new2here

I think perhaps you’ve misread it or are reading something into my post. I never said what *I* would do, nor did i explicitly say what my position is on the matter. i DID say that i can understand why someone might choose not to report … but again, that’s quite different from stating what *I* would do. To the larger point, I think that so long as one of the possible outcomes of notifying the government of a C19+ test, is a negative (like forced quarantine etc) I could see/understand how someone might choose not do so as the negative possible outcome could be certainly be viewed as a disincentive to report. Again, not a statement of my own personal views or what I would or wouldn’t do of it were such, but a generalization of what i *think* others may be thinking and the thought/decision making process might be

I think the greater “distortion” isn’t the government or any other data collection/reporting entity itself, rather perhaps individuals who willingly/willfully fail to report their C19+ status after a self-test… Now, to be fair, I can sure understand why someone may choose to not report and fly under the radar, but IMHO, that is probably where more data reporting distortion comes from versus any entity willingly manipulating collected data but before public disclosure.

Yup, it’s kind of like a lesson many of us learned from mom/dad at a very early age… If you abuse something or don’t use it correctly, then it will be taken away from you. I think it’s that simple. The main issue for me isn’t so much the fact that the offender looses the asset, but that i think the state has the overriding obligation to safeguard the public.. and once found guilty, then I can make a clear case for the seizure under the logic that the convicted as now demonstrated their a) unwillingness or b) inability to safety use said asset - and in doing so, presents a safety risk to the public… and the seizure serves as a mitigation of that repeated risk.

I’ve long advocated for (civil) forfeiture of vehicles (or other assets) used while in the commission of these types of crimes.. The state can then sell them off and funds proportionally go to the victim. If the vehicle is damaged, then any insurance settlement should be garnished/levied by the state so that the state again takes it - and the victims are compensated. Im also a fan of minimum determinate sentencing .. so that the judges at least have a minimum or floor that must be part of sentencing and while i do think judges should retain discretion, I think that it’s fair for the public to have some minimum sentence imposed and not be subject to total judicial discretion and to ensure that some minimum uniformity in sentences will prevail.

I wouldn’t say T&G itself is a money scam … because i can make a case for wanting to know who enters the country and their health status… to that end, I can agree with the concept Where I think T&G kind of grows wrong is the lack of objectivity and clear definitions and process flow. I would have preferred the government fix/set the price for the Day 1 PCR .. each hotel can set their own prices for the room, food, transport parts - but the C19 test may only be charged at the government set price of X.. That way nicer hotels can charge more and perhaps more basic ones less- but the PCR cost is fixed. concurrent with that, I’d prefer the ministry of health also explicitly define under what conditions will a person be: - mandated hospital stay - offered optional home isolation - be released or forced to remain and lastly, that the OIC or Ministry of Commerce set rules about how insurance, billing and pre-payments are handled. In all, I just want more clarity so everyone knows what the rules ate, what they are not and what’s explicitly defined or not. I don’t think the government should be involved in the day-to-day care aspect, but I DO think they need to set up a process that people can follow, understand and reduces chances for willful abuse, fraud or even misunderstandings.

I’m not sure what they knew or otherwise… but I agree that it’s a shame that fear - regardless if it’s based on a credible risk or not - that made them feel it was better they effectively and purposefully stay outside of the formal medical care sphere…

I know of two people (both foreigners) first-hand who in the last month or so, self-tested (ie home ATK) positive without symptoms…. but rather than go to the hospital for care etc, just stayed home - literally 24/7- for about a week, plus or minus a few days, then when they double tested negative C-19, just carried on as normal. Their logic was, rightly or wrongly, they didn’t want the possible risk of getting trapped in some kind of cash-driven healthcare solution … be that a forced stay at huge prices, etc…. They just essentially flew “under the radar” until they tested negative again.. Not so sure I agree with the idea of a home stay without FIRST consulting a legit healthcare provider—- but i cede that there IS a risk of getting caught up in what ends being for some, a fairly massive cost that seems to be outside of your control as the patient. so to that end, I can see the logic there.

I agree with the notion of a “fine” for leaving excessive uneaten food— that part i agree with .. SO LONG AS.. It’s clearly disclosed upfront, there is a fixed and objective definition of excessive and the mechanism to determine this is transparent (like a scale or other accepted device) It *sounds* like this it what happened here… but…. WHAT i don’t agree with is the use again of the so-called defamation mechanism >at this point in time< As a whole i think it does both “sides” - the business and the customer - a disservice to use these types of legal criminal mechanisms to otherwise address what really are routine commerce matters. now, I will say that IF it is proven that the customer KNEW the claim was false but proceeded anyway, THEN I can see a legit issue raised by the shop… but short of that- no.

I agree that the lack of clarity as to how long this car was overdue is quite relevant i mean i would reasonably think that if it was say within 0-24 or even 48hrs that the rental firm would keep the matter (of an overdue car) an “in-house” matter… trying to call the renter, email, sms etc… If there’s no contact after day 48hrs or the signs of potential criminal intent, such as phone discounted, email bounced back, etc, THEN i could see the rental firm going to the police.. So… if this lady kept if for days and days and wasn’t contactable or upon contact refused to return it, then sure- i can see police involvement … but for a short overdue? maybe not… time here matters IMHO.

pivoting back to more of the initial question... It really depends on the university and the program. Unlike some other countries that attract hundreds of thousands of “international” students to their universities and colleges, the market here isn’t nearly as big. Outside of the major universities, it’s not uncommon for there to be little if any mention about applications by non-citizens.. that said, a few common issues I’ve seen is that you’ll (understandably so) have to prove you hold the relevant preparatory degree(s), for example, that you hold a recognized Bachelors degree of the right type as a prerequisite of enrollment into a Masters level program etc… some will also insist you take and show a minimum English proficiency score as some programs are essentially english taught ..: there can also be a Thai language proficiency IF the program you’ll enter is essentially Thai taught.. A few places I know do ask for an in-person interview by department faculty or admissions faculty and that can also involve a writing example as well. As noted earlier, the costs for a foreign-applicants can be amazingly high when compared to the fee structure for citizen-applicants… but that’s an issue that i suspect is common, but not absolute, worldwide to varying degrees. Overall, from what I’ve seen, the process seems pretty straight forward but it also seems that outside of the major universities, it’s just not that common to get a foreigner seeking to enroll… this isn’t to say you can’t, but that you might have to go and “dig” around in person or the like to find out. I have one colleague, a western person, who is an active Masters degree student here, at the end of his first year, and kind of watched his application and enrollment process and what it entailed, the logistics and such forth.

If i recall the BBB still keeps SCB at investment grade… barely… but BBB- is recall is not— one “notch” below minimum for IG classification. For me, I don’t see this as having a huge impact on the banks “smaller” retail depositors (those whose net holdings are below the national bank insurance fund levels) or it’s day-to-day operations. but i do think it sends a larger signal that there are systemic economic problems and that those problems have put increased pressure on the banks longer term outlook. What would be interesting to see is if any of the newly downgraded banks were to float new long term bonds, how many more BPs (basis points) would they have to offer up in order for the offering to be successful

I agree! IMHO, the range of card offerings here in TH is quite small.. and as such you really need to decide what “perks” do you want out of a card. You also have to be mindful about the minimum qualifications and any annual fees that the card may carry. All of the majors offer some kind of entry-level card that usually has minimum perks, may have a small annual fee (that commonly can be waived if your annual charge volume exceeds some threshold) Also entry level cards usually have the lowest minimum salary mandate (50k is common but can be lower or waived in some circumstances) All of the banks have a few mid and upper their cards too. Naturally the income and other approval qualifications will be higher as will the annual fee (and any spend mandates for fee waiver). I, myself, haven’t found that the upper tier cards issued here offer perks which are substantially better than i can find from a US bank.. IMHO, the cards all fall into one of a few categories: travel (ie linked to an airline or airline group where spend earns points or miles) shopping (tied into a store or mall retailer and your spend equals points for rebates) healthcare (tied to a hospital chain) or retailer-specific (like car company, fuel company etc) For me, despite having elite-level banking with 2 banks, I carry only entry level cards as I only use them for the dining discounts and none of the travel, shopping or retailer-specific cards appeal to me or match my own spend patterns. One thing that I’ve been able to do- and i’m not sure if it’s a bank policy or privilege, is i’ve been able to “change” cards so long as they were comparable … I had to formally “apply” again, but that was only me signing a new paper app but didn’t have to bring in new documents… Once approved, the bank closed the card I didn’t use and transferred any balance to the new card that I wanted.

My opinion is that these kinds of events are somehow seen in this society as just “happening” as if to imply that there’s no control over them - vis a vis, like an act of God; versus something that’s largely controllable … and therefore like acts of god, there’s little true outrage - thus no real political nor social movement to address the issue… it is what it is if you will… because it’s not a problem.. it’s just something that happened. i think until society collectively views these cases as largely avoidable and controllable, it won’t change …

Given their sourcing limitations, and with only 6 or so outlets, it was tough to really reach a point of viable and sustainable scalability.. Folks like McDonalds naturally will have a far easier time reaching that point with their hundreds of outlets. I also think that the past 2 years have really put western type dine-in places in a hard spot as many were already naturally priced on the medium to higher end of the overall QSR (quick serve restaurant) spectrum and as households started to trim back their budgets, that type of expense was probably one of the first to be impacted.

I agree with the above.. Rightly or wrongly, as it stands today, the test requirement to enter the US are lower than it is in other countries where a test is still mandatory. Commonly the only test accepted is the RT-PCR, which is also commonly the most expensive test option.. the rapid antigen test that is one of the acceptable test by the US’ CDC is a lot cheaper and can be completed nearly “while you wait” which is good considering the US’ test time is now only “1 day” and not 72 hours like thailand at the moment. So…. it’s my opinion that right now, it’s far easier to enter the US than it is thailand as well as most countries where pre-departure tests are still mandatory, just based on the tests that the CDC allows.

of course nothing is or can remedy the losses of the deceased… but I do think that going forward, one way that i think may at least help is to not only charge the employEE with the relevant crimes, but also look to hold the employERS as a possible co-defendant.. Did they know or have reasonable opportunity to know about this persons conduct? Did they exercise due caution? If not, then I can see a case being made for a co-conspirator or co-defendant. …. hitting corporations with fines, asset seizures and in the most extreme, jailing individuals who - as officers of said company - contribute to these crimes, might help to add a layer of potential deterrence.

True, sometimes kids ask questions intentionally to try to shame or embarrass the teacher … but even then, you’ve (the teacher) got to be better than that, you’ve got to be smarter than that and know how to handle those cases without using “force” And I think the last thing a truly good teacher wants or should want is a class that becomes afraid to ask genuine questions… My teacher would say things like “does anyone in class know?” or she might say “i don’t know either, so you all are going to help me find out.”… those situations effector became ‘teachable moments’ if you will. If there was obvious malicious intent, then the answer was always the same - you got a immediate “conduct referral” slip of paper and were sent to the office for a discussion with one of the vice-principal and potentially a letter/call to mom or dad.. never ever did discipline involve physical contact. I understand teachers here wield a lot of social power in the larger societal hierarchy structure … and that’s fine.. but concurrent with that also comes an equal level of responsibility and accountability for its use.

you don’t NEED to have the book.. at the end of the day commonly what you DO have to have is PROOF… but here’s the catch, what exactly constitutes “proof” can and will vary from place to place - and the burden to meet that proof is almost always on you, and not the requestor…. each place can usually set their own rules for what they’ll accept… So… for me, my opinion only, is that it’s to my advantage to have as many forms of proof as i reasonably can, as having more won’t hurt me, and the book only costs B50 plus some time and travel expense..

when i got mine, they made me sign it on their presence before they released it to me.. IMHO, there’s zero downside to signing it.. i guess in my head it’s somewhat like the signature on the back of many credit cards - they’re hardly ever looked at or used day-to-day, but sometimes someone asks- and to me, there’s no downside …

what I would wonder is when (not if, but when) we resume a more normal post-covid lifestyle, to include retail shipping, how will this sector fare? I do think it’s here to stay— but… I wonder what will the growth rate slow to.. and if so, how will the market mature (ie consolidation etc) I think it’s really going to put the brick and mortar shops in a position that they’ll now how to show a “value-added” proportion to shopping in-person versus delivery.. and going forward, how will delivery costs be factored into the whole pricing algorithm.

I agree that Songkran is probably going to be problematic … but.. at THIS point in time, I think it’s too late to effectively reverse course and put in place some kind of restrictions… the political costs to the flip-flop would be massive …. on the other hand, had they NOT yet made a statement about Songkran, THEN it would be easy … just continue on with whatever was in place… but now that something has effectively been “promised” I think it’s too late to go back without taking some serious political blowback or giving your political rivals ammunition to be used against you later on.

the US system (and maybe others but i’m not sure) is, IMGO. a very good deal as not only do you get the COLA* bump, but IF inflation, as measured by the relevant index, turns out to be negative, your benefit does not decline.. So, essentially for US persons, they have only upside potential and zero downside risk. to be fair, i think it’s a legit argument that the specific index used by SSA may not be the most reflective of a beneficiaries real-world spending, can be made, but the larger point i make is that for US folks, I think it’s a good deal as there’s no real downside risk at all

Given the extent this event has spread and the level of “press” it gets, I don’t see a politically viable way for the State Prosecutor to effectively NOT choose to move forward. In a perfect world, charging decisions should be made apolitically — but that’s not reality… they DO carry political ramifications, pro or con… so any decision must be viewed through such. I don’t think anyone at the Prosecutor’s office wants that attention being the person/entity who lets the defendant “get away” with it.. I COULD see pressure being put on the judiciary to met out a lesser punishment IF he is ultimately convicted—- that to me would probably be the most politically expedient way to get this matter closed and out of the publics view.

i’ve received many domestic EMS parcels/letters as well as EMS/Express international mail at my PO Box (defined here as a box owned by the Thai Post and not a 3rd party or similar) and each time it was “carded” and that “carded” date/time was recorded as the first delivery attempt for things like service guarantees etc. Naturally if you, the box holder, don’t come to physically receive it within the specified time frame, it will be sent back to the shipper (for domestic EMSs or handled per rules for international ones) but the Thai Post readily accepted such items for box holders. When you actually submit the “card” to the staff and get the item - that’s when your delivery signature is taken or recorded as “delivered” as the case may be.

My take is that while I think their response was not flawless by any means, I ALSO don’t think it was a total failure either. I agree with the general sentiment that their response might be best measured as “as good as any other” Again, I am NOT overlooking any missteps they made — and YES, they did make some… but… i must also acknowledge that this was (and arguably still is) an unprecedented event and one where there was no modern record of a previous event that a government could “go back to” and review and use the past planning as their blueprint. But I do have to give credit that they did do somethings right… So I wouldn’t necessarily say they get a big “atta boy” pat on the back, i don’t think they should be condemned as a total failure either.. I think the truth from the macro level is that it’s a mixed result.