Ferangled

But can the SME's read or write English? That may be a major factor, and doing business globally - hardly likely it will be of interest in global business if in Thai. The internet is global as is business and the translation programmes are not very good at all. Thailand public schools do not teach English, that seem to be reserved for International or schools that have a 'cost' attached. Sad state of affairs but it keeps the population in the controlling hands of those who wish to manipulate the masses.

They will be doing business locally, so will be communicating in Thai. The internet is local as well as global. If a Thai person wants info on a Thai restaurant, then they will expect it to be in Thai not English.

As for not learning English - Thais would do better to learn Chinese.

Then why are the Chinese hastily learning English?

Many seem to miss the point that China excel as manufacturers and suppliers but not as consumers. Perhaps if you are selling cheap rice but then again the Thais prefer to sit on that and let it rot... that and I believe the Chinese have a few paddy fields of their own.

Unfortunately the vast majority of the Chinese have virtually no disposable income and as a result don't make an ideal consumer market. They are learning English to help reach their target consumers - the US and Europeans.

That said those touting high-end luxury wares would do well to focus on the wealthy Chinese who have a real taste for Beemers and Bentleys, Prada & Gucci etc but unfortunately high-end luxury brands and Thailand don't sit too well together; perhaps better to learn the slightly wider spoken English tongue to appeal to a wider international market?

I'm not really sure what the marketing advantages are, being able to communicate in Mandarin to billions of people with no interest in your products or money to buy them with...

"Prayuth said he didn't know if the men in black were real."

Prayuth meant that the MIB could have been the red-shirts?

Is that a question Nicky?!

""Prayuth said he didn't know if the men in black were real."

I am quoting the OP but it seems you are quoting your imagination...

You don't get it Fer?

Could Prayuth mean that the MIB could have been the red-shirts? If there are no MIB, somewhone must have killed his people? You still don't get it?

No I don't get you at all Nicky. Could Prayuth mean that the MIB could have been the red shirts when stating that he didn't know they existed?! Hmmm, I don't know Nicky, I guess he could have meant that the moon is made of cheese using the common sense that you apply to proceedings.

I'd prefer to take what he actually said rather than your speculations alluding to a hidden meaning. From the bizarre to the ridiculous.

What is 100% clear is that OzMick applied the statement to the wrong person in his post... I think that's pretty abundantly clear now we've rehashed the issue over and over again, thank you Nicky.

Err... quite, nothing like splitting hairs is there?! Is your point that he was acting out of blind belief much like a religious zealot, with no actual knowledge that the enemy even existed, just blind faith?!

The ones using live ammunition against a foe that apparently he didn't know existed?

Is that somehow more palatable?

He didn't say that there weren't armed people supporting the red shirts there. He said he didn't know if the MIB existed.

Yes, quite, we could all hazard guesses at what he didn't say but that seems rather irrelevant.

I just made the point that OzMick misread the OP and attributed the statement incorrectly. Sorry if that has offended you. I'm sure it was an innocent mistake.

Yes it's fairly clear Prayuth said he didn't know if the MIB existed, I think that was established in the 1st post I made when I quoted the OP.

Please feel free to split hairs and spin away to your hearts content...

The problem was that you quoted the OP and then went on to say something different.

Ok. We're back to he didn't know they existed but Whybother speculates that he believes they existed. Does that sit better with your pedantic peculiarities?

Spin on... a regular merry go round here!

Err... quite, nothing like splitting hairs is there?! Is your point that he was acting out of blind belief much like a religious zealot, with no actual knowledge that the enemy even existed, just blind faith?!

The ones using live ammunition against a foe that apparently he didn't know existed?

Is that somehow more palatable?

He didn't say that there weren't armed people supporting the red shirts there. He said he didn't know if the MIB existed.

Yes, quite, we could all hazard guesses at what he didn't say but that seems rather irrelevant.

I just made the point that OzMick misread the OP and attributed the statement incorrectly. Sorry if that has offended you. I'm sure it was an innocent mistake.

Yes it's fairly clear Prayuth said he didn't know if the MIB existed, I think that was established in the 1st post I made when I quoted the OP.

Please feel free to split hairs and spin away to your hearts content...

In yesterday's BP, Jatuporn referred to one (single) person seen on security video wearing a black shirt while entering an army base in a police van. No indication that this person was armed, wearing a balaclava, or otherwise disguised - just a poor sartorial choice given 20/20 hindsight. That's it - his only proof that the MIB were connected to the RTA.

Given the photographs and video evidence, he then denies the MIB existed.

Perhaps less frothing at the mouth and more reading required.... "Prayuth said he didn't know if the men in black were real."

That's General Prayuth Chan-ocha, the Army chief, you know, the army? The ones using live ammunition against a foe that apparently he didn't believe existed? Makes perfect sense...

He didn't say he didn't believe they existed. He said he didn't know.

Believing and knowing is the same thing in red-spin land.

What's to spin here?

"Prayuth said he didn't know if the men in black were real."

The army chief states that he doesn't know if the men in black are real. The only one that's tried to spin anything here is you by attributing the statement to the wrong person, the quote's fairly self explanatory.

In yesterday's BP, Jatuporn referred to one (single) person seen on security video wearing a black shirt while entering an army base in a police van. No indication that this person was armed, wearing a balaclava, or otherwise disguised - just a poor sartorial choice given 20/20 hindsight. That's it - his only proof that the MIB were connected to the RTA.

Given the photographs and video evidence, he then denies the MIB existed.

Perhaps less frothing at the mouth and more reading required.... "Prayuth said he didn't know if the men in black were real."

That's General Prayuth Chan-ocha, the Army chief, you know, the army? The ones using live ammunition against a foe that apparently he didn't believe existed? Makes perfect sense...

He didn't say he didn't believe they existed. He said he didn't know.

Err... quite, nothing like splitting hairs is there?! Is your point that he was acting out of blind belief much like a religious zealot, with no actual knowledge that the enemy even existed, just blind faith?!

The ones using live ammunition against a foe that apparently he didn't know existed?

Is that somehow more palatable?

In yesterday's BP, Jatuporn referred to one (single) person seen on security video wearing a black shirt while entering an army base in a police van. No indication that this person was armed, wearing a balaclava, or otherwise disguised - just a poor sartorial choice given 20/20 hindsight. That's it - his only proof that the MIB were connected to the RTA.

Given the photographs and video evidence, he then denies the MIB existed.

Perhaps less frothing at the mouth and more reading required.... "Prayuth said he didn't know if the men in black were real."

That's General Prayuth Chan-ocha, the Army chief, you know, the army? The ones using live ammunition against a foe that apparently he didn't believe existed? Makes perfect sense...

"Prayuth said he didn't know if the men in black were real."

Prayuth meant that the MIB could have been the red-shirts?

Is that a question Nicky?!

""Prayuth said he didn't know if the men in black were real."

I am quoting the OP but it seems you are quoting your imagination...

Unbelievable stuff, you really couldn't make this up...

As far as I can tell the actual shooting happened months ago and the police have still not been able to question the shooter....have they been in session 24/7 for weeks on end?

Also can anyone clarify if this poor woman was his ex-wife, his cousin or his secretary? Or possibly all three?

If marrying cousins is common place amongst the ruling classes of Thailand it certainly explains a hell of a lot... echoes of Deliverance.

In yesterday's BP, Jatuporn referred to one (single) person seen on security video wearing a black shirt while entering an army base in a police van. No indication that this person was armed, wearing a balaclava, or otherwise disguised - just a poor sartorial choice given 20/20 hindsight. That's it - his only proof that the MIB were connected to the RTA.

Given the photographs and video evidence, he then denies the MIB existed.

Perhaps less frothing at the mouth and more reading required.... "Prayuth said he didn't know if the men in black were real."

That's General Prayuth Chan-ocha, the Army chief, you know, the army? The ones using live ammunition against a foe that apparently he didn't believe existed? Makes perfect sense...

to people who are not expats with a package and blow 80.000 - 150.000 a month ( !!!!) for the future of their kids :

put them in private school in stead of international .... saves you 1.000.000 baht per year for 15 years... put that on the bank at 3%

and give them a nice return when they turn 18 or 21 and they will never have to worry about money in their life ever again

so how smart/stupid are you to spend you money on an overpriced international school, designed only to milk big companies that pay for everything for their expat employee, which in my eyes is a big waiste of money anyway, paying a farang 300.000-500.000 baht, just for being mangager and FARANG while you could really find a good manager locally for 100.000 or less

jealous ? not really, as I am not a work slave for many many years , but still not pension age

Firstly your figures seem to have been plucked from your imagination; please provide details of your "international" & private schools which vary in cost by 1,000,000 bt each year and your "mangagers" earning 300,000 - 500,000 baht a month...

Secondly you seem to make no distinction between education and financial wealth. The sole purpose of education isn't to create stupid but wealthy people but effectively that seems to be your rational; hell why bother sending your children to school at all? You might as well set them to work from birth and have them retire by the age of 18, uneducated but wealthy.

What someone is prepared to pay/ sacrifice for the education of their own children has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else. Personally ensuring the happiness, security and best education possible for my children is priceless to me and I don't equate it to a financial investment. I'm not expecting them to take care of me or become fabulously rich; I'm trying to give them the best possible start so that they are equipped to make their own decisions in life and hopefully grow up to become decent, intelligent people.

They go to a private school, not an "international" and it costs a fortune relative to our earnings - again I'm not sure what you are alluding to by "international" schools. The well known "international" school in our area is in fact not an international school at all; it's simply another private school that used to have ties to a UK school which have long since been severed. The prices are inflated at c.200,000 bt more than other private schools in our area per year, nowhere near 1,000,000 baht more, in fact the total fees are less than that each year as they are at all the private schools in our area.

The big distinction between private schools for me is what curriculum they run; I imagine you are alluding to private Thai schools running Thai curriculum with perhaps the addition of an English language program. They tend to be (not always) cheaper than private schools that run a full international program, either following UK or US curriculum. The international curriculum is an important factor as it enables your children to apply directly to universities in the UK or US from school. For most expats that's a worthwhile consideration but I guess if you have already made the decision that your children will only ever study and work in Thailand that's your prerogative, personally I'd prefer to give them the option...

A pretty obviously slanted piece of satire by the Nation. Refreshing but ultimately falls short in my opinion.

Corruption signed a pact with Democracy a long, long time ago. Western society is the result. The pretence of a clean system is all that holds the West together... The Thais are mere pretenders at this; here corruption remains blatant and obvious, as such it is a far lesser evil to the carefully orchestrated web of deceit weaved in the UK, US and Europe.

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist..."

protect yourself with a 30+30+30 year lease

This is possible if the plot of land is not sold to another new owner or the land owner stay alive long enough to renew your lease terms (and he could up the lease price each term). Other than this, it is fallacious to think that you can lease a plot of land for 90 years under Thai civil laws.

Under Thai civil laws, a long term lease of a plot of land can be up to a maximum lease period of 30 years. The law also provides for leasing land for the life period of the land owner or the lessee.

Exactly, the implication of the previous post being that there were 3 x 30 year leases in place, giving 90 years . . . which is just not (legally) possible.

No, the implication being you can sign a legally binding lease for 30 years with provision for 2x 30 year extensions. If the implication had been that you could sign a lease of 90 years, that is what I would have written. I believe the real issue here is how the laws are applied differs from area to area which leads to confusion and results in people not adequately protecting themselves from scams.

Taking this story as an example it has been suggested that this man could have protected himself by...

A. Having a lease drawn up in his name, legally protecting him from being forcibly removed from his own house. Most seem to agree that this is totally feasible & legal. The lengths of lease terms & numbers of extensions of lease permitted seems to be a subject for debate.

B. Putting the title deed for the land, the chanote, in his child's name. Whether or not this is possible is getting a mixed reaction. Most seem to agree it is feasible but in my experience age stipulations have been enforced by local land offices, while another poster mentions that while legally a Thai child of any age can own land some land offices won't transfer until a certain age, seemingly making up their own rules from province to province.

I think this is the most pertinent point made here with regard to any legal dispute in Thailand:

when and if push comes to shove, I believe if you are going up against a Thai, you'll lose, no matter what pretty pieces of paper you may have and no matter what fancy lawyers you might have used.

Which makes it all the more important that any deals you enter into here, either business or property related, are done only with people you know and trust. To be honest I'd apply the same caution in any country. I wouldn't rent a property from a landlord that I didn't know /trust to a certain extent so it seems crazy to enter into a long term lease/ land deal with someone you don't know & trust.

So many on here seem to regard their marriages/ relationships as business arrangements it's quite sad that this basis of trust has been lost. Personally if I didn't love and trust my partner I wouldn't have married her and raised a family - IMHO having a child with someone is a far larger commitment than buying a house/ land.

Not actually true. You have to be a certain age to own land in Thailand. I have checked but my memory fails me as to how old, believe it's something weird like 13...

A Thai child of any age can own land and property (outright only, no debt attached), with everything being controlled (but not sold) by one nominated parent (who can be a foreigner) until the kid is age 20. Don't believe the lies you are told by corrupt officials at your local Amphur office (especially if in they are conspiring with a Thai female).

It was actually a case of a foreigner friend with a younger Thai brother. He had to wait until his brother was 13 or so before transferring the chanote from his ex wife... who incidentally didn't even try to fleece him of his land or house but duly waited for the brother to reach an age where he was permitted to own the land in his own name. Must be the exception to the rule of Thai Visa eh?

I was renting at c.100,000 bt a month (yes, I live on Phuket & enjoy having my own pool and sea view). 10 years rent at 100,000 baht a month... 12 million baht. I spent half that building my own house which I can rent out for c.100,000 bt, valued for sale at 18 million bt +.

I've lived there for c.7 years. By my calculations I'm up - I would have spent 8.4 million in rent alone, so I've saved 3.6 million in rent and now have a house worth 18 million baht...

For those buying just use your head - check chanote carefully, past land use, is there any possible future dispute of ownership, usage of land etc. Protect your investment legally - ownership through company, ownership through Thai nominee (in which case protect yourself with a 30+30+30 year lease), foreign ownership in condo etc

I would strongly advise against simply buying land and putting directly in your wife/ gf's name.

You good sir, are living in a fool's paradise.

It's just maybe no-one has pointed that out to you before.

It's not a legally protected investment ... and yes, you own the house ... but you can't, ever, own the land.

Enjoy your dream.

Apparently I'm not permitted to reply to this my post seemingly vanished.

No, I don't own the land or house. I haven't claimed to. As a foreigner however you are permitted to lease property here, legally. PM me for a decent lawyer.

Fairly irrelevant given the actual post; I've already saved on rent, that was the point... it doesn't always make sense to rent in fact long term the opposite is true IMHO... if I'm allowed one!

Maybe he thought buying land and building a house would give his son some security for the future; it's not uncommon for new parents to buy a home and "feather the nest" for their young... well perhaps it is amongst expats here, presumably you'd just place the babe in an empty box of chang, call that a crib and sooth the babe to sleep with the sounds of the local karaoke bar...

If he were buying for the son, then it should have been put the property in the son's name.

He could have lived there with the kid (and had control of the property) until the kid was age 20.

There is no excuse for being stupid.

Not actually true. You have to be a certain age to own land in Thailand. I have checked but my memory fails me as to how old, believe it's something weird like 13... I'm sure another member would be able to enlighten us?

But feel free to call a complete stranger stupid if it makes you feel better, facts be damned!

For you guys wondering where the 10 mil went, I finished reading the article for you.

A House, a car, household & consumer goods. Plus 2 years cost of living. Possibly some unnecessary things that men in love spend money on. Perhaps expenses related to his grandfather's funeral.

Didn't read anything about champagne etc., where did you guys see that?

Do you realise that that is 3,000 US Dollars a WEEK for two years?

Do you realise that the land, house, car & furnishings would not have been free?!

Let's say he spent 2 mill on a nice plot of land, 4 mill building a decent house, 1 mill on a decent car & another 1 mill furnishing the house... that's 8 million baht, leaving him 2 million to live for 2 years, 1 million a year, c.80,000 bt a month. Hardly a champagne lifestyle...

To spend 8 million (on things that could have been had a lower price and still been adequate), then spend 80,000 a month (when a reasonable lifestyle could be had for significantly less) until you run out of money (and have no income) is not difficult at all and indeed not living all that large.

But it's incredibly irresponsible and stupid and negligent towards your child, yes?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

Not at all. Do you have any children at school in Thailand? 80,000 bt a month doesn't even cover my children school fees. Negligent? Just trying to give them the best education possible here and the best start in life I can afford...

In any civilised country the land & house would have been both a home and an investment for the child's future. Unfortunately we are living in a fairly uncivilised country where leaching money and houses from foreigners is somewhat of a national pastime and supported by both politicians and the laws of the land alike.

Has it not struck you that he ran out of money after ​his wife had ran out him and their child? Perhaps he was not planning to simply drain his inheritance but was left with little choice being unable to leave the country with his son and pursue work...

The numbers don't add up here.

I moved from Britain to Thailand ten years ago. At that time I was worth six-and-a-half million baht - which at today's lousy exchange rate would be worth around four-and-a-half million baht.

And a decade later - thanks to a competent IFA - despite a 1/3rd drop in the value of the pound against the baht and another 1/3rd drop in the value of my nest-egg (thanks to the robber barons of Wall Street) I am STILL worth nearly three-and-a-half million.

Of course, I have RENTED my house (forget OWNING one here). My guess is that to have blown more than twice what I started with in just TWO years, he must've paid through the nose for either a HUGE house - or one in a "fashionable" area - in which case, he's a FOOL.

With ten million baht in his possession, he could've bought a decent house for just ONE million baht - then, given the low cost of living he praises here, lived like a KING on the interest from the remainder. I thought Germans were supposed to be well-ORGANISED?

Nice house for 1 million baht? Yes, I guess maybe out in the sticks but not everyone would want to raise their child in a small shack in the middle of nowhere.

As for your rent/ buy advice it just doesn't hold water. I was renting at c.100,000 bt a month (yes, I live on Phuket & enjoy having my own pool and sea view). 10 years rent at 100,000 baht a month... 12 million baht. I spent half that building my own house which I can rent out for c.100,000 bt, valued for sale at 18 million bt +.

I've lived there for c.7 years. By my calculations I'm up - I would have spent 8.4 million in rent alone, so I've saved 3.6 million in rent and now have a house worth 18 million baht... Yes if you want to stay poor and slowly dwindle your meagre savings to nothing, renting is the way forward! There is a reason why most landlords are filthy rich - they are getting filthy rich of your rent money!

I often think the same about those renting cars over here; I know people who have rented for years, literally, spending more than double the value of the car renting it. It's just very short term thinking... for example, a Honda Jazz, rent @ c.15,000 month, c.180,000 a year. In two years that's 360,000 bt - you could buy one for that, use it for two years and then start renting it out yourself.

For those buying just use your head - check chanote carefully, past land use, is there any possible future dispute of ownership, usage of land etc. Protect your investment legally - ownership through company, ownership through Thai nominee (in which case protect yourself with a 30+30+30 year lease), foreign ownership in condo etc

I would strongly advise against simply buying land and putting directly in your wife/ gf's name. That said I wouldn't be overly critical of someone doing so, as they say, love is blind.

For you guys wondering where the 10 mil went, I finished reading the article for you.

A House, a car, household & consumer goods. Plus 2 years cost of living. Possibly some unnecessary things that men in love spend money on. Perhaps expenses related to his grandfather's funeral.

Didn't read anything about champagne etc., where did you guys see that?

Do you realise that that is 3,000 US Dollars a WEEK for two years?

Do you realise that the land, house, car & furnishings would not have been free?!

Let's say he spent 2 mill on a nice plot of land, 4 mill building a decent house, 1 mill on a decent car & another 1 mill furnishing the house... that's 8 million baht, leaving him 2 million to live for 2 years, 1 million a year, c.80,000 bt a month. Hardly a champagne lifestyle...

No mention of former winners currently being investigated for illegal encroachment of national park land I see... I guess that would be a pretty damning statement on the Thai property market. Particularly the the way the foreign property owners stand to lose everything but seemingly the corrupt land officials that issued the chanotes are above the law.

Strange that these chanotes were issued under a Democrat Government, in predominantly loyal Democrat constituencies given the impression one gets on here that only the current Government are capable of corrupt antics... indeed it's only under the current administration that these corrupt land deals are coming to light.

"It's apples and oranges, it's absolutely meaningless." you said before ?

Price, specifications, quality and status are related. Especially with small consumer goods. When you buy a 300 Baht watch you do not expect it to last more than a year, with a real Rolex you do. A cheap tabletPc can last longer with proper care. Now that's not something you'd expect from P1 school kids. They try for sure but tend to be accident prone, easily distracted.

Yes much better to give primary school children over priced iPads then?! What would that be? 10x the actual budget?

Sorry to say it but IMHO the iPad is massively overpriced and the scopad is a much better fit for use in schools.

so much negatitivety why is it blamed on low quality in China when all said and done apple does most its manufacturing there and considered good quality

Do you do realize that China is capable of producing both a good product, for 23,000 baht, such as an iPad and at the same make a less-than-good product, for 2500 baht, such as a ScoPad?

.

Do you do? realise that China is capable of producing a superior product to the iPad for far less than 23,000 baht but Apple add a considerable mark up?! Have you not considered that you tend to get a considerable discount when ordering in the millions as opposed to over the counter at a fashion victim Apple store?