JCauto

5 hours ago, Captain 776 said:

Been to Cambo 6 times, never had a problem, but it can easily be the Wild West........and in a lot of cases Cambo is 30 yrs behind Thailand.

 

You can get shot in Phnom Phen in the middle of the afternoon with 100 people watching.......and no one saw anything

Please provide one example of an expat being shot in Phnom Penh in the middle of the afternoon. Stop making stuff up.

8 hours ago, Kerryd said:

Quite frankly - if Cambodia was so great there wouldn't be hardly any expats left in Thailand.
If Cambodia was so great, Thais would be flooding into there to find jobs instead of the other way around.

If Cambodia was so great, you'd all be reading "KhmerVisa.com" instead of "ThaiVisa.com". (Note - there actually is a "KhmerVisa.com" web address - but it just leads to a page saying that a website is coming soon.)

Rural Cambodia is quite similar to rural Isaan (no surprise as they were all "one" people not that long ago). One big difference I noticed is that when someone is having a wedding in Cambodia - they crank up some gawdawful music as high as they can and blast it all day long !  Other than that, the houses look the same (complete with garbage scattered everywhere), roads about the same, people seem to be about the same. 

Politically, they are a step below Thailand (sometimes way below that) and it seems political violence is almost mandatory when election time comes around.

Infrastructure-wise (Roads, rail, power, internet, etc) is also a step down.

Corruption, if anything, is higher though.

As is the price of a lot of everyday things. People we talked to said that the only thing cheaper in Cambodia than Thailand was rice. Everything else was more expensive because almost all of it had to be imported.

If you are young(ish) and healthy (more or less), it's probably not too bad. If you are older and wanting to stay around for a few more years, you probably want to stay in Thailand.
If you are broke and don't care about anything anymore - you can probably do that cheaper in Cambodia, especially as you wouldn't have to worry about things like healthcare and having to prove a certain level of finances.

I've thought about spending more time there, mainly due to the vast number of ancient Khmer temples scattered around the country. However, I think I'm better off in the long run with just making the occasional visit.
(Purely by coincidence, I was rooting through the closet this morning looking for a pair of pants and found the souvenir shirt I bought at Angkor Wat a couple years ago and have never worn.)

The biggest thing with deciding to live anywhere is what your tolerance level is. Many of you don't live in your home countries for a variety of reasons (which made living there "intolerable") and have moved here, despite having to give up certain things you may have taken for granted "back home".

 

You have to decide for yourself if the positives outweigh the negatives and if you can live with the "downside" of wherever you want to be. Be it poorer healthcare, corrupt police/politicians, 2 tiered pricing, excessive financial requirements, etc.

If you aren't happy with where you are, then you have to decide if going somewhere is would be worth it in the long run. Remember - a 1-2 week holiday somewhere is not even close to being the same as actually living there (a mistake a lot of people make after one trip to Thailand). However, if you make the trip with the intention of finding out what it would be like to live there, then it would be worthwhile. 

But you'd actually have to check things out. Like the cost of renting/buying (and/or the laws concerning land ownership, condos, etc). How much is electricity, water, gasoline, groceries, car/scooter insurance, internet (etc, etc).

You know, the kinds of things that you don't bother with when you are just spending a week or 2 in a hotel room, eating at restaurants and spending all night in the bars.

And what happens when those people decide to move here ? Inevitably they whine about almost everything because almost nothing is "like it is back home". Which they would have known if they'd actually did a little research first before making the decision to move.

I'm kind of surprised that ThaiVisa doesn't have a "Cambodian" forum, though surely there must be something similar out there already ?
From the way so many people claim (again) that everyone will be deserting Thailand and moving somewhere else, they may want to set up a forum to try and keep their membership numbers up ! (Though of course most people will not actually move elsewhere just like all those Americans who claimed they would move out of the country if Trump won the election, and then crawled under their rocks and hide afterwards.)

 

If Cambodia were that great... - there's different strokes for different folks. As noted previously by myself and others, for those who are looking for an easy retirement in a place that is more like the West, then Thailand is for you. For those looking for a more authentic and interesting experience who can deal with a few rough edges, Cambodia's for you.

Rural Cambodia vs. Rural Isaan - you need to understand the difference between Southern Isaan (Buriram, Surin, Sisaket) and the rest of Isaan. Southern Isaan was Khmer, the rest was Lao. These are two very different cultures, although they look quite similar superficially. Expat experience of living in rural areas will be very similar though, I agree with you in that respect.

Politically "a step below Thailand"? How do you mean, that they're not as proficient in rigging elections? That's debatable. Care to add up the bodies in the elections in Cambodia and Thailand since 1990? Many many more dead in Thailand than Cambodia. There was essentially zero violence in the last Cambodian and Thai elections for the same reasons - the elections were won prior to the vote taking place by the rulers rigging the rules and disqualifying the opposition. 

Corruption higher - are you sure about that? As an Expat, how much corruption and hassle do you encounter in Cambodia versus Thailand? I can say that, in both cases, the more connected you are (language, marrying into the culture), the easier and cheaper it is. To me the significant difference is that there's more rules, administration and hassle to live in Thailand than Cambodia including having to deposit money in banks and be careful in your managing of visas and travel. Corruption is entirely dependent on your ability to negotiate the culture and system to get what you need. I've never had much problem with that in either country because I speak both languages and understand both cultures.

Cost - Thailand, outside of Bangkok, is much cheaper for living overall, but same is true in Cambodia outside of Phnom Penh. Bangkok is more expensive than Phnom Penh overall, especially if you drink. You are incorrect about food being imported; when the border with Thailand closed briefly Cambodia was FLOODED with fresh seafood, fish and other produce that had otherwise been heading the other direction. Exception is beef, where local produced product is not to standard. The major difference in costs is the cost of electricity, much higher and less reliable in Cambodia. Cheaper telecoms, internet and cable though.

Old/young rich/poor - agree with your observations here, Cambodia is more of a young person's place, but there's plenty of older folk who prefer Cambodia because of the rough edges and lower hassle and costs. Hospital quality is increasing rapidly with the advent of Thai satellite hospitals being set up in the city.

Your final paragraphs are good, it very much is up to you how you take a place and your advice on spending significant time in a living rather than tourist situation is sound.

8 hours ago, madmen said:

Cambodian beggars! and relentless hassle by the tuk tuk guys. You sure you been there?

Have you been further than two blocks from the riverfront?

11 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Far worse infrastructure. Far worse security situation, as the place can be dangerous. In PP, one has to be careful to avoid many areas. Especially at night. Not really the case in Thailand. Quite a bit poorer than Thailand. Obviously, there is an upside and a downside to that reality. Driving is as hazardous if not more so, than Thailand, if that is possible. At least in the cities. Limited access to good beaches, and places like Sihanoukville are dangerous, and not very nice. One limitation, is that there do not seem to be as many places to explore as there are in Thailand, in my opinion. Also, the Chinese are buying everything in sight. So, the place is not far from becoming a Chinese colony. As bad as the Thai army is, the Cambodian government is even worse. Hun Sen is a serial killing, thieving, land grabbing despot fool. You piss off the wrong people in Cambodia, and you die. 

 

Positives? Many speak better english than in Thailand. Khmer is an infinitely more beautiful language to listen to, than Thai. Also, it is not a tonal language, so it is infinitely easier to learn, than Thai, which is ridiculously difficult for many of us. Because of the lack of tones, it is easier for the local people to understand what you are trying to say, when you speak it poorly. The exact opposite of Thailand. The place is slightly more Westernized, so less of a distant planet feel to the place, than Thailand. More access to Western food and many Western products. Way better beer than in Thailand, but that is true with nearly any country in the world. Cheaper too. According to some of my friends, it is a far better place for a single man, looking for a relationship. Cambodian women tend to be less cunning than Thai women, and the bar is not quite as high, in terms of expectations. Many friends have told me they prefer Khmer women over Thai women. And of course, amazing archaeological sights such as Siam Reap. 

Security - disagree strongly, the only danger is late at night if you're drunk in bars. During the day? Nonsense.

Driving - lower speed due to poorer infrastructure = less danger.

Sihanoukville - destroyed by Chinese, don't go as it no more represents Cambodia than Vegas represents the USA.

Exploring Rural Areas - agree, Thailand has many more places to explore more easily, but it's also 5x as large so should. There's fun day trips and road trips to be had though, especially if you're into motorcycling.

Chinese colony - nonsense.

Cambodian government versus Thai - same thing, no difference.

Piss off Cambodians and Die - you having a bad acid trip or something? List off the last expat deaths from Cambodians who got pissed off and killed a Farang. Or the last time a powerful rich Cambodian killed a Farang. I'll wait. This is complete and utter drivel. Thailand is by far more dangerous to Expats. Just the annual numbers of Thai women who've killed their expat hubby alone dwarfs the sum total of wrongful expat deaths in Cambodia since 1990.

Khmer language more beautiful than Thai - this is a minority opinion. Khmer is much more difficult to understand and hear because of the 43 different vowel sounds and the tendency to swallow the last syllable of the word. Thai, if you can "get" the tones, is much more clearly spoken and easy to understand. If you can't get the tones, I understand it's more difficult. Reading Thai is easier too.

Khmer versus Thai women - lived in Thailand for several years, including before Cambodia, married a Khmer woman (happily for 23 years and counting).

20 hours ago, SteveK said:

Very "different" levels of:

 

- poverty and begging

- English proficiency

- food quality (still haven't met a farang who loves fish amok)

- corruption

- perceived safety

- visa hassles

- chances of stepping on a mine

 

Just a bit too third-world for me, but you never know what's going to happen with Thailand's visa policies in the medium to long-term. The draught beer in Cambodia seems to be very good quality, and astounding value.

 

 

This thread is filled with misinformation from people who know nothing about the place except their visa run experience living near the bars near the river. Allow me to start correcting (background: Lived in Thailand for two stints, each around 3.5 years, one in Isaan, one in Chiang Mai, speak Thai, Lao and Khmer, married to Khmer, working in region for 30 years).

Poverty and begging - yes, a poorer country than Thailand, so less Western in amenities and infrastructure and a bit more difficult in terms of seeing poor people, more garbage in the streets. But changing rapidly.

English - much better in Cambodia, which I presume was what OP meant.

Haven't met a farang who loves fish amok? You must be joking, this is one of the great foodie experiences in Southeast Asia. While I agree that finding quality Khmer cuisine USED to be difficult, there's tons of great restaurants offering good Khmer food. FYI, the two closest cultures in the region are NOT Thai and Lao; they're Thai and Khmer. You can tell particularly from the cuisine. Before you could only find it in home cooking, but the landscape has changed tremendously in the last five years or so.

Corruption - I'd be interested in which you were referring to as more corrupt. I reckon they're pretty much equal.

Perceived safety - there's nothing in Cambodia that is more dangerous than the Thai highway at night. Nothing. Practically every single incidence of crime happening to expats is late night after the expat was staggering home from the bar. Som nom na.

Visa hassles - Thailand, many. Cambodia, none.

Chances of stepping on a mine - for expats, zero. For Cambodians, very small.

Yes, I can appreciate that Cambodia is still a lot rougher around the edges than Thailand, and for those who are trying to live in a Western lifestyle but in a cheaper and more tropical and exotic place, Thailand is probably better for you. If you want a more authentic experience, Cambodia is much better. The main reason is the people, they're much more straightforward and open than the Thai are.

20 hours ago, madmen said:

Arm pit of SEA full of farang junkies , lawless no police anywhere and in your face relentless beggars..AVOID!!

Hilarious. You have very little experience of Cambodia; try going beyond the one block radius of your short-time hotel on Street 136 next time.

7 hours ago, Cereal said:

This is a total strawman argument. The poster is talking about 1 specific thing and you bring in several issues that are not related to the point.

Perhaps you're not aware of what a strawman argument is.

The issue is whether the BDS Movement is inherently Anti-Semitic, seeing that Germany has declared them as such. Those who believe it is are saying, among other arguments, "why are you specifically targeting Israel but not other countries who also engage in similar or worse behaviour?" That is on topic because it questions whether there are universal standards being applied in this case or whether there are higher or different standards for Israel. If there are, then there should be a really good reason for that which makes it clear why Israel gets legitimately targeted whereas others, such as China or Saudi Arabia, do not. If there aren't particularly compelling reasons, then one should indeed be more circumspect given the historical prejudice against Jews and the similar campaigns that have been used against Jews in the past. 

It is not a black and white answer as BDS is not a unified or monolithic organization nor are their supporters as ably pointed out by Morch. But it must be said that there's a lot of latent (and active) Anti-Semitism in the world - the result of a longstanding and effective effort by those promoting Anti-Semitism for centuries - and it's clearly also on the rise in the hostile and divisive political and social climate of the present day.  This makes it easier for people to bypass their normal criteria and rush to judgement. And it would not surprise anyone with even a passing knowledge of statistics and sociology to discover that the membership of BDS (if there is such a thing) would correlate much more strongly with both latent and virulent Anti-Semitism as it explicitly targets the only Jewish nation on earth. 

5 hours ago, Pedrogaz said:

I have been a proud member of BDS for a few years now. It aims to fight against the anti-Palestinian policies of the Israeli government. Their policies are racist and apartheid and like South Africa 30 to 50 years ago should be subject to sanctions. 

I personally have not bought anything made in Israel for many years now. When I discovered that Apple use some Israeli parts in their iPhones and computers, I stopped buying Apple as well. 

IT really is time to settle this conflict equitably and the only equitable way is a two state solution with Israel returning all annexed land.

So Israel disgusts you so much that you actively boycott their products; it's good that you have principles and put them into action. But must be difficult, no? You obviously are outraged and angry about the ongoing slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Yemeni by the Saudi's, with the support of the USA which is clearly much worse of a violation. How do you avoid Saudi oil products and USA manufactured products or internet apps? Must be very complicated to navigate this in a practical way. Oh, and then of course there's the Russians and their annexing of the Crimea and causing the deaths of hundreds there, shooting down passenger planes etc. No Russian products for a principled man like you! Now the Chinese and their concentration camps for the Uighers. How appalling that we find ourselves using the words "concentration camps" again, eh? So no Chinese stuff for you, right?

Or not. After all, they're not Jews.

11 hours ago, rjwill01 said:

As he President of the U.S., they better not. What would a Democrat say? As President of the U.S., I am going to tell you to do something, but if you think it's not a good idea, that's ok.  Really!  Our President, the businessman. It's about time. Get use to it you phoney Polititions. 

 

So it is your understanding that if the President tells someone to do something that is illegal, then that person should do it? Are they thereby released from any penalties proscribed by the laws for their actions in this case or do they just have to accept the consequences? 

On 2/18/2019 at 6:10 AM, TopDeadSenter said:

Bill Weld has the right to an opinion, no matter how misguided he is. Record employment rates for minorities, tackling historic trade defecits, a booming economy and hugely increased respect on the world stage. 

I take it that the "hugely increased respect on the world stage" refers to the deafening silence when Pence paused for the expected round of applause at the Munich Security Conference? Not a single person clapped! Truly one of his more impressive achievements, that he's managed to alienate most of the US' long-term and strategic European Allies. 

Of course Putin, the Austrian and Hungarian proto-fascists, Xi, Duterte et al are all for him. Is that what you're referring to? With friends like those...

23 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Would taste better if they also went after Democrats and Republicans with the same zeal.

 

Lesson to be learned - anyone or anything using democrat or democracy in their title usually wants to apply the law to others rather than themselves!

So you didn't consider all the investigations of Benghazi etc. to be going after the Democrats with zeal? And despite the many investigations and millions spent on them, there wasn't a single indictment! Perhaps it was just a great big nothing-burger?

55 minutes ago, Roadman said:

Let me get this right.

The idiot in charge of the US gets the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets (not UN sanctioned) to impose sanctions on Iran. The Canadians then act as bully boys on behalf of the US to arrest Wanzhou. Then the Canadians go crying like little bitches to the rest of the world when the Chinese do some bullying back. About sums it up. 

Yes, there were sanctions on Iran originating from the US and which are lawful insofar as they've followed the procedures by which such sanctions are imposed and agreed upon. The Canadians then were served an internationally-recognized warrant for the arrest of the Chinese VP of Huawei for breaking said sanctions. They, having no other choice being signatories to Interpol and the other international agreements by which criminals are arrested when outside of their home countries, enforced said legal arrest warrant. The Chinese, not respecting international law, then demanded that Canada break said law, and threatened consequences if they did not. The sudden and unusual appeal that has now resulted in a newly imposed death sentence was the obvious and connected consequence, something already explicitly admitted to by the Chinese Government spokesman.

So who is the bully? You could make a case for the Americans if you believe the sanctions to be unfair, or you could make a case for the Chinese who are clearly trying to intimidate Canada into ignoring the laws to which they have already agreed upon. But Canada? How are they anything other than an innocent bystander in this proxy war? If they ignored the arrest warrant, they ignore their solemn and longstanding commitment to the international law protocols of Interpol and others. If they execute the arrest warrant, they're subject to illegal and unprecedented pressure from China to not follow the law, even to the point of executing someone who had nothing whatsoever to do with this dispute. 

Of course, you're simply trolling, as nobody with logical faculties could come to the absurd conclusions you have, and then couched it in such insulting terms. Now that we've established that, do you really feel that international law should be dispensed with and that the Chinese or Americans should have license to do whatever they wish, commensurate with their economic and/or military power?

45 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yes i think Thanathorn is a good alternative. You know that but the Thais and quite a few others are not so sure. He first really needs to prove himself. For instance would he blow up a government that includes his party if he sees too much graft or will he keep his head down and play the game. 

 

My point is not that I want to see the junta stay, I want them out as even the Thai kleptocracy is a bit better (only a bit) than the junta however i doubt the Thais would risk too much for such a minor change. The numbers don't lie they are fed up with politics and wont risk anything anymore.

Ah, so that's where we're at, thought I'd check in. Well, we've made some progress! You now recognize that the Junta is NOT the same as the ELECTED but kleptocratic alternatives, but "a bit" less good. Small steps.

Your point, as ever, is muddled and wrong. You DID want the Junta to stay, you DID support their ouster of the democratically elected government, and you DID equate the two as equally bad without offering any sort of credible alternative other than that somehow, the Thai people should magically sort this out and elect "good" people. 

You know why Thanathorn, or anyone else, will never deliver on their promise? Because of people who will always resort to getting the Army to take over whenever they perceive that they're not getting what they want rather than being mature citizens and organizing alternatives so you can win at the ballot box while accepting that other people did exercise their right to vote in the person you don't like and deserve for that person to govern, for good or bad. This is the fundamental point you've missed from the start. The Junta, and all other Juntas, are illegitimate and always will be, regardless of whether they do good or bad (and their record so far is 100%, you know on which side). As I have tried to explain to you over and over again, there are no White Knights in Thailand coming to the rescue. 

“Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest.” - Winston Churchill