new2here

i’d assume he has or at some on the not too far past, had access to a 3rd country passport …. there’s a number of countries whose citizenship and by extension, a passport, can be obtained rather easily through investments and other similar monetary-based programs

i have to agree.. if they REALLY wanted him, they either have him or there’d be more “action” visible to support a claim that they’re actively looking but without success these days - with all the various ways data gets compromised - it’s hard to really and truly hard to hide anything a governmental unit does Maybe they really are looking - hard to say, but as a betting man i’d say that’s a lower odds scenario.

i believe this is spot on its a quirk in how fares are calculated and collected when travel originates at one if the extension stations. As i recall a flat fare of B15 is added to whatever is the normal fare beginning from the first station that’s not a part of the extension but by not traveling you triggered the BTS’ minimum fare, which on a systemwide basis is B16 So i just think it’s a quirk that stems from how fares are calculated within the extension area

My opinion only, locations that on a pre-pandemic basis were “good” locations and now, during or post-pandemic are still seen as good, will retain their value and I’d fully expect to continue to rise. Its the places that perhaps were more speculative on a pre-pandemic basis that I might see as being more at-risk for either losses post-pandemic or very very marginal rates of increased value going forward. I think the whole pandemic HAS made some fairly drastic changes in how things operate and as such the underlying value of some assets… but … I also think that in the larger picture, things that were “value” before covid started are still going to be value post-covid… that i don’t think will change all that radically.

I guess i could see why this kind of bond might sell fast at the retail level. Thailand’s sovereign rating appears to be BBB+ which puts it well within the “investment grade” class … and it appears to be a “General Obligation” or GO type, which then means the government has nearly unilateral ability to tax or raise fees to cover said debt (as opposed to special purpose bonds whose repayment funds might be restricted to one or a handful of sources. Based on what the BoTs website shows, it looks like the bonds priced at a yield of around 1.59 or so.. To me, in THIS overall interest rate market, 1.6 yield to maturity, on a investment grade GO-types bond seems to be quite good for people on the fixed income market.

To me, how the proposed B300 fee “goes over” and any impact will depend- (IMHO) on LARGE part to how/when/where it’s collected. To me, the best way is to “bake” it into the ticket price— like how VAY is largely handled by most shops now. Also, the benefit for the RTG is that since it will be baked into every ticket, effectively “high tide rises all boats” so all tickets will still outwardly appear to be the same as before … plus.. on a relative basis, a tickets price can easily swing by FAR more than B300… so I myself think this is largely a non-story if you will. Now IF the collect it AT ARRIVAL.. then that’s different… Now you have a visceral, physical reminder of the fee… and that will never be a good thing… the upside is that now the RTG can filter out who pays it and who doesn’t … but now you create a physical event that everyone can focus on - and focus on a negative .. so if it were me, i wouldn’t go this route… It’s a negative psychological…. Also, if they collect in person at arrival, the RTG has to eat the collection costs.. by baking it into ticket prices, they effector shift the tax collection burden upline to the seller… So, i agree with those that say in the larger scope a B300 tax/fee or whatever you choose to fall it, will lost likely have a measurable zero impact on their numbers.. but i think if they choose to do an in-person/upon arrival collection, then now you create a visual reminder — and that to me is something i’d try to avoid. You want someone to pay the tax, but it’s best for you (the taxing authority) if you don’t highlight the fact that they are paying it.

I agree…. however, i don’t know that i’d endorse capital punishment (ie death) as that, IMHO only, should really be reserved for the ultimate “worst-of-the-worst” convictions.. while these crimes are coming close.. I don’t know that I’d frame them as the worst-of-the-worst… but that’s just me and easy to say when the victims aren’t my family etc.. What I WOULD wholly support is *mandatory* periods of incarceration such as 20 years or more… and, in addition, the term of incarceration is not subject to Royal pardons, parole, or other forms of state-backed clemency. I ALSO think that the scope of potential criminal accountability needs to be expanded. For example, were there other parties, whose actions or inactions added to the commission of the crime? This might be looking into the employer - as a corporate entity, as well as specific individuals…. did the employer or any specific employee of the convicted driver know or should they have reasonably known that the person was drunk and therefore a safety risk? If so, then I support an “accessory-to” type of charge being laid by the prosecutor.

What I don’t like when it comes to this - or any type of government regulation if you will, is lack of clarity and specificity.. I don’t want “recommended that…. suggested to…” things like such… in government regs I want terms such as “it is mandatory that …” or a person/business may not.. this way it’s far more clear what is and is not permitted and therefore an entities compliance can better be determined.

The Currency Act BE 2501, does not, as I recall, have any language that mandates a private business accept paper or coin forms of currency for the payment of goods or settlement of debts. As such, unless the Ministry of Commerce has something within their scope of regulation, I suspect the answer is that any privately run business may choose to accept Thai cash (paper/coin) as they see fit and are not mandated to do so.

I agree.. and add to the fact that, rightly or wrongly, the way the Immigration law in this matter is written is that all applicants are viewed as intended IMMIGRANTS until and unless they can prove otherwise (ie that they are non-immigrants or just visitors etc) so that’s the first hurdle to clear… the second (and to me more understandable) one is that the local COs have very wide discretion as to what constitutes proof of NOT being an immigrant. This me makes sense as what each country has as far as documentation, the local law/customs etc can vary - so a local CO would know best what would it wouldn’t be reasonable proof from an applicant in ABC country versus someone applying in DEF country. I do agree that perhaps giving the applicant more time to make their case might be advantageous- but the embassy processes a lot of people so they kind of have to make decisions in quick order

I agree that it’s appalling…. but… i also think it’s a problem that IS manageable to some degree… The reality is that the police can’t be everywhere and watch everything or everybody.. so .. any real solution will require a large measure of the publics “buy-in” and self-compliance… and worldwide that’s always going to be problematic… but.. to me, my opinion only is that here in Thailand, it seems to me that in a very generalized way, road crashes and the resulting deaths are just somehow accepted as “a matter of fact” of life here, or are “just how it is” ….. and not really a true “problem” that needs fixing. On the law enforcement side, I’m very much a “take a firm position” kind of person … and with that, i don’t see a real active position taken by police with respect to traffic matters - starting with the more “minor” traffic issues — which to me, when left largely unchecked, tend to lead to more major traffic issues like driving intoxicated, true reckless driving etc. I’d personally be a supporter of mandatory vehicle seizure immediately upon arrest for selected major vehicle crimes… Also, minimum mandatory fines and incarceration imposed by the judiciary. To me, i don’t think you can effectively “police” your way out of issues like this… the public will be where any real solution comes from… but… law enforcement has a role too — and here in thailand, i don’t see the law enforcement side as being anywhere near effective and any actions they do take as being anywhere remotely firm enough to create a deterrent effect and to lessen the risks to the public. If you want to drive drunk or reckless solely on your own property and risk just your own life - i’m ok with that… it’s just your property and you’re only risking your own life.. but … once you drive in public, now others become “at risk” and I think the government has an onus to take all necessary actions to protect the publics’ interests and safety…

Here’s my thoughts… and they are more from a realists point of view. I wholly agree that the insurers themselves largely created this problem vis-a-vis their willingness to write C19 policies and at the premium levels they chose … that’s the perils of insurance ..: there’s a risk one assumes when underwriting…. so I agree that this is their (the insurance companies) problem THAT SAID… i ALSO think allowing a large private insurer to effectively go bankrupt would be even MORE detrimental to the larger insurance system in the long game…. I’m not sure of Thai law, but IF an insurer effectively goes insolvent, then one of two things would happen … Either future claims would go unpaid or become unsecured liabilities during some form a bankruptcy/restructuring process … with either a massively delayed payout date or a haircut for all claims…. or The government would have to step in and either backstop them, guarantee the claims or take some kind of equity/debt position in the failing insurer, to ensure minimum operating liquidity. If an insurer is simply allowed to go into liquidation the economic pain inflicted by a raft of legitimate but unpaid claims would be massive … but it’s going to be unpopular for a government “bailout” as well. but.. to me… I don’t see there’s many options here …. letting an insurer go under and leaving policy holders with unpaid claims and either a massive waiting time for payment or taking a hair cut on their claim would be hugely detrimental to the stability of the larger domestic insurance market…. but the government stepping in backstopping or taking a equity/debt position to add liquidity would also come with political costs to bear… but I don’t think there’s a choice here.. the larger insurance market HAS TO survive and a part of that is the perception of prospective policyholders of its stability and long term financial viability… while not all insurers will face this potential claims-liquidity crisis, the industry might come under extreme pressure and that, to me, doesn’t bode well for a service that, while privatized, is really a essential service.

A teacher at my institution tried to “renew” a 5yr that had been expired for 7 months (she returned to her home country to help care for an end-of-life parent) and was denied after trying to renew. She had to apply as new license- which was subsequently approved with no apparent problem. This was however just before TCTs transition from their former all-paper application process, to todays online-only process — not sure if it matters, but adds some context.

The shipment is one single entity and in most cases, customs can’t/won’t “split” an inbound shipment to remove any prohibited items .. commonly it will be allowed in, as one whole shipment… or refused as one whole shipment. As far as the legality to import lemon grass goes, there can often be different rules for commercial importers of X product compared to a private party importing the exact same commodity… sometimes it’s the quantity being imported, how it’s labeled/packaged, required paperwork required etc.

I guess for me, the issues i have are that (since I can recall) “medicine” now appears to be viewed as a commerical activity and not just as “medicine”…. and, for the most part, the whole Covid issue is now so heavily politicized and polarized. Yes, medicine has largely always been a commerical activity - drug companies, for-profit hospitals— yes, they have all existed for quite some time..: but… IMHO, today it just “feels” like medicine is first viewed through the lens of a for-profit narrative and no traditional medicine The other part is the politicization and polarization that it’s taken. I’ve effectively “lost” some people that pre-covid, i would call “friends” — sure, not super close friends, but friends… however, today the two of us are just not able to “agree-to-disagree” but have morphed into personal vitriol, and worse…. So, for me, this would be one of the largest parts of the whole Covid issue that has really “hit home” for me: I kind of don’t think anyone is really going to say this “new normal” is/was better than the normal pre-covid… but for me at least, this is where we are - like it or not…. what i wonder is what is it going to take in order for society as a whole, to get back closer to what was reality pre-covid— AND if that’s even possible today given the level of mistrust, politicization and control.

I haven’t really followed this case closely, but from the on-and-off-again media interest it takes, my own opinion is that it seems to be “too far gone” — be that time and the number of “side tracks” it’s undergone… for any real investigation to be done by any “domestic” entity AND have it be widely accepted as credible. I just think it’s been too long… taken too many questionable turns, that even IF a resolution comes to be, i’ll bet that whatever that outcome is, jr won’t be widely accepted and viewed with suspicion or distrust. My guess, at this point, the only real way you could move forward AND have the process and results be accepted is to let a wholly external (ie non-Thai) disinterested entity do the investigation … right now, pretty much every entity who has “touched” the case, has/had some level of accountability to it.. so their actions or inactions could easily be seen through the lens of a self-interest move and not one based on law and facts… that’s why i think the only way you’ll even have a shot at getting to the real facts is to let a purely independent, purely disinterested party do it.. but that to me is the catch… be careful asking the question as you might not like the answer.

This raises a good point to be mindful of. Most people are - understandably so - focused on the testing/documents required for entry/destination, it’s wise to ALSO check what: a) your airline or airlineS require as far as testing, b) your connection country (if applicable) requires. While i would say that it’s a rather low probability, it’s not entirely impossible that either a or b might also have testing/paperwork mandates and they might not always be the same as that of your destination.

I think this is a YMMV situation as i did have an e-queue (based on my 13 digit from MP) but was told at the office that as a non-Thai, i’m not eligible… so… Im not sure what the official answer is, as i’ve not seen anything that definitively says one way or the other. in the end, the office staff did “take care of me “ in that they gave me an appointment the very next Friday (i’m free on Friday’s) despite the foreigners queue list being 100% full.

I went to the Sukhumvit office (next to BTS Bang Chak) and it’s fully open.. but… all DL issues are “by appointment” only.. they don’t do walk-ups Thais use the DLT E-QUEUE app, but foreigners must make an appointment manually with the office. Even though you may have a 13 digit # (be there via pink card, or more recently via Mor Phrom) they don’t accept those for the e-queue. (I made an e-queue booking using my Morh Phrom and it was rejected at the DLT, but they nicely gave me a foreigners appointment for the very next week despite the list being full…. because i had already waited for about one month already via the e-queue platform) As noted, appointments at Sukhumvit are fully booked for MONTHS out — I recall that late March was the first days i saw with openings readily available.

Just one man’s report I made an appointment for last week - using the DLTs “e-queue” system.. but when i showed up, they said “e-queue for thai only”. hmmm. but they were nice enough to give me an appointment for the very next week - despite it being fully booked. Note: just looking at their foreigners appointment log, the first dates with openings is march 2022!!! I arrived at 7:30… there is a dedicated line/window for foreigners.. Thais have a fist batch queue at 7:30.. for foreigners there are only 2 batch times “8am to 9am” and 9:30-11:00.. the staff took me right at 8am as i was there early. Like Immigration at CW, that staff at the check-in desk does a document check, puts all papers into order and gives you the form for renewal. Then you go to the processing/data entry window .. Here they prepare your application - (re)check all your papers again.. If it’s all correct you go to the training window.. IF you have done the online “e-training” abs can show proof of it, then they just stamp your paper.. if not, they schedule you for a time to watch the required video. I had done it already, so i was passed onto the next step.. next is color blindness test and reflex test .. 5 minutes and easy. After that, it’s to the picture taking, payment and license receipt. Today i was in the door exactly at 8am and was out the door with my new 5yr license in 63 minutes. They asked for and took only the paperwork that is listed on their website - nothing more and nothing less. As i have done in the past, and as the rules do permit, I used my valid work permit in lieu of a immigration residence letter or embassy residence letter. Fees paid exactly as the website says. All in all, easy and follows the rules and website .. the only “bad” thing is appointments seem hard to get/limited.

To me, IF there is a proper court order / judgement, then the insurer should pay as per the court order… now that said, IF the insurer wants to (or if relevant law allows) to file an appeal with a relevant court AND if by doing so this filing also stops any judgments from being implemented- then that’s their right under law as well. To me, the fact that insurer has now apparently filed some type of complaint against one of the parties involved does not then translate into the insurer not complying with an order of the court which was pre-existing.. IF the COURT decides that the mere act of filing a police complaint warrants freezing the existing settlement payment - then that’s what it is.. but i don’t think the insurer can or should be allowed to largely act as the see fit - especially as there appears to already be a proper court order in existence. i do agree that it’s not unheard of for an insurer to use the legal process to recoup some/all of the settlement money they paid to their policyholders or other parties … so, to that end, i can see what MIGHT be going on.. but again… i think who gets paid what, by whom and when should be matters for the judiciary to decide and not left to one of the parties to the suit and one who has a vested financial interest on any action or judgment

JMT is JMT Network Services and are a fairly large firm that is an collection agency specializing in certain sectors - retail banking among them. A few of the major banks use them - Krungsri among them. So, to that end, JMT is real… The legalities of the debt, any statutory relief a debtor may have and the rights or the creditor to pursue any actions would be something you’d want to get clear knowledge of. As a collection agency, JMTs collection activities ultimately fall under the Bank of Thailand’s jurisdiction.

I am not aware of any a language in the relevant consumer banking law nor language in the AMLO regulations that explicitly establishes a hard-cap for deposits made into accounts. What the banks DO have to do is essentially “know your customer” which is the current mantra publicly put forth by the BoT and to a degree, AMLO. So, while there is no stated hard cap, i am quite sure that the bank does monitor - via programmatic means- your accounts and will manually review any transactions or series of transactions that the banks systems flag OR that the BoT or AMLO, deem worthy of a further review. AMLO sets forth a wide range of transaction types, account ownership forms, etc that all have some varying degree of regulatory requirements… but i don’t see anything that in and of itself sets a cap on deposits alone.

Do they welcome farang? Yes, i think they do. While i get that the latest IM visit didn’t go as expected, that, to me, isn’t a fair nor accurate measurement nor representation of how “welcoming” Thailand is.. or isn’t. i say they are - only because they do offer a fairly broad range of visa classes that do legitimately cover a decent percentage of that situations a non-citizen may be. As is with almost every country, Thailand does have its own nationally imposed internal selection criteria … those that they’d prefer… and …. those that they don’t… that, to me, isn’t all that unique to thailand… lots of countries do this by virtue of visa costs, eligibility requirements etc. Yes, thailand could do more to make the process of coming to and remaining legally in thailand easier… very true… and that same could be said for many other countries as well. in all, i can’t say that thailand is (IMHO) overtly UNwelcoming to non-citizens per se, but you will always find individuals who don’t perhaps showcase the most foreigner-friendly demeanor toward them, however that’s vastly different than a direct or even implied national policy of unwelcome them.

At the end of the day, insurers, like most “for-profits” are principally designed to maximize their profits .. and that does mean paying only those claims that fall, in it’s entirety, within the policy wording.. While insurers so do push the image of “we’re here for you” i think it’s always smart to remember where everyone’s “base” is at.. The consumer wants as much covered as possible, and for the absolute lowest cost — as they should The insurer wants as little paid as possible, and for the highest cost - as they also should. So, the middle is where both really should meet - to me, that’s the actual policy wording, decorations page, exclusions etc. >>So long as<< the insurer properly followed ALL of the policy language, any exceptions/exclusions. then they haven’t done anything wrong at all… the opposite is also equally true … >>IF the claim meets ALL<< of the language, then it should be paid without issue. These posts are always hard to judge as fair and full disclosure is (obviously) lacking - not due to deliberate concealment - but sometimes due to pure lack of access to all the case facts .. and with most all forms of insurance, the details, the “little” stuff really matters. The part about the hospital saying/implying it’s a valid claim is (IMHO) of little value as they aren’t a representative of the insurer and (i’ll reasonably guess) don’t have access to the specific policy and wording.. the “agent” i think is a bit different, but here too- an agent may in fact be just an authorized sales agent - and lacks any authority to act on claims.