new2here

This happened to my colleague 2 year ago - albeit with a B100 note.. The merchant caught it and called the police. My friend was asked to stay, which he did voluntarily. The police came and made a report, they also took the actual note. My friend wasn’t arrested or charged, but he was called a few days later to explain how he got the note, if he remembered. He did not get a new/replacement from the police nor bank (where he said it came from). So, yes, it seems that the last one “holding the bag” is who takes the loss.

i agree with the general sentiment that BOTH are excellent… and i would also happily fly either again with zero reservations or worries. that said, on a purely preference, I’m more a fan of layovers in NRT/HND than i am in TPE— but that’s me and that’s my opinion on a pre-covid basis.. and right NOW, situations can vary widely on a POST-covid basis. Heres one thing that i might be mindful of.. given the various rules that apply to travel… I would be mindful of the fact that rules related to your TRANSIT point can also jeopardize your overall plans… so, right now i might lean more heavily on a flight that transits through a point that is “safer” or historically less prone to C19 TRANSIT passenger restrictions..

Interesting… I haven’t seen anything myself on the MoE (Ministry of Labour) nor sub-set, DoE (Department of Employment) website, forms or even in print, that explicitly states a C19 test is now a required element as a part of a WP1 (new, not renewal) application filing. Im not saying that it isn’t or won’t be (in the future) but I can’t find anything online from an official source that says a C19 test is now required or states a future date when it will come into force. Has anyone come across an official notice or similar that addresses this issue?

to me, i think it’s true AND correct. Their PMCU arm (Property Management Chulalongkorn University) really does have an obligation to achieve the highest returns for the larger university and be good stewards of the property owned by CU. Does Chula act like a business? I’m sure it does in some aspects… and unless a university is solely a state funded institution - meaning all of its operating expenses are state-funded, then i would expect a university operate in a fiscally prudent manner, to include how their manage their non-core real estate assets — CONSISTENT with its larger mission - to educate.. IMHO, to educate and to also operate in a fiscally prudent manner are not mutually exclusive goals, but if done right, can be complementary to each other.

I feel your pain- i’ve had to go through this before (albeit not while “overseas” which makes the process harder, slower and potentially more expensive too) My guess here is that until a clearer picture as to exactly how many people have proven “damages” (ie actually had fraudulent charges and etc) and the amount of scope of said damages, there probably won’t be any real movement on the “compensation” issue. IF it turns out to be a decent number of proven victims, then I might see some kind of blanket compensatory act made.. but I don’t think they will act on a case-by-case basis, unless it’s a very small number of total cases outstanding. I agree that some kind of gesture would be nice — and realizing that if they were to give you X baht in travel credit- that credits’ actual “cost” to the airline is far far less than an equivalent face value, but paid in “cash”… so it might be more palatable to the carrier to offer up.

If i recall the BMA operates their own somewhat independent jab system - hence why we see the national Mor Phrom app and the web based Thai Ryan Jai used somewhat side by side. but to be fair, I’ve never seen a concrete explanation of the exact differences between the two and the necessity for such… but that aside.. that’s what I can gather.. My guess here.. my guess only.. is the BMA is lining things up for some kind of school reopening (ie some form of face-to-face) come the start of term 2 for public schools - which would be early November. By starting kids being jabbed in September, that gives them around 6 weeks or so to get as many jabbed (what would be first jab only) by November 1. I don’t disagree that from a medial basis, i would also think that it be wise to first finish (or at least get a lot farther along) with groups who might be more “at risk” … but i think that how the jab process/schedule and priorities list is developed and implemented is far far from being wholly medically driven and is hugely impacted by political, economic and other forces that may have priorities that aren’t aligned medically.

me too. i called the NHSO who is the controlling entity for that dates event. They told me that jabs that day would be reflected in the Thai Ruam Jai Project, which is a BMA led program. Our second jabs would be auto-assigned. The agent also confirmed my phone number - which she said is how we’d be notified. and I know that at some level they have my phone number as i got an SMS that same night asking about any side effects.. so they’d have to have my phone number in order to have sent the SMS in the first place. As far as I can tell, it LOOKS like there are several different “channels” for getting first, second and documentation of jabs …. one being the larger national channel - that’s the one that uses the phone app… and another is the above mentioned TRJ project.. while i am far from absolutely sure, it APPEARS that each one operates largely independent of the other

I agree… this IS good news… I think the fact that it’s now in the Royal Gazette means an important first step is now done - getting it “legal” so-to-speak… and the next major step is for the larger MoE to issue some kind of national guidance… followed by provincial and local level interpretation/implementation…. if you ask me, if you’re talking about government schools, a 01 November date seems logical as that is the beginning of 2nd term and also allows more than enough time to get all the steps done in order to reopen (get national and provincial guidance, then implement said guidance). the other BIG part is what about vaccination for students… i recall reading and seeing more and more school-aged persons being given their first jab… so i think by setting a 01 November target, you also allow time to get as many of the students first jabbed as well.

I agree that it’s good news… I ALSO agree that we could find ourselves right back here (strict lockdown/restrictions) again- VERY QUICKLY…. so… I am cautiously optimistic.. I also agree that any “relaxing” is probably going to be gradual… which, I tend to agree with… so, while I’m optimistic, hopeful and feeling better, I also realize that we could go right back to where it is now, literally overnight and any relaxing is going to be slow and gradual…. but i’m ok with that.. small steps forward … but keep making those steps each week.

I live a stones throw from Lumphini park, and quite often there’s a fair number of people who walk OUTside the park, around the perimeter, for exercise in the early AM and PM hours, myself included… I have seen local officers politely remind people who were, in fairness, actively exercising, that masks are still required… I have not seen any real enforcement action beyond that… but to be fair, everyone I’ve seen being reminded, quickly put their mask back on or rearranged it to be properly over nose/mouth area. So, my guess is that barring an usual situation or a refusal to do so, most of the time anyone who isn’t wearing a mask - and is contacted by a person of recognized authority, it’s usually just a matter of a verbal reminder… but that’s not to say it can’t or won’t go beyond that.

I recall that the new Covid “book” is only available at only 3 or 4 sources at present? The older Yellow Fever book (to which other vaccines can also be recorded) IS widely available- but I don't recall a medical center using it in lieu of the new Covid-only book, nor adding/entering Covid jabs into the older Yellow Fever book either. ive seen the new Covid book as a neighbor has it due to him being an early recipient of the jabs and while it may look like the older Yellow Fever book, it is distinctly different.

I agree… i think in the moat generalized way, the “failure” here is that they kind of forgot (or just didn’t care) of one basic tenants… that being… If you are the enforcement entity, then you must accept and acknowledge that YOUR actions will be subject to 24/7 scrutiny by the public of which you act as the enforcer, and must be wholly complaint without limitation/exception at all times. It’s somewhat analogous to when you, as a regular driver, see a police vehicle speeding or violating any driver rules, when NOT engaged in an otherwise obvious enforcement action.

… I agree….: I also tend to think one of the the reasons why Thailand (and I’ll bet it’s not just Thailand that uses this same language) states the situation as “… all foreign workers legally in Thailand …” is to be careful not to tacitly condone those who may be here ILLEgally (ie not with proper government permit) and their access to services that are, in part, funded via the collection of taxes via regulated social activity (ex: income taxes) I agree with those who say that the virus doesn’t distinguish between a legal/documented versus illegal/undocumented person… and I think from only a public health perspective, it makes little sense to distinguish between the two… but.. as I’ve long said, rightly or wrongly, EVERY action the government takes, has a political price to paid, political risk incurred and impacts the optics and narrative that the government is always trying to maintain. So, I’ll bet the inclusion of the qualifier “legally” is in large part to satisfy/placate those who are strongly positioned on the larger immigration subject and all the smaller associated issues.

That’s basically how it happened when one of my former colleagues passed away here in 2019 due to late stage cancer. The first thing that happened is a death certificate was issued by the hospital (he passed while in-hospital), then his lawyer (who was the estate executor) took that plus his original US passport to the ACS office, who then ultimately issued a Consular Report of Death. That Embassy report, the thai death certificate, canceled passport, translated copy of the will naming the lawyer as acting as executor, a copy of his ID card to the bank who then initially froze the account but shortly afterwards forwarded the funds to the attorney. He did the same for his credit cards (which either had zero or small balances that were paid at that time), drivers license, credit bureau, and to the district SSO office. His remains were created locally and sent back to the US. The executor/attorney handled that such as the export heath permit - all the paperwork he had made it simple. The attorney used basically the same papers to close out his condo (rented) and to arrange for the sale of household property that wouldn’t be sent back and to the freight forwarder who managed the actual shipment of his remaining property to his next of kin in the US. I remember the attorney telling me it took about 4 weeks in total to get it all done from end to end, but the initial steps were done in only a few days. So, it would be my opinion that so long as the right people, paperwork and process is followed, the assets will in fact be “returned” to you/next of kin— it’s just that it’s going to take some time and paperwork for that to happen.

I agree… I also think that IF the goal is truly to get *tourists* to come, then IF they want to go with this 50% subsidy idea, they will need to know who is and who is not a true and legitimate tourist and not a long stay “expatriate” type person. If I think about it, I’d say that those who are essentially long-stay “expatriate” types- there’s not a lot of NEED to offer any incentive to them as they will most likely return at some point in time on their volition…. many have homes, assets, formal/informal family/social networks here …. so i see little need to offer a subsidy to attract them to come…. For many in this group, i suspect it’s more a matter of “when” to come and not “if” to come. Now, for a legitimate short-stay tourist, that’s different… i could see offering what would be a 50% discount of your lodging bill, as incentive … but i agree that in the end, so long as there is ANY kind of hard “movement restriction” - be that at remaining in one hotel or even a strictly defined geographic area, a traditional tourists might look at other destinations that offer fewer/no movement restrictions, easier administrative formalities, lower entry costs, etc.

To me, blatantly TRYING to hide/suppress the news - the unflattering news - only makes people want to find out even more.. to talk about it more. It’s your drawing attention to something you want to hide.. If the goal is to “hide” it, then to me maybe it might be better to let it get out onto the public.. given the speed at which news - legit or not - moves these days, I’d bet the public’s attention span would be so short that any backlash stemming from that unflattering news would only last a short time; until the next news item hits online and the old story fades from the front page. the other thing that crosses my mind is this.. Is there really anyone who is “undecided”? At this point in time, there’s a substantial group who are adversaries of the government… and another group who are proponents of them… and some middle “undecided” … so I do wonder if this kind of news is really going to shift any undecideds to one side or the other? much less sway all woke in the pro or anti camp to “switch” ..: in other words, i wonder if it so polarized already that bad news isn’t going to have a major impact on either “sides” feelings, attitudes or level of support they currently have.

To me, I think the real issue is what appears to be (the article is a little light on hard facts) that the doctor gave the jab to a relative… Given the state of the pandemic, i do think that speed in administering the jabs is a huge priority — but so is order.. To me, I don’t have an issue with the doctors family (or anyone with whom there is any social/financial connection) getting the “left over” jab…. SO LONG AS… 1) It was disclosed, in advance, in writing, to the management team that the recipient would a family member, 2) proper approval was given in advance, 3) every reasonable opportunity was taken to give it to someone UNrelated and who met the then-priority schedule, and 4) there as no attempt to manipulate the process explicitly so that a “left over” unit was created to then be given to the family member. I also agree that there are probably many others- higher up the chain- who’ve done the same, or worse… but… that then, to me, does not translate into a case where those that commit these offenses, but may be “lower” down, get some kind of “free pass” … just because people above them have done/are doing it, but haven’t yet been sanctioned.

I myself have no objection… that said, I also recognize that the whole C19 issue has (unfortunately) taken on a much larger political/social narrative beyond its classic medical reference, and as such the mere act of asking and/or answering can quickly morph into something that I feel shouldn’t be.. But, I recognize that theses are extraordinary times and as such, i can see a legitimate reason why this question, and it’s truthful answer is important… i don’t mind.

I think that in the short-medium term (say 12 to 24 months out from now) we will see more ..:: consistency… in terms of what vaccines are “accepted” .. and the form, style and verbiage that the “proof” of being vaccinated, will take… My guess is it’s going to be exactly as the newly introduced Thai Vaccine passport book (orange/black) In the end, it’s just not going to be practical - on a worldwide basis - to have a hodgepodge of different vaccines acceptance lists and different forms of accepted proof. The rate of processing, error rate and such will be too high to have each and every country establish their own approved jab list and form of proof… one commonly accepted list and format will have to be created and agreed upon. I also think that in the medium term (say 24 to 36 months out from now) we will see more and more countries make it *mandatory* to have and show your C19 vaccine at the time of travel/arrival in a foreign country … very much like how one shows their Yellow Fever Certificate/booklet when entering countries that require such. Speaking to Thailand, (my GUESS only) is that i wouldn’t be surprised at all IF it was made mandatory to have/show proof of C19 vaccination before a new or renewed work permit is issued… while i think it might be a further stretch, i wouldn’t say it’s flatly impossible, but I could also see this same mandate imposed on certain types of visa applicants. i have a few friends who are not yet jabbed - by their own choice - and we’ve had animated discussions about it.. but one thing we both do agree upon is that at present, the momentum is clearly moving towards either a vaccination mandated situation and/or a situation that imposes substantial processes requirements (ie mandatory self-paid testing, masks etc) on those that aren’t/dont/won’t be jabbed but want to interact with society at large like they used to.

I’ve had this too. It mostly to do with the Thai Post moving to a EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) system and away from manually entered data. That’s why the new thermal post labels come with a system generated EMS tracking number… but.. I do know the “old” orange/blue EMS barcoded stickers are still acceptable… but I don’t THINK they making them anymore. a few of my nearby POs are out and have consistently told me that they’re not available any more and the only way to get a tracking number is the use of the thermal postal printer. What i’ve asked is how does one send a post pre-paid envelope WITH ems as I’ve been told that if you use the thermal postage process, the item is supposed to be posted at that time, and not later.

to me, if we’re ever going to get moving forward, there’s got to be some level of uniformity with regards to what vaccines will be “accepted” or not fir cross-border travel… I just don’t think it’s going to be a practical situation where each and every country establishes their own list of what vaccines - and given in what countries or where it was made - are accepted. In my head it’s kind of like how each province likes to make their own rules about inter-provincial travel and entry rules. I get it that each country is it own independent sovereign, but, if you’re going to have a system of global mass travel, there’s got to be some agreed upon standard by which all accept and use.. doing a country-by-country program, to me, isn’t going to work for the masses. i DO think that in the big picture we are still at the infancy stage of covid vaccines per se.. so i do think some of these issues will eventually shakeout and some consistency and clarity emerge.. but I think the quicker that comes, the better it’s going to be for all.

Hi, Ive done my 90 days by mail for quite some time… and never had an issue. Always got my receipt/new report back without issue. This time was the same. I mailed my 90 days on June 26 (Saturday) via Thai Post EMS. Delivered on Monday 28June- which is exactly 15 days before my then-report expiration deadline of July 11. My new receipt was mailed back to me in my post-paid EMS stamped envelope yesterday (06 August) and received today (07 August) So… the process still works just fine… but - as others have reported - the processing time is much longer than it has been for me in the past. Not a big deal - just one data point for others.