Internatltraveler

I went to the USA Embassy for my final letter of income verification on the December 14th. I confronted the agent who was notarizing my letter about the embassy stopping the issue of these letters for us and here is a summary of my conversation:

She stated that the US Embassy had made the decision to stop this pratice (we all knew that already)

I asked the reason.

She said it was a decision that the embassy had made.

I then stated that what was published was in fact incorrect about not being able to verify government issued pensions. She defended it of course and I stated that out of the 8 countries I have lived in and had to go through immigration for visas in each of those countries requiring verification of income, the Family Support Units of those embassies had always had the capability of going online and verifying government issued benefits for anyone who received them from the USA. She said that the embassy does not do that, and I of course have factual information to the contrary of this, so when I presented that to her, she asked if I would like to talk to the manager and I replied "of course I would." I was sent to the private little room where they summoned manager to speak with me.

The person who came to talk with me was the Acting ACS Chief, Ms. Aja Setfanon. She basically told me what they had already published. I once again challenged her and she stated they could not go online to verify private records due to the privacy of information act. I explained I was an attorney from the USA and knew differently. All we have to do is to sign a waiver to permit whomever we choose to access our records, and she nodded in compliance. I then stated that she knew as well as I did that any embassy could verify any government documents at any time they needed to. She once again nodded in agreement. So then I asked why the embassy in Thailand had made the decision that they had. She plainly told me that it was their decision not to support the citizens because "it was not their responsibility to do so." Of course this response infuriated me but I had to keep my cools.

She said this embassy had made the decision and that was that. She did not state it was a decision of our State Department nor any other reason, simply it was a decision they made.

To me this sounds really fishy and somehow I believe there is more to the story than they are disclosing to the public, but there was no point in protesting further. Obviously she was just carrying out the orders of someone else, because that is who pays her pay check. It sruck me as to the lack of empathy when I brought up the point of how many USA citizens were relying on monthly pension payments to live abroad and how they could negatively impacted by this decision. She responded by saying "Well, you are the one who decided to live in Thailand."

So the whole story here simply does not make sense.

Factually, the Family Support Unit has been moved out of BKK to the Philippines and does not support us as well as it should, and that is another story, so without the support of the FSU here in BKK, they would have to receive verification from Manilla or get permission to go online locally to access our records, but the statement that it is "impossible for them to verify income sources anywhere" is an absolutely false.

I wonder if enough of us Americans petitioned the embassy or the State Department if we could get a better conclusion to this story, or if there is something politically going on here that has forced them into this kind of conclusion.

Ms. Stafanon did tell me that if any immigration office was not in compliance with the Immigration Police Guidelines and we told her about it, that they would make contact with that immigration office and request that they follow their own guidelines correctly however, and follow up with the Thai government main immigration office of the problems with local IOs. She qualified that statement by saying that is all they can do though and that it was up to us to make the decision to live here or not.

This is a case that the only thing that may change this decision about these letters is for enough of us to file complaints about their decision so that they listen to us, but somehow I doubt enough of us are really serious about doing anything about it other than complaining...Apathy is strong among ex-pats when it comes to taking action, but we certainly can sit around and complain about it...if you take action then we may be able to have enough voices heard to do something constructive about it. 

Their email address in case you would like to be part of us who want to make a difference is: [email protected]; Twitter is: @ACSBKK; FAX is (+66) 02 205-4103

We CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE BUT ONLY IF WE MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD!

It continues to amuse me to read responses to these articles from people who have no earthly idea what they are talking about. Here are some facts abouy Uber.

1. It is the largest taxi company in the world now and is making lots of organized mafia controlled companies very uncomfortable because of their rapid and cheaper service. What is wrong with this anyway? Any taxi driver can quit his low paying job and become an Uber driver anywhere in the world where it is legal, so rather than complaining and saying they are taking business away, join them...much better deal for all concerned.

2. Uber carries a $3 million liability coverage policy on all of its drivers. So for those of you talking about them being uninsured, well, you really do not know what you are talking about. There is no taxi company, that I am aware of, in the world who carries this high limit of liability coverage for its drivers. I would say that is a fairly responsible business strategy and much more ethical than most taxi companies with their low limits of coverage.

3. Uber requies high limit individual coverage be carried by its drivers. In the USA, that is a limit of $300,000/$100,000 being $300K for total per accident and $100K per individual in that accident. So what say you nay sayers of wrong information again? Guess that does not suit your arguments either, right? It also required all vehicles to be well maintained, clean and well cared for in order to even become a driver.

4. Uber does not employ drivers. It subcontracts with them. That makes them legally self employed. So for the government to say they are a foreign owned business, well that is right and wrong also. It is more accurate for the government to take the position that these drivers may not be properly licensed to conduct a business in Thailand, and that is a legitimate comment. But let's get our facts straight.

So many of us talk about all the cheating of taxis, poor service and corruption of taxi drivers in Thailand and when a decent new concept company that offers rapid and courteous service, known fees prior to boarding into the taxi without having to negotiate, being capable of paying with credit card, rather than cash you, and heavily insured in case of an accident,  complain using misinformation and normal groveling that this site is known for.

By the way, Uber takes a small amount (I think it is $1 or $2 per ride from its drivers) to pay for their $3 million dollar liability coverage...Great idea I would say..or would you also argue with this business model.

So Uber is a well run company, breaking the rules of old taxi businesses all over the world that is literally corrupt, too expensive, slow often in getting to a customer and then can you trust the route they take if you do not know the area because in the 30 or so countries I have lived and/or traveled through they tend to take advantage of riders lack of knowledge to run the meter up, if they even use a meter....

So before you start spewing garbage about one more item you know nothing about, why not do a little research and become correctly informed so we would respect your arguments! What an idea that would be...or just continue running off your opinions with toxic comments and total lack of knowledge of what is being said! I challenge you to become informed consumers rather than just detractors and devisive opinionated naysayers.