new2here

I agree with “… Immigration officers and consistency do not go hand in hand.”. But that is because really each person, each case is is somewhat unique. True, immigration law is rather explicitly defined as to what situations are legal for entry and which ones are not.. and further, under each type/class of entry, what are the specific conditions for said type/class. Where *I* think sometimes things go a bit off track is rooted in the fact that while an individual officer can’t essentially create their own law as to you’re admissible or not, they DO have the right to question and request any documentation they deem reasonable to ascertain that you meet the requirements in full.. Essentially the burden of proof falls to you to prove you’re eligible … Immigration really does not have the burden to DISprove your eligibility. Of course, to be extensively questioned is never a positive nor enjoyable event - but in the end, it’s just a part of the process ... and a part that does allow for officer discretion in terms of scope, depth, breadth and such as far as questioning goes.

These names don’t surprise me…. Google could be seen as a forward/future looking type of employer, and one that will also be seen by others as a respectable name as well. Plus google might also carry some measure of “safety” in terms of hiring onto an established firm and with less risk of job loss due to company insolvency when at the beginning of one’s work career ladder. PTT is in the same vein… Another firm that might be seen as reputable, known and seen as “safe” and reliable. Id be very surprised if there was much demand for truly entrepreneurial positions - as I’d guess many new graduates are also somewhat beholden to the financial liability of their families.. so going for a pure entrepreneurial play as first-job i’d guess is simply too much risk for many at that entry level. I also think that in a country like Thailand, where a “name” carries a lot of weight/value/clout, there’s not a lot of “wow” that will be attached in going the entrepreneurial way over a firm that known kingdom-wide.

i agree.. I also think this line of thinking applies to many other issues/problems… it’s not a “real” problem until it hits at my “home” so to speak…

Hi, Its my own experience that, on the whole, the ideas of refunds/exchanges - here in thailand isn’t as common nor practiced as perhaps in other countries.. that said, most of the larger stores.. as noted Big C among them but also Paragon, Central, Robinsons etc will also do so- but you’ll have to meet their criteria.. ie within X days of purchase, with original receipt and item in new/unused condition l, being the 3 most common requirements.

I think that’s more reflective of the “scale” of the economy than anything else.. Similar to the differences in terms of how the currency is denominated.. Thailand’s maximum bank note for general use being B1000 while the UK is GBP 50… which at current forex rates is a touch more than double that if the B1000 note… and the US’ $100 representing more than 3.5x that of the B1000 so i think when you say no one bars and eye, is quite true, but is rooted in the difference of economy of scale.

The max any one Rabbit card can have stored on it is B4,000 While B4,000 is a small number relatively speaking, since there is no limit to the number of cards any one person can have or acquire, it could be one avenue used for illicit money movement… granted, for the big players - they’d probably not want to go this route, but perhaps for lower values, it could be… To me, a B4,000 cap seems to be appropriate given the most expensive trip is around B60 (adult fare) one-way or B120 on a RT basis, and if traveled daily for 30 days, you’re now at B3,600.. so capping it at B4,000 seems reasonable in that light.

It’s going to be very very hard to effectively root-out the so-called bad actors from the RTP…. very hard In large part because IMHO systems of this size - ones that are national in scope and where there is no effective “check” to their power - are set up to be self-protecting and self-sustaining … it’s goal is to insulate itself from external “attack” and to ensure its continued existence. So, I think you’re really asking the system to “self-police” itself .. which is something it isn’t set up to do in the first place…. The only way I see is to have a wholly independent, external body with equal power, set up with the explicit mandate and explicit legal authority to reign in RTP actions, personnel and policies.

For me, I don’t celebrate the loss of life- any life much less ones at that young stage … That said, I think that in life you make decisions …. and either earn the rewards or suffer consequences as a result.. and to me, this is a catastrophic consequence of a bad decision made.. Yes, i know the common rebuttal is something like “weren’t you that age too and did stupid stuff too?”… and I’d say absolutely I did … but only due to either sheer dumb luck or odds, i didn’t suffer like this… and for that I’m thankful… sadly these folks didn’t get so lucky. In this case, for me, the largest blessing here is that these bad decisions largely only impacted those who were direct participants and not totally innocent bystanders.

I agree .. to go with that is the whole “jab” issue as well. It’s become so political and polarizing that it’s hard to have a rational, logical and often a civil discussion about either topic before it devolves quickly For me personally, I see a bit of truth and befits to both “sides” of you will .. so i might be see as a middle of road person who feels each person should be free to make their own choice and have that choice respected but those who may feel differently… i’ve got to believe that some middle ground can be found out there somewhere.

Just as an FYI, while you may have an interline ticket (that being a one ticket which involves travel on more than. 1 different airline) EACH independent airline IS allowed to conduct their own “doc screening” at any point in travel with them, and may, per their Contract of Carriage, deny you boarding (at any point, not just origin) if you don’t hold the correct entry permits/papers/visas etc for entry to your final destination or a downline connection point if applicable. Normally, doc checks are done only at the first point of travel, but it’s not entirely unknown for the second carrier to also check once you connect to them at a downline point.l but before destination. Often the “doc check” is a simple show-me-your-passport type affair, but it can be more extensive and at their discretion. After all, anyone who may later denied entry by immigration at destination, it’s the LAST carrier who actually brought you there, who will incur any fines imposed and have to deal with the travel schedule even IF the first carrier failed to do the doc check carefully/correctly. Most carriers subscribe to IATAs TIMATIC database and have it baked into their check-in systems so that the doc check filters through the TIMATIC database.. So, a good reference point is following TIMATIC for your specific set of variables.

It kind of feels like the GBP is oversold against the greenback.. i bought a block at 1.0722 so i think i’m in at a decent level. While the graphs seems to show it falling through a support level, i do think it’s perhaps a bit oversold, so i’m pretty happy with going long at 1.0722 at this point. im not a really a forex trader but might do small block trades from time to time and only with the larger currencies that have higher trading volumes.

To me this is only going to make progress if the officials really follow what i call the “E&E” process … First you educate … get people really aware of the issue and what does law say.. you give people a fair chance to voluntarily change their behavior … after all, that’s the true solution.. but after a fair crack and educate, now comes…. Second, enforce.. and to me that’s things like *mandatory* fines of X and if resulting in any injury, *mandatory* vehicle seizure for a period of time (with accumulated storage fees and penalties) and if found to be a repeat offender/conviction, mandatory vehicle forfeiture to the State. You make it mandatory so that at each step in the legal process, you reduce the chances for parties to exert unjust influence.. be that police lowering fines, judges waiving jail time etc Again, i think in the long run, you want people to comply “on their own” so to speak- not just when a police officer is present… because you can’t really “enforce” your way into true compliance … but i do think that over time, a majority will do comply .. but …. for the minority who choose to continue to be non-compliant, now I think it’s fair play for the government to use more drastic powers of the state such as the imposition of fines, incarceration and asset seizures to insure compliance and/or to remove the possibility of continued non-compliance.

http://vaccineforthais.ais.th they offer both Pfizer and Moderna for adults, plus a kids-version of Pfizer as well. There are colored lines on the floor that you follow depending on what vax you have chosen.

I got 5th.. As noted earlier, they will check their records and you must have at least 120 days since your #4 You can do a walk in, but i made an appt via the AIS app… when using the app it automatically checks your eligibility against your records and won’t allow you to make an appointment unless the requisite time has passed. i wanted to get it while Bangsue CVC is still open and running as getting a jab at Bangsue has been a very easy process and i’m less sure what the process will be post-bangsue

to me, one way to do it - in the more densely packed areas where speeds might be/should be lower, is to install speed reduction road units (aka speed bumps) which - absent damaging the cars undercarriage- arguably force drivers to slow.

To me, it’s somewhat like drinking/driving issue… i would - at first offense - issue a spot fine.. say B200… if unable to pay, bike is seized as collateral.. on 2nd and 3rd offenses within 180 days of any prior offense, the bike is now subject to mandatory impounding for 3 then 7 days with impound fees payable plus an increasing fine. On 4th office the bike is subject to seizure and forfeiture by the state. If you demonstrate a consistent pattern that you are unwilling to use said bike legally and by acting illegally you endanger others (ie pedestrians on the footpath/sidewalk) then i think it’s incumbent on the State to take it away as a means of protecting the public from a person whose demonstrated their unwillingness to exercise caution and/or comply with law.

as noted earlier, IF the implementation is at the Point Of Sale, then it’s most likely going to be included in ALL tickets.. that’s the most straightforward implementation given how air tickets are actually sold and the “behind the scenes” processing (ex: ARC) that takes place. Yes, it could be set that tickets SOLD in X or Y region might be exempt (ex: some counties have fares that are only for sale within their own borders or for sale to only citizens) but with VPNs it’s hard to effectively do a good job at true geofencing… So, my gut is that it will apply to all non-citizens as programmatically a citizenship is usually part of the initial booking process. As far as how to handle non-citizens who might otherwise be exempt goes…. I could see a process whereby IF the law is that certain types of non-citizens are exempt from the fee, Immigration would give the selected non-citizen a QR code or somehow authorized a refund. Then the pax submits said approved refund electronically.

Here’s my take… Like most all countries, Thailand does have a fairly established set of objective standards for admissibility under one of the multiple entry methods provided for by law.. So, to that end, Immigration officers can’t independently “create” their own individual law… that said, they DO have the legally established right to verify all of the facts, documents etc that a person presents for entry under their chosen method.. So, I see nothing overtly wrong with an officer stopping and questioning - to their satisfaction - any non-citizen passenger to verify their status against the entry method the passenger has stated earlier. This doesn’t mean they can or should be impolite, unprofessional etc… but speaking to their legal right to temporarily detain and question, for purposes of determining admissibility, to me, seems well within their jurisdiction. Its always an uncomfortable experience and not one that i’d hope on others, but i cede that it is a tool that immigration can and should use *with discretion and tact* to ensure compliance.

one upside of the card-less process is that with the exception of BBL, it’s possible for you to verbally give the code to a 3rd party - who, together with your phone number, could access the funds that you’ve authorized for withdrawal without the need for you or the phone used to physically be present. That means you could, as example only, provide your phone number and the code to your spouse/child etc, and they could do the withdrawal absent your physical presence. As BBL requires the registered phone to physically scan the QR on the specific ATM, it would appear that for BBL, the actual phone used to process the withdrawal must be at the ATM at the time of withdrawal. I use card less on BBL, SCB, Krung Thai and KBank and find them all to be very fast and easy to use.

The reality is that “arguing” with the press at large is a no-win situation.. so, while emotionally one may want to, it’s almost always a loosing battle for the government as the “playing field” is largely controlled by the media.. Plus arguing only adds more ammunition for the media to use against you… you’re only playing into their strength. You put your narrative out there and largely sidestep all other issues that detract from it. I think the media plays a very critical role in the dynamic between issues such as government narrative, public criticism and transparency. But if i were sitting on the government side, I’d try like hell to get the PM to stop “taking the bait”

If I recall the Ministries list does specify the pack size/weight, so using shrinkflation isn’t probably going to work here… but i cede it’s a good idea. What Id wonder is why not subtly reduce output? they can’t artificially “stockpile” ... so they can’t manufacture it THEN withhold it from sale to artificially create a supply/demand gap… but if they are either loose money making it at this level (which i don’t think is going to be true) OR that their costs at these levels make producing the noodles essentially a lost-leader so-to-speak, then I might think about gradually cutting production of those noodles and divert their limited manufacturing capacity to items that aren’t price capped. the only other way i might see is substituting lower price ingredients.. but i’ll bet that will require a whole lot of work internally (ie sourcing, production etc) and probably also trigger the need for a review of their food permit as well…

On paper, thailand really is very much like most other major countries in terms of the law: what is and is not legal. As example, Thailand’s law relates to the operation of motor vehicles is actually quite similar to that of the US and most parts of Europe… So, to that end, Thailand is quite similar to most other places… it’s not that much of an outlier….. but… as noted earlier, it’s the processes of enforcement and administration of these laws that kind of dilutes their impact… and takes them off the rails… In my view, any laws without real and consistent enforcement are essentially only societal “suggestions” … and laws that are not administered openly, equally and transparently are only subjective punishments to be applied when/where the punisher, in their unquestioned opinion, feels just and against only those the punisher disapproves of, also in their own unquestioned opinion. Lastly, as a cumulative product of years of this reality, there’s a collective public mindset of acceptance which essentially feeds an apathetic viewpoint — the perfect environment for those who operate the system, to continue to do so with little to no accountability or pushback from the public at large.

that’s the part of this that, rightly or wrongly, is a big deal. this is a “high-vis” event … kind of like the young lady killed in the crosswalk… you just can’t have all those videos online and on social media and not have the authorities make arrests… they effectively have to.. they’re in a corner in that respect.. … as such, it’s going to be hard for anyone to effectively make it just “go away” …. a few people will have to pay the price…. people will have to be arrested.. people will have to go to prison… the tragedy in that respect is that i’ll reasonably bet that the true perpetrators, the people who benefited from this venue, won’t be the ones who are paying the price… but that’s not unique to Thailand… but i’ll bet that this is how the tragedy will ultimately end.

I suspect these kinds of moves serve two concurrent purposes … 1) it’s a societally acceptable way to “punish” someone… 2) it also avoids the loss-of-face that comes with making such a move to a public officer and in relation to a very public incident. Kind of like kids who get a score of 50/100… most will see the “50” and know that s/he failed …. but the use of 50/100 also avoids the labeling/shaming/embarrassment and paperwork that comes with having to deal with a true failing mark. At the level of the person in question, anyone who is involuntary transferred will be known as “…that guy”… but avoids a formal label of being demoted etc…

To me, i think the answer is just that, that’s not Makros’ business model .. they go for mass volume, lower SKU count inventory and with little to no personalization… and given how they’re structured, that makes sense The more small-lot retail shops are better equipped and staffed to sell smaller lots, offer a wider range of SKUs and to allow for a greater degree of personalization. Its just a different market and operating model.