new2here

That’s the same for me.. I left mine in my pants pocket and it got warped in the clothes dryer.. So long as nothing has changed, it’s a simple process — passport , the actual damages DL (that they keep) and the issuance fee (not the renewal fee- only the smaller issuance fee)

agreed. I think it needs to be clear exactly what is the programs goal - which would then better define their target. On the surface, I don’t have an issue with state support for the low income and/or indigent persons.. I’m not so sure that it should be a flat, fixed amount for every Thai person … without some due consideration to their income level. Yes, it’s fair to assume that those who are on the high(er) income levels probably “pay” more into the state coffers via the various forms of taxation (ie income, VAT, excise, property etc) than those on the low(er) end.. and that perhaps then can or should translate into higher payments to these higher net tax-paying persons… but again, this is where better defining what the program is supposed to be, should give some clarity to this issue. I’d also want controls on those state funds to make sure they’re spent as directed.. So, perhaps limiting “redemption” of those cash funds, via the wallet app, at selected stores - like registered grocery, recognized transport operators, utility providers etc versus straight “cash”.

That’s a fair assessment.. Like airports - there’s a cut off for things like check-in and/or ticketing .. so, I think it’s fair to ask this question.. do they arrive early enough to allow for ticketing (NB If it were me, I’d post a formal cut off for same day ticketing — like “no later than :15 before scheduled departure” or the like.. just so there’s some explicit timeline that everyone can fall back to for guidance) I don’t think the onboard staff erred .. now, that said, IF there were perhaps a handful of people who all claimed the exact same issue … “the staff didn’t have time to issue tickets and we were told to buy onboard” then I’d think the onboard staff should have perhaps taken a step back, paused and checked with the station staff (by phone as I’d assume they were already rolling) to see what’s what before taking action. But in totality, I think the article shows the correct outcome, the station staff admitted their error/failure and the fee refunded accordingly.

It’s not uncommon for some smaller countries to have a diplomatic presence in country A that also has representation or jurisdiction for nearby countries of B and C. I believe they call them “Non-Resident Ambassadors” For example, there is no on-site Thai diplomatic representative to Ethiopia, but the Thai Embassy in Kenya is their Non-Resident Ambassador- so all the diplomatic processes (like visas for example) that would take place in Addis had there been an actual on-site ambassador, would take place in Nairobi. Check if that’s the case here.. It just might be that the ambassador to Thailand is non-resident and that it’s all done by a physical embassy in Jakarta, Singapore or maybe Hanoi.

I think there’s some truth to that… but… I don’t think it’s perhaps as narrow as that. Looking back to all the various “rough” patches thailand has been through.. we’ll be that civil unrest, C19, etc., by and large Thailand tourist appeal - it’s “draw” has remained quite high… again, that’s not to say that they can’t do any wrong — but more to say that the appeal to Thailand has remained fairly strong across the rough spots . So, my guess is that even IF they go forward with this, I honestly don’t think it’s going to have a long term, sustained and materially negative impact on the nett tourist inflows… It’s kind of like the tourist appeal here is a semi-teflon exterior.. so… to that end, I can’t say it’s a totally bad bet .. I’ll bet it works out net positive for them.. yes, some will stay away… but the number of those that stay away, and (most importantly the economic value they represent) I’ll bet will be dwarfed by those who come and spend.

I suspect that the issue is IF you were to hard-bake it into ticket prices (like all other taxes applied to airfare) you loose (or make it very difficult from a programmatic basis) the ability to; a) readily identify citizens versus non-citizen buyers - both would end up paying it as most booking engines don’t factor in passenger details (like nationality) when calculating fare. b) identify any subset of non-citizens who might otherwise be exempt. I recall reading that it was proposed that non-citizens who hold work permits may be exempt. So running with an upon arrival, kiosk style payment gives you the ability to better define exactly who is exempt or not. As far as dealing with those who arrive, but before being admitted, now refuse to pay goes… I highly suspect they will be a near-zero situation— only because if they were so set it up like that, once you arrive, they’ve essentially “got you” — you’re a captive market .. You don’t pay it? They don’t admit you or deem you inadmissible and repatriate you like those who Immigration won’t allow entry. For the country it’s basically a no miss no fuss answer … It’s the AIRLINES that I could see voicing a concern over this pay-upon-arrival system as they might be inadvertently swept into a problem if someone doesn’t. pay and Immigration wants to repatriate them, now the airline gets swept up as they’ve got to deal with the repatriation flight issues and payment for that. If it were me? I’d take the easy road.. just up the current “TS” tax from 700 to 800 across the board - citizen or not - make it 800 or whatever.. . it’s a tax that’s always on the books and easy to collect… it’s baked in so there’s no “in your face” of a new tax either.. and since everyone would pay it, it would be very hard for a person to really detect that the tax was increased versus the natural ebb and flow of ticket prices themselves . Yes, citizens would also pay it - true.. but to me the easiest way IMHO, is just bump the TS upwards.

You can’t get the “metered” stamp that includes the EMS tracking number on it (for your return mail envelope) unless you’re mailing it right then and there…. You CAN however, buy and affix individual postage STAMPS that equal the EMS price AND get one if the old style (orange/white) EMS tracking bar code stickers- and affix to the return envelop as well.

I’ve have 3 summons so far.. as i live and work here, attending isn’t a viable option. What I did was to email the clerk/jury duty office and inform them. My parents receive my mail and will open anything that looks to them as if it’s time critical or would require some action on my end. The first time they asked me to write a letter, hand signed and mail it back to them indicating my circumstances. The two later following times, I only needed to call.

I agree.. sure 125k (pretax) isn’t going to materially change the national financial picture nor any one of the charity organizations that are recipients… but… you’re also right it can have a meaningful impact on single recipients — so I’m all for it. Plus, I suspect that like it is in the US with senior political positions (ie cabinet members and the like) they’ll make more on a post-service basis than they would have while actively in office though things like Board positions, consultancy gigs etc.

This actually makes a LOT of sense, from both the safety side by also operational side as well. Weight and balance (WB) as well as other related factors like Center of Gravity (CoG) are critical numbers that dispatches, flight crew and others must have. If you think about it, most aspects of an aircraft’s take off weight are known - and known to a relatively small margin of error. Fuel is calculated to the near exact, potable water as well. Catering is largely known as each trolley has a fixed tare weight, plus the weight of each set-up/tray, plus the other catering elements boarded.. Cargo is weighed plus the tare of any ULD used is added.. Commonly checked baggage is also known, as it scaled at the time of passenger check-in. So, really the last big part of the weight calculation that still uses an “assumed average” is the passenger and his/her carry on… Therefore I can see good reasons why an airline would want better data - it helps cut down on excess fuel loaded, helps to reduce passable cases of “weight restricted” flights when no such restriction was really necessary… etc

To me, I think it’s a fair thing to say that from the moment a customer sets foot onto the restaurant’s premises- there’s some level of “cost” for nearly everything. I think the trick for the restaurant- and to a degree, for the customer - is how to apportion those costs so that they are fairly reflect the charge for use by each customer AND perhaps more importantly, can those costs even be realistically apportioned? I DO think that some costs - even small - can be.. but others I think it’s a struggle to do so. I look at airlines for a rough parallel.. LCCs essentially only charge for the basic service of transport from A to B.. if you want take take bag; that’s extra. Food? that’s extra too. I think a restaurant *could* offer - say “entree A” a traditional burger and fries and define EXACTLY what you get with that.. Then, from there if a diner wants anything else - let’s say a fry dipping sauce, and it’s not included in the definition of entree A, then there’s an incremental charge.. In my head, I guess I ask two basic questions.. One, is the restaurant industry as a whole really set up for this kind of pricing model, the accounting, back office and front customer-facing rollout it would require… and two, are diners really interested in going down this route where they have a choice of dining at places that roll all costs into the entree choice - largely regardless if you’ve used some element of the dining experience and/or how used .. or would they prefer a pricing model that drills down to the individual usage assigns a cost for that?

I agree.. I think for many, not all but many, the whole issue really is a “face” thing… and while I personally may not agree with the whole concept, i acknowledge that here in Thailand, for many it is a very real issue.. so to that end, I can see where the parents might have this demand and I like your suggestion.. that what *why* the monetary demand is there will largely be rooted out or exposed.. It is really for her or their safekeeping? or is it a form of compensation for their daughter leaving their side of the family? I also get that when you’re talking about marriage in parts of the world that don’t enjoy the hugest levels of income and economic development (not saying Thailand is 3rd world at all) the issue of money can be a very real and tangible element of any marriage proposal. He’s marrying her — but rightly or wrongly her family is a part of that total package .. So i agree that an honest conversation about what each “side” will accept seems to me, to be the best road to take.

I think it’s fair to say that nearly any “populist” type policy like these, will get hit levels of layman’s support. I think the harder question - and the one that’s also NOT asked concurrent with these types of polls, is “how should the government pay for X, Y Z?” Clearly, few will say “no” to lower train fares, or say “no” to a debt moratorium for farmers… both would have huge popularity… but again, concurrent with that must be the question “and if implemented, the costs for this should be paid for by_____” I agree that there are some reasonable ways to pay for things like lower train fares … and debt moratoriums.. but again, I think BOTH sides of these questions needs to be presented — not just the “benefit” side, but the corresponding “cost” side as well.

Here’s my take… and in this context I’m referring to situations up to but not university or similar- so that would essentially be up to M6 As the teacher, you hold the position of “power” in any student-teacher relationship (defined here as any interactions with a student). Therefore, you, as the higher power person, have the onus and responsibility to ensure that you are not misusing, abusing or otherwise using said power dynamic for self-benefit to the detriment of the student. Yes. some of the younger girls can be attractive… Yes, they can be “flirty” so to speak.. but again, as the teacher it’s your job to manage that dynamic appropriately.. Regardless of legality (ie “of age” or not) IMHO, it’s simply a no-go. IMHO, there are zero situations that i can image whereby a physical relationship with a current student** (regardless if s/he is your direct student, or just enrolled at your school) would be either socially/emotionally healthy for both parties in the long term nor appropriate in terms of a teacher-v-student power dynamic.

That’s not exactly true. FA pay, for most US carriers IS tied to “block time” which is commonly defined as the time between the moment the brakes are released at the gate and again, when they are set at the gate upon arrival. So, it IS true that most carriers do NOT start an FA’s “pay” until the brakes are released (ie block time starts) … but… that doesn’t mean that any actions taken by them prior to that moment in time are purely “personal” in nature and not covered by carriers insurance/workman’s comp etc… for example, while an FAs pay may not start until brakes are released, they still have to be in full uniform during boarding, present at all required pre-flight briefings etc.. They can’t say “i’m not on-the-clock yet” and skip them. So.. an injury suffered on the aircraft- during boarding - would usually be handled by the carrier, as a workplace injury, despite the block-time having not yet commenced.

Here’s my take, First, I’m going to assume that female in your case is around the same general age as you… If so, then I don’t think it’s entirely unrealistic, unreasonable nor “unromantic” for her to also be looking at her own financial standing/stability/future relative to you, be that married, divorced or widowed.. I think that ANY person - make, female, Thai or not, would be wise to make some educated financial decisions based on their life, current circumstances and future expectations. That said, IMHO, any marriage of that has the legs to last has to be in some level based on factors like motivation, devotion, love and emotion attachment… it can’t be.. it shouldn’t be all about money… NOR can it be just about love without some thought to the daily practicalities either.. it’s a balance. so.. to me, I think it’s fair for her AND you to be taking stock of where each of you are at — financially, emotionally and the like - and weigh all of that against the choice to divorce or continue with the existing. In my head I kind of subscribe to the idea of “better the devil I know than the one I don’t” …. but in the end, it’s you who’s going to live it 24/7

Good add-on Yes.. in almost all of the sections, the website only allows you to upload ONE file - and it’s got to be a .PDF and within their stated size limit. In my case, I prepared all my scans in advance, and when necessary, created a multi-page .PDF.. The longest .PDF Ibhad was the WP copy as my current WP has about 7 pages with any kind of mark or stamp.. and even with that size, I was still under the file size cap. So, my suggestion would be to prep your files and .PDFs first - before you start the application process - that way you can focus solely on the app and the relevant questions, and less so on needing to make a multi-page .PDF

In my mind, this is one of those cases that really only has one outcome - you, the employer, approve it …. true, maybe the employee didn’t have the necessary time “banked” to take leave (if they operate on that type of system), perhaps the hotel was always short-staffed… there could be lots of good, solid, factually verifiable circumstances for a denial. But… in the court of public opinion, there’s only one possible and acceptable answer - yes. The reality is that for cases like this (i am assuming it is as presented) you just can’t say no.. even if it leaves you short staffed… even if the employee didn’t follow all of the request protocols or didn’t have the necessary time banked/earned… you just can’t say no to a request to be with a dying parent, spouse or child… you just can’t. Yes, I think it’s the morally right thing to do - to say yes.. but EVEN IF someone thought otherwise, even if they had good cause… the optics in saying no, would be so horrendously bad that you just can’t say no.

My first 5-year “permanent” license was set to expire in late January 2024. When i got my license back in early 2019, enclosed with the paper license and wallet sized card (presently TCT doesn’t send either a paper license nor a plastic wallet-sized card; only a .pdf that you print yourself) was a notice saying that renewals should be done 180 days in advance. What I found out is that using their new KSP Self-service, that you can’t actually apply BEFORE 180 days.. You CAN do so once it’s LESS THAN 180 days.. I created my own profile- once doing so, the site auto-populated my current license data (issue and expiration dates) and other biographical data. I had to input my residential address and find my school from their nationwide database; which then auto populates it’s address etc.. That’s all that’s needed to create your KSP self service profile. To renew, I had to submit scanned copies of… 1) passport data/photo page AND current visa/extension 2) current WP that had ANY stamped, entries or writing on it 3) authenticated degree 4) authenticated transcripts 5) recent color photo 6) 3 DIFFERENT forms of “professional development” What I found odd is that online it says that you have to compete the renewal application form (KS.02) and the Qualification Declaration (KS.02.10) with the KS.02.10 Requiring a Schools Director or similar to sign… However, when I was doing all the uploading of my scans (see 1-6 above) nowhere did it ever ask for these forms (KS.02 and KS.02.10) to be uploaded nor physically mailed to them.. A few days - maybe 5 - after submitting all these scans, when I checked the application status, now I could open the Payment Form. You take it to a bank, 7/11 etc, and pay the 200 fee. Once paid, the next day Krusapah will update their records and it will show your payment (date you paid) Eight days after that, my status changed again to “committee checking”… Then literally the next day, it was approved and now I could print the new license from their site. The renewed license says that it’s ISSUED in January 2024 and expires in 2029.. So, it appears that Krusapah effectively book-ends your old and new licenses as opposed to dating/starting it on the date you applied or date approval… Essentially you get a full 5 years. I applied for my first 5 year before this whole KSP self-service… and I will say that it’s easier this online way.. but the old way was also nice as you interacted with a Krusapah staff who would tell you right then and there if anything was missing, insufficient etc… but the time it took me from end to end using this online platform was 18 days. just one persons experience.

On the surface of it, I’d totally agree but.. given that (as I’ve read online) retail consumer spending accounts for around half plus of the total GDP figure, I don’t know that the economy itself can afford to take a more conservative or tight monetary policy for a sustained period -let alone the banks who ultimately finance a large chunk of that spend. Sure, ballooning NPLs and the losses that banks and various lenders end up taking isn’t good for the larger credit lending space… but I don’t really see an alternative… Yes, banks could tighten up their underwriting criteria… but again, doing so would also negatively impact consumer spend.. so perhaps increased NPLs is just the “cost” that must be paid to keep the consumer spending, which for TH really is the lynchpin of the economy. What Id like to see is more consumer education. I’d bet that a fair number of these guarantors didn’t really KNOW how “on-the-hook” they really could be.. yes, they know what guarantor means.. but I think sometimes having it out front-and-center.. that as guarantor, YOU could loose your house, that the banks and the courts could come after YOU and YOUR assets..

To me, if you disrupt flight operations without a valid safety or security concern and due to the behavior a diversion becomes necessary (to include a RTBL or return to the blocks) then not only should they remove you and cancel (without right of refund) your fare, but you should also be subject to a sizable fine. For egregious behavior that posed a clearly demonstrated risk to flight safety or resulted in injury to crew or passengers, then i’d support a ban on flying TH registered carriers for X period of time. This is an issue that seems to be (unfortunately so) in the western world, and I think the aviation authorities would be wise to “nip-it-in-the-bud” here before it becomes commonplace.

The too conservative part i think is always going to be a slow evolutionary issue as the ideological makeup of court changes with time.. to me, I don’t worry too much about that as time will swing it each way eventually.. what i DO worry about is the appearance of impartiality. I don’t know what Justice Thomas’ relationship is with this person in the news as of late.. What worries me most is the mere APPEARANCE of impropriety.. I want the court to be beyond reproach and that’s what worries more more than it’s current ideological make up

I agree.. Essentially “rules without consistent enforcement and serious penalties are only suggestions” while some still try to bring illegal narcotics into Singapore, many won’t try as they *know* that SG does-as-they-say and takes a hard line and will enforce the law, up to and including capital punishment… and IMHO, it’s this knowing the punishment can be X and that it IS applied, does act as a deterrent to some…. it’s the lack of this element … any real sense of risk of punishment or consequences for illegal acts, that creates an environment of impunity.

I’ve long advocated for seizures.. If you’re arrested and convicted of a crime, any assets that were used in the commission of said crime should be subject to seizure and forfeiture. If you use a motorbike to rip someone off - and you’re convicted, then you should loose the bike.. If you sell drugs out of a house, you loose and house and - land, etc… Criminal forfeiture is a powerful tool if used correctly and consistently. Once you start taking people assets away, that’s when it hurts.

I agree that this is itself not a new thing - but been around in this more or less form for years and years.. that said, I also think that it’s fair for a government of country X to seek to employ it’s own nationals in domestic jobs before those of non-citizens.. but.. I don’t think it should be hard “no” either … for example, if a job classification is deemed “for domestic hire only” then before an employer can legally hire a non-citizen, I do think that they should have to reasonably prove to the government that despite a fair effort, no suitably qualified citizen either exists within X range of the job and has applied, or a the job requires a specialized skill that is lacking in the domestic labour pool.