scottiddled

This is completely asinine and the type of Thai-style reactionary, bureaucratic authoritarianism that will make people ignore other directives, including prudent ones.

Some folks in this thread have made valid point about the indirect connection between selling booze at a 7/11 and unsafe social gatherings. Fair enough. Some of those folks have been reasonable and balanced, and others are off-the-hook toxic in how they frame this as an acceptable response. It's classic Salty Squad apologism for Thai authorities behaving inappropriately.

Sure, some people are prone to buy bottles of beer at 7/11 and hang out in public drinking. Authorities are in justified in taking steps to stop that behavior. But as many (e.g., smedley) have pointed out, that doesn't justify stopping 7/11 from selling a bottle of beer any more than that it justifies them stopping 7/11 from selling a bottle of Fanta.

When I read the Salty Squad write, unapologetically, that "Responsible drinkers can be considered collateral damage" (tropo) or that there is no way to differentiate responsible drinking from morons sitting by the curb together sharing bottles, I'm amazed that some people know how to turn on a laptop. It's very easy: target the behavior that is the direct threat: unsafe social gathering. But as some (e.g., petedk) point out, that's just not the Thai way. It's too hard (not logistically, but culturally) for a police officer to confront someone on the street and tell them they're violating emergency disease containment decrees. Oh, poor authorities. So rather than ask people to do their jobs and take direct steps, jackboots decide to cause a lot of collateral damage and demonstrate their toughness in indirect ways: "we'll shut particular types of businesses down (but not all types) if they don't stop selling beer which could lead to people gathering because we can't be bothered to police the gathering itself! Respect my uniform!!!"

The collateral damage here is that responsible people who are largely willing to make sacrifices in the name of disease containment get pushed too far. For example, there are tens of thousands of foreign workers (many of them teachers) who are stuck in Thailand for the foreseeable future. Some of them were told, even before governments started restricting travel, that they were not free to leave. No travel during breaks. No travel during weekends. It doesn't matter that it's your free time; it doesn't matter that you had plans; it doesn't matter that your families are half a world away; it doesn't matter that there's nothing even indirectly in your contract that empowers your employer to take such a position. So if you leave, you lose your job, because theoretically you might not be able to return to work because of quarantines or travel disruptions. Good luck fighting it in Labor Court. As it turns out, these fears were half right, and half wrong. Things did get worse, to the point that travel disruptions and/or mandatory quarantines (or outright entry bans) would've stopped people from being able to show up to their jobs in Thailand. But they were half wrong, because at that point everything shut down or shifted to telecommuting.

So here we are, tens of thousands of foreigners trapped. Setting aside the threat of losing a job, getting home is logistically near-impossible at this point. Those Songkran breaks plans? Nah. Stay here during the hottest weeks of the year in one of the hottest places on Earth. Stay inside. If you wanted to travel, to see home or family, or anything, you might not even be able to bank on the summer. Even if things improve, you might've (involuntarily) been stripped of summer break time as schools/businesses closed abruptly and decided to extend the year to make up the lost time. 

For me, after Songkran, I'll have had 4 weeks of "vacation"--all of which was earmarked to see family around the globe--stripped away as my immediate family is held hostage.

And guess what: we're being responsible. It's depressing, being so far away from everything you hold dear, and knowing that this time was originally meant to be spent far away doing much more pleasurable things. But it's for the health of our families, our students, our communities, and our planet. So we suck it up. But there are limits.

A few pages ago, "stouricks" hit on one of those limits:

Quote

 

No there is not. I go buy a few beers at 7-11 to drink by myself, in lockdown, at my home. No COvid, no driving while drunk.

So why not let folk like me go about my own, non-infecting business.

 

Amen. The Salty Squad is usually amusing, sometimes annoying, but this time completely out of line in suggesting that people aren't giving anything up and/or that these restrictions are reasonable. People are giving up a lot, by combination of choice, responsibility, and mandate. 

They've lost that week at the beach, or their pleasant family outings back home. They've given up weeks of their freedom, usually (at least in part) because of what "authorities" are forcing on them. They're faced with indefinite uncertainty about when/if they'll be able to see home again. They're kept up nights worrying about their overseas loved ones and fearing the worst.

One of the last-ditch "let's at least try to enjoy the 'break" contingencies, for many people, involves consoling oneself with a beer at home. It's the responsible thing to do. If you don't partake, fine. I usually don't, either. A night or two out on vacation is nice, but wipes me out. But don't let your own preference extend to telling other people how to live their lives if they aren't endangering anyone. The thought of sitting in a sparse temporary accomodation and watching Netflix ad infinitum while missing family and friends can, for some, be made a little less depressing by knowing they can enjoy their nights off with a cold one from the 7/11 down the street.

And when some imbecile makes that the focus of their crackdown, all it does is remind people like me of all the things we're giving up, for good reasons, necessary reasons, etc. All it does it tempt people like me to stop abiding by the "best practices" out of spite. I'm within my rights to go buy a case at Tops and invite my colleagues over for a private, inside evening. There's nothing in the emergency decrees preventing it. There's nothing forbidden about stocking with cases of beer, boxes of wine, and bottle upon bottle of hard liquor. Or traveling to another province to get it. 

Still, I don't.

But if clowns like Gov. Charnana Iamsang want to keep testing the limits of people during this difficult time, I guarantee you people will push back. Respect for authority in a crisis requires that authority demonstrate competence and compassion. I'm sensing neither from that clown. 

And I'm sensing complete Kool-Aid drinking callousness from the Salty Squad.

Had the same experience. The embassy's (Washington) website listed return ticket under the B visa requirements. As we had plenty of time, I showed up as soon as they opened and was prepared (if necessary) to buy a cheap ticket online and come back later.

I had everything else in order and walked them through all my materials (which included an employment contract) while noting that I didn't have a return ticket for the same reasons you don't want/need one. They said I was fine without a return ticket.

So it seems they're pretty careless when it comes to these embassy/consulate websites. Then again, I have to complete a government form that asks for me "assress," so...it's to be expected. I'm perfectly willing to point out how things can be better with the bureaucracy here, but I've largely had good experiences. Even when things are confusing, most Thai functionaries are willing to work with you or be understanding of some technical shortcomings. When they haven't been, they've been patient with me.

For example, I didn't have a photo glued to some extension form. It's such a stupid rule. They take your photo there, anyway. They have copies galore of my photo. It's 2020...so aren't they paperless? And so on...

While waiting in the queue, I tried to jury-rig a solution. I had an extra photocopy (black and white) of my passport. I "cut" (folded and ripped as neatly as possible) the photo out and glue-stuck it onto the form, hoping they wouldn't notice. The female IO noticed and gave me a combination of scorn and "this is funny" as I tried to play dumb and tell her that it said "passport" so I thought they wanted a copy of my passport photo. She laughed, told me there was a photobooth outside, and went through everything else before sending me on my way. It took about 15 minutes to get the photo, and when I came back she handed me back the passport with everything stamped and approved before I even handed her the photos. No back of the queue for me.

A good attitude and a reasonable effort to comply goes a long way, even if you make a mistake.

That said, they should have clearer rules, less idiotic paperwork, and more consistent enforcement. I get that other people have bad experiences from unreasonable IOs who either make up requirements or are completely unforgiving of even the slightest noncompliance. So I won't go all Salty Squad and say "their country, their rules" and forgive Thai authorities' transgressions. But I think it's important to balance complaints with a recognition that folks of good will can usually find a way to make things work.

I should have clarified in the OP: not interested in Just Weird's perfunctory next-level trolling.

In just five lines, you manage to open with a cynical dismissal of the value of consumers not supporting bad business practices and then spew three different factual inaccuracies.

Do you have any reason to be lurking in this thread? Does this issue impact you? Does it interest you? I suspect the answer to the latter two questions is no, which means the answer to the first question is no, also. Save it for the Farang Pub or the customary blame-the-expat jabs on the visa and work permit threads.

Did some rough calculations today, based on the relatively predictable metered fare I pay everyday and the "JustGrab" prices I had to pay a few weeks ago before giving up on Grab pending an explanation/changes.

For my morning commute:

The forced change to JustGrab represents a 25+% increase over a GrabTaxi. It represents a 60+% higher price than a (non-Grab) metered taxi, which can be hailed right outside the house (or, on a bad day, at a taxi stand a 5-minute walk away).

The one-way price increase from GrabTaxi to JustGrab alone is roughly the equivalent of a round trip on the nice new bus.

Finally got a somewhat substantive response from Grab, even though it raises more even more questions.

Quote

About the GrabTaxi service issues, we would like to inform you that your current area and your pick up -  drop off locations have been counted as Nakhon Pathom area where is not in GrabTaxi service operating area so you won't be able to choose the GrabTaxi service. 

So, even though I've used GrabTaxi in this location hundreds of times (as have my colleagues and others in the area), it's apparently no longer an option. We're just over the Bangkok provincial line (and often on the Bangkok side), and most of the time I've been forced to use JustGrab, a meter taxi shows up (but doesn't use the meter, obviously). Fares are a good 20% higher. It's not so much the price increase that is bothersome as it is the obvious money grab for no good reason.

I was away last week and didn't need a taxi, and for many colleagues I've been speaking with, this move by Grab is added motivation to find an alternative (e.g., buy a scooter, find an everyday driver). We're drafting an email to support that a few dozen folks are going to sign basically saying we'd like this change reversed or we'll be taking our business elsewhere.

Yeah, it's only 30-40 baht here or there (probably a lot more for longer rides, such as to downtown), but it's the principle of the thing. Zero notice and zero rationale for the switch. 

Vocal you may well be right, but the end of your post is a bit paradoxical. 

Go "nearer to downtown" how? Most folks I know in this area don't drive. They take public transit, win bikes, or taxis to work. They live where they live and work where they work.

Going downtown to "test" if it's just a regional bug is one thing, but it doesn't accomplish much beyond understanding.

Grab's messed up somehow. There are plenty of GrabTaxis (or, rather, there were through Wednesday night) here. There are still plenty of taxis out here using Grab--you just get stuck with them at the higher flat fare as "JustGrab." 

Grab's been pretty nonresponsive. A few incorrect support emails (just toggle your selection), a few boilerplate explanations of what the flat fare means (low reading comprehension from support), and a few poorly worded "your response will be escalated to the proper people."

A colleague who previously was unable to book a GrabTaxi just wrote to me that it's working for him, but he's home in Bangkok (Bang Wa area). It still isn't working a bit further out from downtown. 

Anyone else experiencing similar issues?

Still going on today. And the JustGrab I got stuck with went nowhere for 10 minutes, followed by a threatening warning from Grab when I cancelled it to hop in a taxi that conveniently happened by: "You'll get nearer drivers in the future when you cancel less."

I'm not sure if anyone else has had this happen, but this morning I ordered my usual Grab and had an unusual experience in the greater Bangkok area (not downtown).

A non-taxi showed up. It felt more like an Uber in the U.S. But I thought it might just be an anomaly. When I checked my phone a few hours later, I saw an alert from my bank about the charge, which was 30 baht higher than usual (my fare is consistently in a 3-baht range, as it's a short distance and the route is always the same). I then noticed that the app had ordered me a "JustGrab" instead of a taxi. I thought to myself: That's strange. Did my thumb slip when ordering? 

I then tried to book again just to see if I had accidentally selected the wrong type of Grab, but GrabTaxi was not even an option under "View All" (only JustGrab, GrabCar, and GrabBike). I then thought maybe it was my app, but three colleagues had the same issue. Two of those colleagues always select GrabTaxi.

My initial email to Grab yielded no real answers--just a "you ordered a JustGrab" followed by their boilerplate about how it's a flat fare that can be higher or lower than what a metered fare can be (in my experience, it's significantly higher 99% of the time, and 100% of the time for a predictable commute). 

Anyone else notice anything?

1 hour ago, Cloudy said:

A decent employer would cover the cost of the work permit and Non B. Id stay far away from any on who will not. 

To extend on that, it's perfectly normal for an employer to cover that cost by reimbursing the employee--particularly for the B visa.

If that's the case, make sure it's clear in your contract that you will be reimbursed and when that reimbursement will happen (e.g., first paycheck, after passing probation).

Given the OP's stated brashly stated and unsavory reason for coming to Thailand, I'm not inclined to help him in any way. Still, one thing just needs to be fully snuffed out. 

On 2/9/2020 at 11:51 AM, tifino said:

I'd be more concerned to ascertain what risks you might face; in being able to keep you US Passport

. Even the last paragraph...

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/Advice-about-Possible-Loss-of-US-Nationality-Dual-Nationality/Dual-Nationality.html

 

it might come down to you being assessed, a good character assessment 

This is just reckless. Others have commented that there is probably no reason for concern. Let's just be 100% clear.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a dual national traveling on their non-U.S. passport. Nada. Zilch. Zero. The only caveat to that the U.S. government insists that U.S. citizens use their U.S. passports when entering/exiting the United States. 

Uninformed musings about loss of nationality are not helpful. It is very, very hard to give up U.S. citizenship. For all intents and purposes, it's impossible to lose involuntarily. Short of formally renouncing citizenship in a U.S. embassy/consulate, which is part of a lengthy (and expensive) process, there are a few things that can be considered acts of intentionally relinquishing citizenship (e.g., taking an oath of loyalty to another country with the intent of abandoning your U.S. citizenship). But today, even those acts alone are considered insufficient--you have formally notify the U.S. government of those acts. In an amazing coincidence, the cost of properly informing the government of your "relinquishment" is identical to the cost of "renunciation." 

The courts set a pretty high bar for giving up citizenship, and for good reason. International laws with regard to statelessness, etc., and America's legacy of discrimination are tangled up in this. Simply breaking a law is not enough. Theoretically, the rules could change, and certain defined acts of relinquishment could automatically trigger a loss of nationality without a separate process.

But guess what is not, and never will be, on that list of acts of relinquishment: using a Korean passport to enter Thailand.

Sketchy, for the reasons provided above.

Also, the work permit is not yours. It's theirs, really. It doesn't authorize you to work anywhere else. Even reputable employers will often keep the work permits on site (letting employees sign them out if they need them for something). 

Yeah, this just screams "run away."

5 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

The OP has two current threads. The other asks for advice on best visa to enter Thailand. 

Stating never been to Thailand before. 

Then this thread asks advice about work permits, in such a naive way. 

Open bar etc. Hilarious.

 

And two threads with vague subject lines that don't really help the reader to know what the thread's about with any specificity. Therefore, my help to the OP is...

I'm still finding it bizarre that large Thai banks can't seem to get beyond this "home branch" mindset. I don't doubt the stories I'm reading here, but it's just mind-boggling that a bank as large as K-Bank, SCB, or Bangkok Bank would tell you that they can't issue routine paperwork, and that you have to travel hundreds of kilometers to a "branch" that controls your account.

It's 2020.

48 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

The only way immigration would know about any of your examples would be if somebody told them. There is no automatic linkage between them.

Thanks, UJ. 

I always wondered about that. I have a colleague that got divorced last year (wife was not working) and was curious what sort of immigration implications might have applied given that (I think) her extension of stay was based on his extension of stay which was based on work. Given the (in)efficiency of Thai bureaucracy, I was highly skeptical of one person's "she had to leave immediately" argument, as if someone at BKK was able to see on their screen when a divorce kicked in--and the dominoes that fell after that.

35 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

If your work permit is canceled you cannot work anymore and your extension is technically no longer valid.

If they are just completing the paperwork then it would be ok.

UJ: Just curious what your thoughts are on how the authorities handle the "technically no longer valid" extensions.

For example, if someone has an extension due to work that expires at the end of April, and their work (rightly or wrongly) cancels the work permit in late March, how likely is this to cause a problem? Understanding that the extension shouldn't be considered valid because the underlying reason for it is no longer valid, who is really going to know? If someone in that position heads to BKK to fly out of Thailand in April, is it going to trigger something when getting stamped out of immigration? Are they just going to go by the stamped extension of stay, or if/when they look you up in the computer, is there going to be smooth communication from the Labor Department showing the cancelled work permit and therefore the no-longer-valid extension, which equals an overstay of X?

Or, to go a step further, what about secondary extensions based off the first? For example, a spouse or child who gets an extension based on a family member's work permit. 

To put it another way, I get that the approval for these extensions is based on underlying grounds (a work permit, marriage, etc.), but how efficient is the Thai bureaucracy at knowing that the underlying grounds are now gone, and how efficient is the left hand at communicating with the right?

(deleted)

20 hours ago, claffey said:

Moral of the story? Learn Thai and respect the culture of the country you are living in! Thai's constantly need reassurance as they are afraid to make errors. That's why it takes 10 of them to do one thing in an office. If something goes wrong its everyone's fault and not just one person. Its also why they will crowd around a foreigner when they need help. So the Grab driver is seeking assurance that will lower the chance of an error. But yes, it can be annoying. Just smile and carry on. No big deal...If it is maybe a nice, liberal, well educated European city will be more suited to your whims and humours?

Asinine framing. Why unnecessarily insult people at the beginning of your message when there's actually a lot of agreement between all sides?

You certainly have some crumbs of truth here, but you coat it with insulting and absurd "respect the culture" nonsense from the start. Where did anyone declare that this was "a big deal?" Where is the contempt or disrespect for the culture of Thailand that necessitates you linking this story to "respect" and putting the primary onus on me (or any of the many others who have experienced similar frustration)?

No, I'm not going to provide cover to the "learn Thai" obligation, despite my fondness and respect for Thai culture and the Thai people. Thai is a native language to < 50 million people. Given that Thailand seeks to position itself as a major tourist destination and establish Bangkok as a global business hub, the reality is that millions of people in the country at any given time will lack fluency in the Thai language. While those people have a duty to respect their hosts, their hosts have some duty to adapt to the fact that many guests lack the ability to meaningfully communicate in the (difficult) local language. Apps like Grab are part of that adaptation. 

Do I try to pick up some "survival Thai?" Sure. I'll even sit in on some informal "Thai for farang" events if they fit my schedule. Some people I know choose to do a bit more. Some choose to do less. But as someone stationed here for a limited duration, I am not going to invest significant time learning a language that is of little use to a non-native speaker outside of Thailand. The time I spend learning Thai that I will probably never use after I leave is time that could be spent conducting research or doing professional development--both things that are more attractive to prospective employers. Or it's time that could be spent with family. 

I speak two languages and am learning a third. I have some survival skills in Thai and a few more languages. I consider myself culturally sensitive. A little venting about some of the frustrating aspect of living in Thailand does not represent disrespect; after all, I choose to stay here.

Maybe the moral of the story is that everyone can do better. Sure: many farang visiting, working, or living in Thailand could adapt more to the culture and learn more Thai (let's drop the stupid "respect" wording, though). Does that negate the perspective that it's 2020? A professional taxi driver holding a computer one million times more powerful than the ones that got us to the moon should be able to find my pin on the map without calling me while I pack up for work or try to grab a quick coffee. An app that's supposed to make things easier for all parties shouldn't lead to unnecessary and unproductive conversations that actually leave the customer less confident that the taxi will arrive and leaves both parties frustrated. That Thais are culturally inclined to seek reassurance mitigates this point a bit, but not much. It shifts the tone away from "these drivers are <deleted>' idiots" to something a tad more nuanced and understanding.

Today I had a Grab driver call right after accepting the booking. He spoke clearly and listened well, and finally asked about whether to make a u-turn on a road near me. The answer is yes, and any decent taxi driver familiar with the area (or capable of reading the map Grab gives them) would know that. He also asked "where you go?" when I got in.

Is it the biggest deal in the world? Maybe not. It worked out, and I was "ready to go" and not busy, so I could answer the phone. I still rated him 5 stars. But it's annoying.

@BigStar

You make some excellent points, and I suspect if we discussed specific elements of Thai bureaucracy or even actual cases of farang-on-bureaucracy "action," we'd probably agree 95+% of the time. I also think your "trichotomy" of those who face bureaucratic obstacles is a fair way of framing things, and may copy your use of "rubbish sweepers." That said, of your dissection of my position reads too much into what is not there, or falls victim to the same critique you're launching, but that's really just meta-level stuff, honestly.

A line-by-line of your line-by-line would be too unwieldy, and I'm too busy to undertake it right now. Your words certainly deserve a fuller reply, but I'll focus on just one thing for today.

On 1/18/2020 at 7:50 PM, BigStar said:

We're talking effective remedy. The remedy of changing Thailand isn’t a remedy but a fantasy. No, Thai authorities pay no attention whatsoever to complaints and brilliant solutions given on the forum no matter how many there are. Never have. Ain’t gon’ be no free beer & pussy, no waivers of passport checks, no permanent visa on arrival, no price ceiling of 100 baht on everything. Change will always be a constant. 

Hence to try to justify a whinge by pretending it may make some difference to anything is self-serving nonsense.

You premise this by breaking complaints down into three intuitive categories, essentially whining (I despise the term whinging), venting, and complaining with a purpose. Setting aside the fact that the lines between these categories can be blurry, and that a particular person can find themselves bouncing between them from day to day, I have two more serious objections. 

First, you're engaging in some question begging (and arguably a bizarre form of post hoc fallacy) when you cut off the possibility of complaining with a purpose by declaring that change is impossible. Based on the distinctions you draw between complaining and whining, the impact of the complaint is irrelevant. What matters? According to the source you invoked, the "motivation" for expression. Complaining entails "voicing fair and legitimate dissatisfactions with the goal" of improving the status quo. The likelihood of success matters not. And even though it doesn't matter, you haven't convinced me that change is impossible. Therefore, someone can certainly put forth reasonable critiques of Thai bureaucracy with the [tiniest bit of] hope that things may improve. 

Second, you slide very casually from dismissing the potential of complaining to labelling unsuccessful complaints whining. Your own source sees things differently: "When we voice legitimate dissatisfactions but do so without the goal" of changing Thailand, "we are merely venting." It is only when "the dissatisfactions...are trivial or inconsequential" that we enter the realm of whining.

Of course, this is all subjective. One person's "unnecessarilly wasted 2.5 hours" at Chaengwattana is another's "just go with it." It's all fluid, too. I've read about people's stories of BIG PROBLEMS with life-changing consequences, expressed franctically and without a path forward. I've read about. On the other hand, I've seen relatively minor inconveniences rationally explained down to the specific form or step that ought to be eliminated. As someone once said, it's a rich tapestry, brother. Accordingly, I see [varying] value in all sorts of complaining and venting. 

And sure, I've read a few stories that approach the trivial, with little value. It's fair to call them whining. I won't go so far as to say publicly deploying the "if you don't like it, get out" trope is warranted, for reasons I think I've made clear. So we'll disagree on that. But privately invoking it to a friend or colleague can justified, if that person truly would benefit from being elsewhere--or from the wake-up call of having to think about their happiness in such stark terms. 

2 hours ago, BritTim said:

According to the Immigration Act, only the Minister has the power to exclude individuals or groups other than for the reasons specified in Section 12 of the Act.

Many people seem to think that because, for instance, US officials have full discretion to deny people entry, the same should be true for Thai immigration officials. However, US law and Thai law are not the same.

Note that with visa exempt entry, Immigration has been given the power to decide whether those arriving qualify. This is logical as Immigration in that situation is being given the same screening responsibility as consular officials have when you apply for visas.

You're mostly right. U.S. immigration officials (CBP) have wider discretion, but even then it's limited. I wrote a lot about this but apparently forgot to click submit and then lost the post.

Good points on the difference between visa exempt entry in terms of consular officials having already made the preliminary determination. 

Crud, I missed rule #2,308.b of these forums: all posters must have stropper's permission to express their views.