Trembly

How about Exit 1? There is always an Exit 1 in every station and there can only be one in any station . . .

OMG in thailand if you ask someone exit one

he will think you travel alone ( just 1 person)

I think we need something a little more certain than that

In Thailand if you ask someone where exit 1 is, they will think that you want to know where exit 1 is.

If you fail to ask them in a way that they can understand, they may think you're asking about something else.

Yes, it's actually from the BTS. You're welcome.

How about Exit 1? There is always an Exit 1 in every station and there can only be one in any station . . .

Whatever the regulations are, generally speaking, Africans are not perceived in a very positive light in Thailand for various reasons. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am assuming that you're white; many Thais equate Africa with black skin and some may be suspicious of a white person holding an African passport. You don't want to be in a situation where an unworldly Thai has to make a judgement call on that.

Do yourself a favour and avoid unnecessary head-meets-wall-of-ignorance (yes, even in the government) by going Portuguese.

Do you mean black africans or people that come from Africa, I'm a white guy and have always come in to Thailand with my S.A. pasport and have never felt any animosity when I came in or left Thailand, I have a bank account there, no issues with that, I had to produce my passport, have been stopped by the police on the scooter endless times, as most farangs are, also no issues with my S.A. issued international drivers license, S.A. employs several thousand Thai men (welders mainly) as they are apparently good welders, but does have a bit of a history (they conssider it as a problem) with Thai ladies (most guys would disagree) as they come on holliday and stay, we all know for what.

Sorry, yes I meant black Africans, as those are the Africans that Thais are in contact with the most.

It's not a question of animosity but perception. Have you ever heard of banks turning away money? Why would a policeman care where an international driving license was issued in a routine traffic stop?

The problems with African passports start when you have to deal with prejudiced officialdom. For example, only UK, USA, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand nationals are considered to be native speakers of English according to the Ministry of Education. They've clearly never heard of the Republic of Ireland and probably only vaguely remember seeing some white people on a TV show about safaris in South Africa or Zimbabwe, or maybe that was a football game.

I once worked as an English teacher in 4000 pupil school in a northeastern city and I was asked to explain about white Africans on numerous occasions because the school administration wasn't aware of them. In the end the white Africans didn't get the job because the MoE wouldn't give the school a native English speaker allowance for their salaries.

In your later post you mentioned that you're 60, so I'm guessing that you're either retired or nearing retirement so that particular example may not matter to you very much but it should give you some idea about how things can go.

It seems to me that you would rather use your SA passport anyway so good luck to you. However, the fact remains that there is a chance that you will encounter prejudice and inconvenient bouts of ignorance with your SA passport whilst the chance of encountering that with your Portuguese passport would be virtually nil.

You asked the question . . .

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Perhaps Thailand can heal its internal conflict and find unity to move forward in a common cause--and it seems the US has provided the catalyst by their meddling.

So America should not have laws that forbid it from providing material support to undemocratically elected governments? Or, is it expected to make a special case for Thailand?

Or are you speaking of the TIP trafficking report- that should be ignored, too?

So Thailand should not be held to the same standards as other nations? Well, I can almost agree with that as no way can it ever achieve that with a largely uneducated populace as its core, which is quite deliberate.

Were these laws in place around the time of Pinochet or Saddam's rise?

The law you are referring to is the Foreign Aid Act of 1961 which provides that no assistance shall be provided to a government that:

"engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons, or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, and the security of person, unless such assistance will directly benefit the needy people in such country.”

With limited exceptions, no US foreign aid may flow to "any country whose duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup d'etat or decree or ... a coup d'etat in which the military plays a decisive role."

The law's focus on "military coup" may explain why Gen. Prayuth wants to portray his overthrow of the democratically-elected Thai government as an “interdiction” rather than as “coup.” The military is no doubt well aware of FAA.

In the case of Marxist Salvador Allende's election in the 1970 Chilean elections during the USSR-US Cold War era, US President Nixon actually promoted a military coup to block the rise of communism in South America and subsequently, increased foreign aid to that country after the coup. Similarily, the US provided military aid in the form of credits for weapons purchases and intelligence to Sadaam in his war with US nemisis Iran until Sadaam invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Obama administration refused to label the 2013 Egyptian military coup as a coup, instead taking care to refer to it as a “popular uprising” considering the anti-government protests by millions of Egyptians against President Morsi who had with support of the Muslim Brotherhood dominated-parliament given himself sole power to create legislation without review or challenge.

So the essence of FAA was not a purely humantairan act with the US acting as the social conscious for the world (what country could bear that burden) but rather as the advancement of democracy and respect for human rights that is essential to U.S. national security.

So in the case of Thailand, the US has cut immediate aid in compliance with US law but ultimately must weigh its short-term foreign policy goals against its long-term goals as relates to US national security. If Thailand does not move quickly towards a free and open democratically-elected government as the sole legislative power of the country that will guarantee human rights, the US short-term goals will become its long-term goal and view Thailand as a political antagonist.

Would you regard Pinochet's tenure as an advancement of democracy? Respect for human rights?

Am I the only one who is wondering why his wife hasn't already dealt with it? I mean, no offence, but perhaps she really doesn't know how to deal with it . . . otherwise it wouldn't be happening.

I wouldnt even question writing to the website or trying to help in some way, i would just do it.

Even if logic dictates that chances of anything coming of it, doesnt matter.

What matters is showing you wife and her sister support in what has obviously been a distressing situation for your sister in law.

Obviously i think she was foolish to fall for this, but sadly she did.

When the situation and money is long forgotten..how YOU responded to their requests will not be.

Id say choose carefully how you wish your wife and sister in law to remember you in this..the cost or reward could be huge (in terms of long term memory and harboring resentment..or, the better scenario, placing you on a heroic pedastle).

Lara, if it was my sister in law, I would have kicked her arse.

That is a colleague of my wife, not even a friend, that I met her once or twice.

She is asking my wife to help her, and by default I get the request.

As I said before, she is a qualified nurse, and she was able to correspond in English on the website.

Now, because of her naivety, she wants the others to deal with her dirty laundry.

Don't give a damn about the heroic pedestal.......but I will still write for her a letter on her behalf, addressed to the Scottish police.

As about the Thai police and the dating website, she can do it herself........she is supposed to have a bachelor degree in nursing.

How do you know he is in Scotland and not in an internet cafe in Pattaya?

You need ID to receive money at Western Union, but that Western Union branch can be anywhere. Otherwise what would be the point in using it for the scammers?

https://wumt.westernunion.com/info/howToPickUpMT.asp?country=global

Whatever the regulations are, generally speaking, Africans are not perceived in a very positive light in Thailand for various reasons. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am assuming that you're white; many Thais equate Africa with black skin and some may be suspicious of a white person holding an African passport. You don't want to be in a situation where an unworldly Thai has to make a judgement call on that.

Do yourself a favour and avoid unnecessary head-meets-wall-of-ignorance (yes, even in the government) by going Portuguese.

File a complaint with the police.

There is still no driving school in Thailand, but only private teachers. My wife's teacher take her to driving in very first hour without teaching any fundamental traffic laws! I was in shock and I decided not to join other courses behind the car.

Something that important can't be left to privateers. When they will face the wrong decisions they made decades ago and fix it by implementing a common test under strict rules for all drivers? These people has to learn traffic rules before they even touch car itself, and learn how to drive in controlled environments until they can handle traffic.

Honda Safety Riding Center

Honda Safety Driving Center

There's one in Ramkhamhaeng and another in Phra Padaeng. I'm not sure about outside Bangkok. Lessons there are approved by the Department of Land Transport who will issue driving licenses based on your results at the Honda school.

3825's sake! it's a spoof! When I'm not on my phone I might translate the Monty-Pythonesque description... "Your delusions will cease to be delusions".

What's even funnier is that some people have bought it.

I bet the makers were in fits when they got their first order.

I know it's not very ethical to carry the joke on to the extent of actually selling the stuff but ... It would be so tempting.

Chiang Mai locals shocked by 'rude' Chinese tourists :

"On social network sites and local forums, locals posted more evidence of what they say are offensive acts by the Chinese:

1. A tendency to not flush the toilet.
2. Flouting traffic laws when driving, riding a bicycle, or parking their car.
3. Being loud - even in five-star hotels.
4. Littering, spitting, queue-jumping.
5. Allowing children to defecate in public pools.
6. Terrible English-language skills that lead to difficulties in communication.

Even Chinese people living in Chiang Mai said they found the behaviour of their fellow countrymen shocking and embarrassing."

No, silly boy. read my last few posts. If you have done your homework you would know that the 49% rule doesn't apply to PTT.

51% of it belongs to the finance ministry anyway. I stated ppresumably only 49%.

Why would PTT be exempt from that rule? Are foreign entities allowed to own 100% of an oil business in thailand? Not sure about that one, but for example Dow has a partnership with scg, and shell has a partnership with various Thai investors.

You are assuming that the exemption should be in favour of the foreign investor. The sale of shares in PTT, even after privatisation, is subject to all kinds of scrutiny and executive / government vetos that are not normally found in a common or garden listed company.

The ghost of 2006 is coming back to haunt them in the appeals court now.

So u beleive to foreigners aren't allowed to own these shares at all?

Not sure where you get that from. The govt still owns 51% of it anyway.

You are having a major failure in English comprehension.

That foreigners own shares is QED.

The foreign investors have no business holding shares in Thailand's national oil company.

I've got no problem with foreign ownership of PTT. I think the whole thing should be sold off.

Governments should build schools roads, provide medical care and help the poor. Not be major shareholders in oil firms.

Add to that the disposition of every Thai government to use SOE's as play things and rewards, even less reason for a government to own PTT.

A more efficiently run PTT would pay more into government coffers.

If the government is concerned about negative impacts - it has a regulator who should be beefed up to protect national interests. In my opinion, it is a more effective way of protecting national interests than holding shares.

Oil and gas is a matter of national security. Thailand has nothing of Russia's strength, they're playing with fire if they think that letting the likes of Chevron (hello Bildeberg, CFR et al) in is going to ultimately serve national interest like Russia did when they allowed BP in for a while.

In the future . . . maybe, hypothetically yes. Anything can happen I suppose... But now? No way.

I take your point but Thailand is already at the mercy of global pricing and this will only increase with increased relaiance on imported LNG.

It has little choice not to, and neither does PTT, otherwise you end up with a moribund industry like in Venuzela or even with the Indoneisa oil and gas industry struggling under state control and massive subsidies.

Indeed, but foreign ownership is not a panacea.

I have no personal experience with O&G but from what I can see, the management of PTT is as 'Thai' as ever despite the involvement of Chevron, Hess and the foreign banks . . . foreign banks? . . . If the rationale is investment of human capital, know-how and hard cash then the oil companies have that in spades. Why bring in the banks? Maybe it's because these are doing such a fine job holding shares in Intouch Plc for Thaksin.

Anyway, back to PTT. Why couldn't they follow the model of the airlines such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Qatar instead? Or instead of selling shares of a national oil company off to foreign investors and hoping for the best they might be better off learning from Norway's Statoil.

http://ptt.listedcompany.com/shareholdings.html

You think it is 100% Thai owned? If so, you are sadly deluded.

No, silly boy. read my last few posts. If you have done your homework you would know that the 49% rule doesn't apply to PTT.

51% of it belongs to the finance ministry anyway. I stated ppresumably only 49%.

Why would PTT be exempt from that rule? Are foreign entities allowed to own 100% of an oil business in thailand? Not sure about that one, but for example Dow has a partnership with scg, and shell has a partnership with various Thai investors.

You are assuming that the exemption should be in favour of the foreign investor. The sale of shares in PTT, even after privatisation, is subject to all kinds of scrutiny and executive / government vetos that are not normally found in a common or garden listed company.

The ghost of 2006 is coming back to haunt them in the appeals court now.

Double post.

Have you ever actually looked at the shareholder listing for PTT?

You think it is 100% Thai owned? If so, you are sadly deluded.

http://ptt.listedcompany.com/shareholdings.html

No, silly boy. read my last few posts. If you have done your homework you would know that the 49% rule doesn't apply to PTT.

Double post.

Illinois seizes bees resistant to Monsanto's Roundup; kills remaining queens.

Trembly,

Thank you so much for that video.

I don't really see a connection with monsanto but its a travesty none the less for that beekeeper.

Have a look at this excellent article. Please do not be deterred by the rather frantic tone : the author makes some very good points and liberally provides references which are interesting reads in themselves.

Not good for Thailand's biggest public company to apparently so vulnerable to politics.

This is a big deal for foreign investors.

The foreign investors have no business holding shares in Thailand's national oil company.

I've got no problem with foreign ownership of PTT. I think the whole thing should be sold off.

Governments should build schools roads, provide medical care and help the poor. Not be major shareholders in oil firms.

Add to that the disposition of every Thai government to use SOE's as play things and rewards, even less reason for a government to own PTT.

A more efficiently run PTT would pay more into government coffers.

If the government is concerned about negative impacts - it has a regulator who should be beefed up to protect national interests. In my opinion, it is a more effective way of protecting national interests than holding shares.

Oil and gas is a matter of national security. Thailand has nothing of Russia's strength, they're playing with fire if they think that letting the likes of Chevron (hello Bildeberg, CFR et al) in is going to ultimately serve national interest like Russia did when they allowed BP in for a while.

In the future . . . maybe, hypothetically yes. Anything can happen I suppose... But now? No way.

Other videos of John Perkins on YouTube : Confessions of an Economic Hitman

For those who don't already know, CFR stands for . . .

Not good for Thailand's biggest public company to apparently so vulnerable to politics.

This is a big deal for foreign investors.

The foreign investors have no business holding shares in Thailand's national oil company.

Of course they do. I am not sure what percent is held by foreigners but I presume it can go up to 49%

Wrong. Try again Heart.

Maybe you need to tell Total, and believe British gas this then

At one time not so long ago they both held quite significant interests in both PTT and PTTEP and think they still do

And they shouldn't. The Thai politicians who crowbarred the laws to allow this should be in jail.

Well if I understand the minerals act correct, the person who shall remain nameless on TV signed off on that one.

That was 47 years ago when things were very different. That person has also signed off every act since. He more or less has to most of the time... it's part of 'the arrangement' (C.... M....)

Better to look to the people who draft things for him to sign :

http://www.globalresearch.ca/thailand-protesters-want-oil-back-for-thai-people/5359814

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/23/business/international-business-thai-oil-stock-offering-is-much-in-demand.html