jayboy

It's no use trying to bait Jayboy with this BP, because he doesn't care...His ideology runs far to deep.

If you paid closer attention you would have noted I am almost completely free of political ideology.I was simply pointing out that much of the wilder language used about Thaksin was used about Chamlong in his glory days.That's just a fact and of course the circumstances are completely different.

Thaksin has no concern for reds' safety, it's merely a ploy to make the government look repressive.

Actually you have no idea one way or the other.It's what they used to say about Chamlong a propos his supporters in the struggle against Suchinda.I think they also called Chamlong "a power crazed lunatic" to use your rather wild language.

76% against - that says a lot about red popularity.

I'm not sure it does really but it's reasonable enough to suppose that many Bangkok residents don't relish the prospect of more trouble on the streets.Still it's a fair observation in contrast with the hate filled ranting from Publius (I love his insistence on constitutional methods coupled with shipping Reds off to concentration camps.)

Anyway here's the reality check.Thailand is deeply split politically and the Reds have every right to make their case.The underlying causes of the split have yet to be addressed, and so the conflict will continue.

So really as I see it:

the Reds pushed that move to Swampy as much as anyone in ANY other colored shirt.

It was an unintended consequence of their ill thought out plan of action against PAD.

And as such, a major nail they continue to drive into the Thailand economy.

Any contenders for a sillier comment than this?

I was trying to inject some humour

Ah, I get it now!

Interesting that The Nation couldn't apparently find room for Chang Noi's latest piece though to be fair the policy has been been surprisingly liberal for some time.

Chang Noi talks a lot about people's right to petition, as per Article 59 of the COnsittution.

The article itself doesn't refer to petitioning the King, however. The whole section is about "State" in general.

"Section 59. A person shall have the right to present a petition and to be informed of the result of its consideration within the appropriate time."

I don't think anyone believes that it allows people to petition the King directly and unconditionally, as Chang Noi implied, and I don't think it obliges the King to give results in "appropriate time".

Don't forget the general principle of how Thai State works:

"Section 3. ...The King as Head of State shall exercise such power through the National Assembly, the Council of Ministers and the Courts ..."

All true or at least mostly true perhaps as even Chang Noi would probably concede.However the conclusion remains valid, namely the perception - in my view now very widely held - there's one rule for the elite and another for the rest.

Now that is the same the world over.... to some extent or other usually experessed as one rule for the rich and one for the rest. Thailand comes of age

But in the rest of the world there is almost always a safety valve (even if as in China it's a very smart politbureau actively reforming from within).In Thailand there's almost none and compounded with the elite's arrogance and overwhelming sense of entitlement is why the situation is potentially dangerous.

Chang Noi talks a lot about people's right to petition, as per Article 59 of the COnsittution.

The article itself doesn't refer to petitioning the King, however. The whole section is about "State" in general.

"Section 59. A person shall have the right to present a petition and to be informed of the result of its consideration within the appropriate time."

I don't think anyone believes that it allows people to petition the King directly and unconditionally, as Chang Noi implied, and I don't think it obliges the King to give results in "appropriate time".

Don't forget the general principle of how Thai State works:

"Section 3. ...The King as Head of State shall exercise such power through the National Assembly, the Council of Ministers and the Courts ..."

All true or at least mostly true perhaps as even Chang Noi would probably concede.However the conclusion remains valid, namely the perception - in my view now very widely held - there's one rule for the elite and another for the rest.

Shawn W Crispin, Asia Times Online's Southeast Asia Editor, has additional points on why the petition is doomed to failure and additional why A desperate plea for amnesty is crucial to the red shirts in an article there.

mostly don't agree with Shawn but always appreciate his attention to detail and thought process - in this case I think he is mostly on track.

I don't agree at all - one of his weaker efforts, with objective reporting and value judgements all mixed up.Still interesting reading I agree.

For another perspective see Chang Noi's latest piece, referenced over at BP.

Thank you jayboy. 1. If you read my post again you will see that I didn't say anything about "advice" I said "in my experience", ten years of it in fact, working with a multitude of government departments and ministries. I translated that experience into a hypothetical conversation. 2. Which Thailand are you living in? Results are achieved by the exercise of influence, notwithstanding doubts expressed with regard to PR in this forum. Just read the newspapers! 3. The fact that there are at this moment 171,944 postings in this particular sub-forum indicates to me rather strongly that the rules are not quite as clear and transparent as you suggest.

The point of this thread is to help those interested in achieving PR with practical advice, not a stream of unsubstantiated and uninformed blather about how important " influence" is in the process.We are talking specifically about PR where the rules are definitely clear and transparent, not other aspects of Thai society and life where the position is sometimes murkier.There is an excellent resource on all this by Camerata and a few others providing useful and practical information.

If the rules are not clear to some readers of the forum that may well be because the position on PR has been confused by a few peddlars of ignorant nonsense about influence.

Old chinese proverb:one hand wash the other,and both wash the face.

Where are you living?For sure not Thailand!

The latest in a stream of commentators, none I would guess who actually hold PR, who seem put out that the process is governed by clear and transparent rules.

Different rather than better.If he knows the PM, Minister of Interior or a Privy Councillor (much lower than that won't hack it) who is willing to intervene and overrule a tried and tested procedure, so be it.Older and wiser hands will know whether this is likely.

It's not done quite that way, in my experience, "intervening and overruling", that is. It would be a friendly phone call between the influential person and the Immigration Officer or the chairman of the key approval committee along the lines of: "By the way, I believe AuntyEdna's PR application is heading your way. I know her quite well. Good sort and quite deserving of PR in my view. Do bear this in mind when you vet her application." After that, the officer may "bear in mind" not only the merits of AuntyEdna's credentials, but the relative "head-heights" of himself and the influential person. It all helps.

Intervention and overruling in legal matters is another story, though...

It's "not done that way" for reasons which I would have thought were made obvious in my post.

It doesn't all help and your advice is poor.People like you always seem to think think results can be achieved in Thailand by the exercise of influence.Sometimes of course it happens but not I think to a significant degree in the processing of PR.The process within the Immigration Department is crystal clear and the hypothetical friendly phone call you mention will actually make no difference in the best scenario (assuming the caller has real influence, very unlikely - see previous comments) and counterproductive in the worst scenario.A supporting letter/s is sometimes provided from a senior Thai but certainly isn't essential.Actually when dissected your advice is meaningless.What does "bear in mind" mean anyway in a context when the rules are clear and transparent ?

[Just gobblededook, I'm afraid although suddenly it's just about "pursuing clarifications".Ignore this advice.

And, again, unless you know the OP you cannot really assume or say anything about the level of people he/she might have access to. You migth well be, in your words, 'ordinary' and 'nondescript', but the OP might be cut from a better cloth.

Different rather than better.If he knows the PM, Minister of Interior or a Privy Councillor (much lower than that won't hack it) who is willing to intervene and overrule a tried and tested procedure, so be it.Older and wiser hands will know whether this is likely.

[Once again I think this is unsupported and misleading advice based on uninformed guesswork.I doubt whether "special processing" exists or that calls from influential friends (unless say from a Privy Councillor, a current prime minister or someone at that level) help at all - and even then would probably not overrule established procedure.For the umpteenth time there are very clear rules on PR.Follow them and comply with the criteria and you will almost certainly be successful eventually.

As an aside many foreigners don't seem to understand what a genuinely influential Thai is.Why would a leading Thai of the type I describe above want to help an ordinary foreigner bypass established rules and procedures.It doesn't make sense.

I think you are mis-reading what is written above. It's just a suggestion to pursue clarifications starting from the top, instead than slugging it out with the NCO that receives your paperwork. The NCO is just not in a position to help or to make decisions. I also remember cases of people with no tax records being allowed residency for services to the country (Sangha members, etc.), and 'services to the country' is a rather flexible definition.

In Thailand 'inluence' is a currency, and a currency needs to have a market to have value. Powerful people can "trade" face and prestige by, amongst other ways, helping other people 'of influence' getting what they want. Without knowing anything about the OP, I can only suggest him to take this in the same way a Thai "person of influence" might, starting from the top.

Just gobblededook, I'm afraid although suddenly it's just about "pursuing clarifications".Ignore this advice.

Second para though confusing is really just affirming my point.A Thai person of genuine influence (and that would exclude for example some dime a dozen police general for example) is not going to seek to persuade bureaucrats to bypass rules for some nondescript foreigner (that means me and you by the way).There's no trade off.

Boring but best advice is abide by the rules.

You only need to convince Suan Plu immigration PR staff that you have sufficient credentials to be considered at the next level - immigration do not issue PR, this is a function of the government and its various departments plus tax, although important, is only one of the considerations along with numerous other points.

In your case, I think you might be better off doing things the other way around...

1 - take note of the name of the senior officers in charge of that section of immigration (hint: check the org charts on the 3rd floor, or the names on the big offices just right of the stairs)

2 - get one of your influential friends to drop these a call, discussing your situation

3 - these will likely redirect you to somebody in room 301, maybe setting up an appointment with that old gentleman sitting at the table on the left in room 301 (officier in charge, forgot his rank)

4 - he will happily discuss your status and suitability for 'special' processing, and point you to one of the staff to handle the formalities.

It's easier than discussing things the way up...

Once again I think this is unsupported and misleading advice based on uninformed guesswork.I doubt whether "special processing" exists or that calls from influential friends (unless say from a Privy Councillor, a current prime minister or someone at that level) help at all - and even then would probably not overrule established procedure.For the umpteenth time there are very clear rules on PR.Follow them and comply with the criteria and you will almost certainly be successful eventually.

As an aside many foreigners don't seem to understand what a genuinely influential Thai is.Why would a leading Thai of the type I describe above want to help an ordinary foreigner bypass established rules and procedures.It doesn't make sense.

This thread is about petition being thrown out if it reaches the government.

FIDF land, background of AEC members, or junta issued laws does not belong here and there's no connection whatsoever.

Well actually there is a common thread here, however much you protest.

Ignoring the give away petty bourgeois abuse of the working class (somtum smelling bad breath etc), I'm not sure why directed -or to be kind let's say authority influenced - court decisions are any better now than those made under Thaksin.

The guy stank and his breath was obviously from either somtam or something else similar, was abusive and was having a go at me in my neighbourhood, probably not his. He was riding a motorcycle, dressed poorly even counting his nice new truth today T shirt, used extremely collaquial accented Thai; I can guess fairly accurately what sort of education and income the guy has as he was less than a foot away from me ready to take action while I was peacefully sitting in the taxi. What do you want me to describe him as - a supreme court justice on his way to work 55555555555555

As for court decisions, I simply hope the courts will rule on the basis of the law. And not some popularity contest.

As to your first paragraph, particularly the comment on education and income, it says more about you and your attitudes than you could possibly imagine.

As to your second paragraph I agree whether the popularity is courted from the hoi polloi (not very likely) or the elite.However history has taught us to have very low expectations.

It's old business. The country's top jurists have already shown that they can't stand up to top power brokers - when they voted there was nothing wrong with T hiding his assets with his chauffeur and cleaning lady. Indeed, if the Thai supremes had done their job correctly at that early juncture, much of the Thaksin pollution and pap smear of ensuing years might have been avoided.

How true. An oppurtunity missed.

we would do well to recall that large mobs and public shows of support for Thaksin were instrumental in ensuring that the judges were leant on heavily enough to issue the 'right decision' from a TRT perspective, when under the law it was quite clear he had breached the 1997 constitution (the one that he ignored in a few other matters, but now suddenly claims to be all perfect and great and everything).

As I was walking to get a taxi this morning, and coped a nice round of abuse and nearly had a punch up with a motorcycling red shirter this morning (he thought I was calling him over for a fight, directly behind him was a taxi that I was hailing; even after getting in the taxi he and his mates didn't believe that I didn't want to start a fight and I had to endure a 2 min tirade of swear words and a healthy dose of Somtam smelling bad breath) presumably on his way to the rally; I cannot feel that this is deja vu - the same situation once again all over where popular opinion rather than the rule of the law may take favour.

I trust the courts will make a more appropriate decision this time, both with regards to the pardon and also for the rubber saplings case.

Ignoring the give away petty bourgeois abuse of the working class (somtum smelling bad breath etc), I'm not sure why directed -or to be kind let's say authority influenced - court decisions are any better now than those made under Thaksin.

This is not exactly correct. While there are several different categories under which one can apply for PR. The common important criteria for each is that the applicant is currently working and has been working for at least 3 years up until the date of submitting the application. (apart from 3 yearly extensions of stay that is also required)

By virtue of being working it is implied that you have a tax record. A tax record (without a job) for x number of years is not sufficient on it’s own to qualify in any of the categories and you need to be in current employment. This was specifically explained to me by the people in the PR room.

If you feel that your influential connections would help when you don’t meet the listed requirement, then you could mention this to the people who handle PR applications and see how they respond. They seem to be quite helpful to discuss specific circumstances for each applicant..

Your comment on working/tax is correct and sets out the position more clearly than I did, though I did stress the appropriate visa regime.

I remain dubious about influential connections, not least because in most cases they are rather less influential than some applicants might believe.I was told that letters of support are useful but not critical, and do not override the key criteria which once agiain clearly set out in Camerata's guidance.

I think what TCJ is saying is that nothing is written in blood and in that respect his comment does apply to PR. If you can get citizenship without meeting all the pre-requisites, you can be pretty sure you can get a PR in the same way. Not me though as unfortunately I don't have the right connections.

Nothing is written in blood.Nevertheless this kind of poor advice really doesn't help those who are trying to navigate their way through to PR.There are very clear rules laid down for obtaining PR and if these rules are followed and criteria met one will almost certainly obtain it.The fact that you "don't have the right connections" is almost completely irrelevant to any application you might make.The VIP letters of support, which are in any case optional, are much less important than the tax record which is non-negotiable.

So why am I getting slightly steamed up? Mainly because a friend of mine, a retiree, wasted a huge amount of time when applying for PR (running around for letters of support etc) when an understanding of the rules would have made it clear he was quite ineligible.He was terribly disappointed.Poor advice on a topic like this is to be discouraged.Camerata's pinned resource tells you everything you need to know.

If anyone has actual evidence of someone achieving PR without the requisite tax record and visa background let's hear about it.

When I was at my citizenship interview last year I met a Chinese man who was also there for the interview. He didn't have a lick of Thai, nor did he have PR. He did, however, have highly placed contacts. So, pleased don't discount the possibility becuase, like it or not, it does happen.

So what? We were talking about PR not citizenship.

Anyone like to guess my overall chances?

Nil I'm afraid because of your broken record in paying tax.

While I would agree with that answer for a 'normal' application, I'd say from your original post that you are likely to have some contacts high enough up who might be able to help you get some leeway on that particular item.

Especially if it is the only item on the list of criteria that you do not meet, and you have paid tax previously as well.

Good luck.

You are quite wrong I'm afraid.There are plenty of PR applicants with very influential contacts (not that auntyedna has set his out other than being an "adviser" to Chavalit which is hardly a recommendation) but the record of tax payment (and appropriate visa) is non-negotiable.With respect unless you have cast iron evidence (in which case let's hear it) it's best not to waste a PR applicants time with misleading advice.Camerata remains the oracle on this matter.

Anyone like to guess my overall chances?

Nil I'm afraid because of your broken record in paying tax.

Do you have any evidence or proof? What do you, personally, know about polling that makes you qualified to dismiss ABAC polls as unprofessional?

So far I think you main qualification is that you don't like the results.

Fair point but on this forum I have seen views expressed from all political viewpoints criticising ABAC when polls challenged their assumptions.

My personal feeling is that ABAC polls cover urban opinion quite well, rural areas less so - but there is a question mark over the university status unless there's some commercial underpinning I don't know about..The real criterion is surely whether commercial interests are prepared to pay good money for a pollster's work. ie they are satisfied over time that the results are meaningful and help build profits.I think in the West most respected pollsters have a commercial base and the political/public service angle is essentially an add-on.If a pollster does nothing but unpaid political work, whether in Thailand or elsewhere, I would be suspicious about accuracy/credibility.

But since you introduced it, why doesn't Barry simply make public a copy of his original birth certificate, rather than the oft-publicized "certificate of live birth," which is not in fact, a birth certificate.

No sane person (a category which giving the benefit of the doubt includes Spee), even diehard Republican opponents, believe Obama was born other than in Hawaii.Officials in Hawaii have confirmed it is impossible for a person born outside the US to obtain a certificate of live birth stating that person was in fact born in the US.Yet Spee and his madder political kindred spirits in the US cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the truth and leave it there.Such a deception if you think about it would involve a conspiracy from the birth of Obama paving his road to the White House.

Heaven knows there are enough legitimate reasons to criticise the Obama administration both on economic policy and health care reform for example.

The rest of Spee's post is full of the same poisonous and irrelevant rubbish.Anyway it's a free country and the Rush Limbaugh tendency can say what they like.But over here don't be under the impression that Spee's package of smears is other than unsubstantiated bar talk.You can find a bunch of old timers mouthing this rubbish in Washington Square any day of the week

I'm sure the thought has occurred to many but has not yet been specifically expressed here , namely.is there any chance at all that a Saudi (as opposed to a THai) assassin was involved at all ? Looks to me like a classic and brazen lie.