new2here

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.

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. 

8 hours ago, internationalism said:

So real number of infections is 55k and that's why daily perished count now over 40. 
They should think hard now about songkran and what situation will be after festivities. 
Right now they should warn if daily count of deaths is over 100 holiday will be postponed. 
that would be fair and rational, rather then the last seconds jerks 

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.

11 hours ago, Onerak said:

I think it should be index linked (or adjusted for inflation, I assume) no matter where you live. At least social security in the USA is. 

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

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. 

6 hours ago, ikke1959 said:

I always read that peple did not want to kill, but they did.. Maybe if they think first before they do they won't kill. It easy to say it was not my intention.... so why did they do than??

i agree.. in the end, i think barring something extraordinary, no one will say “yes, i meant to kill XYZ” …. but to me, that’s neither here, nor there.

I think the state, as the public prosecutor, has the obligation to prosecute, convict and seek remand (incarceration) for those charged with these types of crimes…   in my eyes, these folks have now DEMONSTRATED their inability or unwillingness to act in a manner that doesn’t place an undue risk to the safety of the public…

therefore i expect the state to seek a punishment that both fairly punished the convicted for their crimes and the injury to their victims, but also seeks to insure the convicted can’t repeat their criminal actions again.

16 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

So, is this a case of the insurance mafia weaseling out of a commitment? Or an administration totally lacking any morality and ethics, defending huge corporations, at the expense of the general public and tourists? 

 

Either way it stinks. Do they not think word will get around? Anyone seen any arrival numbers lately? There is a stunning silence in regard to that. 1,500 a day? Maybe? 

I DO think “word” will get out…. but… I also think that the word - whatever it is, won’t really go very far, nor have a measurable, long-term negative impact.  Wish it wasn’t this way - but given how news is now a ultra-short cycle process and there’s so many channels… all stories, unless MAJOR, just don’t tend to last long nor go very far in terms of distribution scope nor remaining on the first page so to speak. 

While my opinion is that this is a bad move on the RTGs part, I have to also acknowledge that, if you go and look back, Thailand has hit many “bad moves” and if you then look at the arrival numbers that followed, the country does seem to have some kind of a “teflon” surface as they’ve never really had a material, long-term hit to their numbers after making a miss-step move politically. 

I myself think that at SOME point if TH becomes the sole outlier that still requires a mandatory insurance for entry- THEN i could see them falling into line with other countries in the region… but right now, we’re still in the very first phase of any true reopening… so think for the near term, there’s no external force that really has the power to effectively “force” THs hand to drop the insurance mandate…. but again, I do think in time, so long as other countries also drop any insurance mandate- TH will have to do so as well. 

6 hours ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

The OIC has the authority to compel insurers to disregard exclusions in their policies. This is what happened in this instance. The OIC required insurers to pay claims for medically-unnecessary hospitalization even though the policies clearly did not cover these costs. The OIC is now simply reversing this edict and insurers are now able to exclude these expenses as was originally the case.

thanks.. that’s kind of what i was thinking — the law, the regulators actions essentially supersede that of existing policy wording… and that makes sense 

16 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

This is an interesting development, because....

 

I've always been told by my insurance broker here in TH that any change an insurer might want to make in the terms of their coverage can only take effect at a person's next policy renewal -- not somewhere mid-term during a prior policy issued under different terms.

 

If that's true, how's that going to work in this instance?

 

Of course, this is TH, where the government and companies break or ignore rules all the time with impunity.

 

That’s what I was wondering as well.

My best guess - and it’s only a guess - is that any change in national law will effectively supersede any policy language which, on a past-change basis, now runs contrary to the newly set laws..

To me, it’s a bit like it was a while back when the rules governing how utilities like electricity and water where charged by selected rental entities (ie landlords)… people who may have had a current contract (lease rental) that stated it would be charged under the “old” formula, got changed mid-contract/lease, to be compliant with the newly enacted formula.  my gut is that it’s going to be like that as essentially national law will supersede any private contractual language.  

It’s my opinion only that some, if not much of the so-called bad-driver behaviors could be either eliminated or severely cut back if you make it such that their employers take the heat - the employers get fined for sidewalk driving, for careless driving etc.

The corporate entities understand economics… as as soon as the costs to have and use with drivers who then go out and commit bad-driver acts A B, C, goes up to the point that they’re pinched financially, THEN you’ll see action. 

Sure, the companies will put the squeeze on the driver to “knock it off” …. you bet.. but at some point where the costs rise to a point that using bad drivers is just too expensive … or … the companies policies have to be modified so that better driver compliance can be met. 

Follow the money. 

While i suspect this isn’t “Thailand” style per se, I’d like the see the employers of these people also be charged as facilitators or, if there was reasonable foresight, then co-conspirators if you will.  

That way, the victim has both a physical person that can be sanctioned (ie incarcerated) as well as a more well-funded corporate entity from which the judiciary can now assess serious monetary penalties from and/or the victim can move forward with a civil suit.

3 hours ago, Dialemco said:

Thailand including Thai Airways has lost credibility its fleet has been reduced to old outdated Air Craft very expensive to operate so there is no way they can get back the routes and respect they had prior to the Pandemic they are charging double fares of other airlines with modern fleets and owe so many customers money for cancelled flights. The same applies to the Thai Tourism as a whole.

i’m not so sure of that.

Their A350s are just on average around 5yrs their 777s are just over 10yrs and their B787s are just a bit over 5yrs

While it’s true they do still have some older fleet types - as example their 744s - still on their books, speaking for the current/active fleet, it appears to be well on the younger side on an average basis.

It’s always been my opinion that right now, with interest rates at relatively speaking low levels, this might be an opportune time to transition from older fleet to younger fleet types.

It’s hugely beneficial on the PAXEX side of course, but not only that, but in short and medium term maintenance costs tend to be lower, it also helps up your operational relatability as well and of course your fuel burn issues as well.

If i were BOD for Thai, i’d be a buyer/lessor right now, while interest rates are historically speaking low and fuel hasn’t rocketed up like we saw in 2007/8…. I wouldn’t want to be caught out on a price spike and/or have to rely on purchasing hedges.

7 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Fake PCR tests before departure, I suspected that could be just one of the reasons. I was speaking to a couple of Russian tourists, young couple in a cafe last week, they said many who come over from Russia just have fake vaccination certificates.

I am somewhat surprised that the RTG hasn’t moved to situation where all RT-PCRs that will be used for travel to TH *must* be from one of a specifically listed lab/hospital that the RTG approves.

At least this way, there’s a limit number of test results that would be classified as acceptable - and it might be possible that the lab/hospital uploads the test results directly - thus bypassing “touching” the passenger.  

while I don’t think you’ll ever root out 100% of fakes, I think by limiting the issuing entities, this will help and it should also make it easier at check-in, to determine what’s legit and what’s not.

5 hours ago, MSMU1993 said:

No enforcement = meaningless

 

absolutely agree.

”laws” regulations etc without enforced penalties really are only suggestions 

To me, i think the government has several tools at their disposal.

Remembering that driving isn’t a right afforded citizens under law.. it’s  privilege- that the government has near unilateral right/ability to change or revoke as they largely see fit.

the problem i have with the use of fines exclusively as the entire tool is that they are really only effective with a subset of the population who can’t really afford them … for others who are perhaps much high earners, there’s no real  “deterrent” effect in a B500 or B5000 fine …. so… i’m a fan of seizures or criminal forfeiture… you (as the state) seize the property used by the violator in the commission of their crime (after a guilty verdict or a admission of guilty - not before) … you take their big bike bike… you take their Benz … and then auction it off with proceeds either split into a victim’s compensation fund or back into enforcement actions.

To me, it’s like hitting them (the violator) where it really hurts… 

in my mind, there’s no real deterrent effect of fining, even the maximum, an uber rich person…. but… if you start take away, on a permanent basis, their freedom (ie incarceration) or you take away permanently their high end cars and bike… things that they DO feel, now THATS putative … so i think IF they’re serious about enforcement, then they need to rethink how that will be done and what form the enforcement will take. 

I don’t like the idea of a  license suspension as there’s little here in the way of checking for driving with a suspended license much less a real penalty for it. 

I think you’ve got to use penalties that will have impact AND can realistically be imposed given the realities here. 

1 hour ago, vandeventer said:

So what's better having medical insurance that eats away more than half of your pension when your are over 70 if you can get it.. Or having the insurance than when you need help they say sorry F- off. Now that's a real hard one!!!

I would expect insurance to cover exactly and only what is listed in the policy documents… that’s what i’d prefer.  The reality is that insurance really is a legal instrument and as such is written like that … and since the “common” person isn’t so well versed in it, that’s perhaps where the so-called “gotchas” come from 

I think that the best way is to have some kind of agreed upon standard so that policies can be both written for clear common-man understanding AND also be legal/court ready should the need arise. 

As far as the costs for those over 70 relative to their incomes… that’s a hard one as i think there’s some actuarial data that will show a relationship between age and claims paid.. as such, Id expect policies for those at advanced age to have higher costs … now, how much that is, is of course going to be based on a number of issues… but unless you fundamentally chance how the whole process of insurance operates - from underwriting, to rates to claims, I don’t know that you’ll even be able to escape the paradigm of higher and higher costs for those at advanced age and at the same time , whose incomes tend to be either limited or fixed… I think there’s some hard truths in how it is currently set up and how it operates… and I think the only real way out is a total rethink of how the process works, priced, sold and regulated. 

To me, I think one of the results … I’ll call it a “benefit” .. of this whole Covid, vaccinations etc issue is that going forward there will be more … conversations, discussions about what is legal, ethical and realistic in terms of where does public health policy, social order, business regulations and the larger governmental regulations all intersect. 

that to me, is a good thing .. so that the next time something happens like this (and it’s my opinion only that it’s a “when” and not “if”) there will be perhaps better clarity as to what will happen, what is the legal limits of various parties and what worked well and didn’t work so well in the past. 

9 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Big money available will open many doors that are closed to normal people.

i’d assume he has or at some on the not too far past, had access to a 3rd country passport …. there’s a number of countries whose citizenship and by extension, a passport, can be obtained rather easily through investments and other similar monetary-based programs 

On 1/28/2022 at 5:13 PM, 2long said:

Thai prosecutors are NOT concerned... this is just a sham article in an attempt to show that some people in the 'system' care and want justice.

i have to agree.. if they REALLY wanted him, they either have him or there’d be more “action” visible to support a claim that they’re actively looking but without success 

these days - with all the various ways data gets compromised - it’s hard to really and truly hard to hide anything a governmental unit does 

Maybe they really are looking - hard to say, but as a betting man i’d say that’s a lower odds scenario.