bill to Thaksin and his family:rolleyes:

[craigt3365]

What is the state of affairs for the yellow shirt's airport protest? I am guessing if it takes that long for them to get it sorted out, it will be the same for this mess....

[whybother]

What is the state of affairs for the yellow shirt's airport protest? I am guessing if it takes that long for them to get it sorted out, it will be the same for this mess....

There were figures released for damages to Government house wasn't there?

There was no direct damage at the airports (except for 1 pane of glass at Suvannaphumi).

You could probably look at costs associated with the many strikes at Heathrow to determine the cost of putting stranded passengers up at hotels for a few extra nights and any travel cancellations.

[samtam]

So if the NESDB totals up the cost, why can't The Nation? Presumably it's:

THB18.75b + 0.4 + 2b + 3.4b + 0.6b = THB25.15b (plus THB198bn in insurance claims denied) = THB223.15b or about USD7.2b.

Movements in the SET are only paper losses, and have recovered anyway.

[Piengrudee]

There was no direct damage at the airports (except for 1 pane of glass at Suvannaphumi). 555

[moe666]

Except all of the money the airport lost from landing and take off fees. I believe this could be called damage.

[Buchholz]

NESDB totals up bill for the red-shirt riots

= THB223.15b or about USD7.2b.

Buy your white shirt now, because in 3 Sundays from now...

UDD urged to gather peacefully on 19 Sep

[Buchholz]

Except all of the money the airport lost from landing and take off fees. I believe this could be called damage.

I think the poster simply meant to include a single additional qualifying adjective to his sentence.

There was no direct physical damage at the airports (except for 1 pane of glass at Suvannaphumi).

I believe there was more direct physical damage at Central World than a solitary pane of glass, but I'll double check to make sure.

Edited August 31, 2010 by Buchholz

[RedNIvar]

This NESDB report includes damage to property, loss of income and revenue. There was little in terms of property damage, by the closure of the Airport. However the damage from loss of income and revenue on a daily basis should be big. I think this damage had been assessed by the government previously, do not remember.

How do you dollarize loss of life?

Either way, Central World or Airport, it is Thailand that gets hurt.

So enough of this silliness, kiss and make and get on with life.

[LukDod]

....'bill for the red-shirt riots'

Ah, yes, the check is in the mail

OTOH, should any money be remitted [doubtful!!], in whose pocket will it reside; surely not the poor effected shops/vendors.

[Pawpcorn]

Here's the real kicker of the article: the last sentence, and easily overlooked:

Quote:

"Rights and Liberties Protection Department deputy director-general Pasit Asavawattanaporn said holders of 1,005 insurance policies had complained that insurance companies declined to pay compensation of Bt198 billion sought for the damage from the unrest."

This was due to the labeling of the Red Shirt actions as: "Terrorism".

Unfortunately, all of these insurance policies excluded damages due to terrorism.

I'm NOT saying that the Red Shirt actions didn't amount to "terrorism" but the reality is that the government came up with this word, part way through the "occupation" (my term). I'm sure they just wanted to use a powerful word to describe what was happening, as they saw it,

But I'm equally SURE that whoever chose / approved usage of the word "Terrorism" NEVER for a second stopped to consider that this single word would invalidate over 1000 insurance policies... costing the business owners... TWO HUNDRED BILLION BAHT!!!

This figure dwarfs ALL of the other loss figures, referred to, in this Nation article.

(As an aside, I think it's so odd how the Nation writers "compose" [and I use that term loosely] the articles they "write"!?!?... It seems so often like a shotgun organization to their articles... often hiding or concealing important pertinent details... such as...perhaps the most significant financial loss to this whole sorry affair, in the final paragraph, where many people would have stopped reading by then... What's with THAT? {end rant})

IMHO, I think it's pretty likely that the government will end up having to foot the bill for this 200 Billion Baht loss.

One simple word... ONE WORD(!) costing 200 Billion Baht.

I'm pretty sure we're allowed to quote Wikipedia here? I thought it might be interesting to see Wiki's current definition of Terrorism: Interesting stuff! Note the sentences in bold:

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.^[1] At present, the International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.^[2][3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).^{[citation needed]}

Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. ^[4] Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.^[4]

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,^[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.^[6][7] The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities to delegitimize political or other opponents,^[8] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).^[8][9]

Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.^[10] One form is the use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.^[11]

Amazing Thailand; LOS; Land of Losses

[siamjimi]

[ About 800 employees of the affected businesses lost their jobs, and the government spent more than Bt400 million to help them along with more than 30,000 other employees affected by the unrest. ]

ok - i KNOW 3 PEOPLE THAT ARE SHOP WORKERS THAT HAVE LOST THEIR JOB DUE TO THE REDSHIRTS SHUTTING EVERYTHING DOWN

WHERE IS THIS COMPENSATION THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT ? = [ government spent more than Bt400 million to help them along ]

I KNOW PERSONALLY THAT THEY DID NOT RECIEVE ANY COMPENSATION

[Hakuchi]

But I'm equally SURE that whoever chose / approved usage of the word "Terrorism" NEVER for a second stopped to consider that this single word would invalidate over 1000 insurance policies... costing the business owners... TWO HUNDRED BILLION BAHT!!!

Interesting thought and point.

But whatever if the term terrorism justified or not. I would be more worried about the situation where the authorities think about the money involved before they press some deserved charges. charges they came up with according to the existing law.

And an insurance company is just another form of business. They exclude terrorism for a god reason in their policies. To avoid the T-word just to make the insurance companies pay for everything means a loss of TWO HUNDRED BILLION BAHT!! for the insurance companies. They don't print the money.

[zthyadat]

Speaking of terrorism, looks like there was a bomb lobbed at channel 11 on Rangsit road... just coming on Thai TV now.

[Hakuchi]

[ About 800 employees of the affected businesses lost their jobs, and the government spent more than Bt400 million to help them along with more than 30,000 other employees affected by the unrest. ]

ok - i KNOW 3 PEOPLE THAT ARE SHOP WORKERS THAT HAVE LOST THEIR JOB DUE TO THE REDSHIRTS SHUTTING EVERYTHING DOWN

WHERE IS THIS COMPENSATION THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT ? = [ government spent more than Bt400 million to help them along ]

I KNOW PERSONALLY THAT THEY DID NOT RECIEVE ANY COMPENSATION

the big companies got the money, a large chunk was eaten by the bureaucracy and specially the advertising and propaganda campaigns like 'together we can' and to let everyone knows that the government spend so much money on the 'help' wasn't that cheap either.

[rubl]

But I'm equally SURE that whoever chose / approved usage of the word "Terrorism" NEVER for a second stopped to consider that this single word would invalidate over 1000 insurance policies... costing the business owners... TWO HUNDRED BILLION BAHT!!!

Interesting thought and point.

But whatever if the term terrorism justified or not. I would be more worried about the situation where the authorities think about the money involved before they press some deserved charges. charges they came up with according to the existing law.

And an insurance company is just another form of business. They exclude terrorism for a god reason in their policies. To avoid the T-word just to make the insurance companies pay for everything means a loss of TWO HUNDRED BILLION BAHT!! for the insurance companies. They don't print the money.

If the T-word had been avoided there would have been other items in small print, like 'civil unrest'. don't feel too sorry for insurance companies.

[Hakuchi]

But I'm equally SURE that whoever chose / approved usage of the word "Terrorism" NEVER for a second stopped to consider that this single word would invalidate over 1000 insurance policies... costing the business owners... TWO HUNDRED BILLION BAHT!!!

Interesting thought and point.

But whatever if the term terrorism justified or not. I would be more worried about the situation where the authorities think about the money involved before they press some deserved charges. charges they came up with according to the existing law.

And an insurance company is just another form of business. They exclude terrorism for a god reason in their policies. To avoid the T-word just to make the insurance companies pay for everything means a loss of TWO HUNDRED BILLION BAHT!! for the insurance companies. They don't print the money.

If the T-word had been avoided there would have been other items in small print, like 'civil unrest'. don't feel too sorry for insurance companies.

Ermm, why should an insurance company pay for something that isn't covered?

[rubl]

Interesting thought and point.

But whatever if the term terrorism justified or not. I would be more worried about the situation where the authorities think about the money involved before they press some deserved charges. charges they came up with according to the existing law.

And an insurance company is just another form of business. They exclude terrorism for a god reason in their policies. To avoid the T-word just to make the insurance companies pay for everything means a loss of TWO HUNDRED BILLION BAHT!! for the insurance companies. They don't print the money.

If the T-word had been avoided there would have been other items in small print, like 'civil unrest'. don't feel too sorry for insurance companies.

Ermm, why should an insurance company pay for something that isn't covered?

No one said they should.

[MikeyIdea]

Pawpcorn

I find that all Thai full managers in the company I work for know that the terrorism labelling invalidates insurance claims

I am sure that the whoever chose / approved usage of the word "Terrorism" knew exactly what it meant too – they did indeed know that it invalidated insurance claims all over the country

[Milo]

Pawpcorn

I find that all Thai full managers in the company I work for know that the terrorism labelling invalidates insurance claims

I am sure that the whoever chose / approved usage of the word "Terrorism" knew exactly what it meant too – they did indeed know that it invalidated insurance claims all over the country

Obviously being able to charge Thaksin with the crime was more important...

And before you jump all over me, I'm NO Red!

[Pawpcorn]

But I'm equally SURE that whoever chose / approved usage of the word "Terrorism" NEVER for a second stopped to consider that this single word would invalidate over 1000 insurance policies... costing the business owners... TWO HUNDRED BILLION BAHT!!!

Interesting thought and point.

But whatever if the term terrorism justified or not. I would be more worried about the situation where the authorities think about the money involved before they press some deserved charges. charges they came up with according to the existing law.

And an insurance company is just another form of business. They exclude terrorism for a god reason in their policies. To avoid the T-word just to make the insurance companies pay for everything means a loss of TWO HUNDRED BILLION BAHT!! for the insurance companies. They don't print the money.

Well, you're right about that! And I did think about that! The end result is that it shifted the loss from one party to another. So the insurance companies don't lose, but the business owners do... and that's the point you're making, I think, and well taken.

I really am not certain... I think really it's unlikely that the government will be willing to, or be able to, really, step in, and GIVE 200 billion baht to the business owners. They may SAY they're going to do it, but given the past and current track record of payments for losses for the Red Shirt Occupation... I'd be willing to bet it'll end up being the business owners who take loss (often losing their businesses in the process), when the smoke clears... And that'll be a heck of a large trickle-down effect, over some time, involving many many people.

Sort of how 9/11 affected America, but hopefully on a much smaller scale. (I happened to have lost my last good job,in America, directly due to 9/11. I'd hate to have that happen again here!)

[Pawpcorn]

Pawpcorn

I find that all Thai full managers in the company I work for know that the terrorism labelling invalidates insurance claims

I am sure that the whoever chose / approved usage of the word "Terrorism" knew exactly what it meant too – they did indeed know that it invalidated insurance claims all over the country

Oh... that's a scary thought, one that I'd avoided thinking... that it was a strategically chosen word, used for the exact purpose of protecting the Insurance companies of a huge impending disaster / loss, eh?

You're probably right; I usually fail to see, or think, that much evil in people... thanks for the input!

[rubl]

Pawpcorn

I find that all Thai full managers in the company I work for know that the terrorism labelling invalidates insurance claims

I am sure that the whoever chose / approved usage of the word "Terrorism" knew exactly what it meant too � they did indeed know that it invalidated insurance claims all over the country

You may be right, you may be wrong. Haven't seen the insurance policy, but I'd imagine there are a few more clauses in very fine print which help exclude payment. As I mentioned before 'civil unrest' comes to mind, and that's not easy to deny.

[Hakuchi]

Pawpcorn

I find that all Thai full managers in the company I work for know that the terrorism labelling invalidates insurance claims

I am sure that the whoever chose / approved usage of the word "Terrorism" knew exactly what it meant too – they did indeed know that it invalidated insurance claims all over the country

Oh... that's a scary thought, one that I'd avoided thinking... that it was a strategically chosen word, used for the exact purpose of protecting the Insurance companies of a huge impending disaster / loss, eh?

You're probably right; I usually fail to see, or think, that much evil in people... thanks for the input!

Do you suggest that the government or the responsible authorities used the term terrorism mostly on behalf and for the best interests of the insurance companies?

[zthyadat]

But I'm equally SURE that whoever chose / approved usage of the word "Terrorism" NEVER for a second stopped to consider that this single word would invalidate over 1000 insurance policies... costing the business owners... TWO HUNDRED BILLION BAHT!!!

Interesting thought and point.

But whatever if the term terrorism justified or not. I would be more worried about the situation where the authorities think about the money involved before they press some deserved charges. charges they came up with according to the existing law.

And an insurance company is just another form of business. They exclude terrorism for a god reason in their policies. To avoid the T-word just to make the insurance companies pay for everything means a loss of TWO HUNDRED BILLION BAHT!! for the insurance companies. They don't print the money.

If the T-word had been avoided there would have been other items in small print, like 'civil unrest'. don't feel too sorry for insurance companies.

Indeed... civil unrest is another invalidator that's in every such contract, as is royal demise. When a huge mob of people assemble and close down major sections of town with barbed wire barricades, it is what it ism regardless of nomenclature - you could officially call it a tea party and the insurance companies still won't cough up.

[MikeyIdea]

Pawpcorn

I find that all Thai full managers in the company I work for know that the terrorism labelling invalidates insurance claims

I am sure that the whoever chose / approved usage of the word "Terrorism" knew exactly what it meant too – they did indeed know that it invalidated insurance claims all over the country

Obviously being able to charge Thaksin with the crime was more important...

And before you jump all over me, I'm NO Red!

I don't agree, IMO, the decision to use the word terrorism was because what happened fit perfectly into the definition of terrorism. Thanks for the paste from Wikipedia someone

"Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-compatants (civilians)"

Intended to create fear, perpretrated for political goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants - Yepp, all that did also happen

[MikeyIdea]

Pawpcorn

I find that all Thai full managers in the company I work for know that the terrorism labelling invalidates insurance claims

I am sure that the whoever chose / approved usage of the word "Terrorism" knew exactly what it meant too – they did indeed know that it invalidated insurance claims all over the country

Oh... that's a scary thought, one that I'd avoided thinking... that it was a strategically chosen word, used for the exact purpose of protecting the Insurance companies of a huge impending disaster / loss, eh?

You're probably right; I usually fail to see, or think, that much evil in people... thanks for the input!

Your line of thought is somewhat bizarre pawpcorn. The decision was not taken to protect insurance companies, but to protect innocent Thai non-combatant citizens from being intimidated and threatened

Like what happened to me and my 5 year old daughter on Ratchadaphisek Rd. I was ordered by reds to drive against a red light and I refused, telling them to get a police to tell me and then I would do it. The reds then turned into thugs and called me and my daughter buffalo - assuming that you agree that anyone who calls a 5-year old and his father buffalo for not wanting to do red lights only because 'farmers' dressed in red said so should be categorized as thugs

I find it interesting that Wikipedias definition of terrorism fits so well with what happened in Thailand

[Beardog]

The country's credibility rating was reduced after the political unrest, from A+ to A.

This is an interesting point for a country that does not have much in the way of any credibility anyway. I think Cuba is more credible. A from an A plus. The writer of the article must be lizdestic(dyslexic) & got the D- or F mixed up with an A+-A- 555