cleopatra2

The term เกษียณ refers to a point in time , thus would be age . It is usual for someone to reach pensionable age and continue working. In this case the person would not be retired, but have reached pensionable age. The actual term used is to signify that the person is no longer making a living, i.e . The person is retired.

Can I ask where you got the translation from. The term บั้นปลาย means at the end. And ใช้ชีวิต while relating to lifetranslates to " means of life " in this context. Thus means of living has now ended . Which corresponds to the English word Retirement , no longer actively working. When the applicant provided the reason for stay it is assumed that the applicant knows what he is writing. The fact that the IO did not mention ar ask if the applicant intended to work is immaterial. It is the obligation of the applicant to provide the full details. Whilst the IO can request further information this does not relieve the applicant of this obligation. If the applicant intention is to work there are a number of other Non IM subcategories available for this purpose. The granting of a NoN IM does not automatically give authorisation to work. The subcategory of the NoN IM can place conditions on the type of work available. For example a NoN IM M for media duties , or Non IM F for official government duties. A person who enters on Non IM F would not be allowed to carry out work that required Non IM M. Thus given that the extension is for the purpose of retirement. There is no occupations available under this category , simply because the purpose iof extension is for persons not working in Thailand.

The Thai language makes it clear that the purpose is for person's who are retired , no longer actively working If the purposes was for retirement age it would use different language. The age of 50 is just a qualifying criteria.

The following is taken from the OSOS " Eligibility for issuance of a work permit to the holder (only for category B and category O (only a foreigner who married to a Thai national); " https://osos.boi.go.th/EN/how-to/218/Getting-Visa--Work-Permit/

When an applicant applies for permission of stay on the basis of retirement, the applicant is indicating that they have withdrawn from active working life. Thus the permission is granted with the belief the applicant is no longer working. If the applicant so wishes to be gainfully employed the necessity to stay cannot be for the purposes of retirement. The Thai language specified for purposes of retirement translates to " making a living has ended". ( ใช้ชีวิตบั้นปลาย)

It would fall in section 341 . Causing the immigration officer to issue a permit of stay without declaring the full facts.

The issue would be the application for permission to stay based upon retirement. The applicant has to state the reason for requesting an extension of stay. In the case of retirement this can only be reasonable construed that the applicant is retired and does not intend to work. Thus if the applicant subsequently applies for a WP the initial application for extension would be fraudulent unless the reason for stay is changed.

Just because one person has managed to recieve a WP with Non O extension based upon retirement does not mean it is the norm. The OP headline implies that a WP is now available for a Non O retirement. Thus I would expect some official documentation to be provided from the Labor dept. to support this.

MF would need the backing of other parties. It also assumes that there will be no defections .

The ruling has very little effect. Pita can be renominated as long as the renomination is not the same . Thus if PT nominate their candidate then MF can nominate Pita because the resolution will be different from the previous.(Pita was the sole nominee, now the facts are different).

Going into opposition is not a good idea. This option is usually made assuming the government is a minority and the opposition have the numerical numbers. However it fails to take into account that MPs are not a loyal to any party. What would happen is a number of MPs would switch political allegiance from opposition parties to the parties of the ruling government . Thus the opposition would be a minority.

Aiding and abetting tax avoidance cannot be unethical . That is why companies and individuals employ accountants , to reduce the amount of tax due.

Big Joke as immigration chief always regarded the immigration act outdated and sought to have it rewritten. Now maybe he has sufficient evidence to persuade the person's in authority to do so. My personal opinion is that the prospective changes will involve more than the monies in the bank. It will involve a complete overhaul of the system.

MF seems somewhat confused. Initially claiming that Parliament did not have the authority to apply rule 41. Some MF taking the issue to the ombudsman and eventually the CC. Now MF want Parliament to settle the issue and not involve the CC.

There is no obligationt for a shop/store to accept legal tender. The method of acceptable payment is at the shops discretion. The term Legal tender only means that if a person owes a debt and presents legal tender to pay that debt , the creditor cannot pursue the debt if they refuse to accept the legal tender.

Oh come on ! The singular pronoun They is used when the subject has been introduced but the sex has not been identified. " They " as a singular pronoun is used in spoken English regularly , and is recorded in literature from 18th , 19th century.

You are correct that the UK does not need to have another states permission. However the UKs position is the uprating as a general rule is not exportable outside the UK. In addition over the years the UK have entered into agreements with other states on Social Security provisions. These agreements can require that the uprating is to be applied.

The CC suspended Pita acting only in the capacity of MP. Pita was still able to be nominated to be PM.

I would agree. However the supposed meeting is gaining traction in the media. The timing of MF requesting the issue of Pita renomination to be sorted by Parliament alone aligns . The alleged meeting took place on Monday/Tuesday. MF makes the statement of Pita renomination on Wednesday.

Did not 17 MF members petition the ombudsman , who then went to the CC. Now the MF want not to involve the CC and allow Parliament to decide . Parliament already decided for Pita to be renominated a change of status is required. The same nomination cannot be resubmitted.

The new Senators do not have a vote. It will solely be the House of Representatives.

If the strategy is to wait for May when the senators no longer have a vote, this would be a mistake for the MF party. The coalition only exists in an attempt to nullify the Senators vote. Once the Senators no longer have a vote , there is no reason for the coalition to exist. Both MF and PT have sufficient numbers to bring about their own separate majority with other parties. Of course there is no guarantee that before May next year an opposition party nominates another candidate and bypassing the existing coalition.

Regarding the PM does not have to be a MP. However the PM candidate still falls under the prohibition of MPs , namely section 98. I would envisage if Pita is approved as PM whilst the issue of ITV shares is still unresolved , then a petition on Pita suitability as a minister will be lodged. Section 89 of the constitution leads to section 160 ( prohibitions of ministers) , which further leads to section 98 and the prohibition of share ownership arises again.

The Ombudsman is saying Parliaments use of rule 41 was unconstitutional.Thus has refered the use of rule 41 to not accept the renomination to the CC . The CC acceptance of the EC Pita shares and subsequent suspension is not being challenged by the ombudsman

They have already 2 votes for this coalition , one by motion the other by proxy. On both occasions the coalition unsuccessfull.