SweatiePie

Doing shopping the other day (5 km) I spotted 3 four door pick-ups with green text plates,

yepp, I have seen them too, but still dot know if they are registered with one seatrow (2-3 people) or two seatrows (5-6people), and as a result what their excise tax was on purchase and what their annual tax is.

They are registered as four door, 5-6 seat cars, with the appropriate taxes.

Some DLT offices have simply chosen to give all pick-ups green plates based on their function rather than their type (see my previous post), as this affects the speeds at which they can legally be driven on major roads and is considerably more logical. A two door or space cab (4 door) pick-up with a green letter plate cannot legally be driven on major roads (highways, expressways, etc) at the same speed as a four door pick-up with a black letter plate as one is classified as a truck and the other as a car. This is an attempt to rectify that anomaly which the DLT has yet to address nation-wide, although it is currently under review.

The current vehicle legislation has a number of anomalies like this which are under review and have been for a considerable time; the problem is that every time a government changes the proposed amendments also change as this will affect tax revenues, so the changes are delayed. Vehicle classification is not as simple as the number of seats and rows of seats, which is the current major classifier, and the plan is to make it primarily dependent on the vehicle's function rather than the number of doors and seats which is clearly out-dated. A two door sports car with two seats, for example, is still classified as a car despite the number and rows of seats, not as a truck.

Foreigners can own any vehilce in TH, including tour busses and 18 wheelers. However we are not allowed to operate vehicles seating more than 7 or vehicles having black on yellow plates. Operating these vehicles are for Thai nationals only. Labordepartment does not consider if foreign operator of vehicle has financial gain from operating it or does it for free. I agree there is very little chance of getting caught driving a blue on white plated vehicle, but lack of enforcement does not change the law. I would not be surpised when an Insurancecompany facing a 10-20 million baht claim from blue on white vehicle operated by foreigner would contact Labourdepartment to make claim invalid.

As I said before, the law is very clear on this point - the only relevant law refers to employment and is the 5th prohibited occupation of 39 (Driving motor vehicles or vehicles which do not use machinery or mechanical devices, except piloting aircraft internationally.) It refers to any and all motor vehicles, irrespective of their size, type and registration plate, including those with black on white plates even if they are appropriately insured. It is the occupation which is defined and prohibited, not the vehicle.

Vehicles with blue on white plates are or can be for private use - totally different from those with black on yellow plates which are only for vehicles for hire or reward, as are those with white on green plates. While all plates indicate the vehicle's class, black on yellow and white on green plates indicate the vehicle's function, while blue on white indicate its type.

I never said or suggested that there was "very little chance of getting caught driving a blue on white plated vehicle" or any "lack of enforcement" of what is a non-existent law. What I said, although apparently I was not clear, was that any such "on the spot fines" were not enforceable under the law but would probably be best paid.

What would or would not "surprise" you is irrelevant.

Anyone in doubt of the legal advice given by ThaiVisa members should in this case consult with Department of land Transportation, Revenue Department/Excicie taxes and Labourdepartment. They will usually be able to provide an english translation of rules and laws. My source is reading these rules.

In that case you should have no problem at all in providing a link to those from the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare or the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare, which are widely available on the internet and which would end this disagreement. The only relevant law is the Alien Employment Act, often known as the Working of Aliens Act, of 2551 (2008) which replaced and repealed those of BE 2521 (1978) and 2544 (2001) and the list of proscribed occupations as given by the Department of Employment of the Ministry of Labour (Office of Foreign Workers Administration).

It is, unfortunately, not possible for me to provide a link to something which does not exist but should you be able to provide any such authoritative and verifiable link I will, of course, resign from this board and from my position as a Doctor of Law in Thailand.

...Also just noticed that the Blue on White plates that I have on my HiAce bus are for more than 7 seats - and vaguely remember being told that as a Farang I'm not allowed to drive one of these! (I have a 5yr Thai licence that clearly has apicture of one on the back!) - Can anyone confirm?

DLT who issues DL allows us to drive minbusses with blue on white as pictured on our DL. But labourdepartment does not allow foreigners to drive vehicles seating more than 7. Black on yellow is an absolute no no.

If an extended cab has rearseats, it is supposed to be registered and insured for 5-6 and thus should change to black on white plates and pay tax accordingly

Sorry, but although I am sure this is well-intentioned it is nothing more than one of those "urban myths" all too often heard In Thai forums and bars.

The Thai Labour Department has no authority to legislate who can and cannot drive what vehicles, although it can and does designate which jobs foreigners are and are not allowed to do. It is not part of the legal process and does not make, enforce, interpret or apply laws – those are the responsibility of the legislature, the police, the public prosecutor and the judiciary.

There is no law prohibiting any foreigner from owning a vehicle with a blue on white plate (10 seats or more), or from driving it as long as they have a suitable licence. The only relevant law is that prohibiting foreigners without the correct work permits from using these (or any other) vehicles for "hire or reward" (the Immigration Department's executive area, not the Labour Department's).

There is, simply, no such ban or offence. That is not to say that no-one has ever been "fined" by the Police for doing so – regrettably the only people more corrupt and inept than those who enforce our laws are those who make them, so you could just as easily and with just as much (or as little) legitimacy find yourself being fined because it is raining or there is an "r" in the month.

Legally, the position is clear: you are fully entitled to own a vehicle with a blue on white plate, and/or to drive it as long as you have a basic (car/pick-up/minibus) driving licence. What you may not do as a foreigner without an appropriate work permit is to use it for "hire and reward" – that includes, for example, driving your family or friends if they pay for the fuel, buy you a meal, etc. If it is in your wife's name and she is the "breadwinner" in the family it is possible but highly unlikely that a case could be made that you are driving the vehicle as an employee.

Practically, the position is also pretty clear: you could be given a comparatively small "on the spot fine" by the Police for an imaginary offence. It is up to you whether to pay it or to insist on going to court, but you could consider it a small price to pay in comparison to the considerable amount you are saving in annual/excise/import tax.

What you should not do, under any circumstances, is remove some seats thinking you are then complying with the law: you are not – you are breaking it. If you want to reduce the number of seats for any reason you would need to register the change at the DLT and to pay the additional taxes which could be considerable. If you have not done so and you have less than 10 seats when stopped or when the vehicle is checked you could have the vehicle impounded and it would not be a question of just a small fine and replacing the seats – you would be liable for a large fine and for the original taxes in full (several hundred thousand baht, possibly millions).

Removing the rear seats from a 4 door pick up would not reduce the tax liability, although I am sure any attempt would amuse the DLT and the tax-man.

Be very cautious of any of the "legal" advice you may be given, whoever it is by: well-intentioned does not necessarily mean well-informed and taking some of that advice could be costly.

..... intelligent readers ......

I think they're both otherwise occupied .....

...... This is not unlike Thailand's attitude towards men who go out with kathoeys- it doesn't seem to threaten their straight status as long as they are the 'man.' ...........

But how would one know?

Despite any impression some "real men" may like to give of their "straight status", according to many trans-genders it is the one with the make-up and heels who is the "man"!

After the posts from SweatiePie and ijustwannateach, I wish you two would get together and write a book! It doesn't mean that you have to agree with each other, but I think both of you have so much knowledge and so much to say about this that a web forum is certainly too small for this. Both postings appear simplified, because the length of a posting on a web forum is limited by readability: This is not an academnic journal, after all.

Tom, while I agree entirely with your conclusion I regret that I have to disagree with both your proposal and the thought behind it.

I am a little surprised that if SP studied these things at the Sorbonne that he would be so willing to over-simplify them by regarding them all as synonymous with 'homosexuality' (which is itself potentially a troublesome noun)- certainly the scholars who study them in the contexts of their cultures and time periods and original languages would not make such representations so blithely.

IJWT, I am not at all surprised that you are surprised.

I wrote that "I'll try to keep it clean, simple and avoid the "psychobabble"" to make it perfectly clear that I was writing something intended to be readily understood by anyone reading it, not a scholarly study comparing homosexuality with cis-sexuality over the years and around the world - that would have been rather pointless here.

I am both capable and prepared to "go to scholarly lengths to explain this" or to give links to and cite recognised references (other than wiki) but I can see little point here, particularly when those who disagree with me are not.

I did not write that the examples I cited were "synonymous with 'homosexuality'" - far from it. They are examples of homosexuality which is a very broad term covering a wide and ever growing range of sexual tastes, preferences and acivities. Synonymous, for those who are unaware of the meaning of the word, indicates that they have the same meaning or at least a similar connotation, and that is not what I wrote.

The points you make, while interesting, have little to do with "homosexuality" today - as you rightly say. That does not mean, however, that other examples from the same geographical areas and the same periods such as the ones I cited do not. To suggest that would be the equivalent of saying that you haven't seen any gay bars in Walking Street so there are no gay bars in Pattaya - you are simply looking in the wrong place. For example:

1. You and I both referred to native American culture. You referred, however, to "the 'berdache' " (who you say "was a man who had chosen the role of a woman as an adolescent- he did woman's work in the tribe (however it was defined)" while I referred to "two-spirit people". The term berdache is not a native American word and it is no longer used as it is often misunderstood and is considered offensive, however it was an umbrella term that covered considerably more than "a man who had chosen the role of a woman as an adolescent- he did woman's work in the tribe". I referred to "two-spirit people" which is not the same thing as it covers a range of transgender, bisexual, lesbian and gay native Americans, many of whom are examples of "homosexuals" as the term is generally understood today - some used the sweat lodges, fought as warriors, etc. Rather than use a foreign "label" (berdache) many native American tribes "labeled themselves" in their own languages with a number of "labels" some of which which the native Americas themselves at their two-spirit conferences have clearly said "are really the same as what we regard as homosexuality TODAY". I would hesitate to tell them that they are wrong.

2. The PNG tribes have very different customs and traditions so to say that anything is "nearly universal" is risky. You are probably referring to the Etoro tribe where it is difficult to separate ritual homosexuality from any "genuine" homosexuality as the ritual side dominates tribal life, with heterosexual sex being only permitted at certain times (for about 3 months of the year) and in certain places (in the jungle) while oral sex performed by younger boys who ingest the semen of the older men as it is believed to contain a "life force" is routine, anywhere, anytime. To say that they "go on to marry women and have children" as we would recognise it is incorrect; Etoro men and women live apart for most of the time, neither are monogamous, rape or at least non-consentual sex is commonplace, and the male and female children are raised separately and largely communally.

I would never cite this as an example of homosexuality (it doesn't meet the constraint I mentioned), but I would't object to studying it more closely at first hand.

3. It is difficult to compare sexual practice of any description in ancient Greece "directly with modern American practice"; the oft-cited age gap between partners, for example, was the same between male and female partners as it was between all-male partners. While "both partners were still basically expected to marry and get down to serious family business eventually" (nothing remotely like in the same way as in PNG!) some did not and it is generally accepted that they were recognised as homosexual at the time - Achilles and Patroclus, and Alexander and Hephaestion are prime examples.

4. The relationship you refer to in "fuedal Japan" between the samurai and his trainees is called shudo. While shudo has little similarity to the modern Western idea of homosexuality, nanshoku, meaning "male colours" (as the characters do in Chinese) does; nanshoku is very different from shudo and refers to homosexual sex regardless of respective ages, status, etc.

Making the simple appear complicated is easy - all it takes is a few irrelevant points and some sesquipedalianism; making the complicated appear simple is rather more difficult.

.... an obvious personal vendetta.... thinks he has all the final for all time, correct answers on yes a VERY COMPLEX issue, .... zealots who actually believes shouting WRONG means it's the end of the story. ....and what credentials does he have?

No vendetta, definitely not all the answers (why are we born gay??), and certainly not a zealot (I am quite open to criticism, as long as it is valid not just abusive).

My credentials? I majored in psychology at the Sorbonne with sexual identity in different cultures as my main thesis and I spend most of my working time as an international human rights lawyer specialising in cases of sexual discrimination.

I don't take offense to the "anti-intellectual" flame ...

Neither would I have done, JD, if it hadn't contained the totally unnecessary and self-aggrandising swipe at Thailand (I am a "Thai khatoey" - although now I am rather less of a khatoey and more of a "real man"!)

Its a bit like asking "Why am I black / white / Asian / tall / short / thin / fat / left-handed / ambidextrous / etc / etc". At least there are some answers as to why they were born that particular way, while there are none as to why we are born gay.

It isn't even a known thing that people are born gay, or that everyone who identifies as gay was so called born gay. Look, if you are anti-intellectual and don't think certain controversial topics are even worthy of discussion, maybe Thailand is a better match for you than I.

It's so simple. No, it bloody well isn't.

If complex questions bother you, I suggest silence rather than fabricating silly personal attacks about people who bring them up.

I'm with JD, LeC, Tom, IB, et al here. It really is pretty simple unless you deliberately try to confuse the issue - I believe baffling with bullshit is the correct term.

JT, as you infer that Thailand is somehow "anti-intellectual" I will try to be a "match" for you, and to keep things "simple" enough for you to understand without "fabricating" anything.

To address your "complex questions" in no particular order:

"It isn't even a known thing that people are born gay". WRONG. It is no longer denied by anyone that "people are born gay" except by the religious fundamentalists (Christian and Muslim alike); your view is decades out of date. Why they are born gay, on the other hand, is the subject of widespread debate with arguments varying from genetics (not viable on the grounds of inheritance, which the proponents of the gay gene avoid answering), to the length of the fourth finger (unclear if this indicates or predisposes being gay), to the parents' diet and environment when in the womb (the current favourite).

Far from being not known "that everyone who identifies as gay was so called born gay" this is generally accepted, as it has been shown to be not unusual for some people to identify as gay due either to peer or environmental pressure or because of an inability to sustain a heterosexual relationship.

"real men" who want to sleep with other "real men" are what "westerners would call gay". WRONG. In my own experience (and I have a lot of experience of Western gays!) the vast majority of Western gays are neither so narrow-minded nor so frightened of their own masculinity being questioned by association that they would not see "gay" as encompassing a wide variety of sexual taste and display, from the very macho to the very fem. The idea that men sleeping with other men, neither of whom are "fem", is somehow "even newer in Thailand than in the west ..... maybe an unfortunate western import ..." is as bizarre as it is wrong; the difference with the West is that it was never considered noteworthy here - nothing more.

"You are who you sleep with". WRONG. You have not only quoted Esti Ahronovitz out of context but also mis-represented what he wrote; the whole line of his article was that it was wrong to catalogue and categorize sexual orientation, as you have done.

"Thai kathoeys" are "the third sex as it were". WRONG. Kathoeys (or "ladyboys") are not the "third sex" in Thailand or anywhere else. As has been discussed here previously at length and established beyond any doubt according to every recognised dictionary and reference, although all transexual men are kathoeys, not all kathoeys are transexuals or transgenders. To Thais, particularly Thai gays, the term kathoey covers a wide spectrum of gays from the slightly fem to the full transexual. Transexuals are the "third sex" in Thailand, not kathoeys - the two are not interchangeable. Even then, being a transexual denotes sexual identity but does not necessarily denote sexual preference - some full male to female transexuals are openly lesbians.

If the best you can do to appear "intellectual" is to denigrate Thailand as being somehow "anti-intellectual" and not up to discussing "certain controversial topics" and to sling about a few terms you don't fully understand and then accuse those who disagree with you of "fabricating silly personal attacks" then, with all the respect you are due, "I suggest silence".

Since you're a Thai lawyer maybe you can help me understand. First, I need to go to my local amphur and "legalize my son's birth" and obtain a document that states I am the father. Second, I need to go to court and request I be added as a custodian of my son. Question: I have already been to my local amphur a few times to add my name to his Thai birth certficiate. Is this equivalent to "legalizing my son's birth", or on top of that do I need another document?

I spoke to a lawyer about this a couple years ago when I was batting the idea around, and his quote was under 9,000 baht, so you're right on the money.

Keep it simple, Caledoni!.

If the lawyer you saw previously asked for 9,000 baht then go back to see him and get him to do the entire process for you. If your wife doesn't know the legalities and your own Thai is only good enough to "get around", particularly with an "unhelpful" amphur, then you will find yourself going round in ever decreasing circles.

All the information here is correct in isolation but the problem is that a lot can be lost or added in translation and there is often confusion between, for example, registering, legalizing and legitimizing a birth. I have never come across an illegal birth, and some which are registered 100% correctly can be legitimate or illegitimate! .

It is quite possible for a birth to be registered but for there to be no birth certificate (though it is becoming more unusual) just as it is possible for the "real" or "true" father not to be the father named on the birth certificate or the register of births at the amphur, or for neither the "real" father or the registered father (who may or may not be the same) to have legal custody.

Basically, as long as the mother and you confirm that you are the father and she agrees to your having joint custody (or even sole custody, if you prefer) then things are simple - if she's happy with that now then make the most of it before she changes her mind. That may not happen, but for the sake of a little time and expense now its not really worth taking that risk.

How about an unaverage lawyer ??

So what kind of law do you deal with SP ?? PM if you do not wish to be inundated with work.

"unaverage"?? There's lots of them about (trained and untrained) - anything from free to exorbitant. Neither is any indication of quality so maybe "reasonable" would have been more appropriate.

I am primarily involved in human rights cases which interest me here and abroad, which I do pro bono, and with international corporate law which I have no interest in but for which I charge outrageous fees to cover my considerable expenses elsewhere. Anything else usually gets ignored and goes in the bin.

Have you done it? How simple is it?

No I haven't done it, because I am gay and childless (!), but I am also Thai and a lawyer so I can confirm that what has been said by others above about it being a simple process is correct and I would second their encouragement to do it now while his mother is still agreeable (and free); things can change very quickly.

.......... and 30,000 baht for handling an unopposed change in custody by an average lawyer is expensive, although considerably less than his mother could ask you for later; 10,000 should be a reasonable fee (and sorry, I don't handle these type of cases!).

Your ex-wife has custody over the child, shared with you it seems. You will need to talk this over with a lawyer, but not likely a British court will go against the agreement you made in Thailand.

No, from what dopster has said his wife has sole custody and he only has visitation rights (once a week). Under those circumstances a British court is obliged to ensure that the son returns to Thailand with his mother if that is her wish, regardless of what his father wants and how he is doing in school. If his father obstructs her by withholding the son's Thai passport he can be charged with an offence and his mother can be awarded any costs.

If child support has already been agreed in Thailand for a son in Thailand it would be highly unlikely that a UK court would even consider awarding a "higher amount".

A bargaining point would appear to be the 10k a month plus school fees; realistically, as long as the mother is in Thailand (with her son) and the father is in England he can avoid paying child support/maintenance/call it what you will. Doing so would be illegal under Thai law, but it is a question of what is enforceable from abroad and at what cost. Maybe a financial settlement could be reached with a change in custodial arrangements.

"Down the road" all depends on what his mother decides to do, if anything.

If his mother has sole legal custody and you only have the right to "travel internationally" with him by her Power of Attorney she can revoke this at any time. Whatever his education is at the time or passports he holds the US would be obliged to honour any request she could make through the Thai courts to have him returned to her custody as a minor. Sole legal custody means what it says - she has sole legal custody and you have no custodial rights whatsoever.

Its a very simple process and if you don't do it because you can't be bothered with the "hassle" then you don't deserve to have custody.

Just my "thoughts"!

...<snipped>...'I should also point out that unless your solicitor is also the executor/administrator of your will (something I would avoid personally)...'

SweetiePie,

Your reply brings up my question:

I'd like my brother-in-law, a trial lawyer whom I implicitly trust, to function as the executor. My sister will be listed as primary beneficiary and

he as secondary beneficiary, should she not survive.

As he, like myself is a US citizen, would there be a problem for him to communicate with the Thai courts as he doesn't speak Thai??

Thank you

LD, you can name anyone you like as your executor/administrator. It doesn't make any difference if they can speak Thai or not (although if they can't you will need a Thai lawyer to represent you in court, for which they will charge a fee, so that you can be registered as the administrator); the process is very simple and, usually, very brief. The important thing is that you trust them, not whether they are a lawyer, can speak Thai, etc.

Contact the local Thai wildlife authority and they will come and move them for you. I don't see any reason to kill them like you killed the mother.

Come on Coma !! the Thai don't even look after there dogs & Cat..... so a snake has no chance ...and every one of my Thai neighbours kill EVERY snake on sight poisonous or not .. but if you can supply me with the address or phone number of the Thai wild life authority at will come and remove them I will be most grateful ...cheers

........... You can let your own fingers do the walking for the phone number. Most Thai neighbours will know somebody that is capable of moving them along if you cannot contact the correct authorities. ..........

There are no "correct authorities", nor is there any such thing as a "local Thai wildlife authority". They do not exist. Period.

There are a number of agencies responsible for Thai wildlife and wildlife management, mainly under the National Task Force Wildlife Enforcement Network in Thailand (Thai-WEN), which include the Natural Resources and Environmental Crimes Division of the Royal Thai Police, the Department of National Parks, the Wildlife Fauna and Flora Conservation Division of the Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department and Royal Thai Customs. None are responsible for or able to "come and move" a nest of snakes from a private house.

You may get some limited help from the local authority (City Hall/Kamnan), but they will probably pass the problem on to one of the local rescue organisations such as Sawangboriboon or to a local snake farm.

To save you, or anyone else, searching fruitlessly through a phone directory and coming up with nothing here is a brief but recent list of "snake removers" for some areas.

While snakes may not regard humans as "prey" the idea that "they do not attack us at ALL" is simply untrue; there are over 10,000 reported cases of snake bites in Thailand every year, a number of fatalities, and most are the result of someone being bitten by a snake they did not see, or only saw too late. The number of dogs killed by snakes is unknown.

Edit: Sorry, forgot to mention that the Malayan Pit Viper is venomous and potentially fatal; the hatchlings are as deadly as the adults, potentially more so.

Edit 2: Sorry again, checked where you are and none of those in the link are in your area. I believe there is a Pattaya Snake Farm, telephone 038-731586, who may be able to help.

Be careful indeed!

"duly executed" refers to a will that has been properly signed and witnessed so that it is rendered an enforceable, valid legal instrument (done before your death).

"executing the terms of a will" refers to the executor carrying out the wishes of the testator (done after your death).

"correctly executed" is a phrase I have not come across.

KEEP IT SIMPLE - legalese is no more necessary in your will than it is here!!

Not correct, PP. It all depends on where the first to die is domiciled.

In summary:

First to die UK domiciled, spouse UK domiciled: full spousal exemption (no Inheritance Tax)

First to die UK domiciled, spouse non-UK domiciled: personal allowance + limited spousal exemption (£325,000 + £55,000 = £380,000)

First to die non-UK domiciled, spouse UK or non-UK domiciled: full spousal exemption (no Inheritance Tax)

If your wife is non-UK domiciled her estate outside the UK is not liable for Inheritance tax on her death; if she becomes UK domiciled, however, then her estate world-wide is liable for UK Inheritance Tax. Not necessarily a good move.

Totonjoy, agreed - your will should be in your native language (although not necessarily "English" for all "Western expats") unless you can read and write fluent Thai, as I explained above at some length. It does not, however, have to be made by a lawyer (Western or Thai) and if it is made by a "Western lawyer" you should ensure that he is versed in Thai law - there are considerable differences, such as the trust laws which I touched on briefly, and a "Western lawyer" may not be aware of these.

I should also point out that unless your solicitor is also the executor/administrator of your will (something I would avoid personally, unless you have no option as well as no friends) he will not "make sure ..... that it is executed correctly". If you have only paid him to draw up your will that is where his responsibilities begin and end; anything done with it after your demise is up to your administrator.

NALAK, I don't know which solicitor you finally used, but you did name a lawyer on 14 March; you are definitely not using me - most of my legal work is pro-bono, but when I charge my minimum fee to simply look at a case is 7 figures (baht).

Nalak, I never comment on other solicitors once named so I can't do so here - that doesn't imply or infer that there's anything wrong with them in any way, I just never do it so whether they are "kosher" or not is your decision.

As you probably know anything you leave to a UK registered charity is exempt from UK Inheritance Tax.

If you are leaving all your assets worldwide to the one charity then there is no reason why you need more than one will, although as I said above you may need a number of "originals" depending on where your assets are (Thailand, mainland UK, Jersey, Guernsey, I of M, etc). Some countries/territories will retain a will once probate has been granted or the will approved so having a number of them makes it easier and is perfectly legal (as long as they are identical).

Above all, keep it simple. There is no need to be verbose or for your best attempt at "legalese" - everything is everything in any language!

As a simple example, most people leaving all their assets to one person or charity could use the following as a general template:

This will is made by me xxxxxxxxx

I revoke all former wills and testamentary depositions.

I appoint xxxxxxxxxx to be sole executor of this my will.

I give all my property and funds worldwide to which I may be entitled or over which I have any disposing power at the time of my death, after my funeral and testamentary expenses and any taxes rightfully due, to xxxxxxxxxx ID card number xxxxxxxxxxx.

In the event of the prior death of xxxxxxxxxx I give all such property to xxxxxxxxxxx.

I would strongly suggest that anyone leaving their assets to one person and then to another in the event of their death adds a charity as an ultimate beneficiary in the event of all those named dying together. Doom and gloom, but all these things are possible and most problems can be avoided with a little thought.

If you intend or need to leave anything to your mother, then I would suggest that you (and anyone leaving assets to more than one beneficiary) never leave set amounts; leave fractions or percentages of your estate instead (unless you want to leave someone a symbolic penny!).

If you do change your will remember that you are not obliged to tell your previous executor, but that it can complicate things considerably later if you don't - the original executor, for example, could apply unknowingly for approval or probate first, leading to a contested will and other problems and delays.

Madame, I'm sorry, but I missed the question about your friend's daughter and keeping funds "in trust" for her until she is 18. This, I am afraid, is a very complicated subject in Thailand and they need to seek expert and specialised advice depending on their specific circumstances. In most cases it is nowhere near as simple as in Europe or the States as there are considerable differences between countries whose laws are based on civil rather than common law.

He may well find that his simplest solution is to open an account for her abroad with a provision for her not to have access to that account until she is 18 and a proportion of his estate to be paid into that account on his death. Unless he can trust an administrator or executor to do that for him an alternative would be for him to open a joint account with her now, with her only having access to the account when she turns 18; the downside to that is that even if he is still alive when she turns 18 she can then access any funds in the account. He would also need to consider how she, or her surviving parent or guardian, could access those funds if they genuinely needed to - for example if she needed a life-saving operation that had to be paid for; in most cases banks either have no provision for that at all or the process takes so much time that she would be dead long before access was approved.

I wish I could be of more help, but I am afraid that this is one instance where general advice just doesn't work.

Back on topic, vaguely.

Why not try the Suzuki Swift? We all have different tastes, but I would have thought that this was at least worth considering: similar size and price, competitive spec and performance, less fussy styling, plenty of scope for modifications, and less likely to look dated quite as quickly as either the Ford or Mazda.

Sadly Suzuki's specs are well short of either the Mazda or the Fiesta, I was considerably disappointed when I inquired at a recent mall show.. Besides being much smaller it is well underpowered respectfully.. Top spec Suzuki is like 90 something to Fiestas max spec of 151, The bottom spec Fiesta @ 95 is a match for the top spec Suzuki..

We must have been looking at different cars - the ones I saw in the dealer in Rayong, which are the same ones Top Gear and What Car reviewed and compared to the Mazda 2, had better performance, more power, better trim, and were better priced. The bottom spec Suzi is basic, but the only Fiesta that came out better than the top model, full options, was the way more expensive top spec sports version. Maybe they've changed them since then ............

My attention was drawn to this thread, as it appears to contain some good, sound, simple legal advice - it does, but at the same time it contains some glaring errors and inaccuracies and it could lead to a will made and registered as advised being contested and declared invalid and a number of other potentially major problems. Some of it is misleading and some of it, I am afraid, is simply wrong.

I have no intention of going into a prolonged technical dispute about the legal niceties or about the dangers of making a will which is available to public view while you are alive (as reccommended here, although there are alternatives at the Amphur) . With no arbiter and no moderator qualified to judge the legal validity of the discussion there is little point.

Although being a Thai lawyer makes me somewhat biased I see no problem over lawyers charging a reasonable fee for reasonable work. In the case of a simple will (and I emphasise simple, as the example shown here is neither simple nor complete; some of it directly contradicts Thai company and basic law and some of it is simply obfuscation at its worst) you should expect to pay between 3,000 and 7,000 baht in Pattaya for a will written in English with a translation to Thai. The Thai translation does not need to be signed: unless it can be proven that you could read and write Thai and knew for yourself exactly what you were signing, a document in your own language is preferable in the event of any judicial dispute to one which it can be proven you did not understand for yourself and which had to be translated for you.

If you think the financial future of your family/wife/girl-friend/boy-friend/partner is worth 20 baht then take the "DIY" route described here; I have no doubt at all that you will get full value for your money.

If you think it is worth a little more then I would strongly advise you to see a qualified, registered and experienced lawyer.

It sounds like the SNS Bank are the ones being "awkward" and who have no idea what they should be doing. As Mario said, there is no reason for the Thai Embassy to be involved with the marriage certificate at all: it is a Dutch marriage, registered in Holland - there is no legal requirement for any involvement by the Thai embassy whatsoever.

The Dutch law on inheritance is very clear for married couples: since 2003 the widow/widower has sole right of inheritance unless there are any children aged under 18 (in which case they can claim for care and upbringing) or 21 (for maintenance); in those cases it is up to the child to make a claim on the estate.

There is no "probate" as such in the Netherlands and property transfer on the death of a Dutch citizen is very simple. On receipt of the appropriate documentation (in this case the death certificate and the marriage certificate, plus the Thai's identity documents such as a certified copy of his passport ) a Dutch civil law notary issues a "certificate of succession" showing who the entitled beneficiaries are. This is then used to claim any and all property belonging to the deceased; without it a bank should not (and legally cannot) release any funds to anyone.

Although its a simple process I'm afraid that its not just a question of popping into the Thai Embassy to have his marriage certificate stamped and then the bank (and anywhere else) being "happy to deal" with him and hand over his deceased husband's property. He has to go through the proper channels and to get the certificate of succession; that in itself is a simple process and one which the Dutch Embassy should be able to help him with - they may even have a civil notary at the Embassy. Any problem with the Dutch Embassy probably stems not from his being Thai but from his asking for the wrong thing; I would suggest that he goes to the Embassy with a Dutch person, preferably one who understands and knows about the certificate of succession, taking with him their marriage certificate, his deceased husband's death certficate, and a certified copy of his passport and Thai ID card. If they have a civil law notary on the Embassy staff, as most European embassies do, then he can get the certificate on the spot (for a fee, but a lot less than a trip to Holland!) or if not they should at the very least be able to tell him how to get in touch with one.

Off topic, I am afraid, but TO ANY FARANGS WHO ARE MARRIED OR WHO HAVE A CIVIL PARTNERSHIP WITH A THAI: PLAN FOR THE WORST, LET YOUR HUSBAND / WIFE / PARTNER KNOW WHAT TO DO IN THE EVENT OF YOUR DEATH, AND MAKE A WILL!

CC, correct; a number of British and Thai friends of mine have registered their CPs in Vietnam and in all cases the Brits used tourist visas.

Krit, no this is not correct. No same sex marriage/civil partnership is recognised in Thailand, so none have any legal base here nor can they be used to apply for a marriage visa, etc. The only possible relevance is where the foreign partner dies intestate and the other partner has to establish his position as the next of kin, but this would in any case be dependent on the Embassy of the country concerned who are automatically consulted in such cases. If it were the Thai partner who died intestate then anything in Thailand in their name would go to their next of kin under Thai law - this would not, under current legislation, include a foreign civil partner/spouse.

Cross-culturally, straight men in the West often find it offensive to be fancied by a gay guy, whereas in East, they take it as a compliment. It's a question of having your face rearranged or getting a smile as a response. This is my experience rather than a general truth, though. I would really like to make a socio-cultural scientific research on this.

Agreed again, Tom, and for once I think it certainly has some merits as a "general truth". In Thailand we are flattered to be fancied by anybody and take it as a compliment - that doesn't mean that feelings are necessarily reciprocated, just that they are appreciated. I've always felt that this isn't acceptable in the West as there's so much more "fear of association" so slim guys don't want to be seen with fat guys, many straights don't want to be seen with gays, some gays don't want to be seen with ladyboys, and some don't even want to be sen with women! NQOS, at least in many places in the West, are still NQOS!

Yes, I can certainly believe that many men work in order to support their families. Some choose this kind of work, others that. Depends on how you "perform" in each kind of work. Some people prefer offices, others bars, and again others construction sites.

At last - a voice of sanity and reason crying in the wilderness!

Its WORK - purely business, nothing more, nothing less. Some are good at it, some aren't. Just because some appear to be enjoying it more than others that doesn't necessarily mean that they are, any more than it means that they are gay because they are or straight because they aren't - in many cases it just means those who seem to enjoy it are better actors and better able to "perform" (in all senses of the word). In some cases relationships between customers and clients can lead to something more serious, but so can similar (customer/client) relationships anywhere else. Its just work and, possibly because of the potential comparative financial rewards, those in the East seem better able to recognise and accept it as such than those in the West.