Dogmatix

36 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Bit tooooooo late she has been voted in

I think it was political pantomime, as everyone in politics knows about her support for 112 reform (and Srettha’s) towards the end of the election campaign when they felt MFP nipping at their heels. Barring Chaikasem was a way to make it clear that Ung Ing is Thaksin’s last bullet and next time it is Anutin’s turn.

Anutin has taken control of the senate and has a lot of leverage over Thaksin at the moment. He will drive a hard bargain over portfolios and will probably keep the Interior and take back Health to put an end to Thaksin’s cannabis nonsense. He will have a lot of power and money without the hassle of being a minority party PM. If he had refused to vote for both Chaikasem and Ung Ing, Thaksin might have pressed the suicide switch and got Phumtham, the caretaker PM, to call for general election.  Anyway Ung Ing was the PM the coalition leaders reportedly wanted at the outset, believing she would be weaker and more malleable than Srettha.

Having said all that, there is nothing to stop other ultra royalists from recirculating Ung Ing’’s clip and pressuring her to resign. Probably Anutin’s next phase will be to shine as a deputy PM to a weak PM, showing his abilities to get goodies for his MPs and prepare to poach Thaksin MPs for the next election.

Here is Ung Ing advocating reform Section 112 of the Criminal Code, the Lese Majeste law  last year before the election when MFP appeared to be doing well in the polls with a 112 reform stance. Her ideas are not much different from MFP’s (restrict who can file charges) although she didn’t go into as much detail or put it in writing in the manifesto.  
 

Anutin and Pirapan refused  vs to vote for Chaikasem on the grounds he had also once proposed reform of 112 when he was PT strategist. This does seem inconsistent of them but perhaps they have not seen this clip yet.
 

27 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Yes indeed. I wonder how long she will last...

We might be surprised but I wouldn’t give her more than a year.
 

It will probably be quite entertaining at times. She is not very bright like Yingluck but, unlike Yingluck, apparently quite arrogant. Whatever honeymoon period this coalition government may have had under Srettha is long gone.

1 hour ago, thesetat2013 said:

All of this was orchestrated by Thaksin. Just prior to the placement of the convict, Srettha met with Thaksin. As the case drew more near to being decided Srettha was nonchalant about it seemingly uncaring if he will be kicked out of office. Now, his buddy Thaksin has had his meeting with the PTP and everyone emerged ready to place his daughter in the PM position. Thaksin has been making a lot of private meetings with the players in this game. Anutin has already voiced his approval as well to have Thaksins daughter as PM.  Srettha was a patsy placed in office until all the cards were aligned and everyone paid off. 

Exactly. Srettha was too weak to stand up to Thaksin and refuse to appoint Pichet. Now both Thaksin and Srettha suffer the consequences. Make your own bed and lie in it.

2 hours ago, Charlest1971 said:

But that’s hardly democratic.
Surely the electorate should decide who becomes PM, by voting in a particular party at a General Election.  
Thai democracy sounds like the system that the Mafia employ. When someone steps out of line, he/she is booted out. 
At least, with UK Parties, new leaders, during an electoral cycle, are voted in, by a large membership of grass roots electorate. 
The Thai system is like a giant shark tank, where every now and again, a lump of meat is chucked into the mix. 

In the UK party leaders tend to voted in by a party members who are usually only a fraction of the party voters.  Liz Truss was elected party leader and PM by less than 200,000 Tory Party members.

The Thai commerce ministry is complaining that Chinese-made domestic products are flooding Thai markets at a huge discount compared with Thai-made items.

This is complete BS designed to whip up nationalistic political support and to benefit Thai importers.  Thailand doesn't manufacture these low end items and is totally dependent on Chinese imports.  They want to stop Thais from being able to order them from China directly and force them to buy from a rent collecting Thai chinese middleman with a 30% mark up instead.  The result will be inflationary for ordinary Thai consumers.  

It's very old fashioned thinking to give Gardasil to girls only.  Girls get HPV from boys usually and men get cancer of the penis, throat and anus from HPV. But at least they are trying to vaccinate more people.

If anyone wants to get the Gardasil 9 strain vaccine, it is available at the Travel Clinic at Victory Monument for less than private hospitals charge and there is no age limit.

https://www.thaitravelclinic.com/cost.html

 Gardasil 9 available at the Travel Clinic at Victory Monument with no age limit.  The US CDC says it is only for those aged up to but there is no such restriction in Thailand, although the big private hospitals also say up to 45.  The CDC's thinking is that is a waste of resourced to give it to oldies who have probably already been exposed to HPV already and older people might not live long enough to develop cancer anyway, since it develops very slowly.  But with the 9 strain version, there is more chance to protect yourself against a strain you haven't already had. 

https://www.thaitravelclinic.com/cost.html

Reportedly the ruling said that the party posed a threat to the constitutional monarchy and national security by campaigning for the amendment of Section 112 of the Criminal Code.  I may be naive but isn't drafting new bills and amending existing legislation actually supposed to be the role of political parties in parliament?  There has never been anything in the constitution that says only certain clauses in statutory laws may be amended, while it is illegal to even propose amending others. Seems all very odd but ten I am not a legal expert. 

 

See a doctor (urologist) for chrissakes. Liquid nitrogen removes them fast in the doctor’s office with minimal pain to genitals and wallet.  Over the counter wart removers available in Thailand are of limited effectiveness and should never be applied to genital areas anyway.

9 hours ago, smedly said:

upon his release he should be transferred to Thailand to face charges and locked up here for another 6 years

 T’would be a double jeopardy.

On 7/27/2024 at 1:24 AM, spidermike007 said:

He is scared of Harris. No doubt. He hates smart and accomplished women. 

 

But he will pretend otherwise. He is the great pretender. And he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace - all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed. So for many of us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief. Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing - not once, ever. I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever.

Definitely scared of debating with Harris. She will rip him to shreds.

On 7/25/2024 at 2:17 AM, Tubulat said:

Of course, Thailand has the right to stand up for the hostages but I don't think it will make much of an impression, after all, the USA has hostages there too, and I am sure they have made more work of getting the hstages back by now, but without positive results.

The USA is a major participant in the war as the supplier of most of the Israelis’ munitions and the American hostages are also dual Israeli citizens and some are probably IDF reservists too. Thailand is in no way involved in the conflict and Hamas should have released the Thais long ago.

Complete BS.

It's probably illegal because you have produced an extract of more than 0.2% THC but I read somewhere a while back that police had been instructed not to prosecute for any cannabis offences in the current legal environment. I have never heard of dispensaries or individuals being prosecuted for that since June 2022. Those selling edibles might be low hanging fruit  for the cops, if they were to prosecute. However, they would probably try to argue they had not produced extracts, as they just decarbed weed without using chemicals.  Oil would be harder to defend.

Srettha is going to compete with Singapore and HK as a financial hub. It is so laughable it’s sad. Foreigners cannot set up asset management businesses and cannot be CEO’s of asset management companies. I doubt Srettha is even aware of this. He is just letting more hot air out of the balloon.

A few years ago they wanted to stop people making repeated trips on tourist or transit visas, whom they claimed were probably working illegally.  Now they can't get enough of them and will even let them work without WP.  

1 hour ago, Klonko said:

AFAIK the known cases in question relate to contractual agreements concluded in Thailand and not to the application of international private law which Thailand is supposed to adhere to based on its accession to the HCCH (Hague Conference on Private International Law) in 2021. While the courts should ultimately decide in favour of separated property with respect to civil law for my marriage - fortunately that will never be necessary in my case -, I agree it may be an interesting discussion with TRD that gifts are given from my personal property to my wife's personal property. 

I don't know anything about the application of the HCCH in Thailand and it may not be relevant here anyway but Thailand doesn't have a uniformly good record on application of international treaties. I think the Foreign Ministry gets everyone on board to sign them for the sake of image abroad but when it comes to the implementation domestically by other ministries it may be a different story.  A case in point is the Convention for the Reduction of Statelessness to which Thailand is a ratified signatory but flagrantly ignores its obligations under the convention by deliberately leaving a few hundred thousand minorities born in Thailand stateless, or makes it very difficult for them to acquire citizenship, even though most speak perfect Thai and have Thai names. A completely pointless policy that causes harm to Thailand and wrecks the lives of the minorities, motivated only by racism.  Also in the old days of the international treaties that up until the early 1970s allowed foreigners among other things to own land in Thailand, the government was notorious for stonewalling applications to buy land in accordance with the treaties, even though they were and still are acknowledged in the Land Code. 

This discussion pertinent to the application of double tax treaties which Thailand accumulated since 1970s because the other states offered to negotiate them, even though Thailand has not had much use for them until now.  Up until today none of them are acknowledged in the Revenue Code which creates difficulties in producing regulations for them.  Thus there are none and probably never will be.  I am sure that the RD will abide by the letter of the treaties but, since they are only bare bones with most of the important details open to interpretation and agreement between contracting states, abiding by the letter might not be very helpful. 

12 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

 

Are you sure that Fentanyl would leave a trace?

I am not sure.

 

2 milligrams is really quite a small dose.

 

Also, didn't all deceased die almost at exactly the same time?

Otherwise, at least one might have called for help.

 

Fentanyl acts immediately.

 

Also, if the poison was in the tea...or coffee....then..

Would they not have all have had to drink their beverages at the SAME TIME?

 

Also THIS:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/six-people-two-vietnamese-americans-found-dead-bangkok-hotel-rcna162144

 

So then:  Foaming at the mouth?

 

I am going with Fentanyl, or the similar but stronger version of Fentanyl, which is 20 times stronger than Fentanyl.  In that case, the lethal dose would be 0.1 milligram, per deceased

 

 

If the poison was in their tea or coffee, Anutin should act swiftly to require permits for sale of tea and coffee throughout the Kingdom and assure Vietnamese tourists they are safe again, similar to his measures when a Chinese tourist was murdered at Siam Paragon with by a deranged teenager with a blank gun.  He did a good job reassuring Chinese tourists they were safe by telling them he had required registration of blank guns and even BB guns. The message went out and owners of blank and BB guns were requested to register them but when the interest had died down, there was no follow up and, as of today, there is still no law or regulation to facilitate the registration of blank and BB guns.  So it is not actually possible to register them.

19 minutes ago, Klonko said:

I can conclude a notarised post-marital agreement for fully separated property retrotractively tp the date of marriage in my home country under my home country law, even when the marriage was concluded in Thailand. This choice of law is valid under international private law. If TRD or a Thai court will apply international private law correctly is another question. But this set-up is more robust for gift taxes and will be enforceable for my estate, because the distribution of my foreign assets will be processed in my home country and my Thai assets will go to my wife anyway.

My understanding is that the Thai civil courts would disregard any foreign agreement under foreign laws that overrode the provisions of the C&CC regarding division of Thai conjugal assets. But they only claim jurisdiction over Thai assets. Cases have only arisen in respect of divorces AFAIK.  Interestingly there is a Supreme Court case where a farang paid for purchase of landed property by his wife and, despite the piece of paper signed in the Land Office agreeing that the property would not form part of the conjugal property, the Supreme Court ruled that the property did comprise conjugal property and ordered that it should be sold with half of the proceeds paid to the farang as part of the divorce settlement.  So you can see that the Supreme Court upheld the provisions of the C&CC over the Land Code and the workaround of the prohibition on foreign ownership of land devised by the Interior Ministry to allow Thais married to foreigners to own land. So I am sure the C&CC would be upheld over any foreign laws or agreements. 

On 7/15/2024 at 5:26 PM, Mike Teavee said:

Agree with everything you said apart from this part, as "Gifts" are usually Personal/Non Marital property (Sin Suan Tua) 

 

I've posted a link previously that probably covers this better but can't find it now & gotta run, so here's the 1st one I came across... 

 

https://thailand.acclime.com/guides/marital-property-assets/

What is Sin Suan Tua?

Sin Suan Tua or personal property consists of (section 1471):

• Property belonging to either spouse before marriage
• Property for personal use, dress or ornament suitable for station in life, or tools necessary for carrying on the profession of either spouse
• Property acquired by either spouse during marriage through a will or gift
• Dowry

If the Sin Suan Tua has been exchanged to other property, other property has been bought or money has been acquired from selling it, the property or money acquired is Sin Suan Tua.

 

 

However, it is possible for the gift to be marital assets (Sin Somros) IF the condition of the Gift (or Will) states that it's made to both spouses...  

What is Sin Somros?

Sin Somros or marital property consists of (section 1474):

• Property acquired during a marriage
• Property acquired by either spouse during marriage through a will or gift made in writing
• Fruits of personal property (eg income in the form of rent from personal property)

 

I think your parents giving you & your wife a Gift & stating that it's a Joint gift would be OK but I don't think you would get away with giving your wife a gift and saying "This is for both of us", at best it would be considered 1/2 the Gift was for your wife but could be ruled as an invalid specification & 100% to your wife. 

Good point re Section 1471 of the C&CC excluding gifts from conjugal property.  This is applied very easily to gifts of property but it is much harder to segregate gifts of cash.  Section 42.27, in fact, gives exemption up to 20 million not only for gifts to spouses but also for support and maintenance " Income derived from maintenance and support or gifts".  So what about remittances that are for support or maintenance which are not segregated from conjugal property in the C&CC?   

If your wife received a piece of land as a gift from her parents after you got married, it is very clear cut under the C&CC that when you get divorced, you cannot claim this as conjugal property to be divided up between you.  But, if you paid her a million a month for support or maintenance, under the C&CC the cash and anything she buys with it are conjugal property. Even, if it was clearly in the form of gifts, it is difficult to segregate, particularly, if she has cash and income of her own.  If she buys a house or a car with that money and you make use of them too, it would be difficult for the RD to go through the weeds to prove that this disqualified the tax exemption and I doubt they would attempt to. If you have children in common she uses your remittance to pay their school fees, the RD would have a hard job arguing that was the father's personal obligation only and anyway, if you paid them yourself, you would probably be paying out of conjugal assets.  Furthermore a remittance used to pay your kids' school fees could also be argued to be a gift to your descendant relatives who didn't have the ability to pay the school fees themselves. 

Personally I think the issue of the exemption for support, maintenance or gifts to a spouse under 42.27 is not nearly as clear cut as some have tried to maintain by citing non-existent rules.   It comes as no surprise that there are no cases to be found where the RD has challenged exemptions claimed by Thais under this section in the 9 years since the amendment.