Swap places with boat migrants, Thai PM tells critics

[cookee68]

Its not just their meat they slaughtered, why do most Muslims have demands, regardless of where they are from, yes even boat people, or illegal immigrants as they are, have demands

[cookee68]

Second point..why don't the Rohingya simply walk back into Bangladesh where their fellow Muslim brothers will welcome them with open arms?

Do some reading.

Bangladesh doesn't want them.

And neither does the rest of the world, if you read most peoples arguments, they will only be hated in their adopted foreign countries, so why not just stay at home in their own country

[bendejo]

This country has never been a place for dairy products, and now from its leaders not even the milk of human kindness.

[Oziex1]

I agree with PM. Now, there are 9 refugee camps in Thailand which opened in more than 20 years ago with approx. 140,000 regufees that cannot close down. And money from UNHCR nerver enough for run all these camps. So, It is enough for refugee camp in Thailand.

Whatever money is available to fund these camps, Thailand's corrupt society will be pocketing a cut.

[Oziex1]

Second point..why don't the Rohingya simply walk back into Bangladesh where their fellow Muslim brothers will welcome them with open arms?

Do some reading.

Bangladesh doesn't want them.

And neither does the rest of the world, if you read most peoples arguments, they will only be hated in their adopted foreign countries, so why not just stay at home in their own country

Had you been following these threads a bit closer you would understand the Rohingya are stateless they have no country. This is the driving factor of their crisis.

[Oziex1]

Its not just their meat they slaughtered, why do most Muslims have demands, regardless of where they are from, yes even boat people, or illegal immigrants as they are, have demands

You must be new here have you not read the constant demands of Westerners living in Thailand and the demands of the Thai people, the Thais took their demands to the streets with violence.

Everybody demands something, right or wrong.

[Toknarok]

According to reports on the ABC news this morning, Indonesia has stated that less than half of the boat people are in fact Rohinja. The rest are illegal migrants from Bangladesh, labourers looking to get work in either Malaysia or Indonesia.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-23/bishop-says-most-of-7000-stranded-people-are-labourers/6491836

[Strangebrew]

Mr PM your PR guy is an "IDIOT" time to take him out back and put a bullet in the brain pan. Even the Philippines has offered help and they got problems of there own Well here comes new Tier # 99 just for IDIOTS and Coupmakers.

[chainarong]

This issue splits people into those who support accepting immigrants on boats & those who don't. PM Prayut's stance is protecting the sovereignty of Thailand against illegal immigration, if gives way, it will create a flood of people. The issue needs to be dealt with at source, i.e. Myanmar & Bangladesh, these people have/are residents of either of those countries; both countries are abrogating their responsibilities. Also reported, representatives of Indonesia & Malayasia are meeting in Nay Pyi Taw to seek a solution, & once again the US is sticking it's nose in (uninvited, this action needs to occur as a means of stopping this mass illegal & dangerous migration. Australia has declared it will not resettle any of these migrants, as PM Abbott quite rightly said migrants are accepted into Australia through the "front door"; not the "back door".

I agree to a certain degree Eggers ,But I ask 1Term Tony and You , how do you apply to immigrate through the front door when your country of origin wont process your application or you don't have rights to immigrate as you are regarded as scum in your own country or after a decade of war the local immigration office is a pile of rubble , the idea that these refugee's (where ever they are) , can just fill in a form and off we go is just to simplistic, that's the sole reason they have taken to the boats.

[tonbridgebrit]

Okay, in Europe, how would it look if a European politician was to look at the ships carrying migrants from North Africa to Europe, and say the same thing ??

[Pdaz]

I wish the hand wringing do gooders in the EU would pay attention to this.. The PM is putting his country first. I wish the UK Govt had balls this big..

[tonbridgebrit]

I wish the hand wringing do gooders in the EU would pay attention to this.. The PM is putting his country first. I wish the UK Govt had balls this big..

If most people back home in England did actually reckon that foreigners on boats should not be allowed into Britain, well, why didn't the Conservatives (and Labour and the Liberals) say "no more foreigners on boats will be allowed into our country" ?

They didn't say it, because it would be a public relations disaster to say it, and that's because most people in Britain don't actually reckon it's right to turn away boats full of men, women and children.

[Credo]

Anyone who thinks Thailand is going to allow immigration of a large group of Muslims into Thailand are daydreaming after smoking dope... It is not going to happen. Big Muslim problem in the south ... bring in more Muslims ... yeah right - that's a solution... Get a Grip folks... The Thai Government may not be to your particular liking -- but they are not suicidal ...

The PM is blunt because sappy liberals, leftists and socialists just cannot apply logic - cannot hear and cannot process information ... Malaysia and Indonesia relented - even though they don't want to - because they have heavy Muslim populations. A few more will not make much difference ... Thailand is about 96 percent Buddhist. Can you figure that out now?

Notice totally Muslims Countries and rich ones .. The Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the like are not funding ships and boats to go rescue these so called immigrants - even though they could use low wage labor - as they employ many thousands of South East Asians each year in that capacity. Some talk about empathy or sympathy ... I guess that only applies to Thailand - correct? I have not seen any news that these ultra rich Muslim countries are even sending money to help these Muslim people ... Can any of you who have misplaced sympathies for these 'refugees' and criticism for Thailand - apply a little criticism to The Emirates, Qatar and Saudi Arabia and other rich Muslim countries? If not - why not?

IMO - if these refugees were Buddhists then quite naturally they would be rescued and allowed at least temporary stay .... And Why ? Other than the obvious ... they would not likely become trouble makers.

Countries do have a right of self-protection and a right to not have to import potential ethnic and religious problems. Just because the EU Countries and the U.K. are blind as a bat to this concept doesn't mean others should have to follow the blind.

These boat people should be treated humanely - helped in all kinds of ways in their safety, food, clothing, even a little money and more ... then help them by returning them in a safe ship back to where they came from ... Then sink the Traffickers boats... do this a hundred times until there are no more available boats.

So Buddhists should be allowed, but not Muslims? If you keep up with the situation, there is no plan for the boat people to actually be allowed to remain or live in Thailand. The existing discussions are about temporary asylum. They will be housed in camps.

As for returning them, best of luck. Those from Myanmar and many from Bangladesh are not citizens. Myanmar will not take them back.

There didn't seem to be any problem with letting them in as long as they could make a few baht, sell them to others or hold them for ransom and then kill those who couldn't pay.

[Credo]

The remarks about Thailand having 900,000 refugees is untrue. Thailand does not recognize the UN conventions and agreements on refugees. No one in Thailand is given refugee status. Even the UN can only recognize certain individuals as 'Persons of Concern.' Those people are supported with a small stipend by the UN.

They live in peril and can be removed at anytime. Some years back, the Hmong were returned to Laos.

[meatboy]

I wish the hand wringing do gooders in the EU would pay attention to this.. The PM is putting his country first. I wish the UK Govt had balls this big..

maybe he should ask all them thats been thieving in goverment to put their hands in their pockets for some loose change.

oh has he been nuetured.

[Oziex1]

I find it remarkable how the original request for help can be grabbed, twisted and turned into the argument about immigration.

This was never about immigration it was only ever about providing some much needed emergency assistance.

As for allowing them into Thailand, well they were allowed into the country, in their thousands to be ruthlessly exploited, raped and murdered.

Does this treatment, please the blow them out of the water brigade?

[Mr Somtam]

What a compasionate Buddhist he is...

[JDGRUEN]

I wish the hand wringing do gooders in the EU would pay attention to this.. The PM is putting his country first. I wish the UK Govt had balls this big..

If most people back home in England did actually reckon that foreigners on boats should not be allowed into Britain, well, why didn't the Conservatives (and Labour and the Liberals) say "no more foreigners on boats will be allowed into our country" ?

They didn't say it, because it would be a public relations disaster to say it, and that's because most people in Britain don't actually reckon it's right to turn away boats full of men, women and children.

Citizens of the U.K. have few rights to speak out against bringing in boat people or the out of control immigration lest they be charged with making racist - hate speech ... Words that could be used to speak against immigration - because it involves people of color or of a different religion are not allowed words... the effective ones any way ... If one wants to speak in muted tones and thus arouse no public sentiment -- then immigration goes unchallenged in the U.K.. - Political Correctness Enforcers have stifled Free Speech in the U.K. So who knows what the citizenry wants ... But the sheep/slaves seem to like it.

[Bluespunk]

I wish the hand wringing do gooders in the EU would pay attention to this.. The PM is putting his country first. I wish the UK Govt had balls this big..

If most people back home in England did actually reckon that foreigners on boats should not be allowed into Britain, well, why didn't the Conservatives (and Labour and the Liberals) say "no more foreigners on boats will be allowed into our country" ?

They didn't say it, because it would be a public relations disaster to say it, and that's because most people in Britain don't actually reckon it's right to turn away boats full of men, women and children.

Citizens of the U.K. have few rights to speak out against bringing in boat people or the out of control immigration lest they be charged with making racist - hate speech ... Words that could be used to speak against immigration - because it involves people of color or of a different religion are not allowed words... the effective ones any way ... If one wants to speak in muted tones and thus arouse no public sentiment -- then immigration goes unchallenged in the U.K.. - Political Correctness Enforcers have stifled Free Speech in the U.K. So who knows what the citizenry wants ... But the sheep/slaves seem to like it.

Nonsense.

[JDGRUEN]

I wish the hand wringing do gooders in the EU would pay attention to this.. The PM is putting his country first. I wish the UK Govt had balls this big..

If most people back home in England did actually reckon that foreigners on boats should not be allowed into Britain, well, why didn't the Conservatives (and Labour and the Liberals) say "no more foreigners on boats will be allowed into our country" ?

They didn't say it, because it would be a public relations disaster to say it, and that's because most people in Britain don't actually reckon it's right to turn away boats full of men, women and children.

Citizens of the U.K. have few rights to speak out against bringing in boat people or the out of control immigration lest they be charged with making racist - hate speech ... Words that could be used to speak against immigration - because it involves people of color or of a different religion are not allowed words... the effective ones any way ... If one wants to speak in muted tones and thus arouse no public sentiment -- then immigration goes unchallenged in the U.K.. - Political Correctness Enforcers have stifled Free Speech in the U.K. So who knows what the citizenry wants ... But the sheep/slaves seem to like it.

Nonsense.

One of many examples... request to ban citizen protest over sexual abuse in the Muslim community ... notice the lack of the use of the word Muslim .... The community is made up of a large number of Pakistanis with many new comers immigrants in England. Horrendous crimes committed but citizens are seen as the problem for protesting.

Police and council move to ban Rotherham abuse protests

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/exclusive-police-and-council-move-to-ban-rotherham-abuse-protests-1-7275252

I can find more examples -- individual citizens being fined or prosecuted for using words classified as hate speech... Classifying speech as racist or hate speech means a spade can never be called a spade - and the opposition of the people cannot be aroused in a normal manner. Speech is stifled ... Free Speech is denied in Britain on an everyday basis.

[Bluespunk]

Nonsense.

You can protest or object to anything in the UK as long as you have rational reasons for doing so. Or at least like UKIP pretend you have.

Racist prejudice, religious bigotry or other forms of hate are quite rightly banned, ignored or in extreme cases prosecuted.

If you object to something on rational grounds you can say what you like in terms that do not play upon racism, prejudice or bigotry.

If you can't do that but rely on fear, intolerance, ignorance or hate then you have no case to argue.

[zydeco]

Nonsense.

You can protest or object to anything in the UK as long as you have rational reasons for doing so. Or at least like UKIP pretend you have.

Racist prejudice, religious bigotry or other forms of hate are quite rightly banned, ignored or in extreme cases prosecuted.

If you object to something on rational grounds you can say what you like in terms that do not play upon racism, prejudice or bigotry.

If you can't do that but rely on fear, intolerance, ignorance or hate then you have no case to argue.

And just who determines whether your objection is "rational" or based on "fear, intolerance, ignorance or hate?"

[Bluespunk]

Nonsense.

You can protest or object to anything in the UK as long as you have rational reasons for doing so. Or at least like UKIP pretend you have.

Racist prejudice, religious bigotry or other forms of hate are quite rightly banned, ignored or in extreme cases prosecuted.

If you object to something on rational grounds you can say what you like in terms that do not play upon racism, prejudice or bigotry.

If you can't do that but rely on fear, intolerance, ignorance or hate then you have no case to argue.

And just who determines whether your objection is "rational" or based on "fear, intolerance, ignorance or hate?"

If your argument is sound and is based on factors that do not play on racism, bigotry, prejudice, intolerance, irrational fears, then in theory it should be rational.

In the UK you can argue your case but not preach hate.

Luckily the courts there are able to decide when hate is used to replace the truth.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Bluespunk

[zydeco]

Nonsense.

You can protest or object to anything in the UK as long as you have rational reasons for doing so. Or at least like UKIP pretend you have.

Racist prejudice, religious bigotry or other forms of hate are quite rightly banned, ignored or in extreme cases prosecuted.

If you object to something on rational grounds you can say what you like in terms that do not play upon racism, prejudice or bigotry.

If you can't do that but rely on fear, intolerance, ignorance or hate then you have no case to argue.

And just who determines whether your objection is "rational" or based on "fear, intolerance, ignorance or hate?"

If your argument is sound and is based on factors that do not play on racism, bigotry, prejudice, intolerance, irrational fears, then in theory it should be rational.

In the UK you can argue your case but not preach hate.

Luckily the courts there are able to decide when hate is used to replace the truth.

The courts? This is why I prefer to see free speech as specifically established in the US. The fact that I would need to go to court to "prove" my right to speak to some judge inherently curtails free speech and free thought. This makes for government speech codes that chill freedom of expression.

[Bluespunk]

I am happy to see those spreading hate speech based on all I've previously said in court.

Even happier when they are forced to stop.

Freedom of speech carries the responsibility not to abuse it to spread hate.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Bluespunk

[KarenBravo]

Of course free speech should be allowed to spread hate.

The antidote is more free speech to show how ridiculous that position is.

Free speech is free speech.

When radical muslims use the very same right to spread their poisonous ideas against non-muslims, non-muslims should be able to answer in kind.

Everyone is so scared of being labelled racist that 1200 children were sexually abused because of that fear.

Go to Youtube and listen to what the late Christopher Hitchens has to say on the subject.

It's time for tolerant societies to stand up against intolerance.

Edited May 25, 2015 by KarenBravo

[JDGRUEN]

I am happy to see those spreading hate speech based on all I've previously said in court.

Even happier when they are forced to stop.

Freedom of speech carries the responsibility not to abuse it to spread hate.

No it does not ... when liberals - leftists and progressives are the self-appointed ones who insist that their definition of hate is the rule and arbiter of all speech. Political Correctness has bastardized any concept of direct speech that carried the world fine until PC reared its ugly head some 30-40 years ago

I pity the Brits of today ... they would not be alive today had their grandfathers and grandmothers not called Nazis for what they were. There never would have been a successful Battle of Britain had modern day metro sexual namby pambies spouting Political Correctness been in charge back in the day ... Jackboot Nazis would have been just misunderstood ruffians ...

I am sad that you are happy for stifling free speech ...

[Bluespunk]

Of course free speech should be allowed to spread hate.

The antidote is more free speech to show how ridiculous that position is.

Free speech is free speech.

When radical muslims use the very same right to spread their poisonous ideas against non-muslims, non-muslims should be able to answer in kind.

Everyone is so scared of being labelled racist that 1200 children were sexually abused because of that fear.

Go to Youtube and listen to what the late Christopher Hitchens has to say on the subject.

It's time for tolerant societies to stand up against intolerance.

Disagree with you n

Edited May 25, 2015 by Bluespunk

[Bluespunk]

I am happy to see those spreading hate speech based on all I've previously said in court.

Even happier when they are forced to stop.

Freedom of speech carries the responsibility not to abuse it to spread hate.

No it does not ... when liberals - leftists and progressives are the self-appointed ones who insist that their definition of hate is the rule and arbiter of all speech. Political Correctness has bastardized any concept of direct speech that carried the world fine until PC reared its ugly head some 30-40 years ago

I pity the Brits of today ... they would not be alive today had their grandfathers and grandmothers not called Nazis for what they were. There never would have been a successful Battle of Britain had modern day metro sexual namby pambies spouting Political Correctness been in charge back in the day ... Jackboot Nazis would have been just misunderstood ruffians ...

I am sad that you are happy for stifling free speech ...

The nazi's genocidal actions is a clear example of where hate speech leads and a salutary lesson in why it should not be allowed to happen.

It is ridiculous to claim opposing nazi ideas is hate speech. Laughable on fact. I find it incredible that anyone cannot see this or believe opposing such philosophies based upon lies, hate and fear is difficult to break down in rational grounds.

I said previously that you could oppose anything as long as it was based on rational arguments and not bigotry. Did you read those posts?

The intolerance and xenophobia that underlies nazi philosophy is the same as that which is behind religious bigotry, racism and other forms of prejudice.

Very easy to counter without any need to resort to hate speech.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Bluespunk

[Bluespunk]

Of course free speech should be allowed to spread hate.

The antidote is more free speech to show how ridiculous that position is.

Free speech is free speech.

When radical muslims use the very same right to spread their poisonous ideas against non-muslims, non-muslims should be able to answer in kind.

Everyone is so scared of being labelled racist that 1200 children were sexually abused because of that fear.

Go to Youtube and listen to what the late Christopher Hitchens has to say on the subject.

It's time for tolerant societies to stand up against intolerance.

Disagree with you n

I disagree with you in that while I feel you can state a case or oppose anything you like or point out a crime occurring in any community, faith or political philosophy or whatever it must be based on rational argument not hate.