geodesic

I just did a non-B in Cambodia.

No background check is required by the Thai Embassy in Phnom Penh unless this is a rule they just added in the last 3 weeks. I would find a new agent or head down the embassy and submit the paperwork yourself.

As was previously said, a background check from the US is done by the FBI. You can get fingerprint cards at the US Embassy. You then need to take these to a Cambodian police station where they will fingerprint you and transfer the prints onto the card. Then you will need to mail the finger print cards off to the FBI in Washington. You will need to give an address on the form where they can mail the results back. When I did this process it took 9 weeks for me to receive my official certificate from the FBI, and that was after I sent the cards EMS to try and speed up the process.

If they are seriously asking for this something is very wrong. Go to the Thai embassy and apply yourself. If they still ask for this, catch a flight to Laos.

Christmas is nothing more than the Christian extension of the pagan ritual of Saturnalia. Has absolutely nothing to do with the birth of a mythical individual who likely never even existed as a real person. Still, the Catholic church managed to get alot of mileage out of it, and coming as it does around the winter solstice ensures that there were few people in the northern hemisphere doing any kind of farming at that time. Might as well join the party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia

About $300 and 3 days. You can get it as low as $125 if you are willing to wait about 4 weeks.

In a word, no.

You can get an emergency travel document that allows you to travel back to Cambodia where you can apply for a passport.

If you were born outside Cambodia to a Cambodian parent you can travel to Cambodia on your foreign passport and obtain a K visa for free upon entering Cambodia. Once there you can apply for the Cambodian passport if you want it.

There is no provision to issue passports from Cambodian embassies, although you can extend existing passports in many circumstances.

I think this is actually a very clever move by the government. Nobody is going to pay any attention to protesting about some meaningless democratic ideology when they have a real issue that directly affects them. In one stroke of the pen the government has now crippled any anti coup protests. Students will now be rallying at the protests against the very tangible law that prevents them from rutting like weasles. The approximately 7 or so students who actually support the Shiniwatras and would like to continue to protest the coup have now been rendered completely irrelevant.

I actually have to hand it to Prayuth. He is smarter than people give him credit for. A non negligible percentage of students by their very nature are contrarian. Give them a harmless but very real battle to fight that hits close to home, and they'll spend their time doing that rather than dreaming up obscure philosophical ones that are too nuanced for them to really understand.

Whenever Social Security comes up out trot all the same old misconceptions every time.

1. SS is not a Ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is theft masquerading as investment. Early "investors" are sometimes repaid with the money collected from later "investors" as a tactic to keep the scheme running as long as possible, but all ponzi schemes collapse eventually because the "investors" can never be repaid since the organizer has stolen the money as he always intended to do.

SS is designed as an insurance program. When we buy insurance of any kind we are deciding to pay a company to accept a risk from us that we are not willing or able to bear ourselves. So, if we buy fire insurance on the house, it is because we could not afford to replace the house if it were to burn down. The insurance company agrees to replace the house for us if it burns down in exchange for a premium that we pay, which is much less than the cost of replacing the house. The insurance company can afford to accept this risk because most houses don't burn down, not because it is a ponzi scheme. Similarly, the SSA knows from very accurate actuarial tables how much it will have to pay out to its pool of beneficiaries, few of whom will live to be 100.

Notice that recovering the premium paid in the future is not the goal of the insurance customer. In this way buying insurance differs from making an investment, in which we always hope and expect to receive back more than our original investment.

By participating in SS, even if we actually had no choice in the matter, we are paying the Social Security Administration, organized by the federal govt, to accept our longevity risk, which is, the financial risk of our old age which could be long and ruinously expensive. The SS system drastically reduced old age poverty in America after it was introduced in 1935. If we did not have the SS insurance program each one of us would have to save a huge percentage of his income against the possibility of living to be 100 even though few of would actually live that long. This is the current situation of households in China who have no SS system. Estimates of the savings rate of Chinese households range from 25% to 48%.

2. Payroll taxes collected for SS have not been "stolen" or "spent" by the federal govt so that they won't be able to pay our benefits when they come due. As I discussed in the other thread, the SS Trust Fund was created by the Greenspan Commission in 1983 to reform SS to keep it solvent. The Commission created the Trust Fund by raising the payroll tax to collect funds in anticipation of the increased demand that would occur when the baby boomer generation retires. The purpose of the Trust Fund was to fund the baby boomers and be exhausted in the process. Prior to the Greenspan Commission reforms, the SS system was pay-as-you-go, i.e. the money collected this year was used to pay benefits in the same year.

Congress mandated that monies held in the Trust Fund be used to buy US Treasury obligations guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US. This was certainly the correct choice. Where else could the money be invested? In the stock market which had a loss of 57% in 2008? The US Treasury pays interest on the special Treasury bonds in the Trust Fund. Last year that interest amounted to $98 billion. Currently, the SSA uses some of the interest to pay current benefits while the rest is added to the Trust Fund. By 2022 it is expected that the SSA will use all of the interest each year and start to use the principal of the Trust Fund.

3. The SS system is not broke. According to current projections, without any reforms, the $2.7 trillion dollar Trust Fund will be exhausted by 2034. At that point the SSA will be able to continue to pay 77% of planned benefits using the payroll tax alone without the Trust Fund. The benefits planned for 2033 will be higher than those paid today even after accounting for inflation. This scenario might not happen at all however. If the growth rate of GDP is higher than expected (but still lower than during the entire postwar period) the resulting increase in payroll taxes would mean that the Trust Fund would never be depleted. We don't know what the growth rate of GDP will be in the future. So, the Trustees of the SS consider three scenarios each year each of which projects out 75 years into the future. By contrast the Defense Dept, and indeed all other govt departments, are only funded through the current fiscal year. Nevertheless, the world bond market and I all expect that the US Treasury will make full payment on all of its obligations including US Treasury bonds, bills, and notes, special bonds, military pensions, etc.

Both the payroll tax contributions to SS and SS benefit payments have been modified in the past and may well be modified in the future. The reduction in benefits that might occur in 2034 can be avoided by increasing the payroll tax now by about 2% or by removing the $117,000 cap on the payroll tax completely or by taxing income that is not currently subject to the payroll tax, such as dividends, interest, or capital gains.

For most US retirees the present value of the their SS annuity is by far the biggest asset they have. I pointed out in the earlier thread that the OP's SS benefits might be worth as much as one million dollars to him depending on several factors including whether he delays receiving benefits or not. For many SS recipients the decision whether to delay SS benefits is much more important financially than any investment decision they are likely to face. If you do not understand the issues involved you would be well advised to learn about it thoroughly.

Excellent Post!

I was hoping you would contribute CaptHaddock.

It seems you are very well informed on the topic.

Thank You,

The OP

I love these types of arguments.

"I am not broke. I loaned all my money to my wife, who spent it on shoes. Look, I have a note from my wife that promises to pay me back!"

"But your wife doesn't have a job. Isn't your wife's only way of paying you back from money that you earn?"

"Yes...what's your point? I have a note..."

Ignorning all the government accounting foolery that treats the SS fund as somehow different from the general fund, here is the real truth (borrowed and paraphrased):

It is a fact that the SS Trust 'loans' the trust fund to the US government.

It is also a fact that the interest payed back to the trust fund comes from the US government; i.e., income taxes.

The reality of the SS trust, without the 'spin', is that right now, the contributions and interest are greater than distributions. Just a few years ago, contributions alone were greater than distributions. In a year or so, contributions and interest will not be greater than distributions.

That is the story of an account with a bad future.

Social security is going broke. End of story. In a few years, contributions will need to be raised, benefits will need to be reduced, taxes will be increased, or a combination of all 3 will need to happen.

So no, social security is not broke...yet. But it will be before those of us in our 30's and 40's make it there. No getting around that. It is a hidden tax that should be scrapped now.

My opinion is that it is going to be very challenging to get a tourist visa for the mother under these circumstances. Unless she can show very strong ties to Thailand, (both economic and social) it looks questionable.

The fact that she is the mother of a US citizen will likely count against her, because that gives her an even stronger incentive to stay in the US and abuse the purpose of the tourist visa. (Think "anchor baby".)

You don't give much information about her situation, but I would prepare for the worst.

Hi everyone,

I was wondering if anyone can suggest an agent that can provide a quick turn Non-B visa for Thailand at a nearby embassy. Phnom Penh is preferred but anywhere close by could work. I understand that at least in Cambodia this normally takes 4 days, and I was hoping there was an accelerated service that can turn this around in a much shorter time.

Same day service would be ideal, and I am willing to pay for the privilege if it is possible.

As I am changing my nationality, this visa would be on a second passport and I will need to fly in for day trips only from Bangkok. I can't stay overnight. If there is a way to get delivery back to Bangkok so I don't need to come myself that would be even better and substantially cheaper.

Once I have the visa I will plan the cancellation of my work permit and current visa and change over to the new passport.

Any advice is appreciated. Communication with the agent via email is preferred.

Children adopted abroad by British citizen parents.

Applications for registration of children adopted either under the terms of the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoptions or adopted before 3 January 2014 in territories designated under the Adoption (Designation of Overseas Adoptions) Order 1973 or after 3 January 2014 in territories listed in the Adoption (Recognition of Overseas Adoptions) Order 2013 or the Adoption (Recognition of Overseas Adoptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 and the Adoption (Recognition of Overseas Adoptions) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2013 (see list on page 14) will be considered at the Home Secretary’s discretion if:

•at least one of the adoptive parents is a British citizen otherwise than by descent (see page 6); and

•if necessary, both adoptive parents have signified their consent to the registration; (and in surrogacy cases, a notarised statement of consent from the surrogate mother); and

•there is no reason to refuse on character grounds (see pages 21-24); andChildren adopted abroad by British citizen parents.

•there is no reason to refuse on character grounds (see pages 21-24); and

•we are satisfied that all relevant adoption laws have been adhered to. This includes

the laws of the country in which the adoption has taken place, the country of origin of the child and the country in which the adoptive parents are habitually resident;

We satisfy all of the criteria as the UK recognises Thai adoptions and THAILAND is listed in the Adoption (Recognition of Overseas Adoptions) Order 2013.

Hi jji23,

I think you need to seek legal advice immediately. In my understanding, a Thai domestic adoption does NOT meet the terms of the Hague Convention on international adoptions, and there is a chance your child does not fall under the terms you have listed above. The Hague Convention, of which both Thailand and the UK are signatories, lists rules that must be followed to be a recognized international adoption, and it is my understanding that the Thai domestic procedure does not follow these rules.

It may be that you can meet the regulations for the UK due to specific procedures followed, but I would not assume it is a guarantee, and you may have a long road ahead of you. I suggest you speak with a representative of your embassy immediately. If you adopted the child from Thailand through an international adoption procedure consistent with the Hague Convention, then yes, it would clearly be recognized. Your description of the procedure you followed does not seem to indicate that the procedure you used was consistent with an international adoption under the Hague Convention.

Please let all of us know how this turns out, as I'm sure whatever the outcome your story will be very useful for other members.

My understanding is that it works something like this:

The PSA basically says that private schools are exempt from the normal requirements of the Labour Act and are free to make their own employment agreements.

HOWEVER, and this is the big however, a legally binding labour contract in Thailand can not offer severance terms less than what is guaranteed in the Labour Act, and the PSA does not override this. Thus, the PSA is basically only useful to a private school for things like opting out of social security and other government programs. When it comes to severance, the employment contract rules, but the Labour Act still specifies the minimum acceptable standards for that contract. An employment contract can always offer better severance terms than the minimum.

Tell your friend to go immediately to Labour Court. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, and do not listen to the nay sayers.

He can be fired for any reason whatsoever, but he is entitled to severance as specified in the Labour Act based on years of employment. And as pointed out above, employers can not get around this by making fixed length contracts and letting them "expire". That has been tested several times by the Labour Court, and the employer always loses.

Why take Thaksin out of the history books? Let him stay, but give him a negative spin instead. Hitler was much worse than Thaksin, and he is in every history book in Europe, described in a way that students will know what a bad and terrible person he was. Removing facts from history, will make the students feel that the text books are unreliable and not trustworthy. History was written by the victors, so why not just do it?

Because the whole point here isn't to "win" it is to remove the divisive element of society and allow people the necessary room to remember why they are one country and one people. That is the primary objective of the current government. Allowing a school text book with propaganda either way would simply inflame the situation.

This is what newspaper editorial writers don't seem to realize. Prayuth has said it countless times, but certain journalists just don't seem to understand. What the government wants right now is not freedom, but peace. Only after wounds have had a chance to heal can the country once again afford freedom. Or "truth", as any particular group might see it.

Do you also have a problem with infertile heterosexual couples having children? Or are you just a homophobic bigot?

I agree that same sex couples should not be coming here to make children. Call me what you like.

Look at the recent case of the two gay males in Cairns who bought a baby boy in Russia, took him to Australia and made him their sex slave. And imagine how it must screw with the kids heads being bought up by two gays as their fathers.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

It is illegal for same sex couples to use the service of a surrogate in Thailand. For these gay couples to get the children out of Thailand they have to apply to Family Court to be deemed the parents which will take up to 6 months of red tape. Somehow I doubt that the Thai Family Court will deem them legal parents as the child was acquired illegally and the Court would only be supporting illegal activity if they do.

It is also illegal to use surrogacy for anyone outside of the family or close relative, I don't see Gammy's mum being charged yet however if we are going to be siting the rule of Thai law.....she should also be behind bars.

No, it is not currently illegal to use a surrogate, nor to be a surrogate for money. Gammy's mother can not be charged because she has not broken any Thai laws.

The doctor who performed the surrogacy *MAY* have his license revoked for an ethics violation, and the revoking of that license is the limit to which he can be charged.

There is no current law against surrogacy. Nobody will serve any jail time for anything related to surrogacy. It may be possible to bring some people up on charges of human trafficking, but that is a stretch and unlikely to yield a conviction.

She must be off her rocker...

Thailand needs to tighten them up, if she is so concerned then change the laws in Australia and allow the Aussie Shelia's to do it for commercial purposes.

Commercial surrogacy is illegal in Thailand.

There is nothing to tighten.

Why do people keep saying this?

It is flat out wrong. There is no law against surrogacy, commercial or otherwise, in Thailand.

There is a medical ethics ruling that says a doctor could lose his license to practice if he engages in surrogacy where the surrogate is not a blood relative or is paid for her services.

That is it. There is no law to enforce. No jail time can be served, and nobody is a criminal. Worst case, the doctor's medical license COULD be revoked. Also, a clinic engaging is assisted reproduction without the appropriate license may be breaking the law, but that actually has nothing to do with surrogacy per se.

A law needs to be passed. Rather than blathering on (incorrectly) about how everyone involved are criminals, why not discuss constructive things, such as what should be in the law?

My own personal feeling is that commercial surrogacy should be explicitly legalized and heavily regulated to prevent the kinds of problems we have seen recently. In particular, the exact same requirements that are already used to determine if a couple can adopt a child should be applied to determine if they qualify to hire a surrogate, and prospective surrogates should be profiled to make sure they truly understand what they are getting into. But when a loving couple wants to provide a good home to a child of their own, I think it is a violation of their human rights not to allow that when the technology clearly exists. In my opinion, it is the same as denying someone life saving surgery simply because a small group of ludites find technology morally objectionable. However, given the sensitive nature of how the process can be abused, it needs extensive legal guidelines and procedures.

So the headline here is intentionally misleading. Thailand has no surrogacy "laws". What Australia wants relaxed are the human trafficking guidelines that could be used to prevent these children from being taken home by their genetic parents in the absence of a law that specifically allows it. It is an interpretation that they want relaxed. And the Australian government is absolutely correct. The lives of real children are at stake, and those children's lives shouldn't be put at risk simply because the Thai government is incompetent at managing their own affairs.

 

 

 

 

"In Thailand life is cheap..."
 
Do you often over generalize?

I agree. Unfortunately, too many people over generalise, respond in a knee jerk manner and fail to see the full picture before condemning an issue. I call it the vigilante in us all.

Some people rush to the conclusion that therefore ALL surrogacy should be banned.
This fails to to acknowledge that their are thousands of childless couples want and are entitled to experience the joy of having their own children through a properly managed surrogacy program.

The issue above if substantiated after proper investigation is a good example of the dark side of surrogacy. But the flaw is not in surrogacy per se but in a legal system that fails to properly manage an ethical system of surrogacy.

I totally agree. Calling surrogacy a "scam" and outlawing except for relatives is a knee-jerk reaction by naive politicians. A good way to get their name in the national news and make it seem like they are really accomplishing something though...

When authorities in supposed positions of moral power like doctors and hospital administrators show zero ability to enforce a law, sometimes a stringent refusal to allow certain practices is the only policy.

The law is the law. Commercial surrogacy is already illegal in Thailand. Change the law or comply but don't subvert it for cash.

 

The desire to procreate and propagate your DNA is one of the strongest drives present in humans. It is a biological imperative. The fact that you may not need a surrogate and/or don't like children does not make that desire any less strong in those who do need to use the service.

Trying to outlaw surrogacy is going to have the same results as trying to outlaw sex. It won't happen. Does a law against stealing prevent theft when someone is starving?

Surrogacy needs to be regulated, but it can not be prevented. An knee jerk law that doesn't recognize the needs of the people who use a surrogate to have a family is doomed to failure. It is not a personal choice, and those who would operate to find a way around it are going to do it independent of any law, and they will feel morally justified in doing so. You are trying to override thousands of years of evolution that tell people that child is more important than their own lives.

You are foolish if you ignore this.

Regulate surrogacy in such a way that people who need it for its intended purpose have access to it. Banning it altogether or making the restrictions so severe that it can't be used by the general population is going to be a lesson in futility.

In general I support this legislation, but the allowed surrogates are much too restrictive, and as such it will eventually be rendered toothless and in need of amendment after leaving countless families with no choice but to break the law.

For example, consider the foreigner who marries a girl with only brothers. Under this law, even if the brothers wives were willing to help, they would be unable because inlaws don't meet the definition of relative. Also, someone could have a lifelong friend that is just like a sister, but under this legislation, they would be prevented from helping.

The law needs to be adjusted to take this into account. Inlaws need to be specifically included as possible surrogates, and friends need some way to go before a family court and obtain permission. Couples who want children at this stage have already suffered all manner of indignities, and one more court proceeding would not be too much.

While the law is a good idea in theory, a knee jerk proposal like this is not well enough thought out. Some simple changes can still obtain the effect desired without causing unnecessary hardship to those couples who genuinely want to start a family.

At the end of the several days, the healthiest embryo is selected and implanted in the surrogate mother for gestation, but only one.

There should be no way that two embryos would be implanted, unless the clinic is planning to sell the second baby, or is grossly incompetent. This should never have happened.

 

Not in Thailand. Most of the clinics in Thailand use an older procedure that implants 3 two day embryos. Statistically this works out to have the same chance of conception as the more modern concept of implanting a single, 5 day embryo with assisted hatching, and is substantially less costly.

Please do more research on the history of IVF before you start throwing around acusations like this. I am not a fan of greedy Thai clinics either, but they can hardly be accused of gross incompetence by following a procedure that has been in use for well over 2 decades. At most, you could accuse them of being slightly behind the times in terms of accepted practices, but if you want to blame someone for being dangerous with their procedures, you should direct your ire to the USA. Octomom would never happen in Thailand.

 

Media reports are saying she was asked to terminate at 7 months

 

 As I read it the law is very clear on abortion:

 

 

Abortion law in Thailand is governed by the provisions of Sections 301-305 of the Thai Penal Code of 13 November 1956. Under the Code, the performance of abortions is generally prohibited. A woman who causes her own abortion or allows any other person to procure her abortion is subject to up to three years’ imprisonment and/or payment of a fine not exceeding 6,000 baht. A person who procures an abortion for a woman with her consent is subject to up to five years’ imprisonment and/or payment of a fine not exceeding 10,000 baht. If this act causes grievous bodily harm to the woman, the penalty is increased to up to seven years’ imprisonment and/or payment of a fine not exceeding 14,000 baht; and if the act causes the woman’s death, the penalty is increased to up to ten years’ imprisonment and payment of a fine not exceeding 20,000 baht. A person who procures an abortion for a woman without her consent is subject to up to seven years’ imprisonment and/or payment of a fine not exceeding 14,000 baht. If the act causes grievous bodily harm, the penalty is increased to one to ten years’ imprisonment and payment of a fine of 2,000 to 20,000 baht. If the act causes the death of the woman, the penalty is increased to five to twenty years’ imprisonment and payment of a fine of 10,000 to 40,000 baht.

 

Nonetheless, the performance of an abortion is legal under the Code if carried out by a medical practitioner and (a) the abortion is necessary for the sake of the woman’s health or ( the woman is pregnant as a result of a criminal offence.

 www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/doc/thailand.doc

 

Article 305 does not allow for imperfections of the child and therefore an abortion would be illegal.  

 

As I see it those who attempted to coerce the mother to have an abortion were conspiring to commit a crime, I hope they can be prosecuted for this, thankfully Thailand has an extradition treaty with Australia.

 

Just for the record, I am not anti abortion but feel this is something that only the mother has the right to request and only after counselling, this is something that can not be reversed and a woman would have to live with the guilt for the rest of her life.

 

You are barking up the wrong tree.

Carriage of twins would certainly justify abortion under the clause as being necessary for the woman's health. The number of complications during pregnancy goes up by an order of magnitude vs. a single baby. Gestational diabetes can be a life threatening condition. Nobody would question a doctor who said that there was a significant threat to the mother's health due to a multiple pregnancy.

I have no love for the couple in Australia, but what you describe could not be considered a crime by any rational, thinking judge in a court of law. You need to find another approach if you want to prosecute them. For the record, I AM anti abortion, and very much pro gestational surrogacy. Basically, anything that can bring children into this world in the care of a loving family.

They key concept here being "loving family". I am not at all convinced the couple in Australia are deserving of that title, and I sincerely hope they get a visit by Australian social services to confirm their fitness as parents.

How is the Thai expat group currently in Siem Reap? Is there any kind of a community there for those of us who might be looking for an opportunity with a Thai family? I would think that a great number of the tourists would be Thai and therefore there should be a thriving community, but the last time I was there was over 10 years ago and there wasn't much of anything at all then.

Have some business ideas that might work well in the newly christened Kingdom of Wonder, but still trying to decide on how to convince the wife to go along with this. I was originally thinking Phnom Penh, but the more I consider it, it might make more sense to start out in a smaller market with more tourists.

Any insights in this regard?

Apparently, there is an article in the Thai Rath about this incident as well.

 

Does anyone have a link to that?

 

http://www.thairath.co.th/content/439598

Here is the Thai article. It gives a little more information. Apparently, the father is Australian and the mother is Chinese (possibly Chinese-Australian...my Thai isn't good enough to know if they make a distinction like this), and the couple has refused to pay the surrogate the final 70,000 baht of the money they promised her. I can just imagine the argument leading up to that.

I truly hope someone investigates them. I feel very bad for the little girl and the kind of environment she might be raised in. The actions they have taken don't make them sound like they are ready to be parents and are treating their children more like commodities than people.

One can only hope that at some point in the future the Australian couple realizes the gravity of what they have done and comes to regret their incredibly selfish actions.

Gammy is better off without them.

Apparently, there is an article in the Thai Rath about this incident as well.

Does anyone have a link to that?

Being a surrogate mother is not a evil thing, and bring compensated for it is not evil either.
The only evil part of this story is this couple dumping the twin with Down's syndrome. They were the driving force in the child's birth and should have accepted the responsibility for their actions bringing the child into the world. I feel sorry for the twin they took being raised but such an amoral couple of human effluence. Name them, shame them, and make them stand up and do what they agreed to do! And the the Australian authorities should monitor them for 21 years.

The saddest part is Down's syndrome children are usually totally good natured,
friendly and loving children. Who try hard to be a credit to their families.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

The problem here is that Thai clinics when facilitating these types of arrangements focus too much on the money. They need to concentrate more on the human and ethical aspects even when that means they might lose the sale.  This possibility should have been discussed before Pattharamon was implanted, and the Australian couple needed to accept that abortion is not a practical option in Thailand unless the health of the mother is threatened. If this causes them to go elsewhere, then so be it. Expecting any Thai girl to agree to an abortion in these circumstance is inexcusable, and I blame the clinic for not imposing and making the couple agree to these terms up front.

Under normal circumstances surrogacy is a wonderful gift. Gestational surrogacy is certainly no more immoral than being a nanny, the only difference being that in this case the care for the child begins before birth and you carry the child in your womb instead of swaddled in your arms. You also can't quit once you agree to the job. However, when cultural differences become a serious concern, and doctors begin to overlook ethics in favor of greed, it can change this wonderful act of kindness into horrible act of cruelty inflicted on this innocent child. (And let's not forget his twin sister, who will be deprived of ever knowing her brother...I wouldn't want to try and explain that decision to my child when they got older and learned the truth.)

The Thai government needs to regulate this industry. When everyone simply applies their own personal standards, the end result is that the lowest common denominator becomes the standard. And the lowest common denominator here is greedy clincis that are out to make a buck.

The Australian government meanwhile needs to send social services over to investigate if this family is really able to provide a loving home to the child they did accept. Their actions leave serious doubts in my mind at least as to whether they are truly ready to be parents.

AND this silly girl why didn't make a deal before ???

Chinese ?

A bike for her and another one for her suitcase

TAXI ?

Many people don't bother making a deal before they get on the bike because they dislike haggling and confrontation and don't expect to get ripped off.

Why would you assume she is Chinese? This is primarily a Thai trait.

As for motorcycles instead of a taxi, probably because one of:

a) She didn't want to sit in traffic to get across town

There were no taxis available (common around 4 PM)

c) The taxis refused to go to her destination

etc.

The reasons are numerous. My wife doesn't like taxis because she was once harassed by a taxi driver. At least on a motorcycle she feels she has a chance to run away as the driver would have to stop in order to attack her. Psychological maybe but the fear of being in an enclosed space with a pervert is very real.

As for the whole situation, there is absolutely no reason in today's age of technology that motorcycle taxis can't be equipped with meters the same way taxis are. It is ridiculous that drivers are allowed to decide the fare based on how much money they have earned that day.