Thailand Dismisses Terrorism Risk Study By British Firm

[webfact]

Thailand dismisses terrorism risk study by British firm

BANGKOK, Nov 17 - Thailand's Foreign Ministry on Wednesday brushed aside an international study which ranked the kingdom among the extreme risk nations, saying it did not reflect actual situation in Thailand.

Sixteen countries including Colombia, Thailand, the Philippines and India were classified as being at "extreme" risk of attack, with Thailand ranking seventh in the Terrorism Risk Index (TRI) complied by the UK-based Maplecroft company, a global risks advisory firm.

Acting Information Department director-general and ministry spokesman Thani Thongphakdi said the ministry was vetting the details of the global study.

He said the ministry initially believed that the risk assessment was calculated from certain areas in Thailand such as the southernmost provinces where insurgents regularly launched attacks.

The TRI report did not reflect the actual overall situation in the kingdom, he said.

Mr Thani said Thailand is still popular among tourists from around the world and Travel+Leisure magazine, a leading worldwide travel magazine, recently named Thailand’s capital as the World’s Best City 2010 for living and travelling in a survey conducted among its readers.

Thailand’s Samui and Phuket islands in the South were ranked fourth and fifth respectively among the Best Islands in Asia, he added.

Moreover, the renowned travel guide Lonely Planet picked Chiang Mai as among its top ten hottest cities for 2011.

Global risks advisory firm Maplecroft said in its website that the index uses data from June 2009 to June 2010 to assess the frequency of terrorist incidents and the intensity of attacks, which includes the number of victims per attack and the chances of mass casualties occurring. It also includes a historical component assessing the number of attacks between 2007 and 2009 and looks at whether a country is at risk from a long-standing militant group operating there. (MCOT online news)

-- TNA 2010-11-17

[rreddin]

What did you expect the Foreign Minister to say? Of course he is going to try to rubbish the report - or as he calls it "vetting". Or is he complaining that Thailand is only seventh in the list?

[Soutpeel]

Or is he complaining that Thailand is only seventh in the list?

....another lost oppertunity to be the "Hub" of something

[bangon04]

The Minister is probably correct.

Only regular watchers of the BBC news would classify Thailand in general as at "extreme risk" of terrorism.

Extreme risk of scams, maybe, but certainly not deserving of such scare-mongering. Thailand has enough problems without the "experts" imagining more.

[Thai at Heart]

I thought the government wanted the world to agree that the red's actions were terrorism?

Edited November 17, 2010 by Thai at Heart

[michaeljordan]

I read the following headline from Thaivisa.

BREAKING NEWS:

Bomb Thrown At Bangkok Mini Bus Kills At Least One, Injures Many

Kind of funny the Thai government saying Thailand is safe.

[edwardandtubs]

When the Thai government wants to scaremonger its own people into accepting a perpetual state of emergency then the risk is high, but when a British firm says the same thing and it might affect tourism then of course it's completely untrue!

[RickBradford]

When the Thai government wants to scaremonger its own people into accepting a perpetual state of emergency then the risk is high, but when a British firm says the same thing and it might affect tourism then of course it's completely untrue!

Spot on.

I believe it's called 'politics'.

[spiderleghead]

but how many thai visa contributors readers have you heard about who have been really affected by the "terror"? if there are any my apologies for the sweeping statement.

my point is that - yes there are actions that are dangerous, but just how many actions of terror make this a really dangerous place to be.

whenever possible i have been in the dangerous places taking photos and video to show people who are not here the isolation of the events. that even when the trouble really hits the fan, you have to be a complete sloth not to get out of the way and stay out of the way.

paint the south as the dangerous place it it, warn people to keep their eyes and ears open if they are around protest sites. other than that there really is not too much to change in their ordinary holidaying activities.

this country is more a threat to itself and it's citizens than to any visitors who might want to come to this potentially wonderful country.

[femi fan]

Exactly.

Britain along with some other key western countries are obsessed with terrorism, and in fact it's big business for many companies these days. So it sure pays to 'identify' terrorist 'hotspots' and then foreign politicians can be better persuaded to buy all the shit for their airports and other key institutions in the country.

Apart from two or three provinces, the idea that thailand is at any meaningful risk from terrorism is absurd.

Note that a global risks advisory firm were employed to come up with their figures. I wonder what that juicy contract was worth? These kinds of companies have far too much influence on the setting of policies.

The thai chap was absolutely spot on to publicly deny the report. He should have ridiculed it. Don't tell me that they put britain below thailand?

[whybother]

When the Thai government wants to scaremonger its own people into accepting a perpetual state of emergency then the risk is high, but when a British firm says the same thing and it might affect tourism then of course it's completely untrue!

Spot on.

I believe it's called 'politics'.

Not quite spot on. There is no "perpetual state of emergency". The government are already saying that it will be removed within a few weeks.

[jonclark]

Just out of interest how many terrorist attacks have there been in the South of Thailand over the last 3 - 4 years. Or isn't that part of Thailand? Because if it is then the near daily bombings, shootings, be-headings put Thailand (in my book anyway) as a country at extreme risk. Or maybe we are all victims of the old saying 'out of sight out of mind.'

[animatic]

Damage control for external consumption.

Circle the wagons the fair skins are say we are not perfect!!!!

Yes a logical response to needing tourist income to elevate.

[phetaroi]

this country is more a threat to itself and it's citizens than to any visitors who might want to come to this potentially wonderful country.

I think that without meaning to, you've hit the nail on the head with that last sentence.

I think Thailand was a wonderful country. Note the past tense. It was a place somewhat removed from the risks of the modern world. But, I think the modern world has caught up with Thailand, and it doesn't quite realize it yet. Oh, I'm not talking about modern things. I'm talking about world pressures that exist today.

First, Thailand appears to be on the far end of an arc of SE Asian Islamic terror that swings from the Philippines, through Indonesia, and into southern Thailand. It's a mistake to underestimate the potential threat to Thailand of a political force that has killed over 4,000 people in the southern provinces through bombings, ambushes, and even beheadings. What exactly is the blockage that prevents that from being brought to Bangkok. Those people are completely free to travel within the country by air, by train, or by car.

And the government -- and I don't mean whatever government is in charge currently...I mean THE government structure -- seems oblivious to the threat because there appears to be one thing that trumps every other concern in Thailand -- tourism. When we had the Katrina disaster in America...and the disastrous way in which out government reacted to it, at least the prime concern wasn't "how will Katrina affect tourism. In Thailand, that would have been THE primary concern.

[phetaroi]

Just out of interest how many terrorist attacks have there been in the South of Thailand over the last 3 - 4 years. Or isn't that part of Thailand? Because if it is then the near daily bombings, shootings, be-headings put Thailand (in my book anyway) as a country at extreme risk. Or maybe we are all victims of the old saying 'out of sight out of mind.'

Yes, Jon, you've got it right. Unfortunately, as much as possible, the government downplays what is happening down there. And for the average western visitor it's so far away from Soi Cowboy and Chaing Mai's night market that it almost seems like it's in another country altogether. Would anyone really have thought that Bali was at risk a few years ago?

[elcent]

The statement should read.

It has no meaning for us, we're safe and we don't care about the common folks out there ...

Yesterday:

Right after Bout got sent to the airport, the same ministry came out with a press release "the Russians understand our decision ... blah, blah, blah " ... just do disappear, also here at the Nation, when they learned from the real reaction in the world media.

It's safe to say, whatever they announce, the opposite is just right.

[jayjay0]

but how many thai visa contributors readers have you heard about who have been really affected by the "terror"? if there are any my apologies for the sweeping statement.

my point is that - yes there are actions that are dangerous, but just how many actions of terror make this a really dangerous place to be.

whenever possible i have been in the dangerous places taking photos and video to show people who are not here the isolation of the events. that even when the trouble really hits the fan, you have to be a complete sloth not to get out of the way and stay out of the way.

paint the south as the dangerous place it it, warn people to keep their eyes and ears open if they are around protest sites. other than that there really is not too much to change in their ordinary holidaying activities.

this country is more a threat to itself and it's citizens than to any visitors who might want to come to this potentially wonderful country.

Great post. If the red shirts had been peaceful Thailand would not even be on the list.

If I remember correctly there were a few TV posters living in the area who were inconvenienced by the red shirt party. It would be interesting to hear from them as to weather they moved, left Thailand or just stayed where they were But as has been stated here earlier it is basically only the southern provinces with the problem.

The bombs in Bangkok I would classify as terrorism but they are not that many. I believe that people might have clued in on the red shirts strategy and are using them for personal vendettas. That is not saying the red shirts are guilt free in them.

[jayjay0]

Exactly.

Britain along with some other key western countries are obsessed with terrorism, and in fact it's big business for many companies these days. So it sure pays to 'identify' terrorist 'hotspots' and then foreign politicians can be better persuaded to buy all the shit for their airports and other key institutions in the country.

Apart from two or three provinces, the idea that thailand is at any meaningful risk from terrorism is absurd.

Note that a global risks advisory firm were employed to come up with their figures. I wonder what that juicy contract was worth? These kinds of companies have far too much influence on the setting of policies.

The thai chap was absolutely spot on to publicly deny the report. He should have ridiculed it. Don't tell me that they put britain below thailand?

Funny that the USA isn't on that list with all the money they spend on protecting them selves they must feel that there is a real high chance of terrorism. Also look at the restrictions they put on tourists. The funny part (and sad) part is that they only inspect about 3% of the containers coming into the country. Then again they are not known for a really high IQ. LOL :sorry:

[jayjay0]

Just out of interest how many terrorist attacks have there been in the South of Thailand over the last 3 - 4 years. Or isn't that part of Thailand? Because if it is then the near daily bombings, shootings, be-headings put Thailand (in my book anyway) as a country at extreme risk. Or maybe we are all victims of the old saying 'out of sight out of mind.'

Yes, Jon, you've got it right. Unfortunately, as much as possible, the government downplays what is happening down there. And for the average western visitor it's so far away from Soi Cowboy and Chaing Mai's night market that it almost seems like it's in another country altogether. Would anyone really have thought that Bali was at risk a few years ago?

No denying it there is a big problem in the south.

That being said how about some reality.

The four most southern provinces and you want to judge all of Thailand on them. A bit far out aren't you. Why don't you judge all of Thailand by the four northern provinces. It would be closer to the truth. It is the truth we are looking for I hope.

[jayjay0]

Just out of interest how many terrorist attacks have there been in the South of Thailand over the last 3 - 4 years. Or isn't that part of Thailand? Because if it is then the near daily bombings, shootings, be-headings put Thailand (in my book anyway) as a country at extreme risk. Or maybe we are all victims of the old saying 'out of sight out of mind.'

Yes, Jon, you've got it right. Unfortunately, as much as possible, the government downplays what is happening down there. And for the average western visitor it's so far away from Soi Cowboy and Chaing Mai's night market that it almost seems like it's in another country altogether. Would anyone really have thought that Bali was at risk a few years ago?

No denying it there is a big problem in the south.

That being said how about some reality.

The four most southern provinces and you want to judge all of Thailand on them. A bit far out aren't you. Why don't you judge all of Thailand by the four northern provinces. It would be closer to the truth. It is the truth we are looking for I hope.

[puyaidon]

Have some of the readers forgotten how popular Bali was?

No one expected it to get hit as it was supposed to be a very fun place.

Is it still a big tourist destination now? The south has problems but where are the tourists going now?

[creck]

The Maplecroft report is almost purely a statistical exercise. It is mostly based on the number of incidents, human casualties and property damage that occurred between June 2009 and June 2010. They do not sift to decide what is a terrorist attck it lists clearly "...terrorism, conflict ..."

We all know there were a large number of incidents in Bangkok including two army attacks on the streets as a result of which about one hundred and twenty people died. (For comparison, only 52 people died in London when the tube system was bombed) The second attack was followed by a night of frenzied activity by arsonists when about 40 (if I remember correctly) fires were started and some of these were very large.

Even so, the risk of it occurring again now is miniscule because this was definitely a one off action and reaction. The chances of it happening now (this month) are nil. That is why it feels safe to walk around anywhere in Bangkok. Could a similar thing happen again – I see no reason why not. Students of Bangkok history, I think, would confirm this sort of thing happens more frequently in Bangkok than most capital cities. The report is mainly for companies considering business association with a particular country. Should a business take note? It is not mainly for tourists - but it is relavent.

Even though the report says: Terrorism incidents in Thailand's restive Muslim south - such as the October 2009 bomb attacks in Sungai Kolok - largely account for the country's rating. I am sure the Bangkok numbers helped a great deal. Next year Thailand will drop down the rankings again.

[phetaroi]

No denying it there is a big problem in the south.

That being said how about some reality.

The four most southern provinces and you want to judge all of Thailand on them. A bit far out aren't you. Why don't you judge all of Thailand by the four northern provinces. It would be closer to the truth. It is the truth we are looking for I hope.

It isn't judging Thailand to think that those terrorizing the South could very easily:

a. Hop on a Thai airlines flight and be in Bangkok in less than 2 hours

b. Hop on the train and be in Bangkok in less than 24 hours

c. Or hop in a pick-up truck or bus and take the highway to Bangkok is about 14 hours

After all, their real argument is with the government...and that's in Bangkok.

[jonclark]

Just out of interest how many terrorist attacks have there been in the South of Thailand over the last 3 - 4 years. Or isn't that part of Thailand? Because if it is then the near daily bombings, shootings, be-headings put Thailand (in my book anyway) as a country at extreme risk. Or maybe we are all victims of the old saying 'out of sight out of mind.'

Yes, Jon, you've got it right. Unfortunately, as much as possible, the government downplays what is happening down there. And for the average western visitor it's so far away from Soi Cowboy and Chaing Mai's night market that it almost seems like it's in another country altogether. Would anyone really have thought that Bali was at risk a few years ago?

No denying it there is a big problem in the south.

That being said how about some reality.

The four most southern provinces and you want to judge all of Thailand on them. A bit far out aren't you. Why don't you judge all of Thailand by the four northern provinces. It would be closer to the truth. It is the truth we are looking for I hope.

I'm not judging all of Thailand based on the Southern Provinces alone, but there is no denying what effects one, will effect all. and given that more people have died there in the last few years, than British soldiers on active duty on both Afghanistan and Iraq, you can see why it gives Thailand a black eye.

Edited November 17, 2010 by jonclark

[creck]

The Maplecroft report is almost purely a statistical exercise. It is mostly based on the number of incidents, human casualties and property damage that occurred between June 2009 and June 2010. They do not sift to decide what is a terrorist attck it lists clearly "...terrorism, conflict ..."

We all know there were a large number of incidents in Bangkok including two army attacks on the streets as a result of which about one hundred and twenty people died. (For comparison, only 52 people died in London when the tube system was bombed) The second attack was followed by a night of frenzied activity by arsonists when about 40 (if I remember correctly) fires were started and some of these were very large.

Even so, the risk of it occurring again now is miniscule because this was definitely a one off action and reaction. The chances of it happening now (this month) are nil. That is why it feels safe to walk around anywhere in Bangkok. Could a similar thing happen again I see no reason why not. Students of Bangkok history, I think, would confirm this sort of thing happens more frequently in Bangkok than most capital cities. The report is mainly for companies considering business association with a particular country. Should a business take note? It is not mainly for tourists - but it is relavent.

Even though the report says: Terrorism incidents in Thailand's restive Muslim south - such as the October 2009 bomb attacks in Sungai Kolok - largely account for the country's rating. I am sure the Bangkok numbers helped a great deal. Next year Thailand will drop down the rankings again.

What I said is true for the Global Risks Index (GRI) maybe the 'TRI' looking at terrorist risk used the Bangkok numbers differently - were the redshirts terrorists?

Edited November 17, 2010 by creck

[jayjay0]

Just out of interest how many terrorist attacks have there been in the South of Thailand over the last 3 - 4 years. Or isn't that part of Thailand? Because if it is then the near daily bombings, shootings, be-headings put Thailand (in my book anyway) as a country at extreme risk. Or maybe we are all victims of the old saying 'out of sight out of mind.'

Yes, Jon, you've got it right. Unfortunately, as much as possible, the government downplays what is happening down there. And for the average western visitor it's so far away from Soi Cowboy and Chaing Mai's night market that it almost seems like it's in another country altogether. Would anyone really have thought that Bali was at risk a few years ago?

No denying it there is a big problem in the south.

That being said how about some reality.

The four most southern provinces and you want to judge all of Thailand on them. A bit far out aren't you. Why don't you judge all of Thailand by the four northern provinces. It would be closer to the truth. It is the truth we are looking for I hope.

I'm not judging all of Thailand based on the Southern Provinces alone, but there is no denying what effects one, will effect all. and given that more people have died there in the last few years, than British soldiers on active duty on both Afghanistan and Iraq, you can see why it gives Thailand a black eye.

You are correct it does give Thailand a black eye. That how ever does not make the rest of Thailand a place full of Terrorists.

As for how easy it is for them to get to Bangkok. I think it is even quicker to get to KL maybe Malaysia should be on the list.

[virtualtraveller]

I think many are missing the point, we're not talking 'terrorism' or 'safety' we're talking terrorist risk, the result of plenty of detailed data, intelligence and consideration by a professional organisation who compile this data for insurance companies and so on. Risk is the keyword and it's based on a number of factors we fail to see, these include;

1. The ease at which a terrorist organisation could organise an attack in Thailand (it's a popular haven for crooks who the police seem oblivious to)

2. The vulnerability of foreign nationalities being attacked here (14 million tourists, lots of Israeli youth gathering in unprotected guesthouses etc)

3. Incompetent intelligence and ability to investigate and catch perpetrators (Army and police didn't see the airport or Ratchaprasong threat, no one has been caught for the various bombings)

4. A muslim minority, brutally suppressed and disaffected

5. Political discord and lack of unity among the police and army

6. Lots of Americans and Brits coming here on holiday (just like Bali)

7. Likelihood that when political activism arises, Thailand tends to drift towards the most destructive and dramatic outcomes (no common sense prevails)

8. Ease at which money can buy you favour here, turn a police blind eye, and absolve you from responsibility.

Personally, given all these factors, it's a miracle a Bali style bombing hasn't yet happened in Phuket, even from a really pissed off local who wants to spoilt things for this govt, it would be relatively easy to carry out and get away with.

Also, given the sheer audacity and unprecedented events of May 2010, it's no surprise that Thailand earned such a distinction, even if 6 months later we all know that's it's returned to normal with little to worry about.

[craigt3365]

Exactly.

Britain along with some other key western countries are obsessed with terrorism, and in fact it's big business for many companies these days. So it sure pays to 'identify' terrorist 'hotspots' and then foreign politicians can be better persuaded to buy all the shit for their airports and other key institutions in the country.

Apart from two or three provinces, the idea that thailand is at any meaningful risk from terrorism is absurd.

Note that a global risks advisory firm were employed to come up with their figures. I wonder what that juicy contract was worth? These kinds of companies have far too much influence on the setting of policies.

The thai chap was absolutely spot on to publicly deny the report. He should have ridiculed it. Don't tell me that they put britain below thailand?

Funny that the USA isn't on that list with all the money they spend on protecting them selves they must feel that there is a real high chance of terrorism. Also look at the restrictions they put on tourists. The funny part (and sad) part is that they only inspect about 3% of the containers coming into the country. Then again they are not known for a really high IQ. LOL :sorry:

Come on jayjay. This thread is about Thailand and you've turned it into a USA bashing thread. I guarantee there are many in that country with IQs WELL above yours. Very inappropriate statement. Cheap shot.

Back to the OP....This news release is ridiculous. A respected risk assessment firm comes out with a report based on actual events and is refuted with reports from Travel + Leisure and Lonely Planet listing Thailand as a great place to visit. Unreal. Absurd.

Here's the complete list of countries:

Sixteen countries are rated as ‘extreme risk’ with Somalia (1), Pakistan (2), Iraq (3), Afghanistan (4), Palestinian Occupied Territory (5), Colombia (6), Thailand (7), Philippines (8), Yemen (9) and Russia (10) at the bottom of the ranking.

Thailand has some bad company. And it deserves it. Many killed in Bangkok and many building burnt down, civic building burnt down in Issan, the airport closed a few years ago, bombs going off in Bangkok on a regular basis, daily deaths in the South. Will we notice it as tourists? The odds are rare, but some tourists were injured during the riots...and they were not part of the protests. One was almost struck by a stray bullet while walking back to her hotel with her child.

I think there are other countries that should be on this list instead of Thailand...but this is a reputable company who sells their services on a global basis. I would assume they know what they are doing...as opposed to all us punters here on TV....

[random]

I think many are missing the point, we're not talking 'terrorism' or 'safety' we're talking terrorist risk, the result of plenty of detailed data, intelligence and consideration by a professional organisation who compile this data for insurance companies and so on. Risk is the keyword and it's based on a number of factors we fail to see, these include;

1. The ease at which a terrorist organisation could organise an attack in Thailand (it's a popular haven for crooks who the police seem oblivious to)

2. The vulnerability of foreign nationalities being attacked here (14 million tourists, lots of Israeli youth gathering in unprotected guesthouses etc)

3. Incompetent intelligence and ability to investigate and catch perpetrators (Army and police didn't see the airport or Ratchaprasong threat, no one has been caught for the various bombings)

4. A muslim minority, brutally suppressed and disaffected

5. Political discord and lack of unity among the police and army

6. Lots of Americans and Brits coming here on holiday (just like Bali)

7. Likelihood that when political activism arises, Thailand tends to drift towards the most destructive and dramatic outcomes (no common sense prevails)

8. Ease at which money can buy you favour here, turn a police blind eye, and absolve you from responsibility.

Personally, given all these factors, it's a miracle a Bali style bombing hasn't yet happened in Phuket, even from a really pissed off local who wants to spoilt things for this govt, it would be relatively easy to carry out and get away with.

Also, given the sheer audacity and unprecedented events of May 2010, it's no surprise that Thailand earned such a distinction, even if 6 months later we all know that's it's returned to normal with little to worry about.

Good post

[Pi Sek]

Apart from two or three provinces, the idea that thailand is at any meaningful risk from terrorism is absurd.

What's happening in the South is obviously a severe threat to public safety. However, they do not target tourists. Admittedly there aren't many tourists around there, but there are some... and they are welcomed. Speak a little Yawi and the response you'll get is electrifying - in a good way! I've had long chats with Deep South Muslims, as a Buddhist, about what they can do to improve the good name of Islam. "Islam" means "peace", after all.

The threat in the Deep South is to teachers, security workers, hospital staff, public officials and some Buddhists in some predominantly-Muslim tambons. I certainly feel a lot safer at Sungai Kolok fruit market than I do walking the streets of Paris, London or Rome.

And then there's the recent Bangkok terrorism. 91 people died over 40 days, you know - that's a big deal. But again, there are more stabbings than that every weekend in London (even if stabbings aren't terrorism)!

Note that a global risks advisory firm were employed to come up with their figures. I wonder what that juicy contract was worth? These kinds of companies have far too much influence on the setting of policies.

The thai chap was absolutely spot on to publicly deny the report. He should have ridiculed it. Don't tell me that they put britain below thailand?

How cynical! Although I certainly wouldn't write your theory off... notice that a British "global risks advisory firm" - who are basically an insurance agent, not the most reputable of industries - made their report on global terrorism risk. Why focus on terrorism, it is just one risk of many (many of the others are definitely more prevalent in the UK!)?