new2here

33 minutes ago, 473geo said:

During covid there has been a whole new set of travellers come of age.

These are people of the present not the past and they may well fancy a trip to Thailand.

500 baht is not going to influence their decision in the slightest, they are looking for the Thailand experience.

It is really sad that there are those who continually run Thailand down, usually people who must have long forgotten their first visit and the jaw dropping newness.

 

Tourists will still choose Thailand, despite the best efforts from those for whom it has apparently lost its allure.

 

 

i agree.. While no one is going to “like” a new tax… I don’t think that a 500 tax/fee is going to make any measurable difference between someone choosing another destination and not Thailand. ESPECIALLY IF it’s hard baked into fares… 

Those that even know about it (which i’ll bet will be the minority to begin with) may grouse and complain; but in the end, i would be stunned if it did have any measurable impact on the number of arrivals. 

7 hours ago, Tonypandy said:

If its done in the price of ticketing then Thais would also be charged, foreign airlines are not going to carryout this extra work and be expected to determine between foreign and Thai customers 

GDS do have the ability to use the nationality field as a base of the fare calculation algorithm.  There are some countries whose carriers offer fares that are nationality restricted - and that’s how it’s done. IF you populate a passport of that country’s (or an eligible country if more than one), then the restricted fare of X will populate. If you use a passport of other non-eligible countries, then the fare of Y will populate. 

Another way they could do this is to (outsource) set up their own freestanding online payment channel and make all non-exempt people use the payment channel to pre-pay the tax/fee.  Once paid, a receipt is emailed/SMSed to you bearing your name/passport. That receipt would then be required at arrival - and failure to have it at arrival could then trigger a penalty of X baht. 

In totality, I still think that baking it into the fare is the best/easiest way as that essentially keeps the RTG out of the day-to-day management of it; the management gets shifted (including most of the costs) to the various airlines, the major GDSs and the major payment channels like ARC (Airline Reporting Corporation) and UATP. 

For me (AZ #1 and #2) my first jab left me feeling a bit like i had a head cold for about 1/2 day or so.. then my arm hurt for about 2 days… but with my #2 AZ jab, there were almost no effects noticeable at all. 

and i agree, a noticeable sense of “relief” was also there ….  more so after #2, but after #1 I felt as if I was finally “moving along” toward being fully vaxed. 

On 9/22/2021 at 8:25 PM, khunjeff said:

Absolutely. If large numbers of people start coming in from abroad, there will realistically be no choice other than to accept foreign certificates, even if those can't really be verified. This is already the way things work in many other countries, where the folks checking at the door pretty much let in anyone with a plausible looking certificate from any nation. I'm not aware of any country that issues a certificate for vaccinations performed in a different locality.

 

I agree.. that’s why i tend to believe that in the short-term we will see that yellow/orange booklet-sized document (same style, size as the Yellow Fever Vaccination document) being the standard… 

I agree that it’s going to be hard, very hard to literally verify the authenticity of each and every document presented at the border - especially if each country issues their own uniquely designed document - but i think that if the document(s)- accepted are more harmonized - like using that document which mirrors the Yellow Fever document is one way to help that process along.

I think going forward, i DO think that some countries that are more technologically advanced might be able to migrate to a “E-document” which can be verified by authorities online… while lesser technologically developed countries might remain with the paper version. 

1 hour ago, Swiss1960 said:

The same issue is of course true vice versa... if somebody vaccinated in Thailand wants to import the data into an app from their home country for travel - not possible.

 

All you can do is use your home country app (or a paper copy of your certificate) and hope that the person checking it is intelligent enough to check (and read) what they see

absolutely agreed… because data like this — which can be originated from any number of domestic sources before it’s aggregated nationally — it’s really isn’t so easily verifiable on a cross-border basis …  and even IF the data itself was verifiable, then there’s the issue of legitimacy of said data…. i’d be hugely surprised if you do see any major countries willing to include foreign jabs into their domestic paperwork/system and put them onto a formal government document where the other national government is essentially “attesting” to that data’s integrity. 

I continue to believe that the best chance we have for something resembling this is the use of the International Covid 19 vaccination certificate booklet — which is a near copy of the long recognized Yellow Fever Vaccination booklet… THAT to me is as close as I reasonably think we will see as far as having some form of uniformity whereby the country of jab becomes less of an issue - so long as it’s properly administered.

i was at BangSue on Tuesday, and i asked this question…. “how can i import vaccine data from jab received abroad into the MP system?”

The answer i got was that it is not possible to import data into MP from external sources. The MP platform only aggregates jab data from domestic sources like Central vaccination center, Thai Ruamjai and other similar programs.  

My guess - a guess only - is that you won’t get able to do so.. only because to do means that the RTG would then effectively assuming some liability for the legitimacy of data, that they can’t really verify independently. Now, perhaps if more countries went to an all “E-certificate” system, then it might be able to have one common platform- but as at now, you can’t 

2 hours ago, hotchilli said:

Coming soon I would imagine, taxes will rise somehow.

I agree.  I don’t think the government really has a lot of choices here.. If they don’t deficit-spend, there’s going to be massive social/economical and political cost to be paid for that lack of government intervention.

but… longer term, high debt levels also poses risks, naturally the “payback” issue is front-and-center, but it could also extend to things like having your national/sovereign debt being placed on “watch/review” status by the international ratings agencies (Moody’s, Fitch etc).. or worse, an actual downgrade… which can then translate into much more expensive borrowing costs in the medium to longer term.

So, to me, this is kind of a loose-loose on that they have to do it.. but there’s going to be a “cost” that’s going to also have to be (re)paid for it. 

16 hours ago, ArcticFox said:

It shouldn't be the responsibility of average people to figure this out.
What if you have a "fake" note?  Are you then suspect?  Do they take your "fake" note and leave you without compensations? 

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.

24 minutes ago, David138 said:

I was one of those that attended Bangsue on July 18 thanks to the Australian Embassy. We did not get a 13 digit number and was told that we would get a SMS notification for the date of the 2nd shot. No sms yet. But should we register on the Mor Prom site? And if so how?

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 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. 

17 hours ago, internationalism said:

get with you to hospital your green vax book and insist on leaving there any marks about covid vax.  Explain, that you travel internationally. Ideally they should put sticker there, with batch number etc for tracing - as it's done with all other vax.

If you don't have one yet, get to any travel clinic, the red cross, order some vax (for example seasonal flu) and you will get this book for some 30b.

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. 

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.