rdhowell

I recently commented on a now closed thread about the word "farang." I suggested it was a derogatory term.

2 readers expressed "confusion", one expressed "sad."

Well, to help clear up the confusion, here are two perspectives:

"Farang is basically a neutral word, but people who respect you (or who should respect you) will not use it - if you hear a work colleague, for example, refer to you as farang they probably mean it as an insult while a taxi driver or market vendor doing the same is unlikely to mean any offense at all."

"While the Thai may say "Oh, we don't mean any offence, we say it in a nice way", the fact is that by not using skin colour, or nationality, and collectively lumping all western (anglosaxon derived) peoples as 'farang', there is both an implicit and overt tendency to join all three attributes. 

And, as farang is used in a derogatory manner at times, it clearly has a racist meaning. "

This is one perspective, mind you.

Would be interesting to hear what others think.

16 hours ago, Megasin1 said:

the in-laws

Yea no kidding. 

Plus the fact that, later on, when these kids grow up, what a confusing view of "marriage" they will have to sort through.

And when "luck" doesn't pan out, what to think of the whole affair that happened back then?

2 hours ago, Just Weird said:

Love to see how you are going to "bite" me!

Wow, you are "just weird" after all.

2 hours ago, Just Weird said:

Your fatuous "analogies" make even less sense than the rest of your post.

 

No, you just don't understand them.

But if you want to try and back up your assertions, feel free. Otherwise, your comment is meaningless.

1 hour ago, Chivas said:

lol my children were bought up to understand drugs were strictly taboo off limits and expect no support from me should the shight hit the fan

All 5 have no record or history of drugs. Alcohol for your information whilst quite capable of causing mayhem is not an illegal substance. Drugs simply are and anyone who supports the convicted lad clearly has a history themselves.

I would have given him a maximum stretch on top of the fine plus the lifetime banning. He got off lightly

The things that are "clear" here are:

1. You are laughing to yourself

2. Think you know what "the history" of 5 children are, which means you have no idea how to parent with that illusion 

3. Assume that you can determine someone else's "history" of drug use by their support/lack thereof of "this lad", and

4. Its a good thing you have no say so in the matter, because your skeletons would be brought out of your closet if you were in such a position.

But wow. As they might say in the States, "You Go Girl!"

2 hours ago, Just Weird said:

"There are bribes. There is corruption".

There's no need to point that out yet again, she knows it only too well, she was part of it even though she didn't have to be.

And so you are part of many problems, including drugs and corruption, or who knows what else, because you pay taxes and/or purchase products keeping suppliers in business, and one or more of these things ultimately lead to the deaths of many people. Lets not be a hypocrite.

So its best for you not to push this idea, because it will turn and bite you just as well.

2 hours ago, Just Weird said:

Jesus, what a load of garbage.

 

"Legality, and thus criminality, are in the eye of the beholder".

No, legality, as you stated yourself, is established by law, it is not up to any individual to decide what is legal or otherwise unless you believe, for example, that murder is only illegal in the eyes of the individual!

The garbage is yours. Jesus would agree, because you quoted me out of context, as many do Jesus.

Read the very next sentence: "In this important sense: a "crime" has no necessary connection to Right vs. Wrong; Ethics; Morals."

So here is the whole passage:

Legality, and thus criminality, are in the eye of the beholder. In this important sense: a "crime" has no necessary connection to Right vs. Wrong; Ethics; Morals.

I hope you see the difference, and the meaning.

The whole point being that just because its legal, doesn't make it "right" and vice versa.

This is why we are discussing this topic. Namely, that possessing marijuana here is illegal,  and carries harsh punishment sometimes. But that doesn't mean its "wrong" , nor does it mean the penalties are deserved.

Thus many conclude the law is in fact unjust, and the penalties are unjust. And I agree.

1 hour ago, Just Weird said:

No, I didn't blame her for the corruption; what I did was comment that she had made a derogatory comment about corrupt practices after contributing to them by voluntarily paying bribes to Thai authorities in order to get her son's case fast-tracked.  That is called hypocrisy.

 

And any ignorance is not mine!

First, your exact words: "Don't self-righteously complain about corruption when you chose to part of it!"

The only way to interpret this is that she was a part of the corruption - "you chose to [be a] part of it."

That is blaming her for having a part in the fact that there is corruption. Because she payed a bribe.

Maybe you didn't realize it, but you are exactly blaming her. She played a part in the corruption. She was complicit.

This is really simple, so I will assume that you just didn't realize that you were, in fact, blaming her.

An analogy: People who purchase alcohol, but don't drive drunk,  are still contributing to drunk driving deaths by keeping alcohol stores open, keeping it legal, where the person who did drink and drive purchased the alcohol, resulting in a fatality.

Many people argue just such a point. They are blaming everyone who purchases alcohol, to some degree, on the death of a person, not just the drunk driver.

So you are doing the same here. Enough of that point. Best to just accept it and go from there.

However, that approach is very problematic. At the end of the day, the corrupt officials will be blamed, accordingly, for the problem, and not the people who desperately bribe their way out. The officials created the problem in the first place, so the blame is ultimately on them, as it should be.

As far as hypocrisy, again, the officials setting up the situation for a bribe are the focus. You can say that "technically" she was a hypocrite, but any reasonable person will not buy it.

Another analogy: John sets up a situation for Jim in that the only way out for Jim is to kill an innocent person.

No judge will hold Jim accountable.

The same is true here. She did what she had to do, because the officials set the whole thing up.

From that more accurate perspective, she is not a hypocrite in the normal sense, just as Jim is not a murderer.

I hope that makes sense.

Second, I was not referring to you as being ignorant. That should be clear from the reply.

2 minutes ago, huberthammer said:

mate - you trying to set a new record on how many replies a single user can have on a single topic?  You seem to be quite the authority on all aspects of this story.

Point well taken. 

Just got into the groove, I guess.

Cheers!

8 hours ago, Mum2 said:

Thank you to all for your supportive words, it has been a trying few months! Those who commented otherwise; that is your prerogative; thank goodness for freedom of speech. 

 

The main reason for posting the update was to serve as a salutary lesson to those travellers who think breaking laws abroad is a good idea. It is not - ever. 

 

A few points to note;

1: the drugs were openly sold at bars and being consumed on the premises

2: Buy them and consume them on the premises and you are probably ok, buy them, have a panic and  stupidly take them away - you are fair game for a phone ahead ‘road block’. This appears to be the MO for bars who want to keep both the law and their customers appeased

3: if there are 2 or more of you - expect both of you to be arrested, regardless of who has possession

 

It may feel that ‘everyone is doing it’ and that may be the case, but just don’t! 

  

A good conclusion to the drama that unfolded.

Using drugs whatsoever, regardless of legality, morality, is always a dangerous thing to do. But we all do dangerous things. I think we can all agree on these.

Every country has different laws regarding drugs. Know them in advance, and be prepared. Right vs Wrong does not matter. It's the practical issue that is more relevant, for now.

However, go beyond the written law.

In this country, for example, the written law matters less compared to Western countries. Thus, you may bribe your way out, regardless of written law. I know, because I have done it.

But you also may be dealt an incredible injustice. Much of the outcome is unpredictable here, but more predictable in Western countries who tend to follow written law. There should be little or no dispute on that issue either.

And of course, everyone is not doing it, but if they are, and it's wrong/immoral/illegal - so what? This is about you, not them. 

Now if we can get some closure on the other issue regarding whether or not a foreign person can/should be dealt with judicially after being arrested, in terms of bail/passport/court hearing, etc.

Again, don't rely on written law which has been posted here. If you do, you are missing the point.

The outcome is still uncertain - because each officer/court/judge may or may not follow the written law. There are bribes. There is corruption. Every case is different.

Displaying written law, or using it as a defence, becomes less meaningful in this country called Thailand.

Think in terms of practicality and corruption. Not written law.

11 hours ago, gaff said:

 

I would feel ashamed to have parents like you, as you clearly show that you know nothing and understand nothing.

How stupid can be some people is beyond understanding, how can they be allowed to have kids ?!

 

 

Wow. Read your own post before telling someone they know nothing and understand nothing, and asking how stupid "can be some people."

Quite amusing.

But at least you seem genuine enough. 

And that's a great question: how are some people allowed to have kids!

But it's off topic, unfortunately.

11 hours ago, Just Weird said:

There was no "made-up" crime in this case.

Actually, every crime is made-up, by DEFINITION.

A "crime" is something that is illegal, and "illegal" is established by a person/court/country, etc.

Legality, and thus criminality, are in the eye of the beholder.

In this important sense: a "crime" has no necessary connection to Right vs Wrong; Ethics; Morals.

Most people here taking issue with the woman and her son are doing so because of an Implicit assumption, which they do not state openly: a crime means that it is Wrong, morally. This is what really urks them (and perhaps you) underneath, but few will admit this.

However, nothing could be farther from the truth.

A crime is man-made. There is no crime unless a law is created by man. But whether that law reflects the reality of it being morally wrong - that is an entirely separate issue.

10 hours ago, Just Weird said:

"Nothing self-righteous about pointing out the fact".

There is when she was contributing to the corruption by paying bribes to get her son fast-tracked through the court!

 

Ignorance?  Don't think so.

 

 

Wow, blame the mom for the corruption of the officials!!!!

Hahaha. No need to waste time pointing out the flaw there.

Yes. Sorry, but it was ignorance. Deal.

5 hours ago, africasiaeuro said:

Everyone going to Thailand knows how strict the laws are in the Kingdom. He was lucky. Because of such cases, the Farung community is being tainted.

Farung back, he should be banned from returning. 

 

 

Actually your using the derogatory word "Farung" taints the foreign community by being an embarrassment to us foreigners.

You speak as though the Thais don't taint themselves enough with their "Ya-ba" issues.

You should be banned for complicentcy.

5 hours ago, ubeturazz said:

don't commit the crime if you can't do the time.

 

Haha.....yet another.

More useful: let your voice be heard about the injustice of the made-up "crime" and the time attached to it.

5 hours ago, Swimman said:

Anyone who messes with drugs, anywhere in SE Asia must be a slate short of a roof. Penalties can be draconian and the person cited by the OP was very lucky.

Another beer short of a six-pack reply. The point here is corruption. And the "draconian" penalties. A useful reply would have been to address those.

8 hours ago, Just Weird said:

"The issue is the legal system is trying to appear to operate in an uncorrupt way (no bribes on arrest etc.), but underneath it all corruption is rife..."

Don't self-righteously complain about corruption when you chose to part of it!   You didn't have to be, that is called hypocrisy.

Haha...."self-righteously complain about corruption"? Corruption is corruption. Nothing self-righteous about pointing out the fact.

For you, this is called ignorance.

8 hours ago, Just Weird said:

No, it's not a case of my thinking, hoping and wishing, it's a case of my knowing what happens in that situation. 

 

Mum2 has not been in that situation, neither has her son as he left before his visa expired!   She was quoting hearsay which was incorrect so keep your demands for respect to yourself.

No, you still don't get it. You don't "[know] what happens in that situation" at all. Because every situation here is different. There is no "that situation". Everything depends - whether you can bribe your way out or not. 

The bigger issue is the fact that the system is corrupt, so the written law matters little, if anything.

Saying you know because you have "been there", or you know the actual written law/rules - is a meaningless statement in this country.

Not really. Since I have apparently paid nothing but I assume will get something ( 3000 bht, btw, so significant money). But until the package is in my hands, who knows. Will post back. I just don't want to get in trouble with bank, get accused of "stealing", etc. which, as a foreigner, would not be good!