Camillof

Never as robust as their self-congratulatory efforts anyway.

So rigorous, that until now I haven't heard of it at all. All I would ask is to see No tips signs displayed in their offices again, as it happened during 2019 under Big Joke's reign.

If they want to prove they are serious, NACC should investigate about those members of the Office of the Trade Competition Commission (OTCC) who approved purchase of Tesco by CP.

This is really cause no. 1 in this country in my opinion. Followed by cause no. 2: police inaction, and no. 3: DUI. Highways here are conceived more like speed tracks than else, spiced up by the lethal U-turn system. As to the route where this particular accident happened last night, the new "M6" toll road supposed to connect more safely Bang Pa-in to Korat lies there, finished long ago and still closed.

The government prefers to charge public health costs on foreigners. Much easier.

Digbeth, I'm interested in this particular topic. Do you know if they were allowed to continue indefinitely or if they were just given a postponed deadline? Do you happen to know when this decision was taken? Can you indicate any official source by any chance? Thank you.

Yes it is.

I didn't write that it's easy to do, but personally I learned my lesson. Forewarned is forearmed.

That's acceptable in principle because the discrimination is not based on nationality: a non resident pays more, regardless of his nationality. Then the question of "how much more" is another story. But the general practice of favoring local residents is common and widespread everywhere, just like granting discounts to groups or schools, etc.

I think there's a general misconception here about this dual-pricing matter. Let's not mix up different issues: "tourists" vs "locals", or if you prefer "non-local residents" vs "local residents", is one thing (acceptable), "citizens vs non-citizens" is another (unacceptable). Charging tourists more than locals is acceptable if by "locals" you mean people actually living on the spot or immediate surroundings. Understandable common practice in many countries. But here in Thailand, as well as in some other underdeveloped countries, it's not like that. Here they don't charge tourists more, they charge non-Thais more, which makes all the difference and is contrary, in principle, to human rights conventions ratified by the Thai government. That is why foreigners should refuse to pay those higher fees. Here, Thai tourists are being charged like local residents, while foreign local residents are being charged like tourists. Thus, the foreign local resident is forcibly contributing by paying, not only part of the Thai local resident's fee, but even part of the Thai tourist's fee. Sick and disgusting practice. I wish all countries around the world applied the same principle to Thai citizens living there.

Yes, such a laughable, clumsy, even disrespectful offer, showing the low esteem they feel towards foreigners in general: "You dogs, do as we say and we might extend your leash a little. Don't ever dream of getting rid of it." Also: do some computing and you'll find that 9 times in 10 years is relatively "more frequent", no "less frequent", than 3 times in 1 year; even if the absolute time span is longer... "Once every 3 years" would start making better sense as an offer. Finally, this offer also reveals how pointless the 90 days reporting really is, even for them ????