jayboy

You don't need a lawyer. When your work permit is cancelled, you have to go to the immigration and have your extension of stay cancelled. Then you go straight from the business section of the immigration section to the PR section (you need to pull a new number first), and they will stamp you an EoS for six months based on application for PR.

If this is the case it is a relatively new development.

In the early years of the last decade I investigated this precise point with a prominent Thai immigration lawyer.At that time if a work permit was cancelled during the PR application process there was the real risk the whole process would have to start from the beginning when the new permit had been issued (which for tax continuity reasons would need to be fairly promptly after the old one had expired).If however the application had been processed already in Immigration and was just waiting for Ministry of Interior approval there was unlikely to be a problem.

I am pleased that the authorities are apparently more flexible now.The previous disposition did however have a certain logic to it given that the business case for PR was predicated on a particular employment.

It's not yet possible to make a fair comparison, since most of the cases against the fugitive self-exiled former-PM have yet to be heard or even started, due to his not being available to hear the initial-charges read-out in-court.

Any evidence of what these cases are? They would need to be at least partially prepared well before charges were made in court (so Thaksin's absence is irrelevant).

Or have you just made it up or simply wished it was so?

And don't bother to copme back with a charge of terrorism for paying the red mob to burn down Bangkok or similar.Whatever the truth of this and similar charges it has never been pursued and will never come to trial.Just fantasy.

Beware, Suranand is an opportunist, a smooth talker, clever at spin, with no hesitation to re-wrap events and details into a different picture.

Amsterdam comes to mind.

Any evidence on which to base this judgement or is it just your personal subjective view?

Most people who know about Suranand would think it nonsense but perhaps you have some hard facts to make available.

Your reference to Amsterdam howver, silly and irrelevant, suggests you don't have the background.

The sniff test on stuff like this is whether this paraphernalia would have been celebrated or condemned back during the Third Reich.

My guess is if stuff like this came out then, then the creators would have been taken out back and shot. It is clearly parody.

This story reminds me of the story of how KKK eventually lost its respectability in the 50's and 60's. Turned out the Superman comic writers got hold of KKK code words and figures of speech and used them in the 'baddies' dialogue in their comic strips. What was once 'secret' and solemn KKK code-speak was being used in kids playgrounds as the 'KKK badies' were being shot and killed by the good guys. Kids unintentional parody made the KKK look silly to potential and existing members.

For whatever reason, and I don't know why, it is socially acceptable for those of Jewish extraction to parody the Nazi's, but not for others to. I don't have a good explanation on why it is the case, but it just is. When someone else tries it, we get 450 posts of confected outrage.

For me, this art simply helps further ridicule the Nazi's, and in my book you can never have enough of that. If it somehow encourages someone in Thailand to go and look at the history, then even better.

But it is a bit much to read these posts from the dear souls who have been offended by this stuff complaining of ignorance and cultural insensitivity, when I'm guessing that they are living in Thailand and perform cultural faux pas on a regular basis and are probably pretty ignorant of Thai and greater Asian history.

A post so misguided it's difficult to know where to start.

1.Your suggested sniff test (barbaric expression!) is just something you have dreamed up.Most people wouldn't pay much attention to what the Nazis may or not have done.It's just not relevant in this discussion.

2.Obviously news to you but the KKK never had any respectability.

3.Jews parodying the Nazis for the sake of it isn't acceptable.When it's funny and there's genuine wit (eg Springtime for Hitler) it's fine.But then all can join in:one doesn't have to be Jewish.I don't remember any confected outrage.It's also worth pointing out that within an ethnicity or national group it's quite common for rather rude epithets to be used which would not be acceptable if an outsider used them.Think the N word.

4.Most foreigners I know are mildly amused by the use of Nazi symbols in Thailand.They know there's no wish to offend and the use is just ignorance and silliness.Fair enough though for the Israel Embassy to protest.

5.What on earth are you talking about as regards cultural faux pas on a daily basis? Care to give some examples? In my experience Thais couldn't give a rat's arse about foreigners cultural faux pas if there is obviously friendliness and good intentions.

6.What's all this about ignorance of Thai history? Why should people who protest Hitler chic silliness be more ignorant of history than anyone else? On the face of it I would have thought they are probably more aware.

7.If you are worried about ignorance of Thai history you should concentrate efforts on the Ministry of Education which produces/authorises school history books which are little more than a pack of lies, a national disgrace.

The PM did not "bring it on herself" and frankly that attitude is typical of the "usual suspects" with the innuendo that "the reality was much worse", the kind of dishonest and hate filled opinion that the other paper's editorial dealt with today.

She most certainly did bring it on herself, or to put it another way, she dug her own hole... first by refusing to comment, and second by lying.

If you think she played no part in the mess this has become, and is purely an innocent victim who has been meanly and unfairly harassed, then i can't help but question my prior belief of you being for the most part a non-partisan observer open to all the facts.

Then again, Yingluck seems to have always been an area in which you have struggled to remain balanced on, right back to her early days. I'm not sure why as in the main you manage to do so with her brother.

You are probably right I concede.I am rather protective of her though I'm fully aware she only holds her position by virtue of her family position (and the small matter of having won an election).

I certainly don't agree in the rather trivial matter of the hotel meeting that she brought it on herself.The other paper's editorial today makes a compelling case on how absurd the criticsm has been.

But you do have a point.I admit to rather liking her (and not liking her elder brother at all while recognising his catalytic significance).It's not just my weakness in front of a pair of sparkling eyes but an appreciation of her generous spiritedness and non-confrontational approach.I'm not the only unlikely admirer:I understand General Prem has been thorough charmed.OK not very important in the overall scheme of things and I'm sure sooner or later she will be swept away to be a footnote in Thai history.The forces at work in politics will transcend her, and ultimately she is irrelevant.And yet, and yet...I do think even though her premiership may be brief the sut pralaat element among Thai politicians -all sides - could learn from her good manners and sunny temperament.

And it should give you pause for thought that your post was "liked" by one of the most notorious practitioners of abusive sexism on this forum.Sometimes it's necessary to be careful about the company one keeps

It may be normal for PMs to meet business people, but why was she so secretive about it? Why were the media told to "keep away, this is personal time"?

It's like a third rate horror movie.He's decapitated but keeps coming back for more.

Take up your issues with someone else.

The PM did bring it on herself with the "I am a woman" statement, especially after denying there even was a meeting. It caused people to suspect that, if she were willing to run with that story, the reality was far worse. One lie, when found out, does tend to damage one's credibility. On another matter, it would be nice if you did not generalise people who disagree with you as "the usual suspects" (derogatory implications of criminal intent), "we all know who they are", "unreasonably", which are your personal opinions, and should not be generalised to represent those of others.

The PM did not "bring it on herself" and frankly that attitude is typical of the "usual suspects" with the innuendo that "the reality was much worse", the kind of dishonest and hate filled opinion that the other paper's editorial dealt with today.

It is illegal to drive while drunk but not to make decisions affecting the nation - those not already made in Dubai that is. In chess terms, it is understandable perhaps that the knight becomes drunk to forget the shame when he sold his power to become the black king's pawn.

Congratulations.You have been nominated for the Sriracha John award for bringing Thaksin into a thread where he has no connection.

It's 5 1/2 years after the September-2006 coup, this is the third TRT/PPP/PTP-government to run the country after the military returned power to the electorate...

Why the talk of reducing the judiciary's independence,

You answer your own question in a way.It's quite clear that many millions of Thai do not really regard the judiciary as independent and indeed prone, on direction , to political meddling when the nation's choice doesn't meet the agreement of powerful unelected elites.It is now widely accepted that the military coup approach is counterproductive (though in my opinion the sheer boneheadedness of some senior generals is difficult to underestimate).Therefore the reds are understandably nervous about more frivolous judicial solutions (let's call it the TV cooking syndrome).Actually I think their fears are misplaced and in any case its more likely Thai style a deal will be stitched up behind the scenes.Shades of the final chapter of Animal Farm.

Interesting and significant that the other paper (hardly a supporter of the present government) has an editorial today demolishing the stupidity and irresponsibility of the opposition's attacks on the PM for the hotel meeting in question, correctly pointing out that many previous PMs had private meeting with business leaders and that it is not compulsory for the PM to attend every parliamentary session.

Just a reminder to normal forum members not to be overly influenced by the hate filled nonsense of the usual suspects.

while I agree that it is not compulsory to attend EVERY sitting, it would at minimum be respectful to attend MOST. It would also impress the voters if "attendance" wasn't limited to appearing, reading from a prepared document, big smile and fade out (not unlike Alice's Cheshire Cat).

Can you enlighten me as to instances where Yingluk has entered into prolonged and spirited debate, or deigned to answer question without notice. Perhaps you might even view this as cowardice as well as failing to carry out normal duties of the position.

I don't disagree with what you say but it's not relevant to this thread.My point simply was that on this forum there a small number -we all know who they are - who abuse the PM without any kind of filter and quite unreasonably - as in the case of the hotel meeting, dishonestly and with unpleasant innuendo sometimes sexist in nature.As to legitimate criticisms such as those you list, that's fair enough and a leading politician just has to suck it up, and ideally respond to it.

Thanks for the reminder. Its great that, given your views, you can remain objective and magnanimously suggest people who disagree with you are wrong. Should it be called the J-curve or the J-spin?

I am often wrong and many of those with whom I differ politically will concede that I am open to reasonable argument.

In this instance the thread was initially overloaded with sexist abuse and lies along with sheer ignorance.The other paper nailed the dishonesty today though I think the true picture had already emerged on this thread.One can either personalise the matter (as you have done) or address the issue.To each his choice.

Interesting and significant that the other paper (hardly a supporter of the present government) has an editorial today demolishing the stupidity and irresponsibility of the opposition's attacks on the PM for the hotel meeting in question, correctly pointing out that many previous PMs had private meeting with business leaders and that it is not compulsory for the PM to attend every parliamentary session.

Just a reminder to normal forum members not to be overly influenced by the hate filled nonsense of the usual suspects.

In paragraph above one might replace 'Suranand' with 'Sondhi'

One could but it wouldn't make any sense.

Spot on.

He can't be in politics but he can manage the PMs image... 555555555

A banned politician is rehabilitating her political image

when corruption is the dish of the day and she decides

a banned politician is the best choice.

Takes one to know one I guess.

Oh, wait the most important members of her clan are banned,

So why would she think a banned person is bad for her image.

Yes, rotten peas in a pod think alike.

Another profoundly ignorant and absurd post, and one that gives Thai Visa a bad name.I am guessing that he has not the faintest idea of the background of Suranand Vejjajiva though naturally he will have googled frantically if he replies to this.

Cetainly Suranand was banned in a ruling banning his entire party, one which looks increasingly unsound and without doubt a judgement politicised by those who sought judicial remedies in the absence of electoral success.Be that as it may:it's water under the bridge.However there was never the slightest suggestion even from his ideological opponents that Suranand was involved in any wrongdoing.Indeed he is an admirable man,a liberal thinker, a patriot and with an excellent brain to boot.As I mentioned in another post he has not been reluctant to criticise Thaksin.

Suranand may be a brilliant choice, but then that just highlights my comment. The government can't take the risk of Yingluck speaking for herself.

Because he is to be her spokesman.Jeez do you ever think before you post?

Careful there, Jayboy.

You are starting to sound like me!!

I can think of worse fates!

Suranand may be a brilliant choice, but then that just highlights my comment. The government can't take the risk of Yingluck speaking for herself.

Because he is to be her spokesman.Jeez do you ever think before you post?

related topic in business forum:

Thai economy gets a pat on back from IMF

Full story: http://www.thaivisa....-back-from-imf/

Directly contradicting The Nation's politicised and poorly argued editorial.

Maybe you should read the article rather than just the headline.

However, there are downside risks:... implementation of water-management projects might be slower than anticipated; and any renewed domestic uncertainty could weigh on still-fragile investor sentiment," Rumbaugh said.

...

The IMF also suggested that the government come up with a comprehensive fiscal framework on how to finance the spending. It is crucial that the financing is not carried out on an off-balance-sheet budget, he said.

The mission expressed concern about the rice-pledging scheme, as it could lead to higher-than-expected fiscal costs. Moreover, as oil prices are creeping up, the Thai government has been urged to look at policies that are not well targeted, including oil subsidies, Rumbaugh said.

The reports reservations are perfectly valid and in a way you probably have difficulty in understanding are made in the context of a balanced judgement, in this case broad endorsement of government policy.If criticisms are made in a way that are objective and reasonable, they are much more likely to be accepted.It's a lesson that the usual suspects on this forum could learn from.

The puppet has a new ventriloquist.

The kind of inane comment one has come to expect, and he wonders why one doesn't want to have detailed discussion with him.

Problem for the usual suspects is that Suranand is a brilliant choice, an excellent intellect, highly articulate and refreshingly nuanced and objective - quite prepared to stand up to Thaksin (as he has often in his artcles)

related topic in business forum:

Thai economy gets a pat on back from IMF

Full story: http://www.thaivisa....-back-from-imf/

Directly contradicting The Nation's politicised and poorly argued editorial.

Between the perjury of claiming her brother's Shin stock was hers (it wasn't), the unequivocal mismanagement of flood situations, false promises of pre-election pandering, lying to the public in this situation ("there was no meeting").... most of what is definitely sticking to her is the ineptitude of her own words and actions.

Your rather desperate list of Yingluck's "failings" (including the incorrect,the plain silly and some with a grain of truth) rather prove the point of the member you are attempting to refute - that against the odds her government is doing rather well.My helpful advice to you would be at least go through the motions of objectivity so that you can avoid the foil hat syndrome.

Do you advocate criminals being allowed to cut private deals to avoid their court-awarded punishment?

Well the criminals who launched the illegal coup cut themselves a private deal.True that there was no court decision because the case never came to trial, the charge of course (which would have been treason, a capital offence) far more serious than anything the unelected elite could lay at Thaksin's door.

"I am sure the Pheu Thai Party will win every election from now on if we continue with our present policies.

We will win and win - eternally," he declared.

Eternity is a long life span, even for the Dubai one.

It is a long time and almost inevitably PTP will at some point lose its position of preeminence.Some - because they don't understand or ignore the compelling reasons for PTP's victory - will say that will happen when Thaksin is neutralised or removed.Others more attuned to reality will say that victory is there for the taking by the Democrats if they return to previous standards of honour and commitment.They will need to shake off the shameful links to the corrupt and power hungry Thai generals and reestablish a link with the Thai people - all of them not just Southerners and relatively privileged groups.Sadly Abhisit, admirable in some ways but badly flawed, will have to go.Some rather fatuously think Korn could replace him as an effective leader but I doubt it.

I notice you, and some others, have not provided any answers to the excellent points raised by billd766.

Excellent points? I just noted the boring convoluted narrative that there had not been a coup against Thaksin.I thought that tired old lie, which even the coup makers don't pretend to believe, had died a death.Apparently not, though I have never seen it gain much circulation outside this forum

Cui bono?

That's what everyone should be thinking about right now. After all is said and done who benefits from all this?

Iran + Terroist Attacks = Invasion of Iran

Now, who wants that? Does Iran want to be invaded? Really?

Or is it the US/EU/Israel who have been circling around Iran for years now that want to attack Iran? Hmmmmmm...

Cui bono?

I see that not too many TV members play chess.

What a silly comment.One may as well apply the cui bono criterion to other world events to achieve an absurd conclusion, for example the attack on the Twin Towers.Who benefited? Ah, the enemies of Islam and international Jewry.

Picked up your wife in a bar and the British Embassy refused her Visa ?

Get real.There are thousands of Thai wives (dare I say the majority?) with that background who have successfully obtained UK visas.Having worked in a bar is not an impediment at all if other criteria are met.In fact it is irrelevant.