new2here

5 hours ago, swm59nj said:

It doesn’t matter if the meal was paid for or not.  It was a  violation of the Covid restrictions.  And people have been readily fined or arrested for violating those restrictions 

 

 

 

 

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. 

9 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

Quite different to the UK's position of "We won't ask you any questions, just come and get vaccinated, we want everyone vaccinated for the good of society", more like "Fine, if we absolutely have to vaccinate foreign people because they live in Thailand and are working hard to the benefit of Thailand and Thai people, as long as you are completely legal we will reluctantly give you a vaccine, eventually".

 

They really should be just allowing foreign people to register with their passport, check their identity when they come to the vaccine centre, then give them the vaccine".  It really shouldn't matter about their immigration status, no one is doing vaccine tourism in Thailand and it benefits everyone to get as many people vaccinated as soon as possible.

 

Most foreigners are willing to pay, so it's not like they even need to worry about the cost.  Is there anyone who wouldn't be willing to pay a few thousand Baht and show their passport to get a vaccine?  No real excuse other than not wanting to give foreign people vaccines.

… 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. 

10 hours ago, andy9469 said:

To make a will with a Thai lawyer costs at least 5,000 Baht and later the lawyer will act as the executor of the will. After the death bank accounts will be frozen (by the embassy) and every inheritance has to be verified by a Thai court. This process takes about 6 months.

 

For assets in Thailand everybody should make an extra will as Thai law might be different to the law in your home country (e. g. compulsory portion).

 

I found this website about making a will in Thailand:

 

https://www.samuiforsale.com/family-law/forms-of-wills-under-thai-law.html

 

I think you should check with your local amphur. In Pattaya you can do this every Wednesday afternoon.

 

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. 

8 hours ago, steven100 said:

Paying for the 7 days or 14 days quarantine is only 50% of the problem .....

The most part is being stuck in a ASQ hotel for most part of the vacation/holiday.

No one is going to do that.

 

No quarantine is the only way tourists will come.  And that can't happen until the vaccine has been given to everyone in Thailand. 

so stop dreaming Thanes Petchsuwan

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, 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. 

2 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

Immigration replaced my EMS sticker with their own, so not possible to track.

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.

9 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

Which immigration office.

Chaeng Wattana 

I agree. it is the length of time you’re allowed to remain in the kingdom using whatever entry status (ie the-entry permit, new non-imm, new tourist, etc) you choose at the time you apply for your CoE.

As example, IF you’re using a re-entry permit (as I did) then the insurance must cover until the end of that specific re-entry permit you now have- regardless if you will or will not extend it again afterwards.. If you’re entering on some kind of visa that hasn’t yet been used, then it should be however long that specific via entities you to remain in the kingdom REGARDLESS if you later choose to extend it further.

I too have heard reports that 90 days is accepted regardless… but to be fair, I’ve not yet seen any actual proof of this… everyone I know, myself included, have had to show coverage to the end of the permitted period of stay - again, based on whatever entry status you’ve elected to use. 

On 8/5/2021 at 11:43 AM, DekDaeng said:

Not if the deliverer does not allow you to open / check item - which is my experience -

 

I don’t recall this - physically opening the package BEFORE handling the cash - as being an approved method nor one that the typical driver allows.

I do think it would help this problem, but i can see how the time involved might be problematic for drivers.. and I’d wonder how “far” this kind of open-before-you-pay process might be allowed. For example, would it be an open box visual inspection only, or would the buyer be allowed to “power on” or somehow test the product before handing the money over. 

On 8/3/2021 at 8:54 PM, fredscats said:

Do not accept it if payment on delivery

that’s what the lazada rep told me via chat too.  I’ve always felt there should be some kind of check-balance against the misuse of the “packed” function (which benefits the seller as a defacto cancellation moratorium) in that any packed order must have a subsequent “movement” scan within say 48 hours after packed status - if not, then the buyer should have the right to then cancel the order.

but in the end, the COD option really does put the power back into the hands of the buyer. 

at my asq they asked if i had certain things: alcohol, knives, some drugs, etc.. everything they asked about came from the list.

At the bottom it said something like “we will hold them for you and return to you at time of check-out” or words to that effect.

They didn’t do a physical bag search, but made me sign a statement that i didn’t have any of these items with me or in any of my bags. 

I agree that going to the bank is becoming a bit more challenging  and time consuming.  Normally I use BBLs main branch (333 Silom) but while it’s open, the cap the number of people allowed inside.. same for KBank (i use the Paragon Branch which is closed)

I will say that my experience so far has been that then staff at the branches that ARE still open have been good about it.. they’re trying to do what can be done.. but there’s no a lot to do when the customer count exceeds the capacity cap. 

I agree… there’s a lot of “expect to..” “plan to..” and “expected to..” in these types of stories.

While I cede that this is a good beginning, given where things are now- today, what is needed is “has arrived”, “is currently being given…” and “is now being used at..”. those are the expressions that to me are the only ones meaningful right now. 

The first time i did this via mail to CW, I got a phone call - polite i must say - a day or two after receipt. She told me that next time i should send the original 90 day report that was expiring along with the other papers, and just make/keep a copy for my records.

so, that’s what i’ve done since then and never had issues.

to me it’s one thing for the insurer to decide to stop writing NEW policies - that to me is a free-market type decision each company has to make on their own… but… to cancel an existing in-force policy is something quite different .. THAT is something i’d expect the regulators to step in.

that said, i ALSO think it’s unwise for the regulators to allow conditions to continue that would lead to insurers becoming unable to pay claims- thus becoming insolvent … as much as banks and insurers will never win in the court of public opinion/sympathy, i DO think it’s in everyone’s long-term best for them to survive versus going out of business creating a mass of unpaid claims post-liquidation and reducing the pool of underwriters which id suspect only further serves to concentrate the risk into a smaller and smaller insurer base. 

to me, i think IF the government would have set it that the jab can be done without the mandatory requirement of X or Y additional services, then that would have been better.

But, I do think that there is a *potential* issue of a hospital effectively making an “additional consultation” being an implicit additional step - thus charge, a real risk.

I would have preferred the government made it that the jab MUST be offered at X price, and only at X price - all in - and without any additional charges/fees/services being required to obtain said jab at X price.  

6 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

I could be wrong but my experience is there is no real credit bureau or credit history accessibility/limits here.

Supporting this is the fact that they will give car loans to people with payments being 1/2 of their income.

To get a loan your spouse will probably need to show some type of consistent income from a real job.  For a car loan they would minimally check her employment.

Credit cards seem pretty easy I have seen them give them out at the mall with a free T-shirt if you sign up.

There is actually one (and only  one) national credit bureau here, The National Credit Bureau (NCB) set up by regulation, and, if I recall correctly, most/all retail banks and many finance companies participate/use NCB services; that is they will report any reportable events to the NCB.

I have credit card accounts with Bangkok Bank and Kasikorn Bank and both banks report my monthly payment history and balance to the NCB.

I have stopped by the NCBs small office inside the BTS station Sala Daeng, and requested a copy of my file before. 

From what I can gather, unless you have a qualifying account with a participating financial institution, you won’t have a file and also can’t just “open” a NCB file on your own. 

So it’s actually ROOM NIGHTS spread out over 12 days (on average) that the 13,000 figure represents.  

Therefore very roughly speaking it’s about 1,000 people minimum they’re talking about using the Phuket model over the first 2 weeks or so.

Note that a room night does NOT factor in the number of people in that room - so a room with TWO people is still counted as ONE room night.