inutil

Common sense perhaps? If there was a special category for being apprehended within 90 days youd think there might be a statement on what would happen were you to have been apprehended within 90 days. Fortunately the phrase "less than 1 year" also covers the period within 90 days time frame, the fact it doesnt have an extra statement of penalty should therefore make this rather self-explanatory.

Its basically this: you can overstay up to 90 days, but if you do so without permission from the state (ie. extenuating circumstances) , youre breaking the law. If you self-report then there may be a degree of leniency. If you dont self report but are found out from a random spot check, then the state has no way of knowing if your claim 'honestly m'laud, it was only a few more days!" is true or if you were intending to live under the radar for the next 10 years and working illegally.The message is pretty clear. Dont overstay.

If you HAVE to overstay, report it at immigration before people actually come to that address you gave on arrival and try to get in contact with you. The punishment should be harsh. Its right that it is. This way it functions as a deterrent and lowers the cost to the regular tax payer for enforcing this. You are of course breaking the law, and as such the penalty should fit the crime. Logic will dictate that there will be a spot of understanding for incredibly short or accidental overstays (a booked flight will go some way to showing any random spot check from the police that you didnt intend to break the law or werent attempting to stay illegally within Thailand), so its incredibly unlikely that in those circumstances you will receive anything more than a talking to by immigration and a fine. But the less proof you have or documentation to show WHY youve stayed over the length of your visa, the more likely you will fall into the group of people facing a 5 year ban.

Honestly, clarification seems absolutely unnecessary. Its all there. The only reason one might ask for it i suppose is the laissez faire approach from the past has made you look for a loophole. But right now its a new system, and people are looking serious. The most sensible thing to do is follow the letter of the law until such a time as it becomes clear its stopped being effectively enforced nationwide. And only if youre willing to really roll the dice on it. The best thing is just to get legal, or go back home, file out the necessary requirements for legality (an M.Ed for example) and then head back when youre ready. if Thailand means that much to you because of your family, then you have to make sure youre not looking over your shoulder every day for the sake of those people you care about depriving them of their mother/father/breadwinner. Or you find ways of bringing them back to where you come from. Whatever it is, you should be doing it through legal channels. Im not sermonising, i just think if it matters to you, you need to do the right thing anyway.

You sound like a real language teacher - a rare breed in Thailand.

Incredibly kind words im afraid i dont live up to. im very much an academic at heart

Again, we both know the Japanese style as well. It works very effectively... For its purpose. It doesnt create fluent speakers, in fact functional fluency, or even survival English is barely existent outside of the classroom environment, but these kids will MURDER any English test you put in front of them. In fact, id dare say they'd destroy almost everyone both here and back home through sheer depth of understanding. It is a legitimate measure of success unfortunately. And i do mean unfortunately from the bottom of my heart. A student taught this method 50 years ago would become a teacher, and be a MASTER of grammar (but couldnt hold a simple conversation in English). They might even go into publishing and regurgitate those same models to deliver those same results in the single most efficient way possible. And the merry go round would continue. Spoken English would be taught by teachers who couldnt speak or pronounce English...

INTERJECTION!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu7IkMVKA5g

For this reason i believe they instituted the JET programme and brought native speakers into the classroom. And now you have the situation where students taught by more immersive, playful, motivational methods are creating the new generation of teachers absolutely DYING to bring out those techniques into the classroom... but hampered by a University entrance exam thats still stuck in the methods from all those years ago. And like it or not, the university entrance exam is the driving force of any genuine changes in method.

Anyway, for me, this isnt about hard battle lines. Its about a complicated environment with an infinity of unintended consequences and what if's . Teaching, as we both know, is an art at the end of the day. Its not a method. There are never easy answers. A rigid adherence to a structure creates consistency, leads to efficiency in delivery and provides clear objectives, goals and boundaries. These are all great things. It costs students though on an individual basis. It can lead to a collapse in motivation and disruption whether through boredom, disinterest, or ability. Students lagging behind can spill into other students nearby and create entire pockets of apathy and disorder if unchecked. But that of course requires time and patience. And since these types of systems are also time hogs themselves, you might need a bit of efficiency in your delivery at times and may have to adopt L1. Which of course undermines the goal and object of immersion learning (now the kids look at you as a translator and instead of listening, wait for someone to tell them the answer in their native tongue). Anyone who thinks its simple or that theres a method that solves all of these issues, really doesnt understand the challenges of a mixed level classroom.

Its like all of you forgot those magical rules we all learned on our tefl courses

Grammar Translation: L1

Oral Linguistic: L2 entirely (extreme context dependency)

Communicative: L2 mainly. L1 when necessary (time, speed, clarification, understanding - its pragmatic innit).

Suggestopedia: Have fun!

On top of this we learned the immersive approach... it was lovely:

Bunch o' flash cards. Drill drill.

Crack out your two little dummies to model the grammar pattern.

have class repeat. Then do individuals and teacher, then swapparoo, then student student and finally mix em.

Then an activity to get them using it.

Wheee!

Hated it to be honest. I can see it working in an environment where there arent all that many kids, and theyre reasonably motivated. But its dry, repetitive, dull, and lacks any kind of creative input from the students. Its just drilling by another name. Which is FINE of course, drilling and repetition is the cornerstone of retention, but lets not pretend its some kind of magic bullet. The language CAN be taught by immersion. It can also be taught in every other way as well. You could do exactly what you just did in 1/4 of the time with Grammar translation for example. You dont have to waste time trying to engage individual students for the sake of putting them on the spot a bit and making sure they get their turn. And this means you can offer them another 4 patterns in the time. Sure, they might end up shy or less inclined to use the language outside of a written test, but theyll kill on the test! Horses for courses.

And again none of this even delves into your students actual interests and abilities. In a mixed level class you have other barriers. Do you spend twenty minutes with that one kid who wont pick it up banging out the words over and over while the rest of the class sort of gets on with it? Or do you just think, "screw him, its a waste of time"? Then theres learning types. Is it all just going to be immersive communicative english every class? What about those students who HATE that style and would rather just squirrel in with a book, not talk to people and learn by writing the word down 100 times? Or what about learn the structure of the language first so they understand the rule and how to apply it instead of wasting time trying to 'figure it out' from context? What about those kids who just want a simple answer to a simple question so they can move on efficiently? Im not an auditory learner. Nor am i Kinesthetic. I learn by writing words and sentences down until it sticks. Its a pain, i hate it, but there you go. How you going to motivate me through an immersive model? I want the rule, i want examples, i want the language, but above all i want to write it. The last thing i want is some fake artificial activity where we all ask each other where the bus stop is so i garner some kind of associated memory to help in my retention. I retain nothing. I used to dread the 'right everyone, stand up,' moment in language class. It was a waste of time and just drew attention to my discomfort in using the language.

So be it of course. Speaking is an important part of language learning. But theres the rub, for many people it seems that functional fluency is the target here. Immersion teaching of course helps in that. But its not the ONLY measure of success in language acquisition. And i worry that perhaps people forget there are other benchmarks out there in the drive for immersive approaches. Theres also tests, qualifications and grading. And like it or not, throughout Asia, those tests are almost exclusively based upon writing and translation.

Theres nothing wrong with immersive teaching of course. Theres no reason at all that immersion and grammar translation couldnt work in partial tandem (with formal niceties, and simpler instructions (already learned and drilled), carried out in L2), but this idea that there is only one way does many students a disservice. They dont all benefit from one style. They dont all excel using one approach. You have to mix it up. Which of course is the central target of the communicative model and why you will sometimes want to use L1. If that sacrifices the whole core of the immersive experience, then okay. But again, all of these come with unintended consequences when you put at the front of your ideas the learning styles, methods and motivations of a group of mixed level, mixed ability and mixed motivation students. You cant have both. You can either prioritise the method and its coherence and accept that some students are just going to be alienated by it and not achieve anywhere near their potential, or you can try and adapt as many styles as possible, stay versatile and pragmatic and accept that many students wont learn to their potential. Such is the problem of any mixed group. And we cant, as teachers, pretend this isnt a part of the puzzle here.

a little qualifier though is missing from that...

'currently'.

Its 'unlikely' to change, but stranger things have happened at sea

US accreditation of course goes further with prospective employers so more interested with that. Thai one is no problems, but kidna dont really wanna work in Thailand. Wanna work in Japan, Korea etc and for them, youre not really looking to tick immigration boxes, but actually show youre a cut above the riff raff Just did the maths. Puts it around 3000 quid. I guess its the cost of living where the savings really pick up. For a frugal life, you could do it on around 7-8000UK? If it also revolved around the counter-intuitive pick up of course demands during public school holidays rather than during the normal school year, then work could also help eat some of those costs. rightyo, definitely on board for more info in the future. Engage! Make it so! You have the bridge Mr Tefl. etc etc.

Can i ask about this future M.ed? Is it coming? You got plans on it? When we talking here and how much? If you wouldnt mind getting on the case and offering such a thing (at nice thai price instead of uk price), id be peachy keen on taking a year out for a full time course on it in a couple of years. Having got my korean driving license (completely transferable in the UK), on the cheap, im genuinely keen to add degree tourism to my thrifty scottish ways.

I should also add that the process once you even get to the step where you have your documentation is also a hodgepodge of red tape and garbage. fortunately never having done it myself i missed that dubious pleasure. But apparently the next step in legality is a minefield in itself often requiring the poor dumb teacher to take all the necessary documents to an agent/lawyer to make sure every i is dotted and every t is crossed before making the long bus trip out of the country to see if it all works (in quadruple i believe). Its as if the entire process is made obscure and weird as possible so that you need to pay an agent to do it for you.

In japan the company i worked for did all the initial leg work, my job was to take those docs to Shinagawa, give them my passport, wait a week, come back and the visa was in the passport. Korea was even more straight forward. Recruiter sent you out the docs. You filled them in. Attached copies of your CRC, degree and SELF-health check. Recruiter went to immi, got the permission to invite you out, you took that plus a few other docs to the korean embassy and a week later, visa. China, same same. Though chinese immigration are arguably the worst most petty bureaucrats of the three so it took far longer to get that initial invite and then get immi to finally grant me the Z visa.

Simplify the process and enforce it properly. How is that not the most logical solution?

If you don't want to be constantly be looking over you shoulder, get legal.

If you don't want to pay (ahem) fines, get legal.

If you don't want to get locked up in a Thai jail, get legal.

It's not difficult.

Alas it is. I had everything in place. I chased everyone up to get it sorted. I still spent over four months trying to get other people to pull their finger out of their kiester and get it done. I came to Thailand with a brand new passport. I left thailand with around 6 free pages left thanks to the constant 15 day border runs and massive cambodian visas. It was infuriating. In fact, its part of the reason i ended up leaving. Only part mind you. The point is though that until Thailand gets its shit in gear and genuinely takes this stuff seriously, its no wonder that people will keep on telling people that you dont really need a visa (and you dont), and that a bit of hush money will end up making the problem go away (and it will).

I would NEVER suggest to someone that they can teach in either Korean or Japanese public schools without the appropriate visa. In fact the guy i replaced in Nagano didnt have the required documents and it was a MASSIVE black mark on the board of education for failing to check it appropriately. It cant be done. It wouldnt be done. If it is done, someone genuinely messed up and it will be a bit of a scandal.

I go on evidence and not on ideals, and the fact is, in Thailand it IS a completely different ball game. I wish it wasnt. My almost full passport (which i will have to renew far sooner than id hoped) wishes it wasnt. In fact, those stupid constant border hops and the resulting cambodian visa's filling up my passport led to some awkward questions from Chinese Immigration when I went in for my 'talk' with them about illegal working. Its infuriating and it benefits me not a jot!

I have every document that would grant me legality, i had them good to go from signing the contract in April (i even had them on that day) right through to August when i finally left. But for some reason people would rather i just taught illegally and waste my time every two weeks riding to Cham Yeam to pick up another 15 day waiver. Eugh! Or rather:

GRRRWWWWAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

Maddening!

ahhh you guys...

Im going to assume the same thing that happens when a teacher gets a surprise observation class. They get two months notice to prepare the class and make the principal look good.

Elementary kids in japan also have naps (p1 and i believe 2). In china they do it too. Im assuming they also do it in Korea, but i didnt teach elementary there. I wouldnt suggest its a thai thing. Its maybe an East asian thing. Perhaps its just that lunch is kinda heavy sometimes with a rice diet and theres an invariable crash. So schools allow a set time for napping. In fact now i think about it, theres a class at 12.30 (unscheduled) at my school (lunch starts at 11.55, the next official class is 1.30) where teh curtains are drawn, the lights are off and even my middle school kids nap on their desk.

The reason they often give for poor results are as follows:

1. Top down grammar translation method. Students learn from genuine MASTERS in English grammar who cant speak a lick of English. English is in many ways Latin However, since the advent of ALTs in the classroom, this has changed considerably. Still, until the university entrance examinations have an English speaking component, teachers at high school will continue teaching to the test, and that test is very much about reading, writing and listening with an incredibly heavy emphasis on rules and structures of grammar. For even native speakers, theyre somewhat technical.

2. Japanese people like tests. They like official papers that directly show attainment. Take anything from swimming to skiing to English and Math and you'll find there is an institution handing out a structured set of awards for the various steps Japanese people will be making on that ladder. They LOVE tests because they show exactly where they are on the path to mastery. Never let it be mentioned that perhaps mastery could contain more utilitarian means. So long as you lock your knees in right as the instructor showed you, and get down your mogulbahn in good time without a fall, youre a level 2 skier! (whatever the hell that means?)

3. And the most important of all. English is a hobby. It crosses all sections of Japanese society. They arent studying it for a genuine purpose (unlike maybe cram school kids trying to get into their university or to increase their employment prospects). So they go to private language classes, gossip with their friends, enjoy some time chatting with a foreigner and have a few anecdotes to maybe perhaps brag a little about at the next PTA meeting or the like. Its primarily a status thing in Japan. Everyone has their individual reasons for learning english of course, but this was the number one reason when it was explained to me why japan does so poorly on Tesol tables: For Japanese people, everyone takes the test because they like tests and they like to show application and skill. And the skill is in the award over the actual functional usage of the language. Thus you have people who take the test for no other reason than enjoyment, thus lowering the average score a LOT compared to other countries where its often taken for purely utilitarian means by people who genuinely require great grades for some reason or another. Its just a hobby for many people to do on a wet thursday every week.

Its an interesting perspective.

4. You can also add in that Japanese people are rather shy and dislike making mistakes for the absurd cultural reason that their mistake is a burden to you. There really is something lovely about Japanese people if im honest. Im almost nostalgic again to live there. You arent even talking about mangling the language. Youre talking about tiny TECHNICAL (potential) 'mistakes' (they havent even made yet) where they might possibly use the 'wrong' intonation or stress. sumimasen! sumimasen! It leads to a sort of paralysis in getting the words out. If they cant say it exactly right despite genuinely having both the knowledge, understanding and language, theyll immediately revert to Japanese and tell you how english is difficult and... and... um... ano... eeeto... gommenasaii!!!

5. And this one that baffles all English teachers in Japanese Public school: Good morning! How are you? (says the teacher at the start of every english lesson 4 times a week for about 8 years of their educated lives). "Im fine thank you, and you?" comes the chorus. Every lesson, four times a week without fail.

Ask any one of those students hows things? hows it going? you okay? or even just how are you? outside of the structure of a classroom and theyll immediately ask their mate, 'whats the teacher saying?' Its mind blowing. Its a classroom subject for many of them with no real application outside of the context of a lesson. Its like math in a lot of ways.

ETA: i seem to have interrupted a bit of storm

On some other various random points:

1. Degree versus non degree.

I like the point that a degree genuinely shows a desire to learn and improve. I dont fully agree with it since its person by person and for many people of a certain age, degrees might have simply been beyond their academic skills at age 14 when they got lumped into CSEs instead of O levels (for example). Howver there possibly is enough correlation to suggest that if you dont have a degree, you possibly do have a wider range of 'higher' interests if only due to the people you met in halls turning you on to those interests. Sorry fi that comes across as conceited. Its derived a great deal from personal experience and finding out i liked a whole load of stuff id never really been exposed to prior. Of course, none of this helps you as a teacher, but it does help you when looking for aspirational examples. Thats a nice thing i guess. Then again, if you have less of an ivory tower perspective, you might be more inclined to bring in relevant interests that perhaps your students would find a little more relateable and engaging than your understanding of language games and family resemblances. The only real question is whether someone with a degree is MORE likely to even search for those references, and honestly, the Jury is out on that one.

Lesson planning is a techne, it can be learned and taught. Organisational and time management skills come just as easily from deadlines in the real world as they do from turning in papers. And responsibility, creativity and diligence aren't qualities that the ivory tower has a particular stranglehold on. A monkey with a typewriter could get a 2:2 at uni so long as they read any introduction guide to their topic and have the energy to vomit it out into microsoft word.

2, Cna you get a job without a degree in Thailand?

I havent been there since the coup. I dont know how life has changed. But in my abortive four moths of playing with the thai system i can tell you categorically that even with a degree and every document theyd need to process my waiver (philosophy, not education) as well as a very strong desire to get this all sorted, i was continually road blocked by Mai Pen Rai. No one seemed in any hurry to sort it out despite my twice monthly border hops and emails begging them to get on the case. 'The schools hadnt started yet', 'the principal wasnt there', 'we cant send someone to the school to get it done', 'we just need another signature', and on and on. I ended up working there illegally very much against my will

In another anecdote, i was offered not one, but three different jobs directly from schools during the whole bidding process agencies go through in the holidays purely on the basis of my face. They knew nothing about me, nothing about my skills as a teacher, nothing about my visa status nor my potential for at least legality. They needed a teacher, i fit the profile. So yes, you can get a job. And yes, the oily wheels will go to work for you. But as every fule kno... if you work under the counter, you better have savings in place for a quick escape when your employer decides to shaft you at the end of the contract. Most times youll be fine, but not everyone is a nice friendly person. Plenty of mercenary scoundrels out there ready to take advantage of any opportunity to shaft you when theyve got what they want from you. Keep that always in mind.

3. On the subject of NES versus Non-native-English-Speaker.

Again, both have unintended consequences and are of course qualified massively by the person. But this idea that a native english speaker is better seems arbitrary. I will give one example of one girl on my TEFL course who astonished me (she simply confirmed a belief id long held by the way, she didnt make me change my mind). This girl would kick every single person on this message boards ass about any question pertaining to grammar. She knows EVERYTHING about English grammar. And part of the reason she knows this, is that she comes from Russia, and her teacher was a hard nosed disciplinarian who would tolerate no mistakes. I watched her teach her lessons and they were excellent. She got a deserved A for her efforts. I got a B (despite my years of teaching - i blame the 70 plus students scuppering my love of group work and my continual attempt to try and show its effectiveness - also, i kinda suck at grammar).

She had calm, poise, and genuine authority over her subject. She has a bit of an accent, but she's clear and eloquent. Above all, she completely understands the pitch, rhythm and language one must use when teaching a class entirely in a second language. She used only the words she needed, she never brought in unnecessary language (we all do it when we fumble for explanations), and kept an iron like discipline over her material. She was a little dry in places, but can i remind you that unlike me, these were her first ever classes as a teacher. She will be an INCREDIBLE English teacher. Many of us coming from Western student teaching methods have learned some bad habits. We negotiate too much at times, we look for consensus a little more often, and we believe that student centric often means letting the students take control of their own learning (which leads to a little bit of a collapse in authority and boundaries). We bring baggage that can and does affect the impact we have on our students' education. On the flip, we understand intuitively the nuance, feel and rhythm of the language, but not all of us have strategies and experience AS a second language learner we can bring to our students. How do you revise vocabulary effectively? What steps do you need to make when writing a story or class paper? For many of us, its second nature, and this leads to many (accidental) assumptions about our students' skills, abilities and references. Add in that many of us, high school educated from around 1989 and onwards, tend to be a bit more touchy-feely and 'what do you think?' empowering student centric teachers, and you have a few reasons why maybe this isnt quite as clear cut as some might think.

In Japan the reason they dont bring in a non-native speaker is because they have plenty of Japanese non-native speakers who can teach and who came through exactly that type of top down grammar translation system. They dont want or need any more. Teachers are trained to a high standard with continual professional development. furthermore, they can speak the native language on top of this. The question might reasonably argued if Thailand has the same kind of quality from its own teacher training? So there is a market and justification for bringing those genuinely high level and competent fluent English as a second language speakers into Thai classrooms.

I should say, im not stepping on toes or calling anyone out, just suggesting that there are complexities and qualifiers that need to also be considered on these issues.

No matter what, youre going to suck at it for a good year at least. This has nothing to do with your qualifications. But i would take off the rosy tinted spectacles that youre going to be awesome because you have a calling. Teaching is hard work, it takes time to create a portfolio of successful activities, and you need to find what works for you. Good practice is fine, but to be honest, my TEFL, nice as it was, taught a foundational teaching approach that would have about 95% of my real world classes rolling their eyes. Its good in a pinch if you know nothing else, but to be genuinely accomplished at this you need a little bit more than a positive attitude: You also need (including but not restricted to) charm, compassion, charisma, understanding, intelligence, diligence, patience, knowledge, competence, professionalism and technique. Modern teaching is in many ways closer to the demands of child development than it is imparting information. You have to genuinely LOVE talking to your students and be willing to nurture and embrace (or maybe just guide) their whacky ideas. You also need to find the age group that suits you. It often amazes me that people think you can transfer the skills of P1-6 to M4-6 and vice versa. Or that ANYONE can teach kindy. "its just singing and dancing for thirty minutes!"

You also need to find what group size you prefer. Some people prefer smaller classes or 1 on 1s, some prefer the chaos, bedlam, noise, and a little bit of mischief (me) from 30 or so kids in a public school. Teaching isnt that straightforward. You have the first thing you need, but of course its only the first thing. Im no way in hell going to tell you you cant do it. Of course you can, but dont be too disappointed if you dont find yourself in your element right away. Lower those lofty expectations that youre going to go in with a brilliantly organised lesson plan with attentive keen students ready to do that activity that you think takes twenty minutes but in actual fact takes three (Or that Q and A section you had organised for five minutes from your "amazing" powerpoint you worked all night on, actually involves no interest and no hands up to ask all about your life). Theres no worse feeling than realising that the activity you just spent a day prepping materials for, isnt working. A good teacher at that point does something else and then in the break time tries to figure out how to improve it. And those improvements come from years of trial and error and experience in the classroom working other activities.

Oh and none of this even touches on appropriate language, speed, and delivery. You will be fooled every day that your students are following you. They wont be. Youll be talking too fast and using too much unnecessary language. Like a fool, when you ask them if they 'get it?' or 'understand?' youll think that they actually mean yes when they say yes (or worse that they mean yes when they dont explicitly say no). But you are wrong. The yes, as every good teacher eventually learns means 'stop talking please, get on with it, its nearly lunch time'.

So many things that you have to genuinely experience to understand.

And none of it deals with classroom management or discipline. Easily the worst thing that every new teacher plonked in front of a class of kids who dont hate you, but dont know you and want to see what youre about, (and more than happy to find out through careful scientific testing of your blind/rage spots - kids are healthily curious). Wanna be their friend? Wanna be their prison guard? Wanna be their mum and dad? Wanna just be their teacher? Ha! it all comes with consequences. Its an art this thing as much as it is a profession. Have at it though, its honestly wonderful and the best job youll do.

I really cant abide this ya-boo bullshit on these forums.

Did you know, supporting and promoting democratic processes isnt the same thing as supporting violence. Pointing out that fostering resentment from political detentions in the provinces isnt the same thing as endorsing armed resistance? As violence begats violence, so to will terror give birth to terror. But Its always a case of flashpoints or tipping points. And right now theres nothing remotely close to a tipping point which means that in the general red supporting community at large (the mainstream PTP support), actions promoting violence or uprising are marginalised and entirely unrepresentative of their interests as a community. So impossibly weird that youd ask farang on a message board to somehow justify it as if they somehow supported it.

Red supporters will be quiet right now in the country at large because they also want reform believe it or not (amazing to think that poor people actually like social mobility, isnt it!), and they realise that this has been generally and on the whole peaceful and non-targeted at them as individuals (and they possibly understand that rooting out hard line UDD fanatics will obviously draw the ire of the military (and may themselves wish to see it because on the whole most people dont like shit being dragged into their doorstep). Theyll also be looking forward to the Generals OBVIOUS plan for social regeneration in poorer areas. This will come, its no doubt on the cards. If you want to bring Thailand into the twenty first century you cant have half the population living in dire poverty. Finally, they also realise that assuming a fair crack of the whip, they will be back in a year or two through a general election. Lots of reasons then why no one needs to come in and defend violence and violent groups. But still, lots of room to raise concerns about extra-legal detentions without trial.

Actually the sense of timing is excellent. Possibly things WERE in the planning, but now theyve moved up the agenda. Whether by deliberate manipulation or otherwise, surely the issue of human traffic being a priority issue is always a good thing? And now you have in place the EXACT type of givernment that can deal with the issue quickly, efficiently, and effectively. For the people enslaved on these boats, the timing couldnt be better. And honestly, im not moralising here, but shouldnt that be the central and most important concern here?

In addition, i kinda resent this whole idea that people seem to think that a military junta faces the same issues as a civilian democratically elected parliament. The beauty of democracy is that consensus is ESSENTIAL. Things have to be negotiated and worked through. Sometimes this is with cross party support, but usually its with your own party members accountable to their own electorate. This is what make representative democracy the beast that it is. You cant just ram things through, and if you do, youll be accountable to members of the opposition as well as members of your own party should they feel that what youve just done has destroyed their chance of individual re-election. Accountability is paramount. Dont believe me? Why was Thatcher, the great hero of the right buried by her own party following the introduction of the poll tax?

Should the amnesty bill have gone through, and should the democrats have behaved like a genuine party of governance (and not fly by night opportunists), then scandals and failures like the rice pledging scheme would have seriously dented PTPs re-election sheen. Possibly they would have scraped through in the next election, but it wouldnt have been with the absolute majority they won in 2011. It would have been an ACTUAL miniority government at best. And a bit of horse trading could have seen the democrats once again pull down the government with a no confidence motion and a chance for the electorate to judge them as the custodians of financially responsible government as they always suggest themselves to be. A further consequence would have been the inroads the party would have made into 'red' areas, which would have laid claims to them being a national party representative of all Thai people and not just perceived vested interes. But again, they blew it and went for the band aid fix resulting in the same mistrust they always face in these regions. And right;y so.

This isnt even to mention the constitutional checks of the courts that would have absolutely prevented such a law from passing anyway.

Autocratic regimes on the other hand do not have these issues to contend with. If they want to spend money, they spend money. If they want cooperation from the banks or civilian businesses, they invoke edicts from martial law to threaten them with seizure. Clearly a certain company were not happy about the deal they got about broadcasting rights, particularly since they had just won a court case on the matter, but they were obviously encouraged to take it. Thats the difference. Could a civilian government have done that? Of course not? Could a civilian government have enforced a media <redacted>,,, opponents and <redacted> 're-education'... ? No. Absolutely not. The idea that youre working with the same political machinery here is balderdash. Could a civilian government have passed a budget or broken contracts with suppliers without any repercussions? No. Simply no. Theyd have been taken to court and would have either had to have passed retroactive legislation to cover their ass, or they would have outright lost.

This whole "theyve done more in a month than..." is nonsense. Of course they have. Thats what happens when you no longer have to deal with political accountability. This isnt to suggest its been a bad thing of course, its apparent to all sides that Thailand has been struggling with endemic and deep seated corruption, and possibly it required a certain push (a la lenin), but its silly to argue that its the same machinery at work here. Its not. Its an entirely different political structure with entirely different means to deliver solutions.

This is grossly irresponsible! Messages like this will only result in confusion for pedestrians and lead to thousands of prevenatable deaths on the zebra crossings of Thailand!

As a child of the 80s, i can tell you that parenting in the 80s was a DODDLE compared to the expectations parents have to live by now. Parenting for me and all my mates consisted of our mum feeding us crap dinner then being sent out to play or sat in front of the telly. Dad would come in, shout about the mess, eat his tea, then head off to the pub.

Classic 80s parenting in the UK. You guys wouldnt survive in the modern environment where every action is scrutinised and every <redacted> on a message-board holds you up to a gold standard that they fell woefully short of in their time as a parent. Wake up pensioners of thaivisa, you were rubbish at this.

My point is that these things arent indicative of wealth. In poor areas in particular, theyre often indicative of debt.

Never heard of conspicuous consumption? Never thought that people might be driven by the projection of status much like everywhere else on the planet with access to a consumer society and an advertising/marketing network?

Total opposite is true. The reality in the west is that if you dont do your share, there is a network of support to help you. With childcare, education, free school meals, breakfast clubs, child benefits, tax breaks, welfare benefits when the work dried up, top up credits, family tax credits, rent support, social work/care workers, counselling, free healthcare, sex education, free contraception, access to foster care, abortions, medicine and oh my god everything else.

ugh. There was an excellent post in this thread about culture. Got lots of likes, well deserved. But try and keep some perspective (not the poster who wrote it). This is just one part of the issue. This whole castigation of Thai women as being utterly irresponsible and sleeping around is ridiculously over the top. You can argue against 'TiT' as an excuse to keep things as they are. But you cant just pretend like there arent specific cultural and social factors that require long term attitudinal and dare i say, cultural changes. The Unicef report will illustrate the harmful effects for child development, and this is right, but what it wont do is suggest that everyone immediately return to their village, pick up their kids and head to bangkok so they can all live in the wonderfully nurturing environment of a tiny overcrowded dorm room (with 6 employees sleeping there before heading to their 12 hour shift for 10,000 baht/month) There are huge social issues that have to also be factored in, including, but in no way restricted to massive rural poverty. There are also strong cultural issues pertaining to childcare, childhood, pregnancy, contraception, education, and family on top of this. These things dont just have a special 'off' switch.

Its fine to say that Thai children are being failed and that something should be done, but its not fine to suggest that every parent of Thai children who leave their children at home while they go to find work to support them are irresponsible bar girls or little prince thai men who treat their children like commodities. Thats pure racist bullshit.