Proposal to lift martial law in tourist destinations

[hawker9000]

So if a country lifts martial law in some of its provinces, and not in others, how do the travel insurance companies look at it? Can they get that granular with their clients' itineraries that they insure you if you simply say you're not going to the areas where martial law is still in effect? Otherwise, what good does it do to just lift martial law in some of the provinces, particularly if the capital/business center/medical center/shopping center/travel hub/major sightseeing destination, happens to still be under ML?

[webfact]

MARTIAL LAW
Junta urged to consider lifting martial law in tourist areas

BANGKOK: -- THE National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) may be asked to consider on Friday lifting martial law in some tourism-oriented districts and provinces where the curfew had been lifted earlier.

First Army region chief Lt-General Theerachai Nakwanit, who also serves as Peace Keeping Force commander, reportedly instructed every military region to evaluate the political situation and see if there were still moves to rally against the NCPO.

If no group was found to be staging any political activity against the NCPO, he would propose to the NCPO chief and Prime Minister, Prayuth Chan-ocha, at the NCPO meeting tomorrow that martial law be lifted.

The provinces where martial law will be proposed to be lifted include those where the curfew had been earlier revoked as well as tourism-oriented provinces such as Pattaya, Chon Buri, Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai, Kanchanaburi, Ratchaburi and Rayong and those in the South.

Theerachai said officials rarely enforced the Martial Law but it was necessary as some regular laws cannot be effectively enforced, such as in the case of narcotic combating and some security situations.

Basically, the martial law does not disturb the normal life of people, he said and added unless there remained some problems concerning security matter, the martial law can be lifted. NCPO legal and justice procedure chief General Paiboon Koomchaya said Prayuth had only mentioned about relaxing martial law, but the NCPO had not officially discussed the matter.

He said martial law did not cause any obstacles and problems to the people but he admitted that the imposition of martial law did adversely affect the country's image in the eyes of foreign countries.

The military had used martial law in the public interest in order to crack down on influential figures such as drug traders, he said. "Problems and issues related to social organisation could be quickly resolved when we impose martial law," he added.

He said although the imposition of martial law might have negatively affected the country's image and was believed to have reduced the country's competitiveness in the tourism sector, he did not believe martial law had a direct impact on tourism businesses. "Surveys showed that tourists visiting the country were satisfied with their stay and they understood the country's circumstances", he said.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Junta-urged-to-consider-lifting-martial-law-in-tou-30242496.html


-- The Nation 2014-09-04

[Emster23]

Does this mean the old way of police "enforcement" will return? Please say it ain't so! I live in Jomtien. IF anything they should keep martial law in these tourist centers. I don't think most casual tourists will note the shade of difference between everywhere vs everywhere but....

[loongdavid]

I really am at a loss to understand why martial law is not lifted altogether. Sure, lift it in the tourist areas (notwithstanding arguments put forward in previous posts) but as it has had little or no effect on normal day-to-day life in the provinces, why not? Wonderful PR Mr. Prime Minister

[lapd]

Oh thank budda. Now the jetski operators can resume normal business and the police can resume collecting their tea money. Of course it never stopped anyways but now more certainty it will not stop.

[Cpkt8]

Had been traveling to Bkk and Cnx 3 times after the martial law has been implemented and no issues at all. In fact I feel safer, at least I don't have to worry about protests here and there.

[than]

the martial law has never disturb tourists, but only criminals and corrupt people..........

[Dixie Normus]

the martial law has never disturb tourists, but only criminals and corrupt people..........

and democracy, civil liberties, freedom of speech.........

[Roadman]

So if a country lifts martial law in some of its provinces, and not in others, how do the travel insurance companies look at it? Can they get that granular with their clients' itineraries that they insure you if you simply say you're not going to the areas where martial law is still in effect? Otherwise, what good does it do to just lift martial law in some of the provinces, particularly if the capital/business center/medical center/shopping center/travel hub/major sightseeing destination, happens to still be under ML?

Must be some strange insurance companies in the world if they do not insure in countries under martial law.

I have just booked travel insurance into Thailand and the stipulations have nothing to do with martial law but everything to do with my countries government risk rating that being if one is in areas that are high or extreme risk then the policy is invalid. At the moment in Thailand the only area that is defined in that high risk category that invalids my policy is the four southern provinces.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Roadman

[hawker9000]

So if a country lifts martial law in some of its provinces, and not in others, how do the travel insurance companies look at it? Can they get that granular with their clients' itineraries that they insure you if you simply say you're not going to the areas where martial law is still in effect? Otherwise, what good does it do to just lift martial law in some of the provinces, particularly if the capital/business center/medical center/shopping center/travel hub/major sightseeing destination, happens to still be under ML?

Must be some strange insurance companies in the world if they do not insure in countries under martial law.

I have just booked travel insurance into Thailand and the stipulations have nothing to do with martial law but everything to do with my countries government risk rating that being if one is in areas that are high or extreme risk then the policy is invalid. At the moment in Thailand the only area that is defined in that high risk category that invalids my policy is the four southern provinces.

'Makes sense, but I thought that was the reason Thailand had this whole lifting of ML thing under consideration, and that this was supposedly one major component of the "burden" on the Thai economy. I'm really just wondering how a region-by-region thing gets administered by the insurance company. What does the fine print in your policy actually say about what happens if you should happen to venture temporarily into those "exclusion" areas during the coverage period of the policy? Will they pay a claim as long as you don't make it from or mention any involvement in and the loss didn't occur in these southern areas, even if you have actually been in them? Do you have to provide them with a complete trip itinerary or provide any other disclosures that would tell the tale? Anything you have to misrepresent or conceal?

Edited September 5, 2014 by hawker9000

[Yann55]

I doubt it will amount to much. Look at this news item. The junta forced the Thailand Foreign Correspondents Club to shut down a meeting it was having on free speech after the coup. The irony runs thick.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/02/us-thailand-politics-rights-idUSKBN0GX0UB20140902

This Reuters article which you quote is indeed worth reading, because it shows how blatantly journalists can lie about just anything. In our day and age the media are not the 'fourth power' any more, they are the first, they know it, and they fiercely defend their territory, because its both gratifying and lucrative, and of course the first argument they always use is the sacred so-called 'freedom of the press'.

When the basic rules of democracy were explored and set in place by European philosophers and the Founding Fathers of America, they established three powers (legislative, judiciary, executive) which were designed to balance one another in order to avoid totalitarian regimes. The press was not considered as a power 'per se' but rather as a counterpower, and the reason it was seen that way was that journalists at the time had a sense of civic and moral responsability which made them respectable and respected. In that context it was only natural to carve in stone the notions of 'Freedom of Expression' and 'Freedom of the Press'. Sadly the original ethical code has gone down the drain and most journalists nowadays are just as bad if not worse than most politicians : a pack of opportunistic and self-serving wolves.

Even when they do so called 'investigative journalism' they are not looking for the truth, they're out to kill something or someone they have already condemned in their minds.

The most outrageous lie in the article you recommend is this :

'Rights activists say the junta has worked systematically to snuff out all challenges to its authority, including through the detention of hundreds of activists, academics and journalists in the weeks following the coup.'

Hundreds of activists, academics and journalists ???? detained ??? Who ? When ? Where ? How can anyone call himself a journalist and write such an enormous lie ? It's despicable.

So pardon me if I don't jump in the boat of politically correct outrage at the alleged 'crackdown on freedom of expression', all I want to say is that in the 'freedom of the press' and sacrosanct 'freedom of expression' departments, it's just like anywhere else : things are not what they seem. If and when freedom of expression means freedom of lying, manipulating and distorting facts, then no one needs that kind of crap, thank you very much, except those who extract glory and money out of it, ie the journalists.

Edited September 5, 2014 by Yann55

[harrry]

Please do not lift it.