.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
jayboy
-
Posts
8,973 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Downloads
Quizzes
Posts posted by jayboy
-
-
The argument here reminds me of the medieval debate about how many angels could fit on the end of a pin, pointless.. because it avoids dealing with the practical.We know about the Thai restriction on practising law.We also know that almost every major international law firm here has foreign lawyers in employment, some of them as partners.This as I have stated repeatedly is almost always in matters relating to the corporate sector.None of the foreign lawyers I have dealt with in over 20 years is concerned about sitting in the background or having a Thai colleague sign off.In terms of what their work permits say I fully understand the word "lawyer" isn't used.I know that Thai lawyers only can be involved in ourt proceedings.
I can only reflect that the nature of this forum focusing on the world of visa regulations (and the bottom feeding lawyers that live off them) doesn't provide the necessary experience.Those who have actually operated at this level would know I am pointing out none other than the truth.I suspect Indo-Siam at least knows the practical position as well as I do, but perhaps he is just being - dare I say it - legalistic.On a point of detail Indo-Siam comes up with a prescriptive definition when he talks about signing a document that counts as a legal action.As I have made very clear that It's understood very well a foreign lawyer cannot do this.His role is purely in the sphere of giving advice and opinions.
-
... Of course this 'welter of disinformation' stems from dealing with UK-based law firms as mentioned above where in the UK there is a differentiation between barrister and solicitor --
In the USA and in USA-based firms in Bangkok, you either are a lawyer or you ain't ... and unless you are qualified IN Thailand as opposed to maintaining your qualification from elsewhere, you ain't a lawyer.
haha, "welter of disinformation". Hamming it up for us, ole jayboy. You'd think that at least 5 other people telling him he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about would be the end of it, but no. It is simply a 'welter of disinformation".
I think the picture is now fairly clear.There is a restriction on foreigners practising law in Thai courts.Subject to work permit/visa being in place there is no restriction on foreign lawyers in multinational legal practices where indeed many foreigners are partners.Any businessmen with experience at the upper corporate level knows this already.It doesn't really matter how many second tier expatriate "businessmen", ambulance chasers and "immigration" specialists disagree
-
samran: thank you very much for your informed answer(s). It looks like there is a hope, still
btw, what is a "magic circle law firm " ?
\
* Allen & Overy
* Clifford Chance
* Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
* Linklaters
* Slaughter and May
some of the biggest law firms in the UK...many with a presence in BKK, and with many foreign consultants and managers, of course....
And many,despite the welter of disinformation on this thread, with foreign partners and lawyers as well - as any serious Bangkok based businessman will already know.
On the "magic circle" issue here's a useful summary and although 6 years old provides a round up on the major firms catering to the corporate sector
http://asia.legalbusinessonline.com/law-firms/thailand-at-the-cross-roads/1175/21352
-
From our erstwhile forum sponsor, Sunbelt
http://www.sunbeltlegaladvisors.com/Thailand-Work-Permit.php
"Thai law prohibits employers from allowing aliens to perform any function other than that described in the alien's Work Permit....
"Any alien who engages in work without a Work Permit, or in violation of the conditions of his work as stipulated in his Permit, may be punished by a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months or a fine of up to 5,000 baht, or both. Aliens engaged in work prohibited to them by Royal Decree (as listed in the " Restricted Occupations ") shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine ranging from 2,000 to 100,000 baht, or both"
There is also absolutely no truth to the suggestion that these lawyers are somehow sailing close to the wind in terms of work permit or immigration status.
A cocky arrogant lawyer. We'll I'd never...
Only Thais can get a lawyer's license in Thailand. International Firms have foreign partners yes, but their work permits all read 'consultant' or 'arbitrator' or something else. They do not 'practise' law in Thailand as such.
Believe me, with respect to this issue, I know what I'm talking about.
actually I have no idea
you said it bud....
Well that clears it up then.Play around with my post "you said it bud" when the reference was solely to my having no idea how foreign lawyers process their work permits.Your invocation of Sunbelt is more revealing than you probably know.
The fact remains that despite your poor advice and ignorance on the matter, many foreign lawyers practise here perfectly legally.I never said foreigner lawyers could be involved in the court system:their role is confined to the provision of advice mainly in the larger corporate sector.
-
Well I have had over 20 years in business here <SNIP>
Henceforth we will all bow to your infinite wisdom in only dealing with "top commercial firms", and that you have abso-tively, posi-lutely NO experience with as you so succinctly put it; "small time foreign lawyers". ..
BUT, this begs the question;
Have you ever had a foreign lawyer (NOT Law Firm) represent you in a thai court of law about ANYTHING??
I doubt it.
There are only thais in thai courts; except maybe the thai/engrish translator or the foreign 'advisor' (who may or may not be a lawyer) which talks to you.
Contract law, arbitration, litigation, etc, yes foreigner lawyers a plenty; but they are "whores of different color" <sic>
, sorry; "HORSES of different color". Sorry for the typo. .. I have been to MANY thai court proceedings and other than acting as 'advisors', I've never seen a foreign attorney ever, as in NOT a single time, address a thai judge.
And now, without further ado, back to the pissing match already in progress. We are sorry to have interrupted your broadcast. ..
Sorry I thought I had made it clear in a previous post that I appreciate only Thais may be involved in a court of law.My reference to foreign lawyers was purely in the role of solicitor.Try reading posts more carefully and it will avoid the need for this kind of redundant question.
-
Well I have had over 20 years in business here dealing frequently with foreign lawyers so I also know what I'm talking about.However you seem to be confirming the undeniable truth that many foreign lawyers practise in Bangkok.My knowledge is restricted to the top commercial firms however.There is also absolutely no truth to the suggestion that these lawyers are somehow sailing close to the wind in terms of work permit or immigration status.They openly practise their trade and certainly dont describe themselves as consultants or see the need for Thai lawyers to sign off on their written opinions.In some cases these international lawyers advise the Thai Government.It is perfectly possible - actually I have no idea - that their work permit/visa applications have to be worded in a particular way.
As I say I have no experience of the small time foreign lawyers on occasionally hears about.I suppose there is a market for their services from a certain type of expatriate.
yi-sip pii - oh ho. Geng chip beng!
Where has anyone said that there weren't foreign qualified lawyers working in Thailand?
Anyway, here is an interesting discussion paper from Tilleke & Gibbins
http://www.tginfo.com/Publications/pdf/NYSB_Lawyers_Obligation.pdf
maybe the firm is a little 'small time' for you. Probably qualifies as 'ill-informed nonsense' in your book.
But for the rest of us mere mortals, a good discussion the ambiguities of categorisation of lawyers in thailand, as well as.
No it's an interesting paper.Thank you for making it available.
I suppose it's a sign of progress that you now concede there are many foreign lawyers working in Thailand.It wasn't clear before.
Oh by the way since you are familiar with Tilleke and Gibbins (several foreign lawyers employed by the way in this reputable but second tier firm), could you clarify whether David Lyman believes that curious skunk like wig he wears is likely to fool anyone.Just wondered.
-
he will never be able to practice law as a non-Thai national. It is a restricted profession.
Now, he can act as a consultant however, and have a Thai national lawyer sign off on all his work....
Ill informed nonsense.All the major international law firms in Bangkok have both Thai and non-Thai partners.
No, he is right. Only Thais can get a lawyer's license in Thailand. International Firms have foreign partners yes, but their work permits all read 'consultant' or 'arbitrator' or something else. They do not 'practise' law in Thailand as such.
Believe me, with respect to this issue, I know what I'm talking about.
Having said all that - the brother-in-law of the OP should have no trouble building up a practise here in Thailand if he wants to. The presence of foreign lawyers is recognised by the government and other powers that be, as essential for foreign direct investment therefore their presence is tolerated and enforcement of the law is relaxed accordingly.
Well I have had over 20 years in business here dealing frequently with foreign lawyers so I also know what I'm talking about.However you seem to be confirming the undeniable truth that many foreign lawyers practise in Bangkok.My knowledge is restricted to the top commercial firms however.There is also absolutely no truth to the suggestion that these lawyers are somehow sailing close to the wind in terms of work permit or immigration status.They openly practise their trade and certainly dont describe themselves as consultants or see the need for Thai lawyers to sign off on their written opinions.In some cases these international lawyers advise the Thai Government.It is perfectly possible - actually I have no idea - that their work permit/visa applications have to be worded in a particular way.
As I say I have no experience of the small time foreign lawyers on occasionally hears about.I suppose there is a market for their services from a certain type of expatriate.
-
Why don't you stop ranting and do your research, check the "magic circle' firms represented in Bangkok and reflect on the outcome.I have no idea what these foreign lawyers have on their work permits but their work isn't signed off by a Thai colleague, at least in my experience.Here's some leads..Clifford Chance,Allen and Overy,Linklaters.All employ foreign lawyers some of them partners.If you think their immigration status is irregular you can take the necessary action.But somehow my guess is that their credentials in understanding the status of foreign lawyers in Thailand might be somewhat superior to yours.
pompous...that is the word I was thinking of.
Having known foreigners for all those firms you have kindly pointed out to me, well, I dare say that their understanding of the status of foreign lawyers is exactly the same as mine. (again, a hint of condecension...so attractive)
The only Australian citizen I did know who was a registered lawyer in Thailand, well she had a Thai passport as well. A&O as i recall.
The others, well they were very careful not to overstep in how they described themselves in Thailand. But I could be imagining all this of course. Even 'consultants and managers' had to get sneaky on their immigration status. But I won't dob them in, if you don't.
You are very clearly the expert.
Since you have a contact at A and O, suggest you check the position with her.It's a very good example of a major firm employing several foreign lawyers.The senior partner is a Brit I believe.It's all there on the website if you can be bothered to look.
-
I think you have a man-crush on me....darling. Your passive agressiveness is just so, well attractive. "Presumably small time contacts". Your arrogance, condescension....such an attractive look.
I dare you to ask your friends if you could look at their work permit and see what it actually says on it. Won't be lawyer, that is for sure. Well, unless you know one of the 6 foreign lawyers who were grandfathered pre-1975.
And no, I have no idea of what a magic circle law firm is...can you tell me? I know the former chairman of one of these small time law firms...Baker and someone....dear....you'll have to remind me.
http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/charununlegal2.html
So...
The Lawyers Act B.E. 2528 (AD 1985) defines a lawyer as "a person who has been registered as a lawyer, and a license has been issued to him or her by the Law Society of Thailand." Therefore, no one can become a lawyer or practice law in Thailand without an education in law, registration, and a license to practice.
(10) Section 35 of the Lawyers Act B.E. 2528 (AD 1985) provides as follows:
"Section 35. An applicant for registration and a License shall have the following qualifications: (1) being of Thai nationality; (2) being at least twenty years of age; (3) having a Bachelor's Degree or an Associate Degree in law or a certificate in law equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree or Associate Degree from an educational institute accredited by the Law Society of Thailand, and must be a member of the Thai Bar Association; (4) not being a person of indecent behavior or delinquent morals or a person whose conduct is indicative of dishonesty; (5) not being imprisoned by a final judgment; (6) never having been imprisoned by a final judgment for an offence which, in the Board's discretion, will impair the integrity of the profession; (7) not being bankrupt by a final judgment; (8) not having an ailment which is contagious and repugnant to the public; (9) not being physically disabled or mentally infirmed which may cause professional incompetence; (10) not being a government official or a local government official with permanent salary and position except a political official."
Baker and Mackenzie is just a franchise, its quality varying from market to market.The Thailand partnership is I agree well thought of but it's not a "magic circle" firm.
Why don't you stop ranting and do your research, check the "magic circle' firms represented in Bangkok and reflect on the outcome.I have no idea what these foreign lawyers have on their work permits but their work isn't signed off by a Thai colleague, at least in my experience.Here's some leads..Clifford Chance,Allen and Overy,Linklaters.All employ foreign lawyers some of them partners.If you think their immigration status is irregular you can take the necessary action.But somehow my guess is that their credentials in understanding the status of foreign lawyers in Thailand might be somewhat superior to yours.
-
he will never be able to practice law as a non-Thai national. It is a restricted profession.
Now, he can act as a consultant however, and have a Thai national lawyer sign off on all his work....
Ill informed nonsense.All the major international law firms in Bangkok have both Thai and non-Thai partners.
Ah, wherever I go, there will be Jayboy trying to prove me wrong.
http://www.thailandlawonline.com/list_1.html
check out number 39 there sunshine. I guess your PhD didn't include basic research.
To the OP. I have a number of friends who are lawyers, working in Thailand. We regularly pitch work together. Strictly speaking though, they are advisors, consultants, anything else, but not a lawyer as far as the Thai government is concerned.
Ill informed nonsense again.The list of prescribed activities for foreigners is well known.However there are many exceptions in the legal profession, and as I earlier noted every multinational legal firm in Bangkok has foreign as well as Thai partners.I can only conclude you have no experience or understanding of doing business at a high level in Thailand, and cannot comment on your presumably small time contacts.For those who doubt look at the website of any international legal firm with representation in Bangkok.(I am actually doubtful whether you even know the names of this international legal firms).There are also foreign lawyers with some local firms but this is not universal.If you mean foreigners cannot practise at the Thai bar, that's a different matter.I am talking about "solicitors" in the English or Australian sense.
-
he will never be able to practice law as a non-Thai national. It is a restricted profession.
Now, he can act as a consultant however, and have a Thai national lawyer sign off on all his work....
Ill informed nonsense.All the major international law firms in Bangkok have both Thai and non-Thai partners.
-
You are as you do, thus Until he balances things out he is simply another hired gun like Amsterdam.
Hired by whom please?
The irony here is that Crispin had rather a high reputation among apologists for this government, partly because he wasn't "taken in" by the class war theory common among Thaksinstas.However as the quoted example shows once a journalists strays from the elite's script of events he is insulted and traduced, although in this case just with a foolish lie.
-
There are few western journos who understand Thailand as well as Crispin. People may not like or agree with what he writes but in terms of understanding he far surpasses any of the local beat rotated in and out of Thailand while on their career ladder
Of course all journalism is propaganda and so it is right to be cautious in believing what any journo writes but generally those better informed and understanding have the goods somewhere in what they write even if it is half hidden, coded or even accidently let out. Other lesser infromed ones are well just like the not the nation portrayed them as parachuted in.
There are a lot of myths about journalists that have been reinforced over the years by hollywood etc
Fully agree your views on Crispin.Having said that there's no law of nature which rules that a journalist "parachuted in" is going to have less interesting or relevant insights.Indeed sometimes it takes an outsider to identify issues that are important.My concern about resident journos and stringers (and I exclude people from Reuters,CNN, BBC etc who are only here for a few years) is that they tend to be unduly influenced by the seductive nature and charm of this country.In practice this means that visas and resident status becomes very important (usually but not exclusively because of family ties), and the prospect of offending the authorities becomes difficult to contemplate.This doesn't necessarily make for robust and healthy journalism.I have no idea whether this is an issue for Crispin, and indeed all the evidence is that he is admirably independent minded.
-
Question is did government soldiers shoot by accident or "red" shirts shoot to create an incident to blame the government?They were shot, by solders, or reds, while being in a crossfire, in a place the should not have been. What more needs to be solved? Grieve for your loss, and hope that in the future, more reporters don't pretend they are bulletproof.
Those are not the only two possible options.Another option is that the murdered journalists were targeted deliberately by the army just as unarmed civilians were targeted.
Nonsense, for what god-forsaken reason would the soldiers be targeting the unarmed protesters instead of all the armed or rioting ones?
Or even less, the journalists. Talk about 'shooting themselves in the foot' if they did.
The army has a record over many years of murdering civilian protestors, and equally there has never been proper investigation of these crimes.The Thai army is not accountable, and doesn't care about "shooting itself in the foot" to use your slightly unfortunate metaphor.
Your statement about the latest incident (Clearing the Reds from Bangkok) is simply untrue.It is known unarmed Red civilians were gunned down by the army.The question is what were the circumstances.I have always accepted that by and large this exercise was done professionally, but that doesn't give the army carte blanche.Or at least it shouldn't.
As to the targeting of journalists I simply raised this is a possibility, albeit a serious one.The mindset and possible psychology is well evidenced by some of the earlier posters in this thread (i.e If you don;t go looking for trouble you won't find it syndrome.Clearly the current elite(government/army etc)has a horror of international scrutiny and exposure of repression.How convenient that one or two journalists on the scene were gunned down.Still one never quite knows.Could just be the fog of war.
-
Question is did government soldiers shoot by accident or "red" shirts shoot to create an incident to blame the government?They were shot, by solders, or reds, while being in a crossfire, in a place the should not have been. What more needs to be solved? Grieve for your loss, and hope that in the future, more reporters don't pretend they are bulletproof.
Those are not the only two possible options.Another option is that the murdered journalists were targeted deliberately by the army just as unarmed civilians were targeted.
Indeed. And another option is that PAD mercenaries shot them. And yet another is that they shot themselves. Or perhaps southern separatists shot them.
Yes there there umpteen possibilities.But most will recognise that your alternatives are comic fantasies.Most will equally know mine needs to at least be considered seriously.
-
Chunky mentioned something about being "ignored". Is there a way to ignore people's posts here? I'll have to do some searching and find out how.
Berkshire...yeah, you got me, I'm not really in Afghanistan, I'm a 18 year old kid sitting on a computer in Iowa. Oh, and I don't "go around threatening people with personal harm." What I typed in previous posts weren't threats, they were factual based on what I would do if a comment was made to my girl (or to me for being with her). Trust me, there will be no threatening involved in what would transpire. In fact, I likely won't say anything at all...would just take care of business and walk away.
Now...off to find that "ignore" button.
And go on admit it, while in confessional mode, you met your so called "girlfriend" in a bar.Your over the top denial rather confirms the fact I'm afraid as many members will have observed a thousand times.Go on fess up:it will do you no end of good.Do it for your country.
-
Question is did government soldiers shoot by accident or "red" shirts shoot to create an incident to blame the government?They were shot, by solders, or reds, while being in a crossfire, in a place the should not have been. What more needs to be solved? Grieve for your loss, and hope that in the future, more reporters don't pretend they are bulletproof.
Those are not the only two possible options.Another option is that the murdered journalists were targeted deliberately by the army just as unarmed civilians were targeted.
-
You left out the DNA mouthswab, with 230% value added, mandatory processing and filing fee.
Yes this is another in the series of new Ministerial heads sending someone into the rule book
to look about and find something he can 'look effective' making a grand pronouncement about.
The RFID tagging would of course have to be sub-cutaneous.
Take the shot in the arm or leave Thailand. Might as well make it GPS traceable too
Asked my local head of immigration about this, and about it applying to Non-Im B and O visa holders
who own residences and companies. etc, going to Bangkok getting reported at a hotel, over a weekend stay,
but not reporting into Immigration on returning home... Computer limbo;.... yes no? A problem; yes no?
He looked about, hemmed and hawed, said all was OK, looked at a rule book, almost picked up the phone,
and then wrote down a phone number, for his' private phone',
and said call back when I had a Thai speaker in front of a computer.
Did that, and his own # was wrong...
Save face, get the farang out of the office, questions unanswered, end of problem.
TIT He was quite friendly any way.
Isn't there a subtext in all this with a link back perhaps to those crazy foreigners active in the red disturbances which might have brought a longstanding position to a head? Aren't the Thai authorities quite within their rights to crack down on the vast army of expatriates, mostly rather low grade, abusing a very liberal visa system.A tourist should be a tourist and not living more or less permanently in the country.Businessmen have proper visas and work permits.Permanent residents are permanent residents.For the rest a much more critical supervision by the Thai authorities is very understandable.The whole visa run process for example is a racket designed to frustrate the spirit if not the letter of Thai immigration law.I'm guessing some very senior Thais are absolutely fed up with this army of visa runners, very few of them desirable visitors anyway (and some of the outright criminals) as Thailand attempts to move its image upmarket.Basically then if you don't have a work permit or PR then you're a tourist and only under very exceptional circumstances would you stay more than a few weeks a year.Personally I would also end the so called retirement visa or at least introduce a proper wealth check (say net annual income of at least US$ 100,000 and/or assets of US$1,000,000.
Any your numbers come from where? Pie in the sky? Its supposed to be about the ability to afford to live in the ountry without recourse to public funds, and anyone can live here in this manner on the listed requirements as they currently stand. Retirees are goos news as they bring in foreign cash, feed domestic companies and services, can not work and often marry people that outlive them and thus the wealth stays in the country even without the farang. If anything, they shoul make it easier for visa renewals of all people here as expats as this brings in money, is not related to work in most cases (that's the work permit's job) and spend it here - there are no entitlements to visa holders to public funds, so its a win win really - heck we can't even compete with business or investments due to legal limitations. It merely stupidity, fear, general need for scapegoatism and the possible personal loss of back handers that stops trhis happening and becoming a foreign currency earning tool.
Well at least you didn't compare me to Goebbels (I guess one or two are a bit sensitive about their dodgy immigration status status).
I don't disagree with you on principle about a retiree programme but as mentioned earlier I think the focus should be on high net worth individuals, most of whom would only be here for a few months a year to escape the Winter.I disagree you on the worth of most existing retirees.Obviously not all by any means but many are frankly contributing very little.The country can certain do without most of them.Talking to Thai friends in the upper bureaucracy I am quite sure there is a strong wish to move the country's tourist industry up market.A good start would be to crack down hard on the vast numbers who abuse (by which I mean the spirit as much as the letter) the country's liberal immigration laws.THe intention of Thai Immigration to monitor closely these "tourists" is a very good start.
-
You left out the DNA mouthswab, with 230% value added, mandatory processing and filing fee.
Yes this is another in the series of new Ministerial heads sending someone into the rule book
to look about and find something he can 'look effective' making a grand pronouncement about.
The RFID tagging would of course have to be sub-cutaneous.
Take the shot in the arm or leave Thailand. Might as well make it GPS traceable too
Asked my local head of immigration about this, and about it applying to Non-Im B and O visa holders
who own residences and companies. etc, going to Bangkok getting reported at a hotel, over a weekend stay,
but not reporting into Immigration on returning home... Computer limbo;.... yes no? A problem; yes no?
He looked about, hemmed and hawed, said all was OK, looked at a rule book, almost picked up the phone,
and then wrote down a phone number, for his' private phone',
and said call back when I had a Thai speaker in front of a computer.
Did that, and his own # was wrong...
Save face, get the farang out of the office, questions unanswered, end of problem.
TIT He was quite friendly any way.
Isn't there a subtext in all this with a link back perhaps to those crazy foreigners active in the red disturbances which might have brought a longstanding position to a head? Aren't the Thai authorities quite within their rights to crack down on the vast army of expatriates, mostly rather low grade, abusing a very liberal visa system.A tourist should be a tourist and not living more or less permanently in the country.Businessmen have proper visas and work permits.Permanent residents are permanent residents.For the rest a much more critical supervision by the Thai authorities is very understandable.The whole visa run process for example is a racket designed to frustrate the spirit if not the letter of Thai immigration law.I'm guessing some very senior Thais are absolutely fed up with this army of visa runners, very few of them desirable visitors anyway (and some of the outright criminals) as Thailand attempts to move its image upmarket.Basically then if you don't have a work permit or PR then you're a tourist and only under very exceptional circumstances would you stay more than a few weeks a year.Personally I would also end the so called retirement visa or at least introduce a proper wealth check (say net annual income of at least US$ 100,000 and/or assets of US$1,000,000.
-
Inequality In The Thai Society is a thing of the past. Since our 5th King remove slave, all Thai have equal rights.
Excellent point.Very much like our Magna Carta in England in 1215 when English liberties were finally established.All right if the pedants insist it took a few centuries more than that to get it properly sorted and a few arrogant greedy heads had to be lopped off along the way.Not relevant to Thailand however as you correctly point out given that equal rights were finalised with the abolition of slavery.
-
<
In a true democracy, the sitting Prime Minister (rightly or wrongly) is not deposed by a military regime/coup to satisfy the needs of the opposing side.There are a few members of this present Government that should be in jail as they are also Terrorists.......Remember the Airports my dear. Seems to be "DOUBLE STANDARDS" here. <img src='http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='No 1 priorities should be catching Thaksin, and put him in Thai jail. Anything else does not matter.' />In the airport case, they are doing it for the country. It is call Rak Chart (love nation). Just like the recent Chamlong infront of UNESO protest under SOE. No police, DSI, CRES can touch them, if they do it for the country. Law comes second. Watch out for more protest this Saturday at PM office.
And who decides what is Rak Chart and what is not? Oh it's the Sino-Thai middle class (mostly descendants of Swatow coolies)in hock to the corrupt establishment who decide, again ethnically mostly from ....oh well you get the picture.Now who is left out of this grubby little equation? Oh yes it's the Thai people.Mmm something familiar about all this for those that know their history...a stupid greedy and indifferently educated myopic urban middle class, a corrupt elite etc etc.All grist for the mill.
-
And in any case I would robustly maintain there is a lot of harmless pleasure in mocking the army of retired sexpats.
Please realize that when you do so you lower your own status to something only slightly above that of a trailer trash schoolyard bully.
Jayboy, you have interesting ideas and post reasonable arguments. Whether I agree with you are not I am always interested in your comments. You unfortunately have a nasty habit of heaping crude abuse on others.
I really don't mean to be a bully.But surely you are not saying that a little teasing is out of place, especially when the targets are so numerous and ludicrous?How can one walk down Lower Sukhumvit or anywhere in Pattaya and not snigger to oneself? And why are so many of them fat?
There is a saying that 'if you are in a hole stop digging'.
But sometimes blundering on is so delicious.
-
The fact that Abhisit showed restraint in the face of the bloodthirsty faction (we know who they are, in some cases the same people who financed and encouraged murder in 1976) is admirable, but not more than one would expect.However the awkward fact is that many unarmed civilians were shot dead by the army and there is to date no explanation available.Some Bangkok middle class people should examine their priorities.Many were more appalled by the focus on the shortcomings of CNN, the BBc etc and the loss of Central World than the unexplained murder of civilians on the Bangkok streets.Somehow the hypocrisy is summed up by that silly cow who thought the most important thing was to circulate a poorly argued letter on CNN's coverage.
Agree with a slight modification.
Change "awkward fact is that many unarmed civilians were shot dead by the army" into "awkward fact that many unarmed civilians seem to have been shot by the army". It fits better with the unarmed part.
As you say yourself there is no explanation available. All of us (I think) wait anxiously for a report on the April - May unrest. This includes the M79 grenade attacks and the four or five killed then.
I think you have commented very fairly and we should await the report.Nevertheless my concern is that the Thai army has never permitted a rigorous inquiry into its alleged wrongdoings, and it is hard to see why it should be different this time.Having said that my impression is that the Thai army acted reasonably professionally in the clearing of the Reds, but some understanding is still needed of why so many unarmed civilians were killed.
Of course there will always be those like TAWP who prefer an ostrich like denial of unpalatable facts.It was ever thus.
-
This last sentense of the OP says it all
"Say what you will about Mr Thaksin, but if the current government had "trusted the people" as much as he has consistently been willing to, the hundred men and women who died because Mr Abhisit did not feel sufficiently confident in his electoral prospects would still be alive today."
This sound like an opinion rather than the truth, close to wishfull thinking and somewhat convoluted.
The 100 people who died because K. Abhisit felt less confident would still be alive if the government has 'trusted the people'. Died because of this, be alive because of that? What logic here?
I don't think anyone can prove that the government did or didn't trust 'the people', nor that K. Thaksin did or didn't. It's also the first time I hear K. Abhisit didn't feel sufficiently confident AND this being used as explanation of those 91 dead.
If only one sentence can be analyzed and commented on, image reading all 75 pages thoroughly. Well not me, I have a life, other things to do. This nice paper reminds my of MacBeth "It's a story told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"
I am sick of reading that 100 people died because of Abhisit. Khun Abhisit had offered the reds a deal long before the dispersal of the reds. If they had accepted this then the events in May would not have happened. However, the reds did not accept the deal because they were (as subsequent events have shown) looking for violence - in other words they were spoiling for a fight and our PM showed the utmost restraint - even, I suspect, in the face of some opposition from his own side. Its strange is it not how people rewrite history to suit themselves. Amsterdam is a past master at that, but all he succeeds in doing is showing himself up to be a bit shallow. Most thinking people know what he's up to.
The fact that Abhisit showed restraint in the face of the bloodthirsty faction (we know who they are, in some cases the same people who financed and encouraged murder in 1976) is admirable, but not more than one would expect.However the awkward fact is that many unarmed civilians were shot dead by the army and there is to date no explanation available.Some Bangkok middle class people should examine their priorities.Many were more appalled by the focus on the shortcomings of CNN, the BBc etc and the loss of Central World than the unexplained murder of civilians on the Bangkok streets.Somehow the hypocrisy is summed up by that silly cow who thought the most important thing was to circulate a poorly argued letter on CNN's coverage.
, sorry; "HORSES of different color". Sorry for the typo. .. 
' />
Foreign Lawyer Working In Thailand
in Thai Visas, Residency, and Work Permits
Posted
Steve
You don't seem to be fully focusing on what I have been saying, perhaps because the focus of your firm is more on visa issues and SMEs (I'm guessing).I'm referring to the relatively few international firms operating here (Linklaters,Allen and Overy etc) dealing with major players.Foreign lawyers at these firms offer legal advice and opinions.Any major league player knows this, and yes of course they have back up from Thai colleagues.As to their legal and academic credentials, with respect you seem to be on your own different mental journey with your talk of alcoholics and disbarred lawyers.The cognoscenti know the recruitment standards of the magic circle firms.