MekhongKurt

All sorts of garbage is being circulated.

I've said it before and am saying it again now: go to your local Immigration Bureau office and do what they tell you to do -- being careful to document it every step of the way (so you can protect yourself against charges from headquarters in Bangkok).

Do what your told, document it, and you'll be bullet-proof in court. Friends of mine have been there, done that, got the post card and T-shirt.

I'm hesitant to speak on visa issues, as muddled and controversial as they are.

It may help to remember 2 things: the notion of "absolute" versus one of "discretion." For example, the law says to have a retirement visa, one must be at least 50 years old (a change made 2 or 3 years ago, when the minimum age dropped from 55), and have either 800,000 baht brought in from outside Thailand and held in a Thai bank, or a pension or other [apparently] life-long source of income -- again, abroad, then transferred into a Thai bank -- of at least 65,000 baht/month, or any combination of the 2 resulting in one having at least 800,000 baht/year from outside sources coming into the Kingdom. I've seen an English translation of this from Immigration here in Bangkok, and I asked an attorney friend (not in immigration) to check with one of his lawyer friends specializing in immigration law, and my friend reported back his friend confirmed those are indeed the condtions -- in writing.

Yet I personally know people who have received retirement visas without meeting the amount requirements as far as deposited in Thai banks. They did, however, meet the minimum requirements. One acquaintance showed a bank account here in which he had depostied the then-equivalent of about 80,000 baht in U.S. dollars -- but he also produced ATM receipts showing he withdrew more than the 65,000 baht per month and had been doing so for about 2 years from an account in a U.S. bank (his branch physically located in the U.S.), withdrawing it from ATM's here in Thailand. He got a retirement visa in short order, and a new one with equally little trouble a year later. Clearly, the immigration officer reviewing his case felt the foreigner was indeed meeting the spirit of the law, if not the letter of it -- an ATM withdrawal isn't a direct deposit into a Thai bank, after all.

I don't know anyone who has gotten a retirement visa for the first time recently here in Bangkok; though I know a lot of people with retirement and marriage visas, they all got them at least a few years ago, one or two having had theirs for 30-40 years. I've heard that Bangkok is being far stricter than provincial offices in enforcing the letter of the law.

But even in Bangkok discretionary enforcement is possible. About2-1/2 years ago, I was out of time, period, including the extensions of my tourist visa, except for a final 7-day one. I could have left within that 7 days, but to have done so would have been enormously inconvenient. If I could stay 2 more weeks, the problem would be resolved and I could depart as required. I explained the situation to a visa officer, and he called upstairs, then told me to go talk to one of his superiors. I did so, and the guy was really nice. I already had an air ticket for 14 days later, and showed him that. He told me no problem, that he would grant me the extra 7 days, and even said he agreed that was far easier all the way around than for me to have to leave smack in the middle of some business then try to rush back. Was his granting me the extra week legal? -- I haven't the faintest, though I assumed then (and do now) he had the authority to do so.

Related to all this is consistency of information. While the visa officers with whom I've spoken in recent years, especially the past year, have seemed to be genuinely trying their dead-level best to give me correct and timely information, sometimes information on the same point from more than one officer has been inconsistent or even outright contradictory. I don't know why that is, only that it is. Even so, in my own experience (though not everyone's), I've found it generally best to ask at Immigration what you need to do, then do it. You could, conceivably, meet a different officer the nexdt visit who gives you a different set of hoops to jump through, but I have no answer for why or how to avoid it.

It no doubt will be of interest to some here what I learned last Friday when I was at Immigration getting an extension of my 60-day tourist visa. I asked my buddy there, who is not a visa officer, if he could find out if people already in the retirement or marriage visa loop will be grandfathered in when the new regulations go into effect July 10, 2004. He told me he had already checked with his buddies over in the visa section, and they had told him no, the requirements will be uniform across the board. As part of my extension process he walked me upstairs; while I was waiting, he chatted with an NCO I recognized as a Senior Sergeant Major and a lady I think to be a captain. I didn't know *what* they were talking about, as I don't speak or understand Thai, but when my friend and I left, he told me that was the office with the final say regarding the matter, and his friends there had confirmed what his other buddies had said -- come July 10th, even people long in the loop will have to meet the 800,000 baht in the bank requirement or the one to show at least 65,000 baht a month.

How rigorously that will be enforced in an entirely different question -- one leading, inevitably, back to discretionary authority, thereby restarting the circle, which is endless. . . .

You're right, George -- it is nice of the folks at 2Bangkok.com to have let you know about the AFP story. I read it immediately, with great interest.

Much as I've criticized successive governments, I applaud all of them involved in sheparding first the Skytrain and now the subway into operation!

Though I believe what I'm about to say to be true, as I trust the source, he is a single source -- a police senior sergeant major in the Immigration Headquarters in Bangkok. He is *not* in the visa section, but has served in several capacities there. He also has many foreign friends, and has had for years, so has made it a point to bering himself up to speed -- and as up to date as possible -- on visa issues.

After first hearing about anecdotal reports of some people having problems while others didn't, I asked him these stories, if true, meant there is a change in the air and, if so, why changes were coming about inconsistently.

Keeping in mind he isn't a visa official nor was in any way speaking officially, he told me he had asked his friends in visa section the same questions. While they were speaking as friends and colleagues, they told him to the first question the uninformative reply "Maybe." To the 2nd, he told me something I hadn't previously known: they reminded him that each area commander in immigration has considerable latitude in both implementation of policies. At the same time, he added it is is understanding (and has been a long time) that local commanders are required to follow policy sent from headquarters. While he disagrees that this makes little sense -- we finally agreed to disagree on that point -- he did agree it sure makes it hard for us to know.

I guess if what my friend said is true then of course some people are going to breeze through trouble-free while others are go screaming into the wilderness after having been hassled to no end. And who knows what it means to say things maybe will change.

BTW, Thursday night I saw him and he told me to help get word out that from Friday through next Sunday there is going to be a tightening of enforcement of the law requiring foreigners to carry their passports on them at all times, a tightening he swaid would take place in the obvious areas, specifically mentioning Patpong, Nana Plaza, Soi Cowboy, and Soi 33. I don't like carrying my passport with me, but I know my friend would not warn me if he didn't believe it. He did say if one was found to be legally in the country and had no other legal difficulties, things would be okay -- but it would take at least some time to go with the police, then wait while they researched your status. It doesn't seem worth the risk to me, even though I am perfectly legal, so would be cleared. But spending several hours at a poolice station is distinctly unappealing.

WHile none of this clarifies the issues, at least we all can assume (if one believes my friend) we know why confusion and inconsistency reign.

Having given my nod to Chris Hill in my last post, I would like to say something more general here, especially to the originator of this excellent thread, the irrepressible Bruno. (I don't know Bruno, but if he's as feisty in person as he is here, I imagine he's a force to be reckoned with!)

First, Bruno, is that if what you report about the website of the French embassy is true, then that is alarming. I don't read French beyond the wee bit my 1 year of elementary Latin and considerable Spanish allow me to guess at, so I'm in no position to confirm or dispute your report.

Second is that group of comments regarding your style in the forum. I taught English, business communications, cross-cultural negotiation, cross-cultural management, etc. at university level for quite a few years in America (my original homeland), mainland China, Macau, and Thailand. One of my specialties is persuasive writing. This is difficult to achieve, in the beginning, even in one's own language. The task becomes far more of a challenge in a language foreign to the writer. When I was young, I could speak Spanish at near-native level -- but I could never argue as effectively with, say my Spanish-speaking-only teachers in the convent school in central Mexico I attended as I could my Mother in our shared native English (okay, native American for purists!). It is evident that in this particular case, you have very strong feelings, which gets in the way of anyone trying to convince others to take a particular course of action.

Those challenges show up in some of your posts. No, Bruno, I'm not being at all critical. I have felt a few other posters have been a bit too strong with you, but I attribute your "agressiveness" as arising from language and emotion. But it is something to consider, if you truly wish to be successful in persuading *many* others.

Finally, on the point of Thai official attitudes towards overstays, visas generally, indeed to foreigners in general, of whatever nationality, it is tempting to say the situation is absolute because the law says such and such.

I worked, albeit briefly, as a police officer when I was a very foolish young man (now I'm merely "foolish"), and a long while in security, dealing daily with law enforcement.

In far more instances than one might imagine, the law offered me more of a guideline than a clear directive -- though a murder, is or course, a murder, and that's plenty clear.

But what about the guy speeding *just* enough to trigger an automatic stop who is anxiously rushing to try to make it in time to the hospital to see his baby delivered? If his violation is minor, should the police officer punish him by ticketing him? The law says he can, and implies he should.

Thai immigration police are in somewhat the same situation. That they impose a fine *is* absolute. That a record be made is also absolute. But they also can make comments in the record about extenuating circumstances the foreigner in violation has convinced them are genuine, thus mitigating the review the *next* immigration officer makes of that foreigner's record.

Further, even for Thai police and Thai lawyers themselves to know with any certainty precisely what the law IS presents a far greater challenge than it does for their cousins in other countries, an effect of the fact that the passage of a new law in Thailand does *not* negate the old one; that takes a specific legislative, executive, judicial, or, where appropriate, administrative action. (No, I'm not a lawyer, but one of my best friends is, and we've discussed this facet of the Thai legal system many times over the years.)

Look at all the confusion over matters such as retirement visas. I've heard stories from people I consider to be honest and reliable -- and no two have ever had the same experience as any other.

To return to your original reason for openiong this subject: you are absolutely correct to want no one, especially your own embassy, to be saying or implying an overstay of any length is somehow "okay." As for the "legality" of an overstay of 20 days or less, I suspect this is a misinterpretation of the guideline my police senior sergeant major friend in Immigration told me about -- i.e., at this point in time, the 90th day is supposed to trigger an alarm bell, according to him.

Good luck in getting your embassy to be more accurate on the website.

Incidentally, about 76% of ALL our foreign prisoners in Pattaya and the local remand prisons are overstay offences.

We have a Helpline through the Pattaya Expats Club - it is 061-451-583.

Helpline E-mail is [email protected]

Hoping not to see you in trouble,

Chris Hill

Chris Hill --

Good on you for publicizing your information. I have been aware of the Pattaya Expats Club, but I wasn't aware of either the helpline or the statistics you cite.

Given the reports of incorrect information from not just any embassy but from the French one, I'd like to say one of my best friends here is a Police Senior Sergeant Major in the Area 2 Immigration Headquarters here in Bangkok, and he tells me such misinformation is unfortunate (to say the least!) because it gives people overstaying false comfort.

Now that the Immigration Department is pretty much computerized, it's an easy matter for Immigration authorities to check one's record with respect to visas, overstaying, etc.

My friend says the zealousness strict enforcement varies, but we're talking the difference between pretty darned strict and draconian, from what he says. He does say the shorter the overstay the less problem one will have upon departure --but he adds that enforcement is pretty much absolute, meaning that with the exception of a 1-day overstay, for which one isn't fined (though changing the regulations to allow a fine of 200 baht for even a single day's overstay is apparently under serious consideration), a fine will be imposed.

The fine is most assuredly 200 baht per day.

Of greater concern to me than the fine is the record, since that means a black mark for any overstay. And it's important to remember that contrary to popular belief, a visa is NOT a guarantee one will be allowed entry into any country in the world; it is permission for a foreigner to report to any given country's immigration authorities at a port of entry, authorities who decide whether or not to let the foreigner in. And if anyone has a long history of overstays -- even short ones -- they do pop up on the officer's screen here (and elsewhere), so an officer is within his or her legal rights if permission to enter is denied.

And my friend says that record is being weighed far more heavily these days than it used to be.

I had a passport stolen last year *just* before I was due to make a visa run. I was 2 or 3 days late leaving, so had to pay a nominal fine. The officer at the airport was very polite about it, and told me my record was good enough I didn't need to worry. However, upon my return a few days later, the officer to whom I reported questioned me at some length about my stolen passport, having seen the record of the incident on her computer screen. I hasten to add she was extraordinarily polite -- but she did question me for a good 10 minutes. (And let me in with no further ado.) She specifically said the short overstay was one reason, if by far the lesser one, she was questioning me.

I've never visited the French embassy, but if someone reading this thread knows someone in the embassy, perhaps he or she could let that person know. And it would be an easy matter for the appropriate embassy personnel to confirm the current state of affairs via the Immigration Department.

Maybe a motive behind this move is to distract foreigners and Thais alike from thinking about the controversy over the now-abandoned plans to enforce new laws regarding when entertainment venues can be open (abandoned for those licesend prior to January 13, 2004 anyway) and even more importantly, to deflect Thai attention in particular away from the EGAT controversy and the persistent bird flu cover-up allegations still floating around.

As a friend of mine once said, "He who seeks logic in Thais' thought processes is doomed to descending into madness." A bit too broad a statement, but I have had plenty of "opportunities" to recall it -- ruefully!

Hey Mekhongkurt, Well posed to something GREAT? GET A GRIP! The only thing Thaksin is after is to make himself richer and keep the poor uneducated. He didn't care when he put his education proposal up (which HM shot down) and he DAM# sure didn't care when the bird flu came here. How many people must die because he wants to line his or his cronies pockets.

Hi, Kringle --

I clearly failed to distiguish between the current government's power to do good and its inclination to do so.

I think the numbers of Thai Rak Thai MP's speak for themselves: PM Thaksin and the TRT have a commanding control of Parliament and the government generally. Allow me to point out that part of the last sentence of my earlier post reads "I will become very encouraged when that administration does something both worthy and substainable (unlike the bankrupting 30-baht health scheme) tp help the nation." I had thought that made clear that I am singularly unimpressed with the current administration.

We don't disagree in our assessments. But given the realities, all any of us can do, especially we foreigners who can't vote in elections anyway, is to try to keep some faint hope that enough people within Thai Rak Thai will come to their senses -- whether out of pure greed or not -- and realize that Thais are wising up.

Or that's what I hope is going on. But if not, it won't be the first time I have been wrong.

Hope this makes the distinction between ability and probabilty -- as I do agree.

APIC asks a very relavent question: "By the way, is there any proof statistically that shorter closing hours will reduce crime?"

Short answer: no, not according to my admittedly relatively low-level sources. But those sources are people on the street confronting have to deal with this garbage if it comes about, deal with it in their faces.

My home country's experiment (America's) with Prohibition last century showed the foolishmess of such an approach. And I speak as a former police officer and security officer in the United States.

Something that has not been commented on enough in forums I regularly visit is the cultural issue. Thailand has a derived culture, to which Thais have made contributions. But there are Thai -- spelled "Tai" people in mainland China who are also classifed there as a so-called "minority nationality," and from whom many people in modern-day Thailand spring.

For Thailand to have a derived culture is not to say it is bad. After all, I myself am almost entirely of European stock (other than my 1/64th American Indian blood), but American by birth, and I am in the vast majority of my countrymen, so I'm hardly in a position to criticize Thailand or any other country whose culture originally came from somewhere else.

I can, and am, saying it's a load of garbage for government officials to talk, moan, weep, and carry on about violations of "Thai culture."

Most of the economic and political ruling groups in Thailand are of either Chinese or Indian descent, though they are not always very happy to admit it, especially regarding Chinese ancestry.

The current administration in well posed to do great good for the Kingdom, given its commanding control of the Parliament. I will become very encouraged when that administration does something both worthy and substainable (unlike the bankrupting 30-baht health scheme) tp help the nation -- even if it remains anti-foreign.

Thai Government Decides on Delay and Partial Reprieve Regarding Operating Hours for Various Entertainment Venues

George, do you know whether this Nation article ever appeared? I tried searching for it on the Nation's website, didn't find anything.

Sabaijai --

What George actually posted was a news alert I sent to subscribers of my web site, in which I made reference to Saturday's (February 28, 2004) edition of The Nation, which ran an article on page 1 of that's day's edition about the pullback. The headline is from my news alert, and, sorry to say, while I have a copy of that paper, I don't have it with me, so I can't tell you the headline under which the story ran there.

As George has already noted, it's strange that the paper never got around to including the story in its online edition.

Maybe I can get someone at The Nation to give me permission to run the story here and on my own web site; I know 2 reporters there, so I'll call them to ask, if you like.

To Mr Pat Pong,

                      The difference between Thailand, Europe and other Farang countries is simple "When will Thai Police perform the duties they're paid for. Ive lived in Thailand for 12 years with my Thai wife,I love Thailand very much but surely why change the entertainment laws.Why not have plain clothed squads of Policeman checking these venues to make sure law and order prevails or is midnight well past a Thai Policemans bed time ?Only just recently,I seen 3 young boys sniffing glue,2 of them kept falling over.Two young Police officers walked past and just laughed at them, in a Farang country the minium would have been to take these young kids of the streets by the Police and take them to their parents.Thats how you protect minors,not by punishing responsible adults.

I agree that the instance you quote is very wrong...but I was asking the poster about Thai's getting visa's into Europe...that poster was also whining about thai visa's and work permits. So many cannot see two sides of the coin.

Dr. Pat Pong --

You are quite right, of course, that some people don't seem to realize that every coin has 2 sides. But there is another aspect of this worth considering.

That is, if "1 side of the coin is wrong" doesn't mean that for the other side of the coin also to be wrong makes both sides okay. I'm American, and during my nearly 2 decades in Asia I've heard lots of my fellow countrymen complain about difficulties getting work permits, long-term visas, etc., especially in countries such as [mainland] China. In general, I have agreed with them, while acknowledging that my own country makes it ridiculously difficult for foreigners even to visit, let alone live and work there.

While it has done no good for me to have done so, I have written my elected representatives as well as officials of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and members of administrations of the day complaining about the ludicrous rigidity of U.S. laws regarding foreigners.

My having done so makes it seem reasonable to me to note with concern restrictive moves by other governments in their dealings with foreigners, although those moves can be argued to be nothing more than "the other side of the coin."

From a Thai perspective, one cannot reasonably argue that to try to rein in the free-wheeling nature of night life here is inherently wrong. However, one can question -- reasonably -- the basic strategy of pursuing such a goal in a way sure to hurt far more poor Thais than it will hurt the "dark forces" behind the evils associated with the night life industry. As a comparison, consider the hugely popular (with our Thai friends) anti-drug drive of 2003. How many big shots were apprehended? If one goes by media reports, exactly zero. Regarding corruption, another comparison is to the number of senior members of government (appointed or elected) who have been jailed or otherwise punished for corrupt activities in their official duties -- precious few, and even those few are widely regarded to have irritated stronger and bigger "dark forces" than they themselves were or to have been sacrificial lambs.

Many of my Thai friends (cynically?) believe the current plans regarding zoning of entertainment areas is nothing more than a program to boost the under-the-table income of the police and other relevant public authorities. Some cite the establishments along Sutthisan Road as examples, which, they say, are largely connected with the police and/or military. They pose the rhetorical question "Do you really believe the places where the big shots go will be regulated? Do you truly think the big shots will allow any interference in their own 'entertainment'?"

As a side closing note, let me say I was astonished last night when a friend, a Thai bar owner, was earnestly imploring other bar owners to speak up regarding the looming restrictions yet also kept saying how much she loves the current administration. This mind set that leads some people to love a government because (in her case) of such matters as the 30-baht health scheme is downright frightening in its implications -- i.e., it suggests that even when a government does one thing a native intensely dislikes that dissatisfaction is more than offest by another thing that government has done that the person *does* like.

But all this is, after all, ultimately up to the Thais to sort out -- as is proper.

To Mr Pat Pong,

                      The difference between Thailand, Europe and other Farang countries is simple "When will Thai Police perform the duties they're paid for. Ive lived in Thailand for 12 years with my Thai wife,I love Thailand very much but surely why change the entertainment laws.Why not have plain clothed squads of Policeman checking these venues to make sure law and order prevails or is midnight well past a Thai Policemans bed time ?Only just recently,I seen 3 young boys sniffing glue,2 of them kept falling over.Two young Police officers walked past and just laughed at them, in a Farang country the minium would have been to take these young kids of the streets by the Police and take them to their parents.Thats how you protect minors,not by punishing responsible adults.

I agree that the instance you quote is very wrong...but I was asking the poster about Thai's getting visa's into Europe...that poster was also whining about thai visa's and work permits. So many cannot see two sides of the coin.

Dr. Pat Pong --

You are quite right, of course, that some people don't seem to realize that every coin has 2 sides. But there is another aspect of this worth considering.

That is, if "1 side of the coin is wrong" doesn't mean that for the other side of the coin also to be wrong makes both sides okay. I'm American, and during my nearly 2 decades in Asia I've heard lots of my fellow countrymen complain about difficulties getting work permits, long-term visas, etc., especially in countries such as [mainland] China. In general, I have agreed with them, while acknowledging that my own country makes it ridiculously difficult for foreigners even to visit, let alone live and work there.

While it has done no good for me to have done so, I have written my elected representatives as well as officials of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and members of administrations of the day complaining about the ludicrous rigidity of U.S. laws regarding foreigners.

My having done so makes it seem reasonable to me to note with concern restrictive moves by other governments in their dealings with foreigners, although those moves can be argued to be nothing more than "the other side of the coin."

From a Thai perspective, one cannot reasonably argue that to try to rein in the free-wheeling nature of night life here is inherently wrong. However, one can question -- reasonably -- the basic strategy of pursuing such a goal in a way sure to hurt far more poor Thais than it will hurt the "dark forces" behind the evils associated with the night life industry. As a comparison, consider the hugely popular (with our Thai friends) anti-drug drive of 2003. How many big shots were apprehended? If one goes by media reports, exactly zero. Regarding corruption, another comparison is to the number of senior members of government (appointed or elected) who have been jailed or otherwise punished for corrupt activities in their official duties -- precious few, and even those few are widely regarded to have irritated stronger and bigger "dark forces" than they themselves were or to have been sacrificial lambs.

Many of my Thai friends (cynically?) believe the current plans regarding zoning of entertainment areas is nothing more than a program to boost the under-the-table income of the police and other relevant public authorities. Some cite the establishments along Sutthisan Road as examples, which, they say, are largely connected with the police and/or military. They pose the rhetorical question "Do you really believe the places where the big shots go will be regulated? Do you truly think the big shots will allow any interference in their own 'entertainment'?"

As a side closing note, let me say I was astonished last night when a friend, a Thai bar owner, was earnestly imploring other bar owners to speak up regarding the looming restrictions yet also kept saying how much she loves the current administration. This mind set that leads some people to love a government because (in her case) of such matters as the 30-baht health scheme is downright frightening in its implications -- i.e., it suggests that even when a government does one thing a native intensely dislikes that dissatisfaction is more than offest by another thing that government has done that the person *does* like.

But all this is, after all, ultimately up to the Thais to sort out -- as is proper.

Lead editorial in "The Nation" February 23, 2004:

EDITORIAL: Crisis of credibility for the media

Published on Feb 23, 2004

Thailand will be counting the costs of this month for many years to come

February 2004 will be remembered as one of the darkest months in the history of the Thai media. A ruling by an arbitration panel not only favoured compensation for iTV but also allowed the television network alter its news-heavy programming in favour of more entertainment. And then on Friday the board of directors of Post Publishing Co removed Veera Prateepchaikul as editor of the Bangkok Post. The journalists on the English-language daily issued an unprecedented statement seeking editorial independence. But it appears that political interference and business interests have won the day.

The government’s attempts to rein in the media are plain not only to the Thai public but to the entire international community. The Thai press is retreating into the kind of government-controlled creature found in Malaysia and Singapore, places where the media are known as backers of the government’s authority, policies and political continuity.

The cost of the government’s efforts to silence the media are mounting for the Thai people, both rich and poor, young and old, urban and rural. With the ruling party’s majority in the House of Representatives, as well as its stepped-up attempts to dominate the Senate, the independent agencies established to check the government’s power and the police and military establishments, authoritarianism in democratic guise is showing signs of winning the fight for Thailand. So what is the cost?

First and most visible is the use of the government budget. To counter public apprehension of its intention to tighten its grip on the country, the government will increase spending on populist programmes to win public sentiment. This wasteful spending of public money is not for the long-term good of the country but an attempt to confuse the public’s perception of the government’s intentions.

Second, it will be that much easier to sweep under the carpet any mistakes by ministers and those working on behalf of the government. A prime example was the initial handling of the bird-flu crisis. The press was deliberately kept in the dark about the outbreak, resulting in the unnecessary deaths of people who did not know about the threat posed by the disease. To date, no ministers or officials have been punished for failing to issue timely public warnings, nor have any of the people accused of covering up the disease.

Third, direct corruption and policy corruption have been allowed to thrive. People and businesses associated with the government appear to be getting overlooked when it comes to their unscrupulous dealings, some of which relate to lucrative state privatisation projects.

The public is at the point now where conflict of interest is a matter of course, as if this country had no government. The degree of the rule of law has plunged. This is at a time when Malaysia has managed to achieve respectability for the way Kuala Lumpur has started going after corrupt politicians and officials.

Fourth, nepotism is on the rise as people seek out the favour of ministers who can reward them for loyalty. Deals are struck with those who are “for the government”, and outsiders are shunned.

Last but not least is Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s desire to establish himself as Thailand’s unchallenged leader. He says no wrong and does no wrong. People close to him now say the prime minister’s every word is taken to refer to some future action. Personality signals like this have come to dominate every branch of the government.

Thaksin may claim to have no direct involvement in the iTV ruling or the shake-up at the Bangkok Post. But that is not enough.

It would be in the interest of any good, respectable and tolerant leader to ensure that a station like iTV kept to its original mission as a news station and that the credibility of the Bangkok Post, one of the country’s windows to the outside world, not be impaired.

Yet Thaksin remains above these decisive moments in modern Thai history. His belief that democracy is less important than the people’s happiness is an illusion of power. He is not rebuilding or reforming Thailand. He is merely re-branding it in the worst possible way.

The Nation

This is an interesting thread, particularly the dissenting views that perhaps government interference was not behind Veera's removal and the input from an insider.

As we all know, perception matters more than reality. And the current perception certainly is that the government did demand Veera's removal -- whether that perception is fair to the government or not.

If the government is indeed innocent, I don't see what members of it can do, easily, to convince people of their innocence, because of the history of press-bashing that dogs some members of the government. Further, should politicians take the stand the the paper was wrong to fire Veera, isn't it possible -- even likely -- that some people would view *that* as government interference in a private business as well?

The past few months have been unkind to the ruling party. First there were the controversial moves made to try to project Bangkok in the best possible light during the APEC summit. Next came Thaksin's business empire getting involved in the aviation industry and all the hue and cry that caused. Then the iTV brouhaha arose. Perhaps worst of all has been the bird flu crisis and the continuing allegations of a deliberate cover-up by government officials. And now this case of being linked to Veera's dismissal. Separate from all those issues is the hotly-debated bar-closing times set to go into effect next month.

Government members, from Prime Minister Thaksin right on down the line, sure have their plates full if they plan to try to improve their public images.

Besides having to answer, to a degree, Thai visa offices also have to answer directly to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, of course.

A couple years back I went up to Vientiane (my own personal favorite place for visa runs in this neighborhood) and applied for 2 back-to-back 60-day (extendfable) tourist visas. When I went back the folowing day to collect my passport, I felt quite lucky that the Consul General came out and handed me back 300 baht -- the application fee per visa was 300 baht at the time -- and politely and apologetically explained that because the Kingdom was then having so much trouble with mainland Chinese nationals coming into Thailand via Laos then abusing their visas in various ways, the MFO had directed the Vientiane visa office to issue no more than one tourist visa per person per application, regardless of nationality.

As with visa officers of any country, Thai ones have considerable latitude in their decisions. I guess they *have* to have. But I sure appreciated the explanation, something that rarely happens for Thais who get denied at my own embasy (U.S.A.) here in Bangkok. If anything, the norm is for refused Thais to get cold short shrift.

First --

Bourbon Street is on the backside (or opposite side) of Washington Square relative to the Irish pub. Traffic is one-way, so if you're driving or in a taxi, turn left and proceed around to just about directly opposite where you entered. After turning left at the Irish pub, you have to turn right at the next corner, then, when you get to the end of that side, turn right again. Bourbon Street is a bit along on your left, and clearly marked.

As for selling me a website, no need; I have a name registered already and am in the process of building a website.

The purpose of the Association fundamentally is to provide a non-specific organization bringing together foreigners and Thais. By "non-specific" we mean without regard to nationality, gender, occupation, etc. (The British Club, The American Women's Club, The Foreign Correspondents of Thailand Club, etc.). Within that broad parameter, we can do anything members want to do, so long as it doesn't discriminate. Activities range from purely social to personal/professional networking, and may include classes, travel, lectures, and the like.

We invite any and all of you interested to come around and chat with us.

With warm regards,

Kurt T. Francis, Vice-President

Expats' Association of Thailand

Hi, All --

Just a quick note to let you know the Expats' Association of Thailand is scheduled to resume meetings, with a general meeting this coming Sunday, January 25, 2004 3-5 P.M. at The Bourbon Street Restaurant in Washington Square (accessible from Sukhumvit Road and Sukhumvit Soi 22). We'll meet in the dining room to the left of the front door and bar-dining room area.

This is an open meeting which anyone can attend, and non-members are invited to attend.

Please let any of your friends know whom you fight feel are interested.

I hope to see you there.

With warm regards,

Kurt T. Francis, Vice-President

Expats' Association of Thailand

Overall, these rules seem fair enough to me.

One poster questions why the thread is restricted to Thailand-specific comments. That's easy to answer: the fine folks at Thaivisa.com -- none of whom I know personally (nor do I have any formal association with Thaivisa.com) -- make it convenient to start a new thread. So, if people want a thread discussing things taking place elsewhere, I suppose the Admins would allow that.

I am *not* a lawyer, but I would like to comment on applicability of Thai laws to the Internet. One of my best friends here *is* a lawyer whose firm specialize in intellectual property right cases. He has told me that his firm (and others) have successfully prosecuted people and companies for intellectual property right violations on the Internet, when the violator committed the offense from within Thailand -- and without regard to where the website containing the illegally displayed information is hosted. But even in the case of a user being in one jurisdiction and the hosting service in another, both of them outside Thailand, there are often legal remedies that can be sought in one of the other or both of those places. WHile that is civil law, not criminal law, presumably there is a parallel in criminal law. On my own website I often address political issues, but I do try to stay within the confines of Thai law to the best of my knowledge. Even if I didn't live here full-time, there would be few, if any, instances when I would feel compelled to go beyond those bounds anyway.

One suggestion to the Admins regarding the criticizing of anyone, not just politicians: IF an allegation is demonstrably true, then it is not a legal offense, so such instances needn't be of concern. Also, if a poster merely reports what, say, a local newspaper has said (without himself opining), there is no legal offense. And that I ran past my local attorney to make completely sure I can cite local media sources without violating Thai law; he toldme not to worry in such an instancve, then he polled a number of attorneys he knows specializing in appropriate areas, and all of them agreed with his take. (But run it past your own counsel to be sure.)

I really hope this thread can take off and succeed. Good luck with it!

Hi, All --

I just read Monitor Lizard's latest posting, and it appears there is still confusion about the existence of 2 clubs. I e-mailed him to try to clarify the situation, and I want to post it here for the benefit of any others who may remain confused.

Hello, Monitor Lizard:

I just read your latest posting regarding the BEC, and since you have elected not to follow that thread any longer, I wanted to drop you a line.

There are (or were) 2 clubs. The one the behind-the-scenes European started, and the one with which we carried on when he disappeared after ONE meeting. That was the "Bangkok Expats' Club." We who decided to carry on initially changed the name of our little group to the "Bangkok Expats' Association," but later, on advice of legal counsel, we altered that to the Expats' Association of Thailand (this last change having nothing to do with the fact we were a spin-off from the original B.E.C.)

We do issue receipts. Until the holiday season, we met every Sunday, first at The Office Bar & Grill, which was the original venue, but from about the beginning of September on we switched to a more family-oriented venue, Bourbon Street Restaurant, whhere we met up until before Christmas. Our next general meeting is tentatively set for January 18, 2004, 3-5 P.M., in Bourbon Street -- and you are most welcome to attend, if you like.

Let me assure you those of us in from the start -- I was one of the 2 who originally agreed to help the founder try to get the B.E.C. off the ground -- were just as displeased as everyone else was, and, I gather, remain, in many cases. I know I spent untold hours trying to clarify and move away from the original guy. I don't have the slightest idea what he was all about, what his game was, what has happened to him -- nothing. Nor, frankly, do I care about him any longer, as long as he stays away.

In that last statement I don't mean to come across as hostile, not to anyone, even the European -- he no longer matters to me. And I *certainly* don't want to come across as hostile to you.

Given all the confusion and the terrible start, I cannot honestly blame anyone who chooses not to come to our meetings, either, although I'm Vice-President of the Association. But I and the others would gladly welcome you should you care to drop around for a visit.

Please feel free to contact me if I may be of any assistance or provide any information.

With warm regards,

Kurt T. Francis, Vice-President

Expats' Association of Thailand

I hope this helps clear up all the confusion.

This sure is all confusing. Let me clarify what I eamnt in my column "The Rounds" in the December 26, 2003 issue.

First, let me emphasize my police friend (a Police Senior Sergeant Major) stressed the change, he was told, applies only to new, first-time applicants; others are grand-fathered in. I had just pointed out that a mutual friend had recently renewed *his* marriage visa for just the 200,000, My buddy said he would check again, and called me the next day to say he went down to headquarters and raised the question to the top brass there, and that that's what they told him.

BUT there's another point to throw into this boiling pot. It seems pretty clear that the Bangkok Immigration Bureau fills 2 roles: first, as the one administering this immigration region, and, second, commanding the *rest* of the immigration offices throughout the Kingdom. My friend says all immigration offices are supposed to follow the Bangkok headquarters' orders.

I've not asked in any other immigration office outside Bangkok, but friends whom I believe to be telling the truth say they have been told different things about different kinds of visas by officers in *other* offices. What I'm suggesting is an internal breakdown in communications between Bangkok and upcountry. If so, it well may be the case that in some other city one might be issued a visa (of whatever type) with fewer hurdles than we might experience here at the national headquarters.

I don't *know* that to be true, but given that my police friend has never once steered me wrong in nearly 10 years AND that I do know foreigners who say their experiences contradict what he's told me of late, foreigners I trust, nothing else makes sense. I guess it also could be willful undermining of headquarters policy, but I think if I were a relative nobody in some provincial immigration office in Nakhon Nowhere, I'd think long and hard before directly disobeying an edict from the national headquarters.

The part that makes me despair is that finding out solid, reliable information is so hard, even when we have friends well-placed inside the system to assist us.

Given the current focus on "quality tourists" and "quality foreign residents," it doesn't seem beyond the bounds of reasonable possibility that there are moves afoot to raise the bar across the board, as has already happened with retirement visas, for example.

BTW, on a point not directly related, does anyone know if the letter-to-the-edior of "The Pattaya Mail" complaining that the writer had gotten a notice from HSBC, his bank here, saying foreigners are no longer for interest have any merit? That would sure make me even more hesitant to put up 800,000 baht -- something I'm already strongly disinclined to do. I didn't know about this until the banks were closed for the New Year's holiday, so don't have any information at all. And as I currently do no banking in Thailand, of course I've gotten no notices one way or the other

Hope I've clarified my column story a bit..

OK, Newbie --

Did I miss something here? The quote you took from me is regarding the lack of applicability of his physical condition (perhaps) and his column.

Although I'm just a stupid American, I *do* have two degrees in the language and have taught in universities on two continents for many years, so I suppose I do know at least *little* bit about the language. [You can seek references at The University of North Texas, Tianjin University, Beijing Normal Univeristy, Lamar University [again, in Texas], The University of Macau, Bangkok University, Kingswoood Language School [in Bangkok], several other Bangkok-based language schools, and the Adult Municipal Education Program in Shunde, China. Plus I jave been an editor and a writer.

So, where are you coming from? If you don't like Trink -- fine; I really don't care for him, either. But if I attack him, I will attack him in his arena. What are YOU doing?

Your username is "Newbie"; does that tell us something?

It's actually kind of hard to know if you are being critical of Trink, his movie-reveiwing replacement, or both of them.

In any case, what does Trink's PHYSICAL condition -- bar an inability to do his job -- have to do with his COLUMN? If you don't like it -- fine; don't read it, and write to the Editors at the newspaper to approve of their decision to cut him out: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; and [email protected]. Heck, write the OTHER paper at THIS address: [email protected] and voice your disapproval.

But please DO give a real reason.

######, and I don't even KNOW Trink, and most certainly have no vested interest in his future. . . .

I just voted to ban elephants from Bangkok's streets, but with reservations.

Elephants in Thailand are more than once-useful and still fascinating animals; they are woven into the national psyche, virtually demanding that extra thought go into solving their dilemma.

It seems if the government is indeed finally really to ban them -- and not conduct another short-term, much ballyhooed publicity stunt -- then there needs to be a plan regarding what to *do* with any elephants found in the city. Who, if anyone, will care for them, and where? If they are to be transported outside the city, where will they be sent? Who will take them -- and who will pay for that transport?

Another aspect of this is a surprising one to me: that the order comes from the Prime Minister himself, not from the Bangkok Metropolitan Authority nor even from the Bangkok Province Govenor. I have long assumed the PM's "C.E.O. governor" concept applied right up and down the line when talking about authorities with responsibilities in a specified geographic area. Considering the PM has taken the time to intervene in the problem suggests my assumption was wrong, and that despite the many, many tasks the PM faces on a daily basis, he can find time to look into municipal matters. True, Bangkok City isn't just *any* municipality -- but a municipality it is, fundamentally, despite it's status as the national capital and the nation's largest city.

I really love elephants, so in one sense will be sad if the ban actually works. Yet when I do see them, despite my delight there is a strong streak of sadness in seeing these magnificent creatures in such straits. I sure hope the PM (or other responsible authorities) follow up with a long-range plan to care for them.

I think the Bangkok post should sue him for money gained under false pretenses

If what several people in positions to know (such as, in some cases, on the staff at the Bangkok Posst) have said to me over the years is true, then the management knew exactly what Trink was up to. At one time (though I doubt this is still the case) it was widely said that audited surveys showed his column to be the single most widely read item in the entire paper. Whether he was *that* dominant, I don't know, but clearly people read him.

Cheers!

i am waiting for Khun Thaksin to walk on the water......he is the messiah.....he is god...the ground he walks on is holyground...long live the master of thailand!!!!

Hm, interesting possibilities, wqalking on water, being a god, making the ground on which he walks holdy ground. IF the press got it halfway near right -- and I do understand that's a great, big, IF -- it sure didn't come across that way when His Majesty made his birthday speech Thursday.

Just food for thought . . .

After all, the man can barely move unaided.

To say the Trink is barely able to walk is naught more than a personal attack that has no reference to the issue at hand. Whether Trink can write anything decent or not is one question. Whether he can walk or not has nothing to do with his ability -- or inability -- to write for a newspaper.

I know who Trink is, but we have never formally met. I do recognize him when I see him. I saw him maybe 2-3 months ago walking along Sukhumvit Road going the opposite direction I was, and by coincidence it was appropraite for me to pause to let him turn across my path to enter The Villa at Sukhumvit Soi 33/1. While I cannot say he looked anywhere near an Olympic champion in any way, I *can* -- and am now doing so -- say he was walking at a reasonable pace one would expect of any ordinary person not doing a power walk, and that he was walking without benefit of any assistance from other people nor of a walking stick, cane, crutches, etc. So, if he now is barely able to walk, that is a new development indeed.

I don't mean to be flaming anyone, only to be saying we need to keep separate strands exactly that: separate. I haven't even mentioned the reportedly high-handed way in which Trink has been dealt by management at the Bangkok Post, something I find objectionable in any case, but especially when discussing an institution -- albeit a controversial one -- of 40-odd years.

And no, Trink and I are not friends. I've sent him a few announcements then complained when he got something wrong (or, from his view, didn't make it clear), and in those instances he has indirectly chastised me in Nite Owl.

IMHO, the Bangkok Post no longer deserves to be called a proper newspaper, since it is moving swiftly to become pablum. Are there individual writers there who continue to do their normal excellent jobs? -- of course there are. The same holds true for their columnists on the Op-Ed page. But it seems clear to me that at the senior editorial level decisions have been taken to make the paper into something that no longer reflects the reality of even just Bangkok, let alone Thailand.

And before someone challenges me to explain what I believe to be the reality of Thailand, I will do so here in the contexts I mean and which apply to the case of Trink and his Nite Owl column. Social ills ranging from the flesh trade to sexual inequality to the now-suppressed -- eliminated? -- drug trade exist, and not to write about them won't change the fact they do exist. Head-in-the-sand approaches have never worked in human history, only either delayed the inevitible, or, worse still, made the ultimate outcome even worse than it conceivably might have been.

In closing, I should, in fairness, say something to those glad to contemplate Trink gone: write the general editor of the paper [[email protected]], the Postbag [[email protected]], and the Realtime editor [[email protected]] offering your support. I wrote them expressing my opposition, but I also believe supporters of the decision should speak up directly to the paper.

Whew! And to think I don't even KNOW Trink! -- other than to know who he is and to recognize him!!!