TallGuyJohninBKK

Honestly, I don't think there really is any kind of NEW corruption in Thailand.

Whatever it is, almost certainly, it's all been done before by someone here. And they likely got away with it.

I love the various posts in this thread.

Sure made my morning reading about who's worse, the criminals or the cops. Now, which is which again???

3 hours ago, stereolab said:

If they lost that amount of money, how much was actually left in the account.?

Enough for Prada bags, sunglasses, jet travel, and at times, very expensive luxury import cars.

7 hours ago, HiSoLowSoNoSo said:

Maybe the robbed Abbot should read this page: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebsut018.htm

Especially the following part: On Monks and Money

Buddhist monks (bhikkhus) and nuns (bhikkhunis) are not allowed to accept money for themselves. Nor are they allowed to tell a trustworthy layperson to receive it on their behalf and keep it for them (e.g. keeping a personal bank account). Such practices are explicitly prohibited in the 18th rule of the section of Vinaya called Nissaggiya Pacittiya.

Nor may monks or nuns buy and sell things for themselves using money. This is prohibited by the 19th rule in the Nissaggiya Pacittiya.

 

I would imagine, this guy and all the others like him would maintain they weren't accepting or holding money for themselves, as individual monks. Rather, they were accepting and holding funds for their temple, the institution. And they just happened to be in charge of and control how those funds were used / transferred, etc.

For me, the better question is, just how exactly did this monk and his temple have a spare 8M baht sitting around in their bank account to send to an official at the NBO. And for that matter, even if they had a good reason for having that much money, why would he knowingly transfer the funds to the PERSONAL ACCOUNTS of the NBO officials as opposed to the organization's account. That alone should have raised serious suspicions.

How many years has he and cohorts been in office already now, and only now getting around to announcing police reform committees, that everyone already knows will pretty much do nothing.

And frankly, I thought, at some prior point in the NCPO's life that they had previously announced some committees that were supposed to undertake police reform.  And then of course, after that, never to be heard from again.

The things they actually want to do, they just do and announce.  The things they want to shuffle off into obscurity, they announce committees to study.

Pop Quiz question for extra credit:

Which will come first in Thailand, a return to democracy or police reform?

Answer: both likely to come about the same time, and no one's predicting just when that might be.

45 minutes ago, The Deerhunter said:

. Only another couple of months before the statute of limitations expire on most or all of the remaining possible charges for the Red Bull road death case.  Don't hold your breath.

I believe, that's only partially correct. Some of the lesser charges are heading to expire.

But IIRC, the most serious charge has a long statute of limitations, like 10 years or more. So there's at least some time still to run on that one.

18 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

Note this crime was committed over 2 years ago. The judicial process drags on whilst the defendant who has been found guilty at every stage remains free on bail. Whilst this is in accordance with the law, it is not anywhere near justice.

That's true... but it could have been even worse...

When I first started reading this news, I was expecting to see the 2-year sentence in the headline, and then, as so often happens, read in the body of the article that the sentence has been suspended, meaning no time in custody.

In this case, the courts seem to have actually handed down a real, non-suspended sentence, even though it's less than what this defendant actually deserves -- DUI and killing 3 people.

Maybe or so 5 years from now, just maybe, we'll actually find out if this woman ever will have to spend a day in custody for the crimes she committed.

If I was an operator in that sector, Thailand would be one of the last places I'd want to establish a corporate presence. Might not have been too bad in the past. But these days, it's literally just asking for grief and hassles.

15 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

True, but for CP it's still peanuts.

I am confident that CP will be found innocent of any negligence 

The police chief says the civil compensation is a separate matter from the potential criminal case.

If only that were true in Thailand, but unfortunately, it's isn't.

In all likelihood, CP is paying what they've promised to pay very clearly to avoid any remote chance of any criminal charges being filed.  And mark my words, no criminal case will be lodged in this incident.

In real terms, I think any certification or license issued by CAAT means next to nothing. After all, this is the same organization that's supposedly been overseeing Thai commercial aviation all the time that led up to the country getting a red card warning from ICAO.

When ICAO comes and does their review this September, assuming the OP article is correct, that's when I'll start paying attention to what folks are saying and doing. In the meantime, expect to see/read numerous Thai media reports quoting Thai government officials saying they expect ICAO will remove the red card. (They're always so very fond of speaking on behalf of other organization in which they have no role).

Just to elaborate a bit for the OP....

--If you're applying for some kind of Thai visa at a consulate or embassy in the U.S. that may require bank deposit funds like an O-A visa, those funds need to be on deposit in a U.S. bank, and the related proof for the Embassy/Consulate would come from that bank.

--But, if you're applying for an extension of stay (based on retirement or marriage to a Thai citizen) inside Thailand from Thai Immigration (something that some people call a visa -- let's not debate that here), those funds have to be on deposit in a Thai bank, as Joe explained above.

As far as some kind of Social Security monthly income statement is concerned, it's a good thing to have just in case.  As stated, the U.S. Embassy/Consulate in Thailand -- when asked to issue a monthly income affidavit on behalf of Americans who will use it at Thai Immigration -- doesn't require documentation. But you're making a sworn statement that the amount you're declaring is accurate.

However, it's always possible -- not usually likely, but possible -- that Thai Immigration at some point might also ask to see some kind of documentation for whatever monthly income a person is claiming.  They don't usually do that, especially in Bangkok, but it's always possible, and equally good to always be prepared, just in case.

9 minutes ago, Gulfsailor said:

Trump firing Mueller would mean the end of Trumps presidency. But if Trump was complicit in Russia's meddling, or if he committed other criminal acts before becoming president, then Trump will have no choice but to fire Mueller when he starts to gather evidence. Even Trump would choose losing face and his presidency over ending up in jail.  

I think you're over-reaching a bit. Nixon did the same kind of thing under similar circumstances, but he never went to jail. He simply was forced to resign when it became apparent the jig was up.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing Trump in jail. He probably does deserve it for any number of things both before and after becoming President. But being a sitting U.S. President is kind of like a get out of jail free card. Yes, you might be impeached or forced to resign. But you're not going to be criminally prosecuted, barring the most extreme circumstances.

I'd take Trump's promise (?) that he won't go after Mueller as something of some value -- IF I believed even the slightest thing that came out of the lying ******'s mouth -- which I don't.

The only thing at all that his talking produces is increased greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming -- something that he apparently doesn't believe in.

PS - Somewhere along the way, I do hope Mueller or someone comes up with Trump's supposed Russia dossier -- meaning the dirty file the Russians supposedly have on him, hopefully complete with video and/or photographic evidence.

7 hours ago, Just1Voice said:

I asked the manager if there was a way to avoid the police, but make sure this woman could never work in a bank again.  She said there was.  I told her I would be happy with that.  She assured me it would be handled immediately. Meanwhile, the young woman was fired and told to get out of the bank immediately.  My wife said I am too "kind hearted" and should have had her arrested. She's probably right, but destroying her future as a bank employee was good enough for me.

Sorry to say, but I think you're a soft-hearted sucker... Sure, the bank will take care of your thieving teller.

Some day down the road, you'll probably go back into the same branch and discover that your teller woman has been promoted to branch manager. After all, she was certainly showing the kind of initiative that's valued here.

Quote

Usually there is a cause too  much flux,  spicey foods, the way you eat, Mine is Milk, i now have Lactose free milk which seems to work.

Weird related thing:

I'm from the U.S., and been eating dairy products all my life with no health/stomach issues at all -- milk, yogurt, cheese, ice cream, you name it. All good.

Came to Thailand, and because fresh milk is less common here, started using Foremost UHT milk on my morning cereal when I started eating cereal as a regular breakfast. Didn't realize it then, but started having stomach problems. And that ultimately led to seeing a gastro dr., getting prescribed omaprazole, etc etc. No explanation from the doctor of why I was having stomach problems, just given medicine to remedy the symptoms.

Later, just by chance (not purposefully) when I started varying my breakfasts away from cereal, and thus stopped using/drinking UHT milk every day, my stomach problems went away and absolutely no need for any medication ever since. Even now, I can still eat all the regular dairy I want -- fresh milk, ice cream, cheese, yogurt, etc.  But for some reason, UHT milk here wreaks havoc with my stomach.

So these days, I still eat cereal periodically for breakfast, but instead of Thai UHT milk, I've been using Freedom Foods' rice milk from Australia, which is easy to find and buy at the expat supermarkets.

4 hours ago, bill59 said:

Why would I ever do this when I can get a year for 1900 Baht and can simply renew?
 

It's true, the requirements are somewhat tougher for the O-A vs in-country extensions, specifically, police clearance and medical checks are required for the O-A, and not for in country extensions.

The advantages of the O-A over the extension are:

--if you're doing bank deposits, those can remain in your home country bank. They don't have to be in a Thai bank.

--you end up dealing with the Thai consulate in your home country vs. Thai Immigration in country.

--the O-A as stated can cover a person for up to two years vs. 1 year at a time for extensions.

I choose to do extensions myself, mainly because, when I travel back to my home country from Thailand, I don't want to spend my vacation/travel time messing around with visa applications and the Thai consulate. On the other hand, for someone still living in their home country but planning to relocate, it might make sense as a first step.

12 hours ago, virgomjh said:

Thanks for your interesting observations TallGuy. 

A newsletter along the lines you suggested would be great, but even just a page on their website where all these changes could be registered would be a big help. Experts like ubonjoe could use it to broadcast the important details to the rest of us via this forum for example. How long would it take for one of the officers to type something on the page along the lines ''From 1st June 2017, applicants wishing to convert Tourist Visas to non O immigrant visas can apply at their local immigration centre. After this date Bangkok Immigration centre will only process such applications from Bangkok residents.''

Who knows how many people have wasted a lot of time and money travelling from their province to Bangkok over the past few weeks thinking this was still the right place to go. I hope at least that this post might help a few people avoid that mistake.

You're right. It would seemingly be a very simple thing for them to do, even just an Immigration Department updates web page with any changes.  But they don't do it, and I have no idea why.  If Immigration has a public relations officer anywhere in the department, he either must be the loneliest or most useless bureaucrat anywhere in the Thai government.

The one reason I can think of, besides potentially just simple laziness, is that once you put rules or policies down on paper or the web, people can point to them and rely on them as what's correct. And I could see that causing a problem given that seemingly so many local Immigration Offices have their own peculiar local policies and quirks for different things that necessarily don't match with the national policies. By not saying or writing anything anywhere, all the Immigration locals remain free to meander as they wish.

AFAIK, in the past, BKK CW would do conversions to Non-O visas for people from other areas because, at least in the past, a lot of other Immigration offices outside BKK would NOT do them.  That was the status of things on Non-O conversions for quite a long time -- apparently until this recent change.

Joe alluded earlier to having recently seen some feedback where that former policy/practice had changed. But Immigration sure never announced the change in any fashion that I'm aware of. And, anyone reading here for advice on the subject over any extended period most likely would have believed doing a conversion at BKK would be fine.

The OP's friend was certainly reasonable in believing that BKK was an acceptable place to go for a Non-O conversion.

On 6/22/2017 at 8:58 PM, Andrew Dwyer said:

Let me assist using mine as an example:



Mine was issued 17 October 2016 and I have to enter before 16 October 2017 to activate the visa, this is also the date my visa expires.
Between these dates I can come and go as I please with no re-entry permit required.
Each time I enter I will get an entry stamp for 1 year ( - 1 day ) in the future.
I came back to Thailand yesterday and you can see my stamp 21 Jun 2017 - Admit until 20/06/2018
So, in my case, i can stay in Thailand until 20/06/2018.
BUT: I need to use a re-entry permit after 16 October 2017 when my visa expires and I am on permission to stay.
Then on, or before, 20/06/2018 I need an extension of my permission to stay.

I will have 1 year and 8 months from a 1 year visa, if I re-enter before 16 October 2017 it will effectively become 2 years.

BUT IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER:
1st year is a multi entry visa.
2nd year is permission to stay and requires re-entry permits.

This is a good and correct explanation of how the O-A visa operates, and how a person can, depending on how they manage their entries, effectively get almost a two-year stay out of the single visa. After the initial year, the visa has effectively expired, but the person still is entitled to one-year additional permission to stay from the date of their last entry under the still valid visa. Any entries after the visa has expired, but during the 2nd year permission to stay period, require a re-entry permit to keep alive the permission to stay date.

I may well start a separate thread about this, but I'll make a brief mention here.  I've been doing a lot of checking and research lately, and oddly (or perhaps not oddly for Thailand), there seems to be virtually no healthy / low-fat / low sugar ice cream available in the stores or ice cream shops here.

Back home in the States, even some of the premium brands like Dreyers have come out with low fat and/or low-sugar premium ice creams, and there also are newer methods of making ice cream that allow the same premium product and taste, but without so much saturated fat. But forget finding any of that here, AFAICT. Just by comparison, just one scoop of premium ice cream can contain as much saturated fat as a big beef hamburger.

In checking the stores here, not only couldn't I find a single offering of any lower-fat and lower-sugar ice cream, but also not even any store-sold frozen yogurt (which tends to be lower in fat than ice cream because often non or low-fat yogurt is used as the base). None at Tesco, Big C, Villa, Foodland, Central, Tops, Paragon, etc etc.  Even most of the frozen yogurt shops don't even have any low-sugar or no-added-sugar varieties, though they're easily available outside LOS.

About the closest you can come are the various sherbet versions, which typically don't have milk fat, so they tend to be low in saturated fat, but they're often instead quite high in sugars because of the fruit/fruit juice content and flavoring that goes into them. And before any smart aleck comes back the predictable reply, you should know that it's perfectly possible these days to produce a very good, very tasty ice cream product that is NOT high in fat or sugar.

I'll second the part about it being OK to wash cast iron pans after cooking with them. But as GK said, after washing, heat the pan sufficient to remove any lingering moisture and then give the cooking surface a light coat of oil.

I've cooked with cast iron pans before, and can't recall ever having bits of the pan come off into what I was cooking. Hate to say it, but there's a lot of cheap, poorly made, falsely labeled cookware here for some reason.

Nice photo!  Really looks like a guy who ought to be teaching music to young kids....

7 minutes ago, virgomjh said:

Thanks for your clarification on the current position. Do the authorities post these immigration rule changes and new directives anywhere to inform the public, or do they just give internal directives and let people find out by trial and, potentially very expensive, error? It seems at present that applicants are completely reliant on the great efforts of individuals such as yourself to try to identify these changes based entirely on feedback on the forums?

 

Immigration rarely seems to publicly, broadly, clearly communicate much of anything they do -- except for the broadest, most major policy changes. Operational detail things like the one affecting your friend, virtually never. Sometimes something might get posted on their website, but the average person would never know to go looking for it.

Immigration could have an informational newsletter for expats in the country who use Immigration services that people could voluntarily subscribe to, but they don't have one and never have in my many years here.  They can't even manage to maintain a comprehensible English language version of their website, not to mention being unable to keep their online 90-day reporting system in working order.