jonclark

Where was the photo taken? If it was not in Thailand are we entering the realms of Thai people being charged with violating Thai laws even if they were not in Thailand when they allegedly violated a Thai law?

I have to say I feel very envious when I read of all these folk on here saying the electricity here is cheap. I am guessing most are single gents. Add in a western wife and a couple of western teenage daughters to the mix and you'll find your electricity bills will easily reach 6k a month.

Always amusing to see foreigners bully the Thais in their own backyard.

Human migration globally is driven by poverty and lack of opportunities. Period, until Thailand get Myanmar to fix that it will continue. If the army catch and send back migrants, all the migrants will do is a swift about turn and re enter again..as they have no other option as they live in abject poverty with very limited means to support themselves or their families. Until poverty is fixed, there is nothing, nothing the Thai army or government can do to stop migrants coming here.

Oh dear this does not look good at all for the PM and his best mate Prawit - I thought they would stamp out corruption, not give it a top ranking position in their government. Tsk, tsk.

Right so let me get this straight. She has not actually been formally nominated to be the PM, just some idle chit chat in a party meeting? Is that Correct? Has PTP even submitted its formal nomination yet.I do not think they have. But some jumped up MP wants to now dissolve PTP for thinking about doing something, even though they haven't actually done anything.

Ah the infamous 'night of the howling dogs' - So called as 'canvassuers' scurry from door to door on the night before the election delivering election goodies in return for votes.

I imagine the skid marks were not on the road. but in their underwear.

Thailand is my home and has been for many, many years, and it will continue to be my home until I die. But every year without fail these old ' lures and campaigns' get trundled out with the same minimal impact. If Thailand wants to be taken seriously as a world class resort - Think Bora, Bora, Monaco etc - The playgrounds of the rich and wealthy. It needs to urgently and seriously upgrade its infrastructure and architecture. Move back from the piqueresque beaches and mountains and all too soon you will find a plathora of ugly cheap houses, shopfronts and cement buildings all constructed at the cheapest possible price (and the roads!!) . Yes, there are some truely amazing hotels, but step outside of them and you just find trash, litter and unsightly electrical cables, nestled up close to the 5 star resorts. And this is Thailand problem there has never been and planned development and enforcement of devlopment plans. The place looks an utter mess, but because Thai people are okay with it, they expect the rest of the world to be okay too. And they ain't. The customer is always right...and I hate to say this Thailand but your customers are foreigners...so listen to them.

Wrong.

So if as you keep saying and believe that any reference to " all people, persons" etc is explicitly directed at Thai people only..as the constitution only covers Thai people. One can assume by logical extension that where the constitution states "No person or people" it is meaning No Thai person. Correct? Section 6 which covers his majesty the king states " No person shall expose the king to any sort of accustaion or action" Using your interpretation as detailed obove. This leaves a rather vacumous hole that means the king according to the constitution could be accused by a non Thai. As no person explicitly according to you means no Thai person. No government in it right mind would create a constitution that creates this problem. The only logical conclusion therefore must be that "no person," and by extension it's opposite "all people" must refer to and include non Thais who live in Thailand.

Not from the USA sorry Section 49 also says no person (Thai) cannot legally overthrow the government, which by your narrow definition of person infers a non Thai can legally and consitutionally overthrow the government as the constitution does not forbid a non Thai from doing this.

Thank you. If the constitution was only aimed at and exclusively applicable to Thai people. There would be no need to mention discrimination based on race or origin...as all Thai people (semantics aside) are the same race and origin and thus it is impossible for discrimination to exist based on race or origin within this constitutional framework.

Nope. Otherwise Thai laws would consitutionally not apply to non Thais in Thailand. As all laws must legally exist within the constitutional framework with the exception of some laws regarding national security. The Constitution of Thailand is aimed and worded for Thai people for obvious reasons. But it does not exclude non Thais who live here. All people. That term includes all people that live, reside, stay inside the borders of Thailand.

Only the uneducated deal in stereotypes.

Probably unsurprising that you have not heard the rich complain. They are way above your social level and wouldn't be seen dead talking to an aging poor person outside of a 7-11. Enjoy your beer.

So according to you this only applies to Thais...right so section 28 and all subsequent sections does not apply to foreigners in Thailand. We have no right to choose and practice our religion, choose our dwelling, travel within Thailand, have our consumer rights protected and be free from unlawful detention etc. We can be legally kidnapped???Your understanding of all people is not consistent with the law and the law is underpinned by...you guessed it the Thai constitution. If we take your definition on step further and your interpretation for "a person "as mean only Thai, then ...apply that to section 49.... I am not even gonna get into that one.

Section 27 of the Thai Consitution ...i guess even a foreigner is a person? All persons are equal before the law, and shall have rights and liberties and be protected equally under the law. Men and women shall enjoy equal rights. Unjust discrimination against a person on the grounds of differences in origin, race, language, sex, age, disability, physical or health condition, personal status, economic and social standing, religious belief, education, or political view which is not contrary to the provisions of the Constitution or on any other grounds, shall not be permitted.

I pity your students then

Clearly you have not read it then.

Based on the contents of this (rather limited newspiece). It is fairly clear that an appeal will have good grounds imho. The plaintiff has argued that the dual pricing is unconstitutional. The judgement seems to have not answered that question, just saying, "Its okay because its for the good of the country." The judgement has not answered the plantiffs arguement about the constitutional validity of his complaint. Also there is no legal definition (that I know of) of what is 'good for the country' . If this good man has the time and money, I would take this to the consitutional court for review. There could well be other element to the judgements which are not reported here which may answer his complaint.