Thai bully SG & downgrade relationship
-
Think about it la...
Dun huan lok things not related to 'us' la..
I getting headache liao la
Stop it
-
Should you be 'surprised' at all at the reaction of the Thai military govt? Does it not in any way mirror the typical response from our ruling party when it suits them? The way our govt lacks the human touch when providing a response to its own people, is a clear reflection of the mannerism our govt conducts itself, answerable to no one save their own.Originally posted by socrates:I am surprised by some of the remarks made here... Personally I felt that Singapore have every right to let anyone visit or visit anyone. They do not have to seek permission from any Ah Gou or Ah Niao for them to do things. This is especially true since he do not require VISA and he is not a criminal. Sensitivity-wise, all the procedures used are for "private" visit and I do not think we should obey Thai who decide who we should visit or not visit. So is it recommended that this "old friend" of Thaksin can never see him ever again ? I think this is their personal rights.
It seems to me that the current Thai Gov behaves like little kids claiming "I don't friend him, my friends also cannot friend him" kind of mentality. But seeing the things they had done before, it is not a surprise and they are inflicting more political damage to themselves.
About the deal with Thaksin telecom company, it is strictly a business deal. It is perfectly legal and it is a tragedy that it have been politicised to this. Nobody can foresee the military coup then.
Given the already political atmosphere and animosity between the current Thai govt and Thaksin, it should come as no surprise that Singapore's preceived belligerence bellies the arrogance in their actions. Could it be that our learned ministers and leaders failed to take into account the political repercussions of such a 'social visit'?
Surely after Temaesk's buyout of Shin Corp sparking dismay among the Thais, arguably the indirect cause of the military coup, along with the friendly nature Thakin enjoys with our govt, how could anyone expect the current Thai administration to consider his recent 'social vist' to be little more than a house call and private get-together?
Has our govt, coupled by many of the responses in this thread, failed to consider the insensitivity of our govt's 'learned' actions, despite their claims to sovereign rights as a nation?Singapore is "saddened" with Thailand's action over Thaksin's meeting with Jayakumar
It regrets Thai government's decision to cancel exchange programme and rescind invitation to Foreign Minister George Yeo to attend a joint meeting
By Irene Ngoo
Jan 16, 2007
AsiaOne
Singapore says it is "saddened" that Thailand had decided to cancel a civil service exchange programme with Singapore and rescind its invitation to Foreign Minister George Yeo to attend the joint meeting in Bangkok at the end of this month, in what is seen as a protest against a meeting between ousted Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar last weekend.
The latest Thai diplomatic retaliation came shortly after Singapore's ambassador to Thailand, Mr Peter Chan, was summoned by the Thai Foreign Ministry permanent secretary earlier today to explain why Mr Thaksin was allowed to meet such a top government figure in the city-state.
The Singapore Foreign Ministry had said Mr Thaksin was in Singapore for a private visit and had requested to meet Professor Jayakumar, who is an "old friend."
"We expressed dissatisfaction with the incident and the explanation made by Singapore authorities," Thai Foreign Ministry spokesman Kitti Wasinondh said today, explaining why the Thai government was suspending the Thailand-Singapore Civil Service Exchange Programme (CSEP) and cancelling the CSEP coordinating meeting that was scheduled to be held from Jan 29 to 31. Bangkok also rescinded an invitation to Minister Yeo to attend the joint meeting.
"Singapore should be more cautious about allowing such movements since we have already revoked Thaksin's diplomatic passport," added the spokesman, who said Singapore's ambassador was informed of the Thai government's decision during his meeting with foreign ministry permanent secretary Krit Garnjana-Goonchorn.
The Singapore Foreign Ministry, in response to media queries on Thailand's action, said in a statement tonight: "The Singapore Government hopes that Thailand can appreciate Singapore's position on the visit.
"The Thai Government did not notify us that Dr Thaksin has been charged for any offence. There is also no restriction on where he can travel to. He had chosen to make a visit to Singapore on his own. Dr Thaksin had asked to meet Deputy Prime Minister Professor S Jayakumar, who is an old friend.
"It was purely a social and private meeting. No official calls or meetings were arranged. Thai nationals do not require visas to visit Singapore. There is no reason for Singapore to turn Dr Thaksin away. Prior to Singapore, Dr Thaksin had also visited several other countries without any protest by the Thai Government."
The statement said Singapore was "saddened" that the Thai government had chosen to take this course of action."
"We hope Thailand will respect Singapore's position as that of a sovereign country. We value the longstanding friendly relations with Thailand," it added.
Since his removal in a military coup on Sept 19, Mr Thaksin has spent most of his time travelling to London, Beijing, Hong Kong, Bali and now Singapore, where he is expected to stay for a couple more days before leaving for China, said an AFP report.
He also used his Singapore visit to give his first televised interview since his ouster, telling the American media that he had no intention of returning to Thai politics and had nothing to do with the bomb blasts in the capital on New Year's Eve, which the military has blamed on his political supporters. He also warned that the Thai public would not tolerate military rule in the kingdom for long.
Thai military government muzzling media coverage on Thaksin
AP reports: The military council that removed Thaksin has renewed attempts to muzzle the media and its coverage of Thaksin. The generals asked broadcasters last week to limit coverage of comments by Thaksin and his representatives in the name of national unity, prompting a media outcry. But the government succeeded in blocking certain broadcasts.
A CNN interview with Thaksin broadcast elsewhere on Monday evening was not shown in Thailand.
Cable TV provider UBC decided "not to broadcast the interview," said a UBC official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject. The official said there had been no particular order from coup leaders not to air the interview.
CNN spokeswoman Yvonne Yuen at the network's Asian headquarters in Hong Kong had no immediate comment.
"We are unable to comment on the action taken by affiliates," she said.
Since the coup, the military and the temporary government it installed have blamed Thaksin and his supporters for trying to cause unrest to destabilize the country. Thaksin has denied the allegations, for which no evidence has been produced.
Thaksin has been barred from returning to the country since the coup.
In the CNN interview, Thaksin repeated that he has retired from politics.
"Enough is enough," he said, adding that it was time to "contribute to the Thai society outside the political arena."
In a separate interview published Monday in The Wall Street Journal, Thaksin said he would not try to return to power.
"I reassure them they shouldn't feel worried about me," he said, adding that he will not seek to regain his old job, but will remain a member of his political party.
Reader's comment
An AsiaOne reader, Mr Eng Frank, who read this story, immediately posted his comments on AsiaOne, saying: "The new Thai government appointed after the coup is practising strong arm bullying tactic as far as the recent visit by the ousted former PM to Singapore is concerned.
"Why don't they summon the Chinese High Com,US High Com,British High Com and Indonesian High Com to give an account as to why their governments provide free travel and freedom for Mr Thaksin to stay?" -
If they downgrade ties with singapore..Singapore is the one that stand out to lose the most..not thailandOriginally posted by (human):The coup has down graded Thailand, now they want a down grade tie with Singapore.
Dun make mi laugh -
Thai new government should thanks SG to let Thaksin give
his words in SG to quit politics:
2.Would you believe Council for National Security NOT directly or indirectly
In Singapore, Mr Thaksin gave interviews to CNN and the Wall Street Journal stating his intention to quit politics and criticising the Thai government's economic policies.
Council for National Security chief Sonthi Boonyarataklin denied CNS had censored the CNN interview with Mr Thaksin.
ordering censorship??
3.i like SG do things in board day light---Sue it,ban it,censor it.
The CNS request for cooperation from the broadcast media - not to cover any activities of the deposed prime minister - has, apparently, driven the editor of UBC to apply self-censorship so as to avoid what one CNS member said bluntly: ''Use your discretion properly or we impose our own discretion''.
Whether this is described as just a ''request'' or a veiled threat, it amounts to direct interference with the performance of the media, whose duty is only to provide the public with access to information in an unbiased, balanced manner. In so doing, the CNS is no different from Mr Thaksin who, during his past five years in office, has resorted to all the tricks to silence the media and journalists who are critical of him or his administration.
NO hidden agenda. -
I am sure if we have Mr Chee Soon Juan (or some other guys) running to China to hide, Singapore will be up in arms against him. Before you guys comment further, about Thai citizens being happy about Thaksin's rule and such, I can assure you now that sentiments have changed. Support for him has waned now that they know more about his business and political underhand dealings.
Many of us see things on the surface but fail to question how we might react to the same situation. It seems like we love to cast the first stone without first understanding why... -
That why when u blame others ,pls put yeself in their shoes to think b4 u open yr big gap!!!!
Sillyporeans!!!! -
How would you guys like it if your best friend had a meeting with your worst enemy (reasons still unknown)? It's not about whether our laws allow such exiles, but it's the sensitivity surrounding this issue.
Maybe a simple example, there are no written laws against blowing cigarette smoke in other people's faces but we all know that's being insensitive. Maybe it doesn't apply to this topic, but I would like to highlight that not everything has written laws... it's about human relationships. -
Should you be 'surprised' at all at the reaction of the Thai military govt? Does it not in any way mirror the typical response from our ruling party when it suits them? The way our govt lacks the human touch when providing a response to its own people, is a clear reflection of the mannerism our govt conducts itself, answerable to no one save their own.
My point is that Singapore and Singaporean has every right to visit anyone or let anyone visit them. We shouldn't let ourselves be dictated by other countries on what we should do or not. If we only care to appease countries, then we shouldn't push Myanmar to democracy, we shouldn't question Indonesia to stop their burning of the forest, we shouldn't even cane Micheal when he vandalised all the cars and he can vandalised more if he wants to. In the end Singaporean have no rights and power and it becomes a shame to be Singaporean. Let me ask, what is the reason given by the Thai government for this backlash ? Thai citizen cannot go to Singapore for social visit or Singapore foreign minister have to seek approval from Thai Gov to see an old friend ? What is the charge in this case ? Thaksin holds no official position, probably not even a job and how could his visit be classified as anything other than personal ?
Given the already political atmosphere and animosity between the current Thai govt and Thaksin, it should come as no surprise that Singapore's preceived belligerence bellies the arrogance in their actions. Could it be that our learned ministers and leaders failed to take into account the political repercussions of such a 'social visit'?
Surely after Temaesk's buyout of Shin Corp sparking dismay among the Thais, arguably the indirect cause of the military coup, along with the friendly nature Thakin enjoys with our govt, how could anyone expect the current Thai administration to consider his recent 'social vist' to be little more than a house call and private get-together?
Has our govt, coupled by many of the responses in this thread, failed to consider the insensitivity of our govt's 'learned' actions, despite their claims to sovereign rights as a nation? -
How would you guys like it if your best friend had a meeting with your worst enemy (reasons still unknown)? It's not about whether our laws allow such exiles, but it's the sensitivity surrounding this issue
I have 2 good friends, A and B, and they fight with each other. Should I ignore A and stop treating him as a friend just because he has fight with B ? That is really childish -
Ur the one who is being childish..
-
Well, when it involves USD3 billion dollars ...Originally posted by socrates:I have 2 good friends, A and B, and they fight with each other. Should I ignore A and stop treating him as a friend just because he has fight with B ? That is really childish -
Ain't no childish.
There are some political motives behind it. -
this is a case of karma, what goes around comes around.....you bully others, you'll be bullied....you employ unfair practices, you'll receive unfair treatment too...the list goes on........
-
Ok...Originally posted by socrates:My point is that Singapore and Singaporean has every right to visit anyone or let anyone visit them. We shouldn't let ourselves be dictated by other countries on what we should do or not. If we only care to appease countries, then we shouldn't push Myanmar to democracy, we shouldn't question Indonesia to stop their burning of the forest, we shouldn't even cane Micheal when he vandalised all the cars and he can vandalised more if he wants to. In the end Singaporean have no rights and power and it becomes a shame to be Singaporean. Let me ask, what is the reason given by the Thai government for this backlash ? Thai citizen cannot go to Singapore for social visit or Singapore foreign minister have to seek approval from Thai Gov to see an old friend ? What is the charge in this case ? Thaksin holds no official position, probably not even a job and how could his visit be classified as anything other than personal ?
Then how come, Dr Chee is not allowed to go abroad for his meeting since he is also jobless, and made a bankrupt? He certainly has no political power to pose any threat to our fabled gov...? -
Well, PAP reaps what they sow...Originally posted by countdracula:this is a case of karma, what goes around comes around.....you bully others, you'll be bullied....you employ unfair practices, you'll receive unfair treatment too...the list goes on........
money at the expense of relations and the people's sentiments. -
Yes, but at what cost? Is it worth maintaining these rights at the cost of degrading the good diplomatic ties that Thailand and Singapore enjoy? I would beg to differ regarding your examples.Originally posted by socrates:My point is that Singapore and Singaporean has every right to visit anyone or let anyone visit them. We shouldn't let ourselves be dictated by other countries on what we should do or not. If we only care to appease countries, then we shouldn't push Myanmar to democracy, we shouldn't question Indonesia to stop their burning of the forest, we shouldn't even cane Micheal when he vandalised all the cars and he can vandalised more if he wants to. In the end Singaporean have no rights and power and it becomes a shame to be Singaporean.
1) Pushing Myanmar to democracy - Singapore is not pushing Myanmar.ASEAN, comprising Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar, has a policy of not interfering in its members affairs.
2) Asking Indonesia to stop the forest fires and illegal land-clearing - In actual fact Indonesia has seeked Singapore's help in containing the forest fires. Singapore has offered help in terms of identifying the areas deemed more susceptible to forest fires.
But with Myanmar due to assume the ASEAN chair in 2006 and host regional meetings with the West, Southeast Asia is under pressure from key trading partners Europe and the United States to take a harder line against Yangon.
Although there are no reliable statistics on trade between Singapore and Myanmar, business links are growing, underlined by the sale last year of British American Tobacco's 60-percent stake in a Yangon tobacco firm to Singapore's Distinction Investment Holdings Ltd.
Since Myanmar allowed foreign direct investment at the end of 1988, Singaporeans have invested more than $1.5 billion in the military-ruled country despite sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union for its poor human rights record.
3) Caning Michel Fay - Anyone who commits an offence in Singapore should face the consequences. No ifs no buts. Michel Fay is a criminal and we made our stance, fair. Thaksin's presence in Thailand is required to assist in further investigations, thus wanted, thus guilty unless proven otherwise.
Based on what you said, Singapore should have given the recommended strokes of the rotan, however it was revised and promptly reduced. They SHOULD have made a stance since we are a sovereign nation...
Can you not see my point? Singapore often asks for the extradition of Singaporean criminals from foreign lands, is this encroaching on other nations' sovereignty? No! If the crime is committed on Singapore's land, let he/she be judged by the laws of Singapore!Thai citizen cannot go to Singapore for social visit or Singapore foreign minister have to seek approval from Thai Gov to see an old friend ? What is the charge in this case ? Thaksin holds no official position, probably not even a job and how could his visit be classified as anything other than personal ?
Thaksin holds no official position but his visit entails a visit to his dear friend, a Cabinet Officer in Singapore, sovereignty or not, it is very insensitive.
In the case of you calling me childish, I would beg to differ again. If it is a small argument, perhaps so, but what if your worst enemy committed a grave act? What if your best friend KNOWS about the hideous acts and still meets up with him DESPITE your personal requests?
Singapore has it's own rights, but I urge greater sensitivity. -
In this case it is not a fight. A committed a grave act against B's family. B politely request that you stop seeing A for the moment. But you being the insensitive soul DISAGREES with B citing that you are a free man and you can make friends with anyone you want.Originally posted by socrates:I have 2 good friends, A and B, and they fight with each other. Should I ignore A and stop treating him as a friend just because he has fight with B ? That is really childish
In my opinion, you are the childish one to degrade this sensitive political issue by suggesting that it is a simple fight. -
This is the second time that George Yeo has been embarrassed in public. First time by Malaysia during negotiations for the construction of the scenic bridge.
This time it's the insensitive publicisng of Thaksin's 'private' visit to Singapore that make Thailand rescind an invitation to George Yeo to attend the CSEP meeting.
How many more times must he embarrass Singapore before he gets fired as Minister of Foreign Affairs......and get fat severence pay for his poor performance in handling diplomacy? -
There is a right and wrong time for every action.
I applauded and was fully behind Singapore on it's stance regarding the Causeway between Singapore and Malaysia. But I must say they got it wrong regarding Thaksin's visit. -
I'm afraid the same mistake will be made regarding the KL-Singapore bullet train. Already the first salvo has been fired from this side. The same old path to destruction. Yet they talk big about ASEAN unity and such.Originally posted by bangkokboy:There is a right and wrong time for every action.
I applauded and was fully behind Singapore on it's stance regarding the Causeway between Singapore and Malaysia. But I must say they got it wrong regarding Thaksin's visit. -
Then how come, Dr Chee is not allowed to go abroad for his meeting since he is also jobless, and made a bankrupt? He certainly has no political power to pose any threat to our fabled gov...?
He is made a bankrupt and a bankrupt cannot go overseas or have shares or buy property. Tang Liang Homg manage to go Australia and go for many interviews but Singapore do not go and downgrade their relationship with AustraliaYes, but at what cost? Is it worth maintaining these rights at the cost of degrading the good diplomatic ties that Thailand and Singapore enjoy? I would beg to differ regarding your examples.
Actually the question should be asked to the Thai authority instead because the ball is always in their court... why do they degrade the ties between Singapore simply because Thaksin is here ?1) Pushing Myanmar to democracy - Singapore is not pushing Myanmar.
As part of ASEAN, it is pushing Myanmar toward democracy
http://www.12thaseansummit.org.ph/innertemplate3.asp?category=news&newsid=642
Leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) took the bold step of approving a blueprint for a charter that would allow the suspension of misbehaving member states from the 10-nation regional bloc.
...
As ASEAN becomes a rules-based organization, there must be implementation and monitoring of the members' compliance with the charter, Singapore's Deputy Prime Minister Professor S. Jayakumar said.
"And if there are serious breach of fundamentals, the ASEAN leader should be empowered to take measures to address that, which may include temporary suspension of the rights and privileges of members. In extreme cases, expulsion is not being ruled out," he said.
Jayakumar said the ASEAN charter would spell out the rights and obligations of each member state, as well as the governing principles of the organization.Asking Indonesia to stop the forest fires and illegal land-clearing - In actual fact Indonesia has seeked Singapore's help in containing the forest fires. Singapore has offered help in terms of identifying the areas deemed more susceptible to forest fires.
Singapore do lash out that more actions have to be taken to stop the forest fire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Southeast_Asian_haze
Malaysia and Singapore criticized the way Indonesia handled the issue. Both urged the latter to ratify the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution.3) Caning Michel Fay - Anyone who commits an offence in Singapore should face the consequences. No ifs no buts. Michel Fay is a criminal and we made our stance, fair.
Singapore did reduce the number of strokes of the rotan, but it is a far cry from the "no caning" appeal made by the President of the United States. If it is desired to have some form of compromise, then the visit to Singapore is declared as "unofficial" and "personal" should be grounds enough to believe that a compromise is madeThaksin's presence in Thailand is required to assist in further investigations, thus wanted, thus guilty unless proven otherwise.
I think we both have different information regarding Thaksin reason for not returning to Thailand. IMO, Thaksin is forced not to return
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin
The junta repeatedly warned Thaksin from returning to Thailand
http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/10/17/politics/politics_30016375.php
Ousted PM Thaksin Shinawatra had hoped to return to his home in Bangkok next Sunday, but the Council for National Security (CNS) put a stop to his plan.Can you not see my point? Singapore often asks for the extradition of Singaporean criminals from foreign lands, is this encroaching on other nations' sovereignty? No! If the crime is committed on Singapore's land, let he/she be judged by the laws of Singapore!
I think one have to be clear that extradition of Singapore criminals means they have committed the crimes in Singapore and escape overseas but brought them back to Singapore to face justice. If it is a Singaporean who commit a crime overseas, they are punish according to the laws overseas and there is no extradition. I really do not understand your point on this to the issue here.Thaksin holds no official position but his visit entails a visit to his dear friend, a Cabinet Officer in Singapore, sovereignty or not, it is very insensitive.
Maybe because the current Thai government is too sensitive and Singapore is too insignificant ?In the case of you calling me childish, I would beg to differ again. If it is a small argument, perhaps so, but what if your worst enemy committed a grave act? What if your best friend KNOWS about the hideous acts and still meets up with him DESPITE your personal requests?
In this case it is not a fight. A committed a grave act against B's family. B politely request that you stop seeing A for the moment. But you being the insensitive soul DISAGREES with B citing that you are a free man and you can make friends with anyone you want.
My opinion of the current Thai political state is that it is the current government that had led Thaksin down, not Thaksin who had led them down. It is more of B killing off the visitor family then ask A not to see him. It is literally true since they choose to replace Thaksin not by election but by military strength for no offences that he had made. Up to this moment of time the current Thai gov is still trying to find any problem with him, much like US trying to find WMD after they invade Iraq. Looking from this perspective, it seems such a threat can only be successful against cowards that give in to intimidation. -
haha..shootong yourself in the foot again? Chee is not allowed to go abroad without permission precisely because he is a bankrupt. If he can afford to fly overseas, pay up his debts first.Originally posted by ShutterBug:Ok...
Then how come, Dr Chee is not allowed to go abroad for his meeting since he is also jobless, and made a bankrupt? He certainly has no political power to pose any threat to our fabled gov...? -
The military government is not democratically elected...they got there by military force. What can we expect from gangsters who force their way through when they realized they could never win in an election because the majority poor in the provinces would support Thaksin?Originally posted by socrates:I have 2 good friends, A and B, and they fight with each other. Should I ignore A and stop treating him as a friend just because he has fight with B ? That is really childish -
First, Chee wouldn't be the first. Where is that fugitive Francis Seow? If Chee wants to go to China and if China is not polluted enough as it is, then it's good riddance to bad rubbish.Originally posted by bangkokboy:I am sure if we have Mr Chee Soon Juan (or some other guys) running to China to hide, Singapore will be up in arms against him. Before you guys comment further, about Thai citizens being happy about Thaksin's rule and such, I can assure you now that sentiments have changed. Support for him has waned now that they know more about his business and political underhand dealings.
Many of us see things on the surface but fail to question how we might react to the same situation. It seems like we love to cast the first stone without first understanding why... -
My opinion of the current Thai political state is that it is the current government that had led Thaksin down, not Thaksin who had led them down. It is more of B killing off the visitor family then ask A not to see him. It is literally true since they choose to replace Thaksin not by election but by military strength for no offences that he had made. Up to this moment of time the current Thai gov is still trying to find any problem with him, much like US trying to find WMD after they invade Iraq. Looking from this perspective, it seems such a threat can only be successful against cowards that give in to intimidation
But the reality is that Thais faced a seemingly insoluble political dilemma, Thaksin had placed himself in such a situation it was impossible to dislodge him.For those of you who don't know about some of the shady deals. While it is argued that corruption exists in politics, the fact is that he is still a political exile in Thailand.
There are many more that I will list out later after my meeting. If a Singaporean was accused of all these acts and is in exile, I am sure our government will react similarly... if not worse.
"What Thaksin had done wrong"
Summary of Council for National Security's "White Paper" detailing Thaksin's alleged wrongdoings
Why did Council for National Security overthrow the Thaksin administration?
Corruption/conflict of interests
- Changed concessions on mobile phone business as excise tax
- Created satellite business to gain promotion from Board of Investment
- Corruption at Suvarnabhumi Airport and the purchase of CTX bomb detection scanners
- Corruption in the construction of railway Airport Link
- Lack of transparency in privatisation of state enterprises
- Media interference
Abuse of power
- Appointed family, relatives, close aides to highranking positions of the state
- Used state budget without seeking approval from the House in projects to promote government popularity
- Abuse of power by negotiating with foreign countries for the interest of themselves (Exim bank loans)
- Abuse of power by instructing state agencies to investigate assets of government opponents
Infringe on ethics and moral integrity of country leader
- Sold satellite concession and television station to a foreign country
- Evaded taxes from share sale
Interference in political check system
- Interfered with the Senate which appointed independent agencies that checked the government
- Interfered with the appointment of Election Commission, Constitution Court judge and National Counter Corruption Commission and AuditorGeneral
Policy flaws that led to human rights violation
- Extrajudicial killing of drug suspects
- Policy mismanagement and abuse of power in solving violence in the south
Created rift and destroyed unity of the public and instigating confrontation
- Blocked information that checked the government and the prime minister
- Created confrontation between anti and pro government supporters.
--The Nation 2006-11-21
Will continue our discussion later.