vermin on arrival

There is 90% more paper work and a lot more money involved in getting a visa to the USA than there is for Thailand.

A huge number of poor people are trying to get into the USA and that is what the USA is trying to stop. This is because the USA does not want it's welfare programs to be any more over run than they already are.

Now do you want to compare the USA visa regs with thailand's some more ????

How many times has the regs changed in the last 8 years? How many times has thailands ??

The USA requires a family income of 125% of poverty level for you to bring your spouse to be a permanent resident and work in the USA? Also this can be supplemented by an affidavit of support by others. Thailand requires 40 times the poverty level and it has to be shown again every year.

The USA give 50,000 green cards per year in a lottery and the only requirement is a high school level education. No income requirement.

Sure it takes longer to get approved but once you are approved you are done except for having to convert your temporary green card to a permanent one after 2 years. How long do you have to wait for your extension based on marriage to be approved by bangkok when you apply from chaing mai ? About the same as it takes for your application to be approved by the USA. Thailand allows you to stay in thailand while you are waiting is the only difference. If I had to stay out of the country and wait for 6 months to be able to stay for the rest of my life with no hassles and no fear of the rules being changed I would gladly do it.

Good post. People are always commenting how hard it is to get a visa to the US, but they don't mention the huge problem that there is with illegal aliens in the country(more than 10,000,000 at least), and that there are hordes more lining up to come in. However, once you pass, you get aheck of a lot more than here. I have known many people who get tourist visas to the US that are ten year multiple reentry. Wouldn't it be nice to get one like that for Thailand?

If you get married to a US citizen or have kids in country, you don't have to muddle through all the costs and visa application nonsense that you get in Thailand, and you're on the track for green card and citizenship.

People in a democracy learn to accept authority even if they have not voted for the ruling party, but they feel free to express their discontent in many different ways. They certainly don't view the government as a father and them as children.

I don't know about your father, but chidren express their discontent with thier father's rules all the time. In the end they have to accept them, though. Don't forget that the large part of farther children relationship is asking for money and favours, not only following rules.

In a true democracy, they realize that that they, the people, are sovereign and the government rules at their whim.

I don't know anyone who seriously thinks that the government rules at HIS whim. Children have far better success rate with their fathers than citizens with their governments.

The point is - you have to accept the govts. authority, even if only in the short term. Democracy doesn't save you from that. It's not anarchy.

Plus,

I think your use of the father and children analogy is very inappropriate. It implies a respect for the government and leaders and a paternalism by leadership that is really lacking in at least any developed democracies. The leaders and government are consistenetly pilloried by the press and people who are in opposition. I think if you asked anyone in England or the US if they felt this way, they would have a scathing critique of this viewpoint.

In America, I think most people feel that in the last analysis they have sovereign power. I certainly did not mean that it was at the whim of the individuals in the state,and if you view it that way you are seriously misinterpreting what I stated. To say that no one seriously believes that the "people" have sovereign power is inaccurate.

Certainly in the short term, the government possesses authority. However, it is taught to us in school that political power rests with us, and the government can only ride roughshod over us if we allow it. We have many forms of recourse when or leaders behave poorly. First, you can vote the bums out in the next election. The man can be impeached. You can even recall the leader as happened with the governor in California. In addition, you can affect policy through protest and active dissent as public opinion is a force to be reckoned with.

Certainly in a fledgling democracy like Thailand without proper respect for democracy, and with many other forces at work, people might not think that. However, to say that that is the case in advanced democracies is , I believe, incorrect.

I never meant to imply that a democracy was an anarchic state with no authority, or that people didn't have unpleasent jobs which they might have to do.

I've just read several threads in this 'Thai visa' category and it saddens me. For Thai Immigration to continue to make visa compiance so difficult is a national disgrace. It borders on chai-dam. I am not a dummy, but I also don't have a mind like a stainless steel vice-grip. Why should 'the man on the street' have to decipher such manifold layers of convoluted rules in order to get a visa? There are only two answers to that rhetorical question: Either Thai Imm officials purposefully design the rules to be achingly difficult or they're dummies who can't configure a relatively simple set of rules.

I understand that Thai politicos want to cull out farang 'undesirables' - but making visa regulations so convoluted, mutable and difficult is not the way. Yes, it will deter farang from residing here, but not necessarily the undesirables. It's more likely that many decent farang - those who contribute mightily to Thailand - will be the ones culled out of the country.

Out of my small circle of friends up here in northern Thailand, over 50% have left Thailand within the past year. That includes a retired engineer, two volunteer teachers, a person who's head of a do-good organization which gave grant money to hill tribers, an inventor of alternative energy gizmos, and several computer programmers. Are those the type of people that Thailand wants to deter from staying here?

Brahmburgers,

I'm in complete agreement with you. They are deliberately making everything more difficult for foreigners to longstay here. The rules are convoluted to make the average person not want to deal with them. The bar is consistently being raised on all manner of visa. It is slowly forcing many good people out. It is not merely forcing out the "undesireables"; most of those have already left. Immigration is trying to get the number of foreigners living here on a long term basis down to a level they think is acceptable to them, whatever that may be.

The one visa that many say has gotten easier is not necessarily easier. For the people, who had successfully had the marriage visa based on 400K in the bank, the change in the rule has disrupted them. To make them have to show 40,000 baht income per month is not really fair because it is well above the average income in this country. There are people who were legal based on their savings, but now can't meet the new criteria, and it looks like they won't be gradfathered in.

I'm sure that in the future the bar will continue to be raised, and that many more people who had legal visas before will be denied their renewal. Maybe even some of those who posted earlier, saying how everythig was ice and easy for them with their visas will be ones who will have to leave. Of course, it is Thailand's right to do it, but it isn't very endearing.

I actually feel that it is all a question of culture. Just as one current minister recently said that obscenity/sexual content on the internet was contaminating Thai culture, maybe the people, who are making these rules, think that having so many foreigners in Thailand is contaminating their culture as well.

Walk before you run. Democracy must be earned, not imposed in one sweeping move.

Easy come, easy go. Look at 1997 Constitution - it was drawn by elites, given to people, who then screwed up by eagerly supporting Thaksin while he was smashing their shiny new Constitution, best they ever had, to pieces.

It was the elites and the middle class who objected, maybe because they actually took interest in drafting some ten years ago.

>>>>>

So in a democracy you get to elect your farther, BUT, whoever is elected, has to provide for the family just the same.

Same with governments - they still have to do their government duties regardless of being elected or selected, and the worker ants still have to go and search for food just like citizens still have to pay taxes, no matter who is in power.

No matter what the government is, citizens have to submit themselves to its power and perform their respective duties. In democracies they do it voluntarily, in dictatorships they are forced to, either way they still have to do it.

If they refuse to shovel the shit, either in a democracy or under totalitarian regime, the system breaks down and the society stops to function.

There always must be someone to shovel the shit and there always must be someone to collect the taxes, do police work, export stuff, sell stuff and so on.

The job has to be done. Period. Endless squabbling over who will do this and who will do that will not get people anywhere.

Social cohesion is of utmost importance, democracies are supposed to bring better cohesion, but in reality this is not always the case.

In my view, Thaksin certainly was doing all he could do to subvert the 1997constitution and the functioning of real democracy in Thailand, and the middle clas was rightly angry with him for this. It is a good thing that he is gone.

However, your view that somehow democracies are supposed to be neat and orderly has no real basis in any democracy I've seen. Democracy is a disorderly mess of different endlessly squabbling interests, which must learn to compromise if the system will suceed. It's not a neat system, and this is what can give people who are new to it difficulties in adjusting to it. In the early stages, they frequently just elect a strong man who can make order as they were used to before. Their may be more social cohesion because all people believe that they have a stake in society, but that does not mean that things aren't messy.

People in a democracy learn to accept authority even if they have not voted for the ruling party, but they feel free to express their discontent in many different ways. They certainly don't view the government as a father and them as children. At least, not if they are experienced with life in a democratic system. In a true democracy, they realize that that they, the people, are sovereign and the government rules at their whim.

While they may accept their roles in in society, if they become discontented enough with the government, they may stop shoveling shit and do what they feel is necessary to change their society and government.

Maybe Thailand is not ready for this kind of democracy, especially with the lack of real universal education and lack of a real culture of democracy. However, it doesn't seem that you can turn back the clock. This will most likely end in failure and further bloodshed

They've always had signs saying to present your passport and boarding pass for the flight you just disembarked. The sign might say to show onward ticket or not. Anyway, I've never been asked for my boarding pass despite the sign. As for onward ticket, you should have to show it if you come with no visa.

I have never ever in 60+ times landing in Thailand been asked to show a onward ticket.

My last time was last week unless they have started it since then

Apparently they have. The signs were up stating an onward ticket was a requirement for entrance when I came in on the 31st, and there are people confirming that they saw some people being asked for it starting last Friday. I also have not been asked for one yet and have come through BKK airport countless times in the past 10 years, but will not risk traveling without one again.

Thanks for spotting my oversight Krub

I guess some people do have a problem with analogies. Like responsibility of the father/caregiver towards his dependants and the government's towards its citizens.

Elections is not the most fundamental principle of democracy, government's accountability before the citizens is a deeper principle, elections is only one manifestation of it.

You have obviously huge difficulties with the term "definition". Here is a brief definition for democracy. Nothing though about "father/caregiver" or "dependents" and similar rubbish.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/democracy

de·moc·ra·cy (d-mkr-s)

n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

2. A political or social unit that has such a government.

3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

4. Majority rule.

5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Thanks for the definition. I'm actually fairly amazed that there are people arguing this point. It seems that some people really don't understand something fundamental about democracy.

Of course, governments must also be transparent and accountable, but if there are no elections with more than one candidate, the government is not a democracy.

Now, one may prefer a government which doesn't have elections, but don't call it a democracy.

They were definately there at 4.30am on the 2nd, they are (were?) stuck to the glass behind the immgration official, pink, listing 4 items as previously detailed.

Interestingly, the big signs detailing the 90 day / 6 month rules seem to have gone.

Perhaps the immigration at BKK airport are putting up signs and pulling them down daily just to confuse us ? :-)

I came through on 4th June and there were no 4 items lists (just 3 items pp, imm card & boarding card) and I did see the 90 day / 6 month rules signs clearly! The complete opposite of above posters observations!

DB,

I came in on the 31st and there were signs on every counter requesting an onward ticket as the 4th thing on the list. It's strange that you did not see this. Maybe a person who has come through the airport more recently can post and let us know if they saw the signs requesting onward tickets and if any people who were entering on the 30 day visa exempt status, for whom this rule is an issue, were asked to show an onward or e-ticket.

Tropo,

I'm in complete agreeement with you on this one and won't come through the airport without an onward ticket again. Even if they are selectively enforcing this rule, I don't want to be coming through without one when they are selctively enforcing it.

i guess i disagree that democratic elections are a fundamental part of a democracy. in the usa you get the choice between person 1 and person 2. some choice that is.

I'm stunned. Well then, if elections aren't a fundamental part of democracy, than what is?

I'm really not sure how to reply to this. Granted, I'm an American, and I see that there is not a great deal of choice in America's election, and that the candidates don't always have such a great difference in their world views. However, at least there is some choice. Are you trying to say that Thailand under the CNS is more democratic than America?

Just to confirm what one member has already mentioned. All the Immigration entry booths have a new Yellow A4 sheet posted prominently stating the following requirements for entry:

1. Passport

2. Arrival/Departure card

3. Boarding pass

4. Return ticket/e-ticket

I would hazard a guess and say that requirement 4 only pertains to entries without visa. Both my Filipino companion and I had tourist visas and were not asked to show return tickets. We entered on June 1.

What nationality are you, where did you come from and are you talking about BKK airport? I came through 4th June and saw none of what you say. Only items 1-3 in your list were asked for and posted on a sign at the immigration check in. I was arriving on a 30 day visa exempt entry on an Air Asia flight with a UK pp with no onward ticket? So IMHO this whole thread has unnecessarily created a wrong warning signal. As far as I saw the situation at BKK airport is completely unchanged. The immigration staff were all very efficient and helpful. Luckily I didn't waste money beforehand buying an unnecessary onward ticket, as I am not sure where I get to fly to next - depends on where my overseas company will send me? One should take what one reads on these forums with a pinch of salt it seems?

Interesting that you were not asked. I came in on the 31st on a US Passport on the 30 day visa exempt and also was not asked. Meowma stated that he saw it being enforced last Friday for everyone he saw going through. Cosmont also confirms he saw it being asked for when he arrived on the 2nd.

Maybe they are selctively enforcing the rule based on nationality or on the flights that come in, or based on the orders of their superiors. However, in the future, I will make sure that I have an outbound ticket. People should know that it is being enforced for some and then make their own decisions on whether they want to risk it. I'm not sure if it is what is said in the forum which should be taken with a pinch of salt or what thai immigration says or does.

Isn't that the subject of the thread we are posting in?

Lopburi,

My only concern was that it doesn't seem emphasized enough. The heading is a question asking whether the rule was being enforced. It now seems clear that it is, so I was thinking that maybe a thread with the heading that the onward ticket rule was now being enforced at the airport might be helpful and emphasize this change more clearly for forum users. Or maybe, a slight change to this thread's header would be helpful so that the news wouldn't slip the attention of any forum readers.

I'm only suggesting this because I think this news is really important for people entering the kingdom, and some people coming in over the next couple of weeks might get zapped. I left at the beginning of May and came back at the end of the month and the change had already started to happen. I would have had a real problem if they had started enforcing this rule on my return date.

There is more than enough literature available on Thai political history that goes into those subjects.

ColPyat,

Could you please reference some of these books for me? I would be interested in reading them.

minimum wage workers in the West are miserable. they think they deserve more money. they do everything with the attitude that there boss is a jerk. alot of you seem to be advocating this same communistic attitude. the advice being offered here is inline with buddhism. if his anthill ideology eats you up so much, just go back to your country where cynicism is the number one human trait.

Oh c'mon Siam Square. So now, if we don't like what Prem says, we are communists or communists sympathisers who should leave the country? Please. It's interesting that you should equate the individualism that is really being expressed by American workers when they think the boss is a jerk to communism.

Although I think it might be good for thais to work harder, if Thailand became a society of worker drones as Prem suggests here, it really would be the opposite of the Thailand which I believe that most of us expats saw and fell in love with when we first came to Thailand, a very relaxed/relaxing place to live. However, maybe that view might have been the result of a very limited understanding of the country; maybe it was relaxing and relaxed for us, but not for the average Thai.

In the end, even though this acceptance of a hierarchical view of society might be in line with buddhism, it is not in line with a healthy functioning democracy. It is in line with various kinds of authoritarian states though. Communist societies express the same viewpoint that Prem seems to be expressing-work hard, know your place in society and don't question your leaders. Please don't infer from this that I'm accusing Prem of being a communist.

Wow, so it's already started. I guess I got lucky when I came in, or I snuck in before they started to fully implement the new policy. This will be a pain in the buttt for me always having to plan the 2nd trip in advance, but such is life.

Moderators I think this is really important. Should someone start a thread highlighting this change in the implememntation of the 30 day visa exemption rule at the airport? I think all visitors to Thailand/members of this forum should really be well aware of this important change.

It seems that there might be a legal loophole that will restore the political rights of the banned TRT executives.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/06/02...al_30035805.php

..in which case things really would start to look better...

Yeah, I just read that article. It makes you wonder then what is the purpose of all of these judgements and charges. Is it just to give people leverage in the back room horse trading?

JR Texas to Simon: Don't want to get off track, but I think many expats would probably tell you to avoid Laos and move to either Vietnam or Cambodia (if those are your choices).

JR,

Interesting that you would say that. I've been thinking about maybe leaving Thailand. I'm sick of BKK, and with the poorer treatment that Farang have been getting here, I was cosidering Laos. I want to live somewhere quieter, and remember that I enjoyed my stay in Vientiane years ago. Why would you say that Laos would be a place to avoid?

I've also been thinking about a move to the provinces in Thailand, but since I'm out of the country frequently for my work and have no Thai wife or serious girlfriend to keep track of the place, I would be concerned about my home being robbed in the provinces while I was away. I'm also concerned about safety issues in the provinces, which seem to be more dangerous than BKK. My feeling would be that if I were living in the provinces, I would probably have to own a firearm. Any suggestions?

I know this post is slightly off the topic of Simon's problem. Simon, sorry to hear of your problems with the visa. It just seems to be another example of things being made more difficult for long stay farang. I hope that you can get things sorted out acceptably. Don't worry about the accusations of being a sex tourist. In SEAsia, many will think that about all westerners who visit the country. Do whatever works best for you and ignore all those who will prejudge and make comments without knowing your true situation

But, besides all ranting against Thai Rak Thai, and much of it justified, there simply is no alternative. The frugal Democrat government previous has done nothing for the rural guys, neither what they needed, nor handouts, nor freebies.

Name a realistic alternative, please.

If you would be one of those rural guys - who would you vote for? The party that gives you more than anybody else has done, or the party that has never done anything for you? That may sound a bit simplistic, but the many rural guys have not the luxury to engage in pseudo intellectual exercises we here in this forum like to

ColPyat,

I agree. It was very obvious why they voted for him, and it made sense for the rural poor to vote for him.

I hope that my posts did not come off too much like a rant. Since I've never posted on this topic(Thaksin), I had alot that I wanted to get out.

However, I also agree with Plus, in that I don't think Thaksin was ever going to let go of his grip on power and bow out with grace after a defeat in a democratic election. He wanted it all.

just a guess... they had a friend who was into drugs somehow and got involved with the crackdown by thaksin.

if this was the case, you next need to wonder how they are connected?

I don't think you have to be a drug addict or a friend of a drug addict to disagree with how the war on drugs was waged and with the Thaksin administration. Certainly, I'm not. Although if you were part of that group, you would certainly not appreciate what happened.

I recently read an article in the Nation in which some commisssion was investigating some of the murders/victims of the war on drugs for their family members. Of the 40 cases that were investigated, 36 were found to not have been involved in drugs and drug trafficing at all. Maybe these were not representative of all the cases, but the 90% rate of killiing innocents which you find in this case(which may not be representative of them all) is certainly not a good track record.

Vermin, I don't see why you are so worried about giving some support to the people in the south. Yes, some of them are terrorists and some of the Thai forces probably are too. Just because you wear a uniform doesn't mean you care about human rights etc. If we got all the information about what the military and police did down there in the past the problem might have been solved by now.(As would the Al Queda/Iraq problem) Have you seen the Tak Bai video of Thai forces kicking the crap out of men lying on the ground with their arms over their head? I'd really like a link to that. I saw it two weeks before the Coup and it was horrible. It looked like the stuff from the 1970s at Thammasat. It's just an eye for an eye for all I can see. As long as the people don't know the truth things will go on. In twenty years we will know who the 'terrorists' really were.

When Thaksin became prime minister I believe he took charge of the government. Like it or not he is responsible for what happened under him. More people have died in the south under his watch than any other prime minister. Instead of passing out bicycles to people in area's friendly to TRT he should have taken more interest in the lives of all those people.

Aujuba,

I'm just sensitive to the charge that people might think I was supporting the burning of monks and teachers, which I don't, and I wanted to make it perfectly clear that I wasn't. In general, I agree with all that you say about the South. What is going on down there is a tragedy for all involved(how's that for a pc comment-pc but true)

I thought what happened at Tak Bai was horrible and is one of the acts of mismangement(torture) by the authorities which has helped inflame the insurgency. I never saw the video. How can I do so?

As for Al-Queda and Iraq, it is kind of off topic if related issue. Certainly the Bush Administration, my government, has bungled it, but even if they did things well, I think we would have a situation that would take a generation to solve.

The problem with posts like yours is that you throw so many things simultaneously that it may impress everyone who has no idea what you

are talking about.

But closer inspection reveals only a bunch of unsubstantiated statements.

I am frankly sick and tired of posts like that and will not analyse it in full detail.

But:

1. The sell of Shin Corp to Temasek was perfectly legal. I have to admit that I am not expert on that but I did discuss it with a number of experts and they assured me that apart of minor technicalities the deal is perfectly legal.

2. To say that Thaksin is responsible for the violence in the South is a total absurd. While you are correctly indicate that he (more precisely Purachai as an interior minister at the time) made initially some mistakes,

he proved to be a fast learner. The statement is completely nonsensical.

In one of my posts above in this thread you may learn about the role of general Sonthi in the situation in the South.

Just because of the post like yours (which summarily execute Thaksin without giving any proof of guilt), I consider the participation in the discussions with certain number of members as a complete waist of time.

You are right. The muslim terrorists are responsible for the violence in the south. Nobody made them behead monks, blow-up teachers, and kill civilians. My god, that poster has a dangerous mindset. Thailand is a corrupt nation. Thaskin may have been corrupt but, so far, the system has yet take to account or even tried to make a real case against him. If you want to pin blame for the ongoing violence in the south than spot on the ones who are doing the killing.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not absolving the terrorists in the South for their activities. I'm saying that his mismanagement of the situation is what caused the whole thing to get out of hand and may have led to its beginning. As I recollect, the military did not want to have the special administrative region dissolved as they still wanted to stay on top of things. He did so anyway. Within a short time, I would have to check to be sure how long, things began. Am I the only one who sees a causation here?

I don't think that I have a dangerous mindset. There are two sides in every quarrel and the activities of one can have an affect on those of the other. To deny this seems illiogical.

Just as the farmers in Isaan have legitimate grivances so do the muslims in the South. Please don't take this to mean that I'm endorsing the activities of the terrorists. I am categorically not doing so. I'm pointing the finger of blame at Thaksin for his mismanagement of the situation.

The problem with posts like yours is that you throw so many things simultaneously that it may impress everyone who has no idea what you

are talking about.

But closer inspection reveals only a bunch of unsubstantiated statements.

I am frankly sick and tired of posts like that and will not analyse it in full detail.

But:

1. The sell of Shin Corp to Temasek was perfectly legal. I have to admit that I am not expert on that but I did discuss it with a number of experts and they assured me that apart of minor technicalities the deal is perfectly legal.

2. To say that Thaksin is responsible for the violence in the South is a total absurd. While you are correctly indicate that he (more precisely Purachai as an interior minister at the time) made initially some mistakes,

he proved to be a fast learner. The statement is completely nonsensical.

In one of my posts above in this thread you may learn about the role of general Sonthi in the situation in the South.

Just because of the post like yours (which summarily execute Thaksin without giving any proof of guilt), I consider the participation in the discussions with certain number of members as a complete waist of time.

I was trying to be comprehensive and give the full list of things which I thought were wrong with the past administration and why I supported the verdict of the tribunal. I also apologized at the beginning of my post for the length. My post was so long as it was, to go into more detail would have made it extremely long, and would have required a bit of research, and I was just writing the things I could think of off the top of my head. Since I had never posted on this topic, I tried to get in as much as possible. Sorry that you had to suffer through reading it

I take issue with your view of discussing things with me a as complete waste of time. I certainly would show you a little bit more respect as I do now.

1.Yes, the sale was legal, but that's because he had been manipulating things the whole time to prepare for his big payday with his huge majority in the Parliament.

The conflict of interest of him and his party is clearly evident and it should not have been allowed.

2. Putting a fair share of the blame for the problems in the South is not nonsensical, or totally absurd as you put it, if you see how things picked up. He said there was no terrorism. He ended the special administrative region which had been successfully keeping the peace there. He, as Prime Minister, was responsible for the orders of how to treat the provinces involved in the unrest, orders which outraged the local populace(the buck stops with him and not with his subordinates). Do you really think he did a good job handling this ulcer?

Certainly some of the things are unsubstatiated, but they are highly probable. I've been following the regime of TRT and Thaksin the whole time. I find him guitly for seeing what he has done the whole time he has been in office, a litany of lies and calculated moves for his own self interest. Earlier you asked why so many farang hate Thaksin. I gave you my reasons. Did you want to know or not?

Hey, feel free to go to town and attack me for all of my unsubstiated claims. I did this to spur reasoned debate, and not just to "impress the reader". Can you be calm, cool and respectful as I am while you do so?

You may be sick of these posts like mine. I'm sick of people who just attack the poster and don't deal with what is being discussed. Yes, we obviously disagree. Can we be polite to one another?

Hey, just thought I’d give my 2(or maybe more) cents worth. I hope people aren’t annoyed by my rehashing of so many of the events of the past 7 years in my post.

I’m surprised to hear all of the support for Thai Rak Thai and Thaksin. It seems very clear that he was undemocratic and corrupt on a vast scale, and a huge human rights violator. I’m pleased with this verdict.

Since day one he should never have been allowed to hold office. In 2001, he clearly violated the rules of the Assets Examination Committee. The only reason he was able to hold office was that a number of the members abrogated their duty as one of the checks and balances of democracy and abstained from voting out of a misguided desire to not go against the results of the election when their votes would have ruled him out of holding office.

Thaksin consistently said that he had no respect for democracy and was in favor of a more dictatorial style of rule, with his CEO style of management. He clearly wanted to set himself up as the head of a parliamentary dictatorship like his friends, the Lees, ran in Singapore. He only held himself of as a the light of democracy in Thailand when it was clear that the middle class and political elite had turned against him with his massively corrupt and self interested governance of the country. If things are to be believed, the military only struck first the day before TRT supporters were to attack a massive PAD rally, which Thaksin would use as a pretext for passing an emergency decree. It seemed as if that was eventually the plan with the treatment earlier protestors got from hired security; imagine kicking a 70 year old man in the head in front of Siam Paragon (or was it world trade)

While he was within his rights to call the snap elections, the reason for doing so, to avoid the debate of his hugely corrupt sale of Shin telecom to Temasak, was completely unacceptable. Yes, he wanted to show that he had a mandate to run the country. However, the fact that a huge proportion of the rural poor were willing to accept what he was doing does not make it appropriate or acceptable for a head of state. In my view, the Democrats rightfully boycotted the election. Thaksin went ahead with the election anyway to try and create a one party rubber stamp parliament, hardly the decision of a democratic party or champion of democracy.

Some have said that all politicians are corrupt in Thailand, which is essentially true. However, the corruption under Thaksin was on an unheard of scale and was correctly dubbed industrial corruption due to its huge scale. Imagine-a 2 billion dollar tax free sale of his company, this from a person whose administration had been squeezing the tax baht out of all of his opponents and the middle class. He had said that anyone who uses an offshore company was unpatriotic and then went ahead, and did the same thing to get cash on a huge scale with his sale of Shin. The middle class and Bangkok elite were rightfully outraged.

The charges of electoral fraud against him and the TRT leadership were clearly valid in the case which was used to bar the party. Even before the coup, the Supreme Court’s decision against the electoral commission of electoral malfeasance on this same issue made it clear that if TRT was eventually charged with it, they would be found guilty. It was simply a matter of time if Thaksin lost power.

Some have said how well run the country was under Thaksin, but I didn’t see that. The human rights abuses under his rule were rampant. Maybe if you were one of the many innocents killed during the war on drugs, you would feel otherwise. The figure during the war on drugs is actually closer to 7-8,000. Two to three thousand were killed in the first phase, and then there were another 5,000 in the second phase, which Thaksin managed to keep out the press, a shocking instance of censorship, an example of which has not even happened under the leadership of this junta(censorship yes, but to hide an action on this scale-I don’t think so). This only recently came to light with the end of Thaksin’s rule.

Thaksin seems to be the one primarily responsible for the unrest in the South. He was the one who declared that there was no terrorism in the South and dissolved the special administrative region which the army had used to keep the region calm; all because he wanted to promote tourism in Thailand. Then when there was the robbery of an arsenal, he gave the military one week to find the people responsible. He gave the military carte blanche to run around and torture just as he had given the police carte blanche to kill in the war on drugs, a carte blanche which was exacerbated by his deadlines for certain numbers of drug dealers to be “eliminated” within a certain time period, guaranteeing that people who were not drug dealers would be snuffed. He or one of his cronies had the one lawyer who would represent any of these people kidnapped and murdered. His ham handedness fueled the fire of Islamic extremist hatred in the South and made the unrest grow and grow.

His conflict of interest and abuse of power were clearly evident in how he pumped up the value of his company and knocked down all of his competitors. Does anyone remember how Orange was treated? Is it any surprise that he was one of the biggest tax evaders in Thai History? Do people remember how, at the start of his first term, the main state’s witnesses in the tax evasion case against Shin Telecom, the accountant whistleblower, was murdered and the police gave every possible reason for his murder except his involvement in the case? The case was quickly dropped and disappeared from the papers. It has since been reopened. Certainly he manipulated the law to make sure that he obeyed all of the legal technicalities, but this conflict of interest should never be allowed in any responsible governance of a democratic country.

It really feels as if Thaksin and all of his accomplices in the TRT leadership have finally gotten their comeuppance. It is important that no elected official is seen to be above the law. In the US Richard Nixon was hugely popular, and won one of the biggest landslide victories in US history against McGovern, but he was still held accountable for his illegal activities. Certainly the Republican Party wasn’t banned, but the dissolution of the party and the banning of the execs from political activity is the penalty under Thai law. The 14 or however many million who voted for TRT can still participate in the next elections as can the rest of the TRT party hierarchy, in whatever new party/parties they organize.

It is shame that the rural poor are once again left out in the cold. Let’s hope that in the future the person who champions their legitimate needs is not a self-serving demagogue, but someone of real integrity. Interestingly enough, for all the things Thaksin gave them, he did not try to educate them. Under his leadership, the deadline for universal secondary education came and went with nary an attempt to bring it into being. It seemed that he would only give them things which would make them beholden to them and nothing that would truly empower them(remember his campaign tour for his second term when he told people that those provinces which voted against him would be the last to receive any state aid). Maybe if they were educated they could see through his web of deceit, something Thaksin would not have accepted. I believe that in the long run the enormous debt he was giving them would hurt them as well although maybe many of them could not afford the luxury of such long term thinking. Let hope that the Democrats and the elite of Thailand see this as a wake up call and try to do something to help them.

I supported the coup as a necessary evil to remove this blight on the Thai political landscape. Some think that it would have eventually been corrected by the electoral process, but I don’t agree. He was intending to fully ensconce himself in power and change all the laws along the way so it would all be legal just as he had been doing all along.

However, I do not support the way the CNS is running the country. I’m really not sure which is worse, and clearly hope that some of the elements of the new constitution are retracted. This decision to make the TRT leadership accountable seems to be a step in the right direction for a better future for Thailand. Corruption and electoral fraud ruin democracies.

I do admit that my knowledge of pre-1998 Thai democratic politics is weak since I did not arrive in the LOS until then and didn’t really start to take notice until around 2000.

I just came through the airport today, and much to my chagrin I saw the sign asking for...onward ticket or e-booking...the officer did not ask for one. When I queried him about it

If you arrived without a visa and without a ticket for onward travel I’d say you were quite brave to ask the Immigration officer about the posted rule.

--

Maestro

Yes Maestro, that was my sich . However, I asked after he had already processed me and given me my 30 days.

Hey,

I just came through the airport today, and much to my chagrin I saw the sign asking for the four things you need to show the immigration officer: passport, arrival/departure card, boarding pass and brand new- #4 onward ticket or e-booking. I was worried that I would be screwed by a new rule change just as I had in March. However, the officer did not ask for one. When I queried him about it, he said it wasn't necessary, and I think it was only something that might use if they didn't like you. I was a little tired and I was having a little trouble slipping back in to speaking thai so I was a little uncertain about exactly what he said. I was just glad to get in with no problem.

Even thought they didn't request the ticket this time, it seems clear that the writing is on the wall(or on the sign in this case). It seems like it will only be a matter of time before they enforce this rule at the airport as well.

By the way, Farma, the request for the boarding pass is not new. It has been on the sign for years. I believe since they captured Hambali in Thailand.

in any situation where you are a guest the minimum required is that you show respect to your host. if you dont like your host, his home, his culture, his way of thinking, or his way of life then LEAVE!!!

I'm really fed up with this kind of attitude. Certainly when you are in someone's home you should be polite. However highdiver, this forum is not your or anyone else's home, and people should be able to just let it fly as long as they aren't seriously flaming other posters. A forum is a perfectly acceptable place for people to complain or crticize. It also really amuses how much people whinge when they think others are whingers.

This forum is for expats, but thais are more than welcome to contribute.

A correction. This forum is for anyone with an interest in Thailand, not simply for expats. Not only are Thais 'more than welcome to contribute', we welcome them with open arms to bring a bit of balance into the place.

I stand corrected.