PM Prayut told foreign governments not to be too worried with referendum

[robblok]

8 minutes ago, digibum said:

 

I don't understand what you are not agreeing with.  I'm not really stating an opinion.  

 

I said I was not worried.  Not an opinion.  Fact.  

 

I said I found that saying there's nothing to worry because you have it under control but if something does happen other people did it is absurd.  That's not an opinion, that's simply how logic works.  One statement contradicts the other, thus it is absurd.  

 

Dictionary definition of absurd:  wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.

 

Those two statements together could not fit the definition more precisely.  

 

I said that the PM was using his address to counter concerns raised by some foreign embassies who have issued travel advisories.  As this is one of the jobs of an embassy, to make their citizens aware of situations that could possibly become security issues, I used the word, "rightly" when describing their decisions to issue such advisories.  

 

What part do you disagree with?    

 

 

No your right, i misread mistake. If the general says its safe and he fails at his task he can't blame others. 

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

I am on topic, I responded to your ludicrous claim: "But the track record of the military has shown that they can keep the violence from happening.  "

 

I guess you are young and ignorant of Thai history, but let me tell you that the army has been directly reponsible for a shitload of voilence IN Thailand and against Thai citizens.

 

Of course someone who really uses his brain is going to realize that the way the army currently operates, will only wider the divide and will only lead to more violence.

No your off topic and did not use your brain at all.. otherwise you would have understood that i was talking about referendum and red / yellow violence as is the topic. Now maybe i have given you more credit for intelligence as I should have. I would have assumed you understood. I guess not and your still going off topic even though i spelled it out for you.

Seems like your trolling again. 

[trainman34014]

'Trust me...I am Thai'  !

[sjaak327]

Just now, robblok said:

No your off topic and did not use your brain at all.. otherwise you would have understood that i was talking about referendum and red / yellow violence as is the topic. Now maybe i have given you more credit for intelligence as I should have. I would have assumed you understood. I guess not and your still going off topic even though i spelled it out for you.

Seems like your trolling again. 

 

Ah, so the track record of the army only applies to the last two years, in which they have used repression to prevent any violence ? Maybe you should read my last sentence again.

 

I'm out, I believe you lack the intelligence to even understand the point I'm trying to make.

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

 

Ah, so the track record of the army only applies to the last two years, in which they have used repression to prevent any violence ? Maybe you should read my last sentence again.

 

I'm out, I believe you lack the intelligence to even understand the point I'm trying to make.

Your not making a point your going off topic to complain about the army. While this topic is clearly about violence during the referendum and that indicates red / yellow violence. That violence has been curbed and is gone. Now what happens once the army is gone, no idea. 

 

As long as its so profitable to be a politician they will always want to be in power and will sacrifice their followers to do so and lie and instigate violence to get what they want.. Only real tough anti corruption laws would help (like in the new charter too bad there is a lot of crap in that I don't agree with too)

 

IMHO the army failed to do what they promised corruption wise. They just want to stay in control. 

Edited August 5, 2016 by robblok

[Jason Bourne]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

I wonder why all you guys are worrying so much, there has not been any violence since the army took charge (one of the major plus points). Why would this change all of a sudden. 

 

I am taking bets 2 to one with anyone who wants to bet there wont be any MAJOR violence like those in the past. 

 

 

How quaint, and wrong.

There was no violence over the vast majority of the country during the street protests of 2013, and 2014.

I suppose you also disregard the violence against the police station in Phuket?

 

I suppose you disregarded the violence against tourists in Hua Hin?

 

Oh .....silly me, you're a selective type " there has been no violence" kind of chap.

I think what you've clearly meant was there's been no violence due to the political difference between Thai parties.

I don't recall battling through violent crowds in many Bangkok locations, in fact many seem quite Idyllic really, people seemed quite oblivious to the protests too, I guess you live in a different Thailand to the one you've described.

Does the Government in that Thailand distort the truth (lie) like previous Governments did, in the Thailand you apparently live in?
 

 

[robblok]

Just now, Jason Bourne said:

How quaint, and wrong.

There was no violence over the vast majority of the country during the street protests of 2013, and 2014.

I suppose you also disregard the violence against the police station in Phuket?

 

I suppose you disregarded the violence against tourists in Hua Hin?

 

Oh .....silly me, you're a selective type " there has been no violence" kind of chap.

I think what you've clearly meant was there's been no violence due to the political difference between Thai parties.

I don't recall battling through violent crowds in many Bangkok locations, in fact many seem quite Idyllic really, people seemed quite oblivious to the protests too, I guess you live in a different Thailand to the one you've described.

Does the Government in that Thailand distort the truth (lie) like previous Governments did, in the Thailand you apparently live in?
 

 

 

An other one that can't read the topic. This is about foreign governments warning about violence during the referendum. It has nothing to do with the violence in Hua Hin or Phuket (otherwise it would have been mentioned) Also those incidents of violence fall under the jurisdiction of the RTP

 

The topic is violence during the referendum and the warning given out about it. Anyone with half a brain knows this means red / yellow violence. Now the army (has many faults) but has curbed this quite well. I don't expect any violence of that type I am still taking bets. (too bad that is illigal and that the red supporters wont put their money where their mouth is) I could have made a killing

[sjaak327]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

Your not making a point your going off topic to complain about the army. While this topic is clearly about violence during the referendum and that indicates red / yellow violence. That violence has been curbed and is gone. Now what happens once the army is gone, no idea. 

 

As long as its so profitable to be a politician they will always want to be in power and will sacrifice their followers to do so and lie and instigate violence to get what they want.. Only real tough anti corruption laws would help (like in the new charter too bad there is a lot of crap in that I don't agree with too)

 

IMHO the army failed to do what they promised corruption wise. They just want to stay in control. 

the point I am trying to make is that the way the army has been prevented violence in the last two years, using repression, has only lead to less reconciliation, not more.

 

As to stay in control, that was the whole point of the coup and is the whole point of the charter.

[Alwyn]

"Mr Obama, great news, General Prayut has told us there's no need to worry about the referendum and we don't need to issue travel advisories".

 

Mr Obama. "Who? What? Eh?".

[Jason Bourne]

Oh dear old chap, when you make such statements as

 

Quote

there has not been any violence since the army took charge (one of the major plus points).

 

You leave yourself wide open to criticism.

Have you heard of the concept of duty of care? I would guess not, with your response. Historically, there has always been a potential for violence on such occasions within Thailand, it would be the correct thing for the Governments of foreigners to warn them of the potential dangers during what is going to be a volatile time.

Are you saying there's no need for foreign countries to show duty of care towards it's citizens?
 

How odd you feel there's no need.

[sjaak327]

5 minutes ago, Jason Bourne said:

Oh dear old chap, when you make such statements as

 

 

You leave yourself wide open to criticism.

Have you heard of the concept of duty of care? I would guess not, with your response. Historically, there has always been a potential for violence on such occasions within Thailand, it would be the correct thing for the Governments of foreigners to warn them of the potential dangers during what is going to be a volatile time.

Are you saying there's no need for foreign countries to show duty of care towards it's citizens?
 

How odd you feel there's no need.

Trouble with that statement is that there has been plenty of violence in Thailand during the last two years. But apparently only red/yellow violence is on topic. Of course the chance of red/yellow violence during the referendum is small. As for the first time they seem to agree on something as both PT and the democrats have rejected the draft charter

[cmsally]

Gosh not much violence in North Korea also, wonder why that is.

That was the place the US ambassador did his work experience .

[Jason Bourne]

2 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Trouble with that statement is that there has been plenty of violence in Thailand during the last two years. But apparently only red/yellow violence is on topic. Of course the chance of red/yellow violence during the referendum is small. As for the first time they seem to agree on something as both PT and the democrats have rejected the draft charter

Absolutely, it would appear that the poster is extremely selective , say what you mean and mean what you say, if you're referring to political violence then say as much.

I do believe the last time there was violence at polling stations was the February 2014 elections, so it's not really unreasonable to expect a repeat in many peoples eyes.

I do agree, the chances of violence are extremely limited, however, duty of care still implies.

[robblok]

13 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

the point I am trying to make is that the way the army has been prevented violence in the last two years, using repression, has only lead to less reconciliation, not more.

 

As to stay in control, that was the whole point of the coup and is the whole point of the charter.

 

That is why I dont like the charter, I do like the parts about the removal of the statute of limitations on corruption and heavier punishment for corrupt politicians. 

 

Repression will work as long as the army is in control But reconciliation wont work, I explained it before.The politicians don't want it they want to make money through corruption (there are only a few that i consider trustworthy. Abisith and Korn being two of them of others in the Democrat party I am not so sure) As long as this is the case then the politicians will do anything to come in power and to stay in power. The only solution is to take away politicians ability to make money out of their position. The moment that happens an other kind of politician will rise the kind that really wants to help the country. Now there are many crooks Thaksin being a prime example (but also in the army) who just want to get back in power for money or to get their crimes forgiven. They will do anything to get into power again including sacrificing their followers. 

 

Reconciliation wont work as long as this has not been changed.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Jason Bourne said:

Absolutely, it would appear that the poster is extremely selective , say what you mean and mean what you say, if you're referring to political violence then say as much.

I do believe the last time there was violence at polling stations was the February 2014 elections, so it's not really unreasonable to expect a repeat in many peoples eyes.

I do agree, the chances of violence are extremely limited, however, duty of care still implies.

Of course I am selective, because the governments issued a warning about violence during the referendum. That implies red / yellow violence. I wonder why that is so hard to understand. That is the whole topic here. Good to see everyone agrees that that kind of violence is extremely unlikely to happen. So the embassies were largely wrong about this message. If they wanted to protect their people they should say be careful in Thai traffic that is far more dangerous everyday (and i still ride a motorbike)

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

I don't really agree.. all the time that the army has been in charge there has been no violence on the scale what we seen before. Now if there was any indication that there would be violence I agree. But the track record of the military has shown that they can keep the violence from happening. 

 

Well, there was the little matters of the Erawan Bombing, the pipe bomb set off outside Siam Paragon, and various other incidents (including detained people dying in prison, etc etc.) -- all of which can be considered politically inspired.

 

But I'll agree, not the same kind of widespread politically-inspired street violence that the Thai police previously did little or nothing to prevent / pursue.

 

Edited August 5, 2016 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Quote

 

He also said that he had ordered the scrapping the proposed “Siamese Lice” economic model by finance permanent secretary Somchai Satjaphong, saying that it is unsuitable and irrelevant.

 

The economic model advocates Thailand to be friendly with all countries, to forge economic relationship with more affluent countries in order to take the utmost advantage of them and then to switch to new partners after the former have been drained out of their resources.

 

 

Huh????  Where did this little jewel come from?

 

But, when you think about it, it actually is a pretty well-traveled strategy around these parts, particularly employed by any number of unscrupulous Thai women and their short-term farang husbands.   Perhaps that's where the government got the idea.

[sjaak327]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

Of course I am selective, because the governments issued a warning about violence during the referendum. That implies red / yellow violence. I wonder why that is so hard to understand. That is the whole topic here. Good to see everyone agrees that that kind of violence is extremely unlikely to happen. So the embassies were largely wrong about this message. If they wanted to protect their people they should say be careful in Thai traffic that is far more dangerous everyday (and i still ride a motorbike)

 

I don't think those governments are worried about red/yellow violence. As stated earlier, the two political parties concerned are in agreement, they both have rejected the charter using pretty strong words. I think the violence that is feared is violence against opponents of the Junta trying to disrupt the process, or trying to persuade people to vote no.

 

And those opponents are not all reds, there are quite a few yellows that want this lot gone as well.

[Felt 35]

I dont think the vote for or against the referendum will be a problem The majority of voters will vote for. Not necessarily because that`s correct but here as in so many other countries the general population have to little political knowledge and are not making parallels with previous governance so populist schema`s win.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Felt 35

[robblok]

Just now, sjaak327 said:

 

I don't think those governments are worried about red/yellow violence. As stated earlier, the two political parties concerned are in agreement, they both have rejected the charter using pretty strong words. I think the violence that is feared is violence against opponents of the Junta trying to disrupt the process, or trying to persuade people to vote no.

 

And those opponents are not all reds, there are quite a few yellows that want this lot gone as well.

 

Sjaak, then I don't get it because the warning is specifically about violence during the referendum.  That really means red / yellow violence. If they were worried about violence in Thailand they would not have hooked it to the referendum topic and would have made a general statement.

 

Btw I am deeply disappointed with the army too. (they should have really focused on anti corruption laws like they promised. Now they just want to stay in power. But i still prefer them over the PTP and their crooks., but I don't want them to stay in power like this.

[sjaak327]

Just now, robblok said:

 

Sjaak, then I don't get it because the warning is specifically about violence during the referendum.  That really means red / yellow violence. If they were worried about violence in Thailand they would not have hooked it to the referendum topic and would have made a general statement.

 

Btw I am deeply disappointed with the army too. (they should have really focused on anti corruption laws like they promised. Now they just want to stay in power. But i still prefer them over the PTP and their crooks., but I don't want them to stay in power like this.

 

I specifically talked about violence during the referendum "the violence that is feared is violence against opponents of the Junta trying to disrupt the process, or trying to persuade people to vote no. "

 

The process being the referendum itself.

 

As to the army focussing on anti corruption, never going to happen, they have the power and riches they enjoy thanks to widespread corruption for as long as anyone can remember. They are worse than the PTP since they cannot be voted out of office, they have shown to have no respect for basic human rights and the only reason why they staged the coup is to ensure their continued power base, the draft up for approval will ensure this.

 

This time around, they don't need to even stage a coup to get rid of a government they and their masters don't approve off. Unless some smart guy finds a loophole in the charter, in which case a coup and a circus as we have seen the last two years will be very likely.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

...

Edited August 5, 2016 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

18 minutes ago, robblok said:

 

Sjaak, then I don't get it because the warning is specifically about violence during the referendum.  That really means red / yellow violence.

 

 

I think you're construing the breadth of the consular warnings to narrowly. If anything, the kind of violence they probably have in mind, at least in part, is the prospect of the authorities going over those that they perceive to be obstructing or interfering with their particular agenda such as in the event of public protests or demonstrations, etc.

 

That wouldn't be red / yellow violence. That would be junta / anti-junta violence.

 

Edited August 5, 2016 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[chainarong]

Why would the international community be concerned about a referendum , that is not the issue , it is the intent of the Junta that raise the ire of  foreign Governments ,and the UN,  it doesn't matter how you dress up the referendum the matter of 3 Defence Chiefs and 1 secretary of defence as automatic appointments and 240 senators elected from the floor, is enough for anyone who knows democracy to wonder what planet some people in Thailand are actually on.

[FunkyDunky58]

Umm, let me see. "Don't worry, there won't be any trouble because the army is maintaining peace and order. But if there is trouble it will be because of people that want to make trouble." Genius!

[Redline]

11 hours ago, Somtamnication said:

When a Thai tells me to not worry, I worry! 

And I keep telling them, don't worry about the condum

[Baerboxer]

11 hours ago, BigBadGeordie said:

Don't worry because the army is taking care of things.

Did it never occur to the PM that this may be the very reason that foriegn governments isssued the warnings in the first place?

 

These warnings are always issued when elections take place in any country that has a history of political related violence. Keep away - don't poke your nose into other people's business or put yourself in situations that might be dangerous. Common sense from Foreign Offices whose Embassies don't want any hassle or work if their citizens get in trouble.

[tbthailand]

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha assured foreign governments that there is no need for them to be worried ...

 

right, because the referendum is just the next step in the continued rule of the military junta and nothing will change whether it passes or not... 

 

Don't worry, ... everything is under control.