halloween

12 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Agree - and all that does apply IF you are living permanently in Australia (and have for at least 2 years) at the time you qualify and apply for the OAP.

 

Australia first changed the rules some years back, when it become apparent that a lot of people from Greece and Italy (and some in UK), who had previously lived for many years in Australia, had applied for and got the OAP with no intention of ever living in Australia again.  So they changed it so that to get the OAP you had to be a resident of Australia at the time you applied, and many came back to apply for the OAP and once granted they immediately had gone back to their 'old country'.  So they changed it again and made it the current rules: if you are a resident and come back and claim the OAP, you must be a resident with the intention of staying permanently, and you cannot take the OAP overseas until after minimum of 24 months as a permanent resident of Aust. 

 

I agree that people should not be able to get the OAP from anywhere in the world just because they meet the minimum working/living period in Aust (10 years). Perhaps it would be reasonable to introduce some form of concession for those who have met the maximum working/living period (35 years), so that they can apply for the OAP from anywhere in the world - like the citizens of USA and many other countries.  Perhaps it might have more chance of being accepted if for this exemption the minimum period of living in Aust (after age 16) was 44 years - which means that person would be a min of 60 years old before they left for overseas. A lot of people find themselves unable to keep/find a job once they hit 55-60, so allowing them to start a new life in a cheaper country, and still reward them for contributing for so long to Australia by getting the OAP overseas once qualified.  Seems reasonable to me - it wouldnt do it for everyone (me included) but at least those who are in that situation in the future could get treated fairly.

 

Why should somebody who has lived in Oz, or any other country, for the minimum 10 years be denied a part pension? should somebody who has worked in different countries, paying taxes and adding to the economy, be entitled to nothing, or be entitled to part pensions from those countries where he/she qualifies?

On 3/23/2018 at 10:39 AM, jayboy said:

You are now in full denial mode.Read the analysis of the time of which there is plenty.There is almost unanimity that the scheme while well intentioned (there was no lying to voters as you absurdly claim) was ill conceived and subject to abuse (including corruption).That is not even in dispute.You are however trying to dovetail universal democratic practice into your own deranged little box.On the basis of your invented criteria the British NHS (or any comprehensive programme to help the majority) is patently unworkable and hugely expensive.You repeat the lie that Yingluck was personally corrupt yet even the rigged justice system didn't make this claim.If you are suggesting she connived at corruption, produce your evidence.Even her political enemies didn't come up with that.She was of course nailed for maladministration and lack of oversight, a charge that would put almost every elected democratic leader behind bars.

 

And then you have the effrontery to defend this military government's patent bribe to the electorate.Shame on you.

So the repeated claim that the rice scam was a zero sum self-sustaining scheme was not a lie? The world's economic press and historical fact show your claim as equally invalid as your claim there was no theft.

Yingluk reintroduced a scheme known to enable corruption WITHOUT  any change to prevent it, and when evidence of corruption emerged, lied to the public denying it existed. Her brother (the source of her wealth) and his cronies profited from that corruption. Claimed ignorance and proven ineptitude are not an excuse.

On 3/21/2018 at 9:55 AM, jayboy said:

Nobody denies the rice scheme wasn't abused but not even her (sane variety) enemies suggest Yingluck was personally corrupt.

 

You also seem to have difficulty (again) in understanding that in every democracy parties campaign on policies they hope will get them elected.It's not in your fatuous expression "a ploy to buy office".

I'll explain the concept in simple terms. Government ministers were stealing, it wasn't mismanagement as you claim, though not directly from the poor but they were affected as were most Thais. In every democracy parties offer incentives to vote, but in most those policies are not patently unworkable, hugely expensive and already proven to be hotbeds of corruption. Offering such, and lying to voters about the chances of success is a ploy.

The difference between that and  the money offered to villages is that most of the "extraordinary sum" (but a tiny fraction of the rice scam) will go to villagers, not as kickbacks to cronies and theft by ministers.

BTW enabling corrupt practices of family members and their associates rates as corruption to most people, obviously insane to you.

8 hours ago, jayboy said:

There is a huge distinction between corruption and mismanagement.The former is theft and the latter is not.Your invented category of "indirect theft" is meaningless.

 

You may as well accuse David Cameron of "indirect theft" since by his mismanagement of Brexit the people of the UK will almost certainly become poorer.

 

As to the poorer people of Thailand that you invoke - don't you think they should be given a say indeed a dominant role in formulating - through democratically elected representatives - a better future for their country.

 

Of course you don't.

So those involved in the G2G scam weren't stealing the money; it was just mismanagement? And the rice scam, reincarnated after its original corrupt failure, wasn't a ploy to buy office and allow the corrupt free access, it was just a poor decision. In your sycophantic view that is.

2 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

The facts at the "trial" were not relevant.

 

She was a former PM whose government was usurped by a military coup.

 

The military government/coup makers had ultimate power in Article 44 and had already used its power to remove judges.

 

Under these circumstances, there was no possibility of a fair trial occurring. There would be no possibility of demonstrating that the judges were not influenced by that (already used) power and thus were unable to give a fair "verdict" .

 

There was no possibility that Yingluck could have received a fair trial under a military government with Article 44 power, thus any trial she did face was flawed and not up to international standards of justice.

 

It was a sham. 

 

So you deplore direct theft from the poor, but willing to accept and defend those who stole and wasted many times more. Whether theft is direct or indirect, the same people get shafted.

6 minutes ago, jonstarjon said:

I wonder if the guilty will be subject to same treatment as Thaksin clan?

Do you mean glorified by idiots, or treated as common criminals?

3 hours ago, webfact said:

The person is actually trying to provoke fear and that is made worse by simply not giving information about why," said Robert Pape, an international security expert and director of the University of Chicago Project on Security and Threats.

Is it logical to expect the bomber to reduce what he is trying to achieve?

12 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Yes, I can see the "difference", that's sort of the issue I'm highlighting.

 

Corruption and neoptism and graft have been rife in the Junta from nearly day 1, and after four years their greed seems unrivaled by just about any past "administrations".

 

It took a whistle-blower (or two) to bring this latest massive corruption scandal to light. Of course, the first inclination was to blame the whistle-blower.

 

Why aren't the responsible Ministers monitoring what's going on? One could assume the worst, or that they are just negligent.

When referring to previous administrations, it must be handy to have selective memory loss. Perhaps if the current minister isn't up to the task, Chalerm could be appointed to investigate, the usual practise in the past. I hear he is available, and reasonably sober before noon.

I can only assume S.O.B was lost in translation.

4 hours ago, webfact said:

Korntip also said that his commission was “overwhelmed” by the work load.

I have a cunning plan. First, a quick trial for those already caught, followed by an instant public execution (the bailiff may fire when ready! ), no appeal, no bail, bang.

Next day send a BCC message to all welfare offices that investigators will be arriving at their office tomorrow. Send police to arrest anyone who doesn't show up for work.

Winston Churchill Quotes. The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Notice the difference - don't actually say "stupid" and they don't realise that's what they are being called.

Self-driving vehicles is a great idea. All those now employed as drivers can retrain as IT workers and call-centre operators. The good news for those unequipped to handle those jobs is that CentreLink will be needing a lot more staff.

Currently waiting result of OAP application with an answer due on 4th April. So far so good, except every 5 days I get an SMS stating "your application has progressed, please view your MYGov a/c" (even on Sundays). MyGov adds nothing extra, so why bother?

With 4 years meeting minimum residence requirement (ie 183+ days) don't expect any problems.

On 3/9/2018 at 9:42 PM, scorecard said:

 

Thanks, in other words any calculation of years in OZ would start from DOB.

 

Thanks again appreciated.

 

 

No, it's working life, which they assume begins at age 16 whether you were working, in education, on the dole, whatever.

3 minutes ago, Cadbury said:

Money for old rope this one. Not hard to imagine how much of that money goes back to road maintenance. Joke!

The point of the exercise is to reduce the need for road maintenance by reducing the damage caused by overloaded trucks.

“I don't agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”   Or not.

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Nothing to do with gun makers that just make a product, which is currently legal.

Regulation of the product is a function of government.

Businesses that make alcoholic products ( which kill thousands every year ) are not, far as I know,  required to "monitor alcoholic beverage sales and use".

Nor are tobacco companies, far as I know,  which are responsible for millions of deaths.

This is just another knee jerk reaction from people wanting to jump on the current bandwagon.

Perhaps those jumping on the bandwagon are tired of following hearses.

17 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

This is after the EU threatens to tax Harley Davidson and Bourbon? 

Sounds like tit for tat. 

The tit comes first.

15 hours ago, sangtip2 said:

Police shoot even when the "Suspect" is running.   Don't try to say cops are afraid - they shoot first and ask questions later.

Why is it that other countries with armed police have far fewer police shootings?

30 minutes ago, gunderhill said:

Not our room but I remember a  man who cut short his  stay by about 7  months out of a contract and then when told the security deposit  would be forfeited he proceed to  cut the air  con pipes, washing machine pipes  and damage as much as he could, scratching all kitchen cupboard  doors, furniture breaking the bed etc etc

These  new rules are OBSCENE.

Many tenants are quite dirty/careless in fact Id say the majority, many move in and out without ever  cleaning.

May be a cultural difference there. I asked the g/f about arranging cleaning after a long term rental, and she said not our responsibility.

BTW that landlord will be affected, as he was adding around 50% to electricity and charging a B1000 annual lease renewal fee.