BKKBike09

The first part of my post on Page 1 of this thread, with the relevant sentence now highlighted: "What's your friend waiting for? Forget any proactive police action (won't happen). Your friend needs to demand the police call the dog owner to come to the police station to sort out the problem. Your friend at the minimum needs to get something on record showing the owner of the dog admitting that he/she owns the dog and that his/her dog attacked your friend. Then if no compensation is forthcoming, your friend can make a fuss on social media and not be accused of defamation (or not so easily)." No-one gives a rat's a55 about a "dog bites man" story without details of who owns the dog etc. Have you got those details? A photo of the dog inside the compound of the house where it is kept doesn't prove anything unless you have a photo or video of that dog actually attacking your friend. Knowing how people are these days with their phone obsessions, however I won't be surprised to hear that the witness thoughtfully videoed your friend being savaged by a pitbull before helping him (a video would make better news as well) ... If your friend can't PROVE exactly which dog attacked him, he should think carefully before saying "it was this one".

What's your friend waiting for? Forget any proactive police action (won't happen). Your friend needs to demand the police call the dog owner to come to the police station to sort out the problem. Your friend at the minimum needs to get something on record showing the owner of the dog admitting that he/she owns the dog and that his/her dog attacked your friend. Then if no compensation is forthcoming, your friend can make a fuss on social media and not be accused of defamation (or not so easily). A neighbour of mine had a vicious mutt that used to get out of the compound and chase and bite people. No-one did anything about it. One day it bit a motorcycle delivery guy. Owner said to the guy "not my fault; you shouldn't have upset my dog". Two days later dog had been fed poisoned food and that was the end of it ... That's generally how locals deal with vicious dogs. I imagine they probably also check for CCTV before doing anything incriminating though.

Exactly that. One should never forget that many laws in Thailand are loosely or poorly drafted (often intentionally) and leave many matters "or as may be decided by the competent official / the Minister etc etc". This, in turn, makes it very hard to second-guess how any particular case or set of circumstances may be pursued by the authorities.

Indeed intentions can change (qv Prince Charles having 'no intention' to marry CPB) but it is a criminal offence under UK law to make knowingly a false declaration. Sure, in practice UK won't do anything about this particular matter. My point however was that the letter the BE now issues instead of a declaration signed by the applicant basically shouts out to the Thai authorities - "it's up to you to make sure this person gives up UK citizenship". Leaving the country is absolutely the responsibility of the airlines but, as Dogmatix says, IOs can often go through a passport just for the sake of it. After all, that's part of their job - spotting problems with travel documents. Again my point is simply that, in my case as a white dude waving a shiny new Thai passport, an IO is much more likely to take an interest. Absolutely - you've thought it through and if you had to make a choice, have no problems choosing Thai. Again, my point is just that I think it would be unwise for anyone to follow the nationality path and not be prepared to make that choice.

I think it's just temporary during the dog-days of minimal international travel. All those IOs need to do something.

With respect, I believe you are mistaken. Clause 19.2 of the 2008 Act is clear. Section 19. The Minister shall have the power to revoke Thai nationality of a person who acquires Thai nationality by naturalization, if it appears that: (1) the naturalization is effected by concealment of facts or making false statement of essential facts; (2) there is evidence indicating that the naturalized person still uses his or her former nationality; (3) having committed any act prejudicial to the national security or conflicting with the interests of the State or amounting to an insult to the nation; (4) having committed any act in contrary to the public order or good morals; (5) having resided aboard without having a domicile in Thailand for more than (5) having resided aboard without having a domicile in Thailand for more than five years; (6) having retained the nationality of the country at war with Thailand. http://web.krisdika.go.th/data//document/ext810/810050_0001.pdf

The UK doesn't care. Thailand requires that you give up your other nationality. In practice, the Thai authorities have never requested proof that this has been done. However ... I've lived in Thailand on and off (mostly on) since the late 1980s. Just because something has never been done before here despite being on the statute books does not mean that it will never happen. TM30 reporting strikes me as quite a good example of this. In the past (pre about mid 2018) the British Embassy would issue a formal declaration that X has sworn an oath in person before a Consular Officer that he/she intends to renounce British nationality if granted Thai nationality. That oath was quite significant in the sense that to make a false declaration was an offence under UK law. However, nowadays the Embassy doesn't offer this service. Instead they issue a letter by post stating that X has told the Embassy that he/she he/she intends to renounce British nationality if granted Thai nationality BUT the Embassy then helpfully adds that the Embassy has no way of verifying if this happens and also that UK permits dual nationality. IMHO, this letter basically says to the Thai authorities "this person has said they'll do this but maybe they won't", which makes it perhaps harder for the Thai authorities to turn a blind eye. So, I say to everyone who applies for Thai nationality: you may very well be able to get away with not giving up your original nationality if your country doesn't care BUT you should be prepared also to give it up. If that is not an option for you, think very carefully because if you get Thai nationality and then have to give it up, in true snakes and ladders fashion you go back to being Joe Blow on a Tourist Visa. If you previously held PR (as I do), that's gone. This is why PR - much maligned by many - is still a good half-way house option for anyone who wants to live long-term in Thailand and is eligible to apply (3 years on WP required etc) - it doesn't affect citizenship. In the case of the UK, there is a get out of jail card in that the Nationality Act (1991 I think) allows for people born before the Act who are forced to give up UK citizenship to get a second nationality, to get back UK nationality (a one-time gig). So, if you were born in the 1980s or earlier, that is an option. I'm sure many people will say that I am over-thinking and that there are so many tens of thousands of naturalised Thais that this will never come to pass. They may well be correct. But it would be foolish, in these days of ever greater online data exchange between governments and between departments at a national level, not to consider it. Pre-Covid, a benefit of a Thai passport was using the e-channels. This meant no physical inspection of a passport by an Immigration Officer. Since Covid, the e-channels have all been U/S and everyone goes through a manual inspection on leaving Thailand. I'm not sure how a white dude - or any apparently non-ethnic Thai - would explain to a Thai IO why his Thai passport doesn't have a UK visa, if the IO chose to ask. The only explanation would be that person has a second, non-Thai, passport. Pair that with an IO who's having a bad day for whatever reason and things could quickly become very sticky. I have heard of some naturalised Thais who will not fly direct to UK / USA or whatever for this reason, but will instead always transit through Hong Kong or Singapore or somewhere that does not require a visa for Thai nationals to enter. That way, the journey our of Thailand can be presented as a simple "I'm off to Hong Kong" trip. Strikes me as a lot of hassle but one can understand why some people might choose to do this.

As others have said, it depends. Officially 4, but some are able to swing it with 2. My company (registered in Bangkok for nearly 20 years) has two foreign directors (me + 1 other) who both have PR, are both married to Thais for many years etc. We've been fine with 2 Thai staff per WP for several years now. Previously we had another director who was married to a non-Thai and because of that Labour Dept insisted that every WP required 4 staff. That was a pain. I've just had my WP renewed and - in time honoured "who'd a guessed it" fashion - this time apparently the message came from on high at the LD that next year we may not be allowed to have only 2 Thai staff per work permit and that the decision is to be based on whatever visa each WP holder had when first applying for the WP. How they come up with this stuff beats me ... but hopefully by this time next year I'll have my Thai ID and this sort of nonsense will fade into distant memory.

Thanks for the tip. I'll give the hospital a ring.

Sadly I don't have a Vax ID - all I have is a piece of paper given to me by the hospital (Phayathai 2) which has the Lot No / Serial No of the dose administered there. Neither of those are 13 digit numbers.

You may well be right. However, for those of us who have had a first shot in a different country, it's not possible (yet) to get that recognised and added to the domestic Thailand certificate. I had my second shot here (at Phyathai 2) and I've got nothing official to prove it. Maybe I could get something if I was registered on the MorPhrom App, but I can't get that to work despite having PR and a 13-digit ID number. Frankly the easiest way to get round this is to have a third shot here in Thailand so that the Thai records show two shots. Rather stupidly, I thought I'd be civic-minded and tell the folk here that I didn't need my second shot because I'd already had one in the UK, so they could give that dose to someone else. Plan B was to go to UK in Oct/Nov and get a third shot there, so I'd have a full UK vax record which I suspect will be more acceptable for international travel than a full Thai record. Of course, Red List 'n all now makes that unlikely. Ho hum.

Good to know that they were happy to endorse your existing international certificate - but doesn't the way they've completed it make it appear that you've only had one shot (because it only lists one date)?

Thanks for the clarification. Maybe my staff said THB 50. I don't remember. Not going to break the bank either way.

I'd suggest trying to verify before travel with the embassy of the country concerned whether the Thai MOPH-issued certificate is acceptable. It should be, because it's an international standard. However, call me jaded if you like, but I can easily see a situation in somewhere like the Philippines where officials at the airport claim that it is not acceptable but that for a "fee" of USD 100 they will issue an endorsement to allow you in. I used the Thai issued certificate for Yellow Fever when going to Goma DRC from Rwanda a few years back. The DRC officials said I didn't have some other vaccination that was mandatory (Meningitis?) but for USD100 they could give me the shot there and then. It was a complete con: the only mandatory vaccine was Yellow Fever, and like I was really going to let some dude in a dusty room without glass in the window stick a needle in me ... stood my ground but wasted an hour. (Next trip a few months later I flew in to Goma and the 'missing' vaccination wasn't mentioned, although they tried a different scam that time relating to my visa).

The following video from the MOPH CDC explains in simple terms how to apply for the Travel Certificate. The video is in Thai but has English sub-titles. It makes it sound simple. While it is not hugely complicated, it is quite time-consuming because it requires in-person application, unless you can authorise someone to apply on your behalf. One of my staff did it for me, at the main MOPH building. I believe it cost THB 150 in official fees. The video says that the main requirements are: 1. Passport + signed copy 2. Vaccination Record + signed copy (original record from wherever in Thailand 2nd dose was given) However, in my case I asked for it after 1 dose here: I already had one dose in UK. The certificate was issued showing only the shot given in Thailand; they will not (at present at least) accept and register any previous overseas vaccinations. Also, it's not possible to add the Covid vaccination record to an existing International Certificate of Vaccination, even if issued in Thailand (I already have one). I've posted pics of both Certificates below; both are equally flimsy and low-tech - don't get it wet!

This will be introduced. As with many other legal requirements in Thailand, it will not be enforced, or only for a very brief period of time. However government will be able to say "it's not our fault if people break the rules". And from time to time, the authorities will raid some hapless restaurant and fine staff and patrons for breaking the law.

I wonder if the 25% reduction over the past month in the already pathetically small number of daily tests has anything to do with the falling case numbers ... down from 60,000 a day at start of August to 45,000 now and a steady trend downward. I only pose the question out of idle curiosity.

Yes. People run cars on red plates for ages so that date of first registration shows as much later than date of purchase. Buy a car today (Sep 2021) but run on a red plate to Jan 2022 and it will be first registered in Jan 2022. Service history will show date of purchase ie Sep 2021 BUT the car could still have been produced a year or more before. This is more often the case with cars not assembled in Thailand so imported as CBU. Engine / chassis number should provide the model year even if not the exact production date.

You can look up the agency's posted financials (2020 should have been filed by now) via the Min of Commerce Dept of Business Development web site: https://datawarehouse.dbd.go.th Do you actually have proof that THAI paid the agency (other than that's what your wife's friend has said)? There are many agencies in the same boat, owed large sums by THAI. The agent my company used for more than 10 years is owed millions; the owner now is selling chicken rice to get by. Dealing with an agency has its risks but the convenience is considerable. Our agent could make provisional bookings on TG, get back ROP miles if plans changed etc. I have two outstanding tickets on TG - last time I tried to re-book them direct (May) I spent an hour on hold, twice, with TG. If I can't use those tickets I'm owed around THB 75,000 and a shed load of ROP miles for the upgrade. Good luck.

I appreciate the time you've taken in this response although I do find it rather convoluted.

I think you mean "to reduce greatly the risk" of hospitalisation and death. If the vaccines truly allowed everyone to avoid hospitalisation and death, I think a lot more people would accept that help. Plus reduction of risk is all relative to age - when it comes to deaths from Covid a fully vaccinated 80-year-old has a similar risk to an unvaccinated 50-year-old: “If fully vaccinated, the risk of being hospitalised falls by about 90%,” said Prof David Spiegelhalter, chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication, at Cambridge University. “But it doesn’t disappear, and as a large proportion of the highest risk people are now vaccinated it’s inevitable they will start to form the majority of the people with Covid in hospital, particularly as most of the unvaccinated people are young and therefore at low risk. Indeed, being young reduces the risk even more than being vaccinated.” Another big factor at play is age. McConway says the risk of an infected person being hospitalised is at least 10 times, and as much as 25 times greater, for a 75-year-old than a 25-year-old. If the latter risk is on the mark, then a vaccine that prevents 96% of hospitalisations would slash admissions among 75-year-olds to that seen in those 50 years younger. When it comes to deaths from Covid a fully vaccinated 80-year-old has a similar risk to an unvaccinated 50-year-old. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/22/rates-of-double-jabbed-people-in-hospital-will-grow-but-that-does-not-mean-covid-vaccines-are-failing

"Why not just put a chip in us that says we are vaccinated. That was sarcasm people, whatever it takes to make it safer for all to be able to get back to some kind of normality." That could easily be a next step in a few years. Removes need to carry papers / app on phone etc; allows for tracking of your movements "to keep you and others safe". As you say, "whatever it takes" so where do you draw the line? Or perhaps we just all trust governments to get it right? Personally, I am all for it, the strangest thing is people just don't understand, this is the new world, it is what it is, Covid is real and we have to take steps to mitigate it's effect on us. This is indeed the new world. The question really is to what extent citizens are content to allow their governments to rule by diktat and fear. Covid is real and we have to take steps to mitigate - correct: but the effects on the vast majority of people are not serious. That of course could change, but equally it may not, and Covid may become less of a threat, not more, as the years pass. While we wait to find out I'd rather have as few restrictions as possible and accept the (likely minimal) personal risk that may ensue. At issue here is the extent to which the majority should be required to adapt their behaviour for the benefit of the minority. In an authoritarian society citizens do what they are told. Previously, in liberal societies, citizens at least had the illusion that government served the people, not the other way round, and that personal freedoms were sacrosanct. I for one wouldn't want to be sitting in a plane with unvaccinated people or in a restaurant, while shopping etc etc, vaccinations and QR Codes/Certificates of people proving they have been vaccinated is the way to go and if that is what it takes to move forward, then I am all for it. But if you've been vaccinated what's the problem? I trust you would also mitigate your personal risk further by wearing an N95/FFP2 or better mask at all times in such situations, because it sounds like you are very fearful? For the unvaccinated, you have your choice, I respect that, but do keep away from me. There are many reasons why some people may be unvaccinated. Personal choice, concern about long-term issues arising from brand-new vaccines, pre-existing conditions that preclude vaccination, age (children). Again, if you have been vaccinated, why are you so afraid? Fear, to me, is one of the worst aspects of this whole sorry mess. It's sensible to be concerned - especially if over 50 or with certain chronic diseases - but concern shouldn't become fear. That's now so deeply entrenched that it's going to take a very long time for it to dissipate. Maybe for some people it never will.

So passenger full names, passport numbers, phone numbers, partial credit card information have been hacked but, hey, don't worry, "aviation security" hasn't been affected and we're open for business as usual. "Partial credit card" information sounds to me like saved details of any card on file eg full number and expiry date. If it was just xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 1234 they'd hardly be advising "we recommend you contact your back or credit card provider". No mention either of just how bad this hack has been in terms of number of customers whose data has been compromised.

Defamation in Thailand extends to information that is accurate, if making it public also causes damage to the reputation of the party concerned. Which is why media outlets will usually say things "the fight took place at a well-known hotel" instead of naming it. After the Santika pub fire, many media reported that a senior policeman was listed as a shareholder of the pub: public record info, but almost none of them named him because he could, potentially, sue for defamation on basis that he was 'just' a shareholder and not responsible for management, ergo printing his name caused damage to his reputation.

It's off topic, but thank you for the reference to that family because in their case, the Hollywood comedy also extends to the other brother famously promoting bathroom hygiene, back in 2008, as 'Mr Happy Toilet', posed like a king on the throne ... In dark times like these it always brings a smile to my face.