Amras

What an idiot. That's all that is worth saying.

Not acknowledging something happened quite some time ago, hardly makes it non existent or negates how bad it was, neither does ignoring it, covering it up, preventing people displaying it etc etc.

People get so up in arms about things like this. I don't get it. And my family background is German and even many many of the German people suffered during the war as well.

Yes it was bad that it happened. But people idolize Christianity as the moral standpoint of western society, yet many many more people have died over the ages under the banner of "Christianity'. Yet most people are ignorant about this fact and it's something that is very covered up. Well maybe Christianity offends me. So should we then get outraged when a Church is built, preachers try to 'convert' me, try to put me down because I'm not a religious zealot. Same thing, its no different, yet that is accepted.

Point it, someone was expressing something as a dress up. Most people who get upset had nothing to do with the war I would be assuming but 'have to find it offensive' because yes it was so horrible.

The US is doing the same under a guise of war on terror, killing many people for oil. Should we then get up in arms about any reference to the US. Where does it stop and when do people decide to accept it's part of history, acknowledge it for what is was and move on.

So many here act as if no one in the world would dress up in NAZI uniforms, I'm sure you're not so ignorant. Common.

Ahh the good old bird flu. You do all realise that the normal influenza virus killed/s more people every year then the 'pandemic' of bird flu ever did. This is a fact, but hidden by good corporate media.

IN fact, when the original epidemic didn't happen, the pharmaceutical companies had millions and millions of doses of vaccines for bird flu that no one ever wanted, because it just wasn't the threat it was made out to be.

Same goes again. 300 deaths over 8 years, is nothing (in regards to most other illnesses that cause death every year). As with traditional influenza it mainly is high risk of the young, old and immune compromised. Any one else who gets it and exhibits symptoms will go through similar stages to traditional influenza.

This is all about money, selling the vaccines that are already stock pilled and keeping people in 'fear' of something. If you think anything else, you need to start reading more and see what truly is happening in the world.

IF it was about health, then surely they would be worrying about diseases that can be easily prevented to be spread ie HIV education.

There's too much stuff out there (information) that shows the birdflu was a legit scare, but it didn't become any epidemic, but the band wagon was already rolling so everyone rolled with it, and it's still going on.

Is this idea of giving kiddies a tablet used elsewhere?

I've never heard of such from developed nations where education is thought to be important. If they don't think it's worthwhile, why does Thailand want to do this. Here, education is rightly viewed as poor. Do the rulers want to make it poorer?

If they want a good education system, copy a country that's got one. Don't introduce silly schemes that hardly any of the teaching staff can teach and the infra-structure for them to be effective does not exist.

Lots of private and even starting with the higher end of 'public' schools in Australia are requiring students to have laptops in class now. So it's no different and technology is working it's way into class rooms in the west. The tablets are jus the idea of a 'cheap' laptop.

Aren't people forgetting the one reason why we identify with dogs more than 'traditional' farmed meat? Which really explains why most societies don't eat them (but of course this is based on the societal 'view' of that animal).

Dogs are one of the only other animals (as well as Primates, cats to an extent but that's purely out of self interest) that express similar emotions to people. Fear, sadness, joy, loyalty etc. That's why we can easily identify with them and most people find eating them abhorent. Because it's not a huge removal from considering eating primates and then other people, based on how they interact with us on a personal level. I could never eat a dog, as it's always been a pet to me, even if I was hungry. I would find another way.

Can a cow, pig (although I think some pigs can), chicken etc show the same loyalty to you, express joy etc? Not that I have ever seen. Hence the huge difference between them and dogs as food.

Yes the soi dog problem is an issue. But if this was allowed, it wouldn't FIX the problem, only relocate it to somewhere else, while it still continued to be an issue here. It's not a fix, only an intervention.

These soi dogs (and some of them stolen pets) are likely to have disease which could cause serious health implications. Remember mad cow disease anyone? Similar things can happen eating diseased canine meat. Not a good thought, so hardly a solution.

http://www.youtube.com/mercyforanimals

Who ever said the medieval period was over?

Makes me want to cry. It's not hard to ensure humane killing of animals for food. Eggs, one reason why I ONLY buy free range eggs. Sad thing is ignorance is often peoples own 'get out free' card when it comes to all this stuff. I don't think Australia is as bad as the US in the video as I've been on a few pig farms, etc. Surprised how shocking the US treat's their animals. .

<br />

<br />Isn't that the difference to being paid a 'salary' which is understood does not include overtime and a paid by the hour (in which case you need to pay overtime)? I was employed in your scenario above under a salary and in my contract it was outlined that additional work may be required from time to time (at no additional pay). Part of the contract. <br /><br />Didn't you have this in your contracts with your employees? If they were on an hourly rate then you need to pay them for the time they are there. They leave early, they get paid an hour less, the work an hour more, they get paid an hour more. This is the law and why many office, etc jobs are salary (as there is no need for overtime pay). Technical jobs are usually paid on number of hours worked. <br /><br />If you had staff that were lazy, then why didn't you get rid of them during the probation period. Australia employers are allowed to have a probation period and if the employee is not working as expected for their wage then you have the right not to offer them a permanent ongoing contract, which is not 'firing them'. Surely as a good business owner you would know this, be able to determine the persons potential attitude while working during the interview, from references etc. Thought this was normal practice?<br />

<br /><br />i was not aware that this topic was about me, nor was i ever i was posting about my situation<img src="http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif" /><br />

It was a reply based on your reasons for 'hidden' causes of 'not paying staff correctly', due to their laziness or whatever. There are ways around this, which is what I was highlighting. Hence there is no excuse for incorrectly or justifying why anyone should under pay any employee (in any business) and why they are only worth x amount (if thats min or under min wage).

Back on topic, isn't the whole Jetstar is an Australian company so should be employing people based on Australia rules and regulations valid? All foreign Jetstar employees would also need to obtain a business visa as they will be working within Australia as all Jetstar planes are deemed Australia ground (and deriving income from an Australian company). Technically otherwise they are working illegally. I believe I read that they don't all have business visas while working for Jetstar. Any one else read this?

In one of the articles posted, it stated on average our employees work 2x hours per week. An average is nothing, that's like determining the average Thai salary based on the slanted income within the whole country and including the top heavyness.

$300-$350 for a house? where in the suburbs?2 hour drive from the city 2 bedroom apartment in Sydney is $600+, house is $800+Price to purchase 2 bedroom unit in the city $700 000+Price to purchase house in the city or decent area $1 000 000 Just sold 1 bedroom, no parking, in Paddington for $660 000, my 2 bedroom in Surry Hills was valued few months ago at $850 0001 bedroom was renting for $690 per week and 2 bed is currently paying $700 per week, but tenants been there for 5 year already so kept rent the same(others in the building paying $850 per week)PS. Both apartments, not houses<br />

Melbourne suburbs, within an hour of the city. Everyone in Australia knows Sydney housing prices are ridiculous. Inner Melbourne you would be looking at min $500+ as well.

<br />

<br />You do know that those on minimum wages are often the most effected in any country, ie the above post regarding alcohol. It isn't just in Thailand. But people often do these things (ie drink) to escape the reality of the situation ...........I think's its quite poor that this still goes on.<br />

<br /><br />Never had a business yourself, did you?<br />By the way, it will be the already struggling Small and Medium Enterprises that will be hardest hit, not the multinationals. And for quite a lot of poor workers life will be worse as well due to inflation and rising unemployment.<br />

No, but I know a number of people who do have 'small businesses' and they manage fine. It's not easy, no, but if your lacking customers, well then you have to do something about it or go under. Just wanting to have your own successful business doesn't mean you will or should. Like anything, success comes to those who work hard. This doesn't excuse paying your staff a pittance of a wage just because your business is struggling. You decided to go into business so you have to take the ups and downs that come with that, otherwise be an employee and have none of the risk (or potential reward). It has nothing to do with

If the businesses are struggling then it's likely a fact of over supply to demand. Too many similar businesses offering the same product or service will make it much harder for those businesses to flourish regardless of the wage you pay the employees. It's as simply as that. A business won't be successful if there isn't enough demand for that industry unless your doing something dramatically different which most people don't go to the effort of wanting to do and hence their businesses fail. This still doesn't excuse not paying your employees enough and never can be used as an excuse.

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />Kuffki, from the conditions you mention about your staff it seems you are a more than fair employer.  Unfortunately there are many that aren't and they end up causing grief for the employers that do the right thing.<br />

<br /><br />Thats the whole point, i am sure if you ask some of them, they will tell you how badly they are treated.and usually the ones who are really worth the money-either get pay rises or look for another job and the lazy, useless ones are the ones always complain about being used or underpaid or exploited.<br /><br />And i am 99% certain its the same across the board<br />

<br /><br />Yes I see your point and agree that some, maybe most are like that.  But some do have legitimate complaints regarding being paid under the minimum wage or being asked to work unreasonably long hours.  It is because of those employees actions that cause problems with reputable employers having to jump through hoops to satisfy govt organisations.<br />

<br /><br />No doubt, however again in most cases, employee does not speak the truth of what actually takes place.<br /><br />Employee would never confirm that he/she gets to go home earlier every day, but in return sometimes asked to stay longer(without pay)<br />Employee gets to pick holidays but sometimes asked to work on the weekends<br /><br />It is give and take, but with many employees, especially the ones who complain, it is never about them giving anything to employer, it is only about them taking.<br /><br />Jetstar is a budget airline, so staff are not expected to perform on the same level as full service airline, so they can not expect a salary of a full service airline.<br />

Isn't that the difference to being paid a 'salary' which is understood does not include overtime and a paid by the hour (in which case you need to pay overtime)? I was employed in your scenario above under a salary and in my contract it was outlined that additional work may be required from time to time (at no additional pay). Part of the contract.

Didn't you have this in your contracts with your employees? If they were on an hourly rate then you need to pay them for the time they are there. They leave early, they get paid an hour less, the work an hour more, they get paid an hour more. This is the law and why many office, etc jobs are salary (as there is no need for overtime pay). Technical jobs are usually paid on number of hours worked.

If you had staff that were lazy, then why didn't you get rid of them during the probation period. Australia employers are allowed to have a probation period and if the employee is not working as expected for their wage then you have the right not to offer them a permanent ongoing contract, which is not 'firing them'. Surely as a good business owner you would know this, be able to determine the persons potential attitude while working during the interview, from references etc. Thought this was normal practice?

You do know that those on minimum wages are often the most effected in any country, ie the above post regarding alcohol. It isn't just in Thailand. But people often do these things (ie drink) to escape the reality of the situation they are in. The money will purely be redistributed, prices may go up on some consumer items, but the poor will have more money to distribute to essentials (houses, bills etc). Whether they choose to do this will be another question. Or they money can be used to send the children to complete high school as many can't afford it on the current minimum wage. Really as westerners we can't afford a 20% change in costs when most of our money is coming in from overseas (except those who are genuinely working here on a Thai salary). Labour costs relative to material costs are pittance here compared to western countries where it's mostly the other way around (and they all manage to survive economically). I can't see how the idea of keeping Thailand and Thai's poor helps anyone but those few at the top exploiting them. Big companies can afford the costs in increase wages, but they want larger and larger profits every year. They increase their profits yet don't want to pay their workers (who are the ones that allow them to make those profits) an increase in wages. How can they not afford to put 10% of their net profits towards increasing the wages of their staff? It's us (as a generalization) that want more and more from our investments to satisfy our needs to have an over indulgent lifestyle that complain when our shares don't return. Yet for this to happen it has to be at the expense of someone being exploited at a pittance of a wage that they barely get by on. If it wasn't for the need to have multi nationals with hundreds of millions of billions of dollars of profit, nearly all could afford to pay a decent pay rise without increasing the cost of the goods. But they, the share holders the ones WHO ALREADY HAVE MONEY, don't want that. As long as they can go buy ignorantly ignoring how their profits are coming to them, they couldn't care less. I think's its quite poor that this still goes on.

<br />

<br />

Australia's minimum wage is Aus$590 per week

<br /><br />This amounts to about 75000 Baht per month.Is there someone who can confirm this as I'm interested in a low paid job in Australia in that case.<br />

<br /><br />$590 = 15.52 per hour on a 38 hour week pre tax.  $2,360 per month pre tax  a pitence and I wouldn't work for that in Aust .<br /><br />AUD = 32.82 baht   77,455 bht per month pre tax. after tax about 52,000 baht.<br /><br />You would struggle very hard to live on this in Aust as the average rent is approx 250 AUD per week.  However knock yourself out and go for it.<br />

Don't know where you live in Australia, but in Melbourne there are not many rentals for around $250 per week anymore, especially if you're looking for a house. It's up around the 300-350 now. Housing is ridiculous in Australia at the moment. The average entry level house costs around 400-500k AUD. The cost of living is relatively high in Australia compared to say the US.

As above. It's not as hard as people make it out to be. My gf has been to Australia twice, the first time was only after I knew her for 3 months. Things I included:- copy of phone records showing constant contact (genuine ongoing relationship). - copy of photos showing you two together (adds to the above). - a statutory declaration form you saying that you will provide accommodation in your family home and ensure she abides by her visa conditions. - letter from your parents (only need one, one from each is overkill) saying they are aware of your genuine ongoing relationship with her and are happy to provide accommodation for her during her stay in Australia and signed by both of them (doesn't need to be a stat dec from them, but in your stat dec of support you can just say the letter from your parents is true and accurate). - she will need to show, copies of financial records showing she has enough for the duration of stay in Australia (i believe that around $100 per day was a guide, but less if she doesn't have to provide her own accommodation) but it needs to be a reasonable amount. $1000 for a 3 month holiday is not enough. In my case I provided complete financial support. - Ties to her home country. Copy of land ownership and family ties (can just be a letter), more importantly a letter from her employer acknowledging that she will be taking time off to go on a holiday to Australia and that she still has a job when she returns. (In my case she didn't own land, only provided a copy of a rental agreement and the first time she was enrolled in a course and the fact she takes some financial care of her mother). - I believe you age will be on your side anyway. It's unlikely they will believe that she is going to settle in Australia and overstay her visa due to your age (or that your a likely smuggling her for work) Regardless of what people think, this does have an effect regardless of whether it is purely perception or not. Good luck. You shouldn't have an issue with it. Just include as much information as you can. Any questions let me know.

We are not talking about tourism. We are talking about the right for foreigners to stay here long term purely because they want to. That's what I'm saying Thailand doesn't owe us. They don't owe us the right to just choose to stay here, the same as most other countries around the world. You can't just pick a country and decide to live there purely because you want to (Without a legitimate job, studying etc).

You avoid subject foreigner men with Thai wife and children.

If live on farm, not need much money, grow crop, swap foods with family.

Not everyone have 400,000bht in bank, so can not have married VISA

You want man abandon wife and child, go home?

To Amras: Yet people do pick countries and live there because they want to. I think the issue you are describing is one's ability to be productive to the hosting country. A sort of quid-pro-quo factor. Thailand does not seem to have a calculation for how much each foreigner spends while they are here. It is certainly much more than the average Thai family or single person, I'll warrant. Thailand does not take this into account, and does not consider issuing and "Expenditure" visa, whereby the foreigner is guaranteeing they will spend X amount of Bahts per month, and provide the receipts and documents to prove it, as well as how much interest the Thai banks and government made off of their money sitting in a Thai bank account. How about an "Expenditure" visa? Let's dispense with all the crap about jumping through hoops using ED visas and such in order to remain her.

It's the money that counts.

To Olaf: Well said. What happens if the foreigner is deported and subsequently abandons his wife / husband and children? Will the foreigner be a dead-beat parent, and will the government pick up the tab and provide the missing support money to the Thai spouse and half-half children? I think and "Expenditure" visa would clear away all the crap and take the bite out of the whining foreigners who spend too much time worrying about other foreigners getting more than their share of the pie.

And that's the crux of it: the foreigners who do most of the complaining, whereas the Thais generally seem to be more fairer in their corrupt little ways. It's all about the money, and not whether or not someone is attending a class. Did anyone stop to think how much that non-attending student is contributing to the economy each month? No! I didn't think so.

Time for another kind of visa that describes a foreigners right to remain in the Kingdom as long as they are spending a required amount. Until then, people remain in Thailand because they like it. They will use any means made available to them by corrupt or non-corrupt Thai authorities. This begs the question: Why in Hell do other foreigners care? Shut your pie holes and enjoy the life that you have made for yourself and don't rock the boat. You don't even know the people whom you are passing judgment on. Olaf stated it nicely. Do you want to condemn a Thai family to poverty just so you can sleep cozy at night over a set of principles made impractical by this chaotic environment?

I understand your point, and agree on an emotional level. But if your married you can quite easily get an Non-O visa without any proof of funds as long as you do border runs. Should it be easier if your married, of course I agree, as you have invested in a family in Thailand and obviously will be contributing to the country.

I don't think money should be the right attitude for granting visa's. I am not aware of any other country that does it or looks at how much an individual would spend in said country in granting a visa, so why should Thailand? It would mean that anyone with money could simply, pay their way to live here no matter who they are. Would this open a can of worms, then others complain, why is the amount so high, why do I have to show how much I spend etc.

The ED visa has no effect on a family if your married, as there are other visa options for married couples and families. It also doesn't matter if we spend more than an average Thai. It is still THEIR country and not ours, and just because we may have more money, doesn't mean we should be automatically entitled to do as we please (stay here because we just want too). They can't just decide to up and move to the US or Australia without a reason, so in all fairness why should we?

The point still is, it is EASY to get a VISA and abide by the conditions of said ED visa. Other's countries are MUCH more strict on their visa policies, attendance at school etc. I'm sure if said student in the OP wasn't attending class but still learning Thai (as many uni students are enrolled, don't go to class but still learn the material) it wouldn't be an issue. Fact is he was using a VISA for purposes other than those for which it was granted which is why it was denied. Not only because he didn't go to class.

Regardless of whether or not Thailand should be easier to stay in etc (even though it is already fairly easy to find a legit way of staying here), it is how it is, you accept the Visa conditions when you apply for it and if you want to risk doing something else and get caught ok, but just don't complain when you do or things get harder. Rules are rules and sadly to function as a society they generally need to be followed.

Funny how some posters get a kick out of other people's misfortunes.

I couldn't care or less if people are rorting the education visa system in Thailand.

The fact is that in the land of rorts and scams ed visas are just another avenue for corruption and a pretty small one on the scale of LOS scams and rorts.

Just remember without the compliance of dodgy schools and colleges these ed visas would be very hard to rort. Plenty of revenue being generated by these dodgy visas I am sure and most of it going into the backpocket of some entrepreneurial Thais.

Personally if I applied for an Ed visa I would like to attend the school and learn to speak Thai better but hey that is just me.

But they are 'attempting' to stop that as well (the dodgey ED visa schools). The point is, if people abuse the system, then the system gets 'fixed' or adjusted which makes it harder or stricter for those who genuinely use it the way it was intended to get it in the future. Just because a system can be abused doesn't mean it should. The requirements are already so ridiculous it's stupid and laziness to not adhear to them in the first place.

Surely we don't want to give the Thai Immigration ANY reason to tighten the rules. Abusing the system is a reason that they would consider doing it.

If its such a xenophobic country and a bad place to be, then why are you here?

No, you are entitled to freedoms and to contribute or not in the country of your birth (and citizenship), there you get the freedom of choice, get to pick what you want to do etc.

There may or may not be guaranteed human rights in one's birth country.

Do you believe all countries are equivalent in this regard?

If you CHOOSE to move to another country, then you HAVE to ACCEPT their rules, their ways, their decisions, no matter if you like it or not. All foreigners are here BY CHOICE and allowed to stay here for the reasons we can through the VISA's that are available. Taking advantage of a situation and then complaining when it gets cut out is not a right, as we CHOSE to be here, we weren't forced.

One should obey the laws of the country where they are resident whether they are a citizen or not.

In a free country that believes in rights of the individual, 'their ways' do not have to be accepted by the individual unless one is unfortunate enough to move to a country having a totalitarian government. Anyone volunteering to move to North Korea?

By coming here and CHOOSING to stay here, you automatically have to accept how things are and obide [sic] by the rules that you accepted when you entered Thailand. If it was your home country, then it is different as you are entitled to voice your opinion as you haven't choosen to live there as it was your place of birth.

One is obliged to obey the laws in whichever country they are in - citizen or foreigner. Whether or not one is allowed to voice an opinion is dependent on the laws of the country. Totalitarian countries and countries with limited freedom of speech for both citizens and foreigners are more constraining. In Mexico, foreigners are forbidden from making political statements, and I wouldn't get too vocal even as a citizen of Mexico (example country).

Do you see what I'm getting at? Regardless of whether or not Thailand could, does or will benefit from letting foreigners stay here easier, it chooses to have these rules (and they are easier than most other countries), which you accepted when you chose to live here, knowingly as well.

Actually, this statement makes me wonder how many foreigners know Thai law as it applies to them ... and how it may differ as it applies to a Thai citizen (where and when it does).

You're(not aimed at you specifically) here by CHOICE, accept the situation or you can decide its not the place for you and go back home, where you can voice your dissatisfaction with the government in which you are a citizen.

Assuming, of course that their 'home' allows them to voice their dissatisfaction with the government even as a citizen. Care to move to Saudi Arabia?

Thailand owes us nothing and to expect anything else is pure arrogance. We 'owe' Thailand for allowing us the CHOICE to stay here relatively easy. They could make it a lot harder and thats the point.

Really? Would you like to compare the tourist industry of Thailand with that of North Korea and then prepare to answer why they are so different? Here's a quote on North Korean tourism from Wiki:

Organized by the state owned Korea International Travel Company, Tourism in North Korea is highly controlled by the government, and as such it is not a frequently visited destination — roughly 1,500 Western tourists visit North Korea each year, along with thousands of Asians. Tourists must go on guided tours and must have their tour guides with them at all times.

How about public safety? Does Thailand (or any other country) owe both the citizens and foreigners some level of safety? How about basic human rights such as an impartial justice system to both citizens and visitors? I'd be careful about use of terms such as 'pure arrogance' if I were you. I agree that Thailand should (for one thing) perform criminal background checks for all visitors and forbid entry to individuals with certain criminal backgrounds. How do you think that would affect tourist revenues?

Too many believe they have an inherent RIGHT to stay in Thailand because they are foreign and can support themselves and 'bring money into the country'. Well you/we don't and rightly shouldn't, just as for every other countries immigration which works exactly the same (or are even more picky about who they let into the country).

Really? How do you know how many believe they have an 'inherent RIGHT' to stay in Thailand under any assumptions?

Where do you get this idea, since it applies to almost no other situation ... except the USA and large parts of Europe. Maybe the loose immigration policies of Europe and the USA (and others) is leading people to believe it applies to Thailand as well. However, I've met several Burmese (using the persistent CIA name) in Thailand that have 'bought' their right to be resident and not through the Immigration Bureau.

Sorry, but you're missing my point.

I didn't mean it quite so literally AND I'd be fairly confident in saying that most people on here and the majority of 'farangs' in Thailand don't come from repressed, controlled countries without freedom of speech. So your point may apply in some in frequent situations, but in the majority I'd find your point a bit mute and purely for the sake of argument.

Even if a country believes in the rights of an individual that's ok, but my point is you have the choice to leave here, if you are not happy with the way things are. In your country of birth, its no so easy (can be impossible) to pack up and just move to another country. Hence your right to voice your dissatisfaction with the government etc.

Remember we are VISITORS here (well most of us, except those been given PR and Citizenship and then THEY have the right to voice their opinion/dissatisfaction, because Thailand has given them the right to stay permanently in Thailand, and along with that more 'rights' living here (and not just being a long term visitor like the rest of us (in the eyes of the law)).

We are not talking about tourism. We are talking about the right for foreigners to stay here long term purely because they want to. That's what I'm saying Thailand doesn't owe us. They don't owe us the right to just choose to stay here, the same as most other countries around the world. You can't just pick a country and decide to live there purely because you want to (Without a legitimate job, studying etc).

Thailand is relatively safe not just for tourists, but for Thai's too. So the effect flows on. Why is it incorrect to say some are arrogant to think they deserve the right to stay here purely if they want? Why is that an incorrect statement? Some on here have clearly shown that they do think this way by the posts they have made. They have shown that they believe that because they 'can support themselves', don't 'take anything from thais', that that should automatically entitle them the right to stay here.

In the eyes of the law (and as with most other countries) it doesn't. And to think that way IS arrogance on their behalf.

A lot of foreigners are against foreigners staying here I dont know why ... there is no unity ....

Those types fall into one (or more) of the following category:

Option 1) They have failed or ran away from their home country and unless they are drunk, they don't play well with others.

Option 2) Loners who don't like people and came her to be left alone.

Option 3) Haters.

Only they know which option describes them the best.

Option 4) Their parents want to keep them as far away from them as possible

I don't fall into any of those categories. Might have to do the ED visa route, but WILL do it to learn Thai and be able to stay here (although I know some Thai already).

Your forgetting one option. Those who just do it the right way, because they believe its the way you should do it.

Get off your A*** go do 4 hours of study per week and be happy that it's not a hell of a lot harder to get a visa to stay here for semi long term without getting a job here.

I never said you need to be able to speak Thai (I don't speak much Thai myself), and I never stated that you need to be able to speak Thai to contribute to society or even integrate yourself.

But if you cannot get a job or qualify for a retirement visa, then you need to learn the language and try to integrate yourself, and qualify yourself for a job. If you do not want to be integrated, then I don't believe you belong here. Integration does not mean to live like the locals, but it means to become a part of the local society. People who stay here without doing anything but bring in a bit of money from abroad only for personal consumption does not contribute, and have nothing to do here.

What I mean by positively contributing, is adding real economic value to the given economy. Spending foreign money, is not added real value, but it allows locals to generate real value, but these locals will in return become dependent on that foreign spending. Adding real value is buying a onion for 100 B peel it and sell it for 110 B, then you have added 10 B value. The person who bought the onion did not add any value, but he got an onion.

And it amazes me that many compare themselves certain groups of locals and claim that if the locals do it, why cant I? When in Rome, do like the Romans, does not mean that you should behave like the worst fraction of society. I often do thing in my house that I would never do in the house of another, or expect them to do in my house!

I misunderstood you then.

Personally, I do enough for society here and have zero interest in doing more. My generosity only goes so far in a xenophobic country that doesn't want us here in the first place and with a people who (in many locations) will generally try to cheat you before being honest.

If another person doesn't want to contribute or be part of society (any society), that is a choice a free man has, and his choice alone. Not mine, yours, or any Thai. Lots of people just like to be left alone and want nothing to do with the locals or other foreigners. And to be honest, when you see how many people are happy every time there is a visa crack down, I can't blame them for staying away from other foreigners.

If its such a xenophobic country and a bad place to be, then why are you here?

No, you are entitled to freedoms and to contribute or not in the country of your birth (and citizenship), there you get the freedom of choice, get to pick what you want to do etc.

If you CHOOSE to move to another country, then you HAVE to ACCEPT their rules, their ways, their decisions, no matter if you like it or not. All foreigners are here BY CHOICE and allowed to stay here for the reasons we can through the VISA's that are available. Taking advantage of a situation and then complaining when it gets cut out is not a right, as we CHOSE to be here, we weren't forced.

By coming here and CHOOSING to stay here, you automatically have to accept how things are and obide by the rules that you accepted when you entered Thailand. If it was your home country, then it is different as you are entitled to voice your opinion as you haven't choosen to live there as it was your place of birth.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Regardless of whether or not Thailand could, does or will benefit from letting foreigners stay here easier, it chooses to have these rules (and they are easier than most other countries), which you accepted when you chose to live here, knowingly as well.

You're(not aimed at you specifically) here by CHOICE, accept the situation or you can decide its not the place for you and go back home, where you can voice your dissatisfaction with the government in which you are a citizen.

Thailand owes us nothing and to expect anything else is pure arrogance. We 'owe' Thailand for allowing us the CHOICE to stay here relatively easy. They could make it a lot harder and thats the point.

Too many believe they have an inherent RIGHT to stay in Thailand because they are foreign and can support themselves and 'bring money into the country'. Well you/we don't and rightly shouldn't, just as for every other countries immigration which works exactly the same (or are even more picky about who they let into the country).

I know Thai people that have been studying or have studied English for 10 years or more and give the blank look when asked "how's it going" or "how was your day?"

Thats likely for 2 reasons. 1. The quality of the teachers. Lots of english teachers teaching English aren't qualified teachers (just having any degree does not make you suitable to be a teacher, generally).

2. How's it going, is slang and not 'proper text book english'. Second is though, so they should understand that, but then I've heard different things on Younger Thai peoples studying ethics.

All you people who are cheering this are absolute scum, you know that? At least people who use ED visa's are trying to do something to stay here legitimately.

Some of you lot forget that we are essentially all here for similar reasons, it's just that not all of us are lucky enough to have a job or be over a certain age so that we can get the visa we need...

You might laugh now while you have your comfortable retirement visa or whatever it is, but one day they'll clamp down on those as well - then perhaps you'll wish you weren't quite so gleeful about the struggles of the rest of us to stay here. Morons. Shameful

Fully agree with you here - the fact that people are doing this, is only a symptom of a problem.

There are people, wealthy enough to fund a lifestyle WITHOUT working, or at least work over the phone/internet or run their own business and can do so from Thailand (servicing customers in their home countries), whom are under 45, or whatever the Non B retirement visa requirement for age is. Thailand does not understand, that in many western countries having a degree is not automatic - it is actually a huge challenge both financially and academically to graduate. In my country (New Zealand), only 25% of the population have a bachelors degree, 10% have a masters degree, and 4% have a PHd. We cannot buy degrees, or fake test scores unlike certain universities in Thailand have been caught doing, and some of my friends have taken advantage of to come here to NZ on.

I have worked since I was 15 years old, and am in the top 10% of earners in my country - I have no degree. Why? My parents abandoned me at a young age, and it would cost me more to stop working and graduate, than to continue what I am doing until I am 45 and quality for the retirement visa. If it is not 45, I know it is in the Phils.

Just like Thai doctors (another issue), stop attacking the symptoms, understand the cause and fix it. The cause is, you do not offer a long term opportunity for financially well off earners under 45 to remain in Thailand 100% legally more than the tourist visa will allow them to. Fix it?

And exactly how is this any different to most other countries around the world? Just because you or I want to stay somewhere, doesn't mean we should be allowed purely because we want to. Give me a country which just lets ANYONE stay whenever they want for any reason?

Seriously the requirements to keep an ED Visa are 4 hours per week. 4 measly hours. Even that is amazing. Australia, you must be studying FULL TIME, to get an education visa.

I'm happy for the crack down, if your too lazy to go 4 hours per week to a class to get an easy VISA and learn the language, what hope do you have.

And no I"m not retired, under 30, don't have a work permit, but would consider 4 hours of classes per week bugger all to stay here long term (and gaining a better understanding of Thai) and not have to do VISA runs.

Naiharn, you're right regards Working Holiday Visas - Australia only allows degree holders of a certain age and only for one year!

No electricians welcome!

Oh, sorry, you meant Thailand!!

From the Australian Immigration Website:

Aged between 18 and 30 years (inclusive) - this means you can apply for a visa when you are 30 years of age;

If you have any dependent children they will not be able to be to accompany you in Australia while you hold the visa;

You must have sufficient funds (generally deemed to be at least- AU$5,000) to support your trip and purchase a return airfare;

Additionally, for Thailand:

• You must hold a degree or post high school diploma from an accredited institution;

• You must provide documentary evidence of your English level when you lodge your visa application; and

You must obtain a letter of approval from the Office of Welfare Promotion, Protection and Empowerment of Vulnerable Groups in Bangkok.

Get your 'facts' straight.

Maybe you should also get your facts straight.

Australia only requires a 'post high school diploma'. A hair dressing diploma is a post high school diploma. There is a world of difference between that and a degree.

And not all working holiday visas are limited to twelve months as you claim.

Correct, it does work a little better in favor of Thais coming to Australia. Ie they can work for a single employer for 6 months (for Australias in Thailand only 3 months with one employer). BUT they also need a letter of support from the Government and to prove their English ability.

I have applied for the working holiday visa for Thailand. All I needed to show was my University degree and the minimum funds required. No need to have any level of Thai language skills, no reference from the Australian governement etc. So it goes a little both way.

Only issue is that Thailand take their sweet time processing the applications. Mine has been in since February and still 'no decision' from Thailand back to the Thai Embassy in Canberra. Hopefully it's been decided on by November when I go back to see my family. But who knows!

Australia would process it in a timely manner. 5 months is well I guess Thai style of doing things.

The difference many are forgetting is that most Westerners don't want to do those 'blue collar' jobs back in their home country, or being cleaning maids, etc. Every country wants to only let in those who will contribute something to their society. True we don't drain any financial resources from the Government when we are here (or are ever entitle too), but we do have an effect on infrastructure just by being here and using it, which already can;'t really support the thai population (same as back in Australia).

I don't see a problem for requiring a degree when a degree should be required for the job (no different to back home). I'm sure people without a degree can contribute something as well (but likely more often not). A degree is an easy way to decide whether someone is likely to have something to offer without subjective 'work experience' and someone relying on their gauge of how siginificant this is. As everything it all comes down to the paper you have to show what you know. (or SHOULD know).

Hmm. Very very interesting. Shortages all over the world for nurses yet, most aren't paid relative to the work they do.

Anyone actually know the monthly salary of a graduate nurse? My girlfriend recently asked about nursing school/college (vocational one) and it gives nearly the equivalent of a university degree (almost). When we asked what the starting salary was, she was told 6,000 baht per month.

I knew it wouldn't be big, but this seemed a little low? Anyone know from direct experience? Maybe it's different up north in Chiang Mai?

If it is this low, then understandable, why would you study for 3+ years to be paid the same as a waitress.

However, when asked about specialists offering advice for overseas clients in overseas markets, he felt that so long as they did not offer that advice to Thais or foreigners in Thailand that would be acceptable.

This is obviously not correct. He must have failed to understand the question properly or just felt like releasing some hot air. There is nothing in the Working of Aliens Act that suggests that advising overseas clients is not work that needs a work permit. That would suggest that brokers advising overseas fund managers didn't need work permits which is obviously nonsense. Clearly advising overseas clients is work that requires a work permit and any income generated from such work performed in Thailand is also taxable.

But maybe, he is using 'common sense' and maybe understands the situation in which the original 'act' was designed. To protect employment taking from thai's and issuing of WP's when someone did want to take a position for a thai company. There is a bit of a difference in a broker working for a company that advises both thai's and overseas clients (for a thai company) compared to sole business people who are purely consulting with overseas customers.

If it is not, then why can you not obtain a work permit based on overseas consulting as a sole business? When there have been numerous accounts of people attempting to do but refused by the ministry of employment due to not having sponsorship from a thai company. They either count it as work and you CAN apply for a work permit based on that work. Or they don't count it as work and you cannot apply based on that work.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place. But I guess it is Thailand and the could count it as work, but not let you apply anyway as it's not a occupation on the form (but then deemed not employment?)

If it's not on the list of prohibited jobs (ie working for oneself for overseas clients) then it should be work. But if they don't count it as work (for work permit reasons), then what they hell is it?

I hate Thai bashing, but sweeping problems like this under the rug doesn't help this situation either.

I'm not sure where the "Thai bashing" thing comes from. There is nothing on this thread I've seen attacking Thai's, or condemning their behaviour. Only posts pointing out the way things are here and the issues related to that.

This is a difficult subject with no easy answers, it's only by rational discussion and raising awareness that things will eventually change.

I agree with you. Nothing of Thai bashing in this thread (as opposed to the numerous other posts in other threads that have). I was just pointing out Thai bashing is pointless and agreeing with him only on that point. But it's not a reason to close this discussion, in fear of thai bashing coming up as it does in most other threads.

Don't know what all your complainers are whinning about.

Never thought BKK Airport was overly hot (maybe just a little too warm, but still ok considering the openness of it).

Only once was I annoyed that I had to line up for 45 mins to get through passport control leaving Bangkok airport. The other times it has been 5-10 mins.

They have definitely increased the number of immigration staff. Hardly different to any other airport. Seen the line for non nationals at Melbourne airport? Same same...long lines.

Stop bashing just because you can. Every post on TV about something that comes up in the news, someone or many people HAVE to say something negative (in a non-constructive way). I'd hate to meet some of you guys in real life, you must be really negative individuals.

You act like Thailand is the ONLY place in the world with corruption, infrastructure issues etc. Wake up. It's not. It's just more blatant to everyone in Thailand and the media does a much better job of covering it up and brain washing the masses in the West to make them believe the same 'shyt' doesn't go on.