jayboy

Actually gentlemen can be - and often are - as sexually licentious as any tattooed navvie.The upper classes and the working classes have that in common.It's the middle class that tends to be priggish.It's definitely not a matter of morality.But a gentleman can usually be distinguished by manner and background - and you definitely won't find any in the Pattaya clubs.

I wonder how many gentlemen are actually owners or members of these clubs.I would wager a fair amount of money (using the standard English definition of gentleman) that the answer is Nil.

Not true.I have one.

I think you make a key point.Nobody believes a word of this.Those who propagate the lie know that nobody believes a word of it.Yet they don't particularly care.This is a situation built on lies.But I believe there is a fear lurking - which relates to what the Thai people might have to say at the next General Election and the sham democratic Constitution may not save the day.

A wonderful example for the class and sophistication this forum is famous for.

That's true but, to be fair, it was an exceptionally boring story.

I'm not suggesting that he doesn't fulfill his niche position well - servicing the needs of a certain expat demographic. But he is not a Thailand expert. With all due respect it's not even up for debate.

I'm sorry but he is very far from being a long term Thailand expert.

It is not actually necessary to go to CW if you are a PR with a new passport (unless you need to go anyway for new endorsement and multiple re-entry.) You can travel with the old (with the stamp) and new passport.Immigration are quite happy with this.Then go to CW when you need to.

The situation has changed over the last fifty years with the advent of mass tourism.Before then, farang were generally much respected by Thais but they were mainly senior business managers, academics or independently wealthy - and almost all resident in Bangkok.Critically, they were better educated and a higher social class than most farang today.They took full advantage of all the usual Thai delights but were much more discrete. The English for example had the reputation of being gentlemanly, partly because many residents were from this background but also because many Thai royals/aristocrats were educated in England.To apply this gentlemanly description to most English expats today would of course be laughable. Many of the comments on this thread are skewed because they reflect only one part of Thai society - the money grubbing peasant class whether encountered in the bars of Pattaya and maybe later in some rural village .They don't reflect the charm and good manners of Thais as a whole (and I'm not of course referring in my money grubbing comment to the vast majority of Thai villagers who have no connection with foreigners) One characteristic is that normal Thais like to be able to "place" a foreigner. Who is he? Why is he here? Where was he educated? Do we have acquaintances in common? Does he look the part? What job does he do? The peasant class is less demanding in its curiosity.

Unwittingly you make my point for me.

Many retired foreigners (mostly oldsters with limited finances) take this view - essentially that they are nobly bolstering the rural economy with purchase of pick up trucks, motor cycles, houses for their partners, and of course the endless flow of their pensions and savings. They believe this is somehow a significant contribution to the Thai economy.It really isn't and certainly the Thai authorities do not regard it as such.

This is a very common misunderstanding, namely that the Thai authorities attach much priority to retired foreigners speaking reasonable Thai. Frankly they don't care much about this: of course it's part of the PR process but by no means the most important.To the extent the authorities consider - which they don't very much - retired foreigners (I'm referring mainly to the guys in Pattaya, rural Isaan and other such habitats) the main impulse would be to ensure they are financially solvent and can meet their obligations without calling on the Thai state for support.

I've had a similar experience - I assume you are talking about the English language middle name reference.I'm not sure there's much practical impact (unless Kasikorn is being awkward). The key document is the Thai ID card.She could simply ask the Bank if they would like to amend their records - up to them to decide. I don't think it matters what the passport says as long as the Thai version is correct.Foreign immigration don't care and Thai immigration probably don't either.But when the opportunity arises make sure the name is the same in Thai ID, passport, bank records etc.

I need to make a quick visit to Jakarta (3 days) for a friend's wedding.I have British Passport and am based in Thailand. Do I need to get the e-visa obtainable online for a 30 day stay or is there another visa free option for very short visits?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/opinion/thailand-election-move-forward.html?unlocked_article_code=PHIODiL_bhuvXrGatgJygHshU0h_XrinfN0zZJWuCjHE411BVswpdy2l1uGeNpAyF7bHTnLPewlLQzoaBdLpGggjKicQO6WBVGA-xrPDK37HB3_5XEfdnZOizISizgDBv29Xo4u1T9hMxdQsTGcYWU5GdtgSE3URN1cavxYD--NdfTqf3J-ZySFLqXAdM4DjrA62dZQmq3Lk7rtUqa2IREXFNbCdarxVxxl0H9PfL7M2bO-TQEHgW-i74RLDnZs-IZ8TCr873JBXIB00d0Xhzmjsz1Jvs1byc-cb81XY0vNQBkmDrK_vAcVOQOS9LklZrkNWIrcdNUusJW0TOA7Kf1yhS9v0sYNX&smid=url-share Article from the New York Times provided with newspaper's permission

That's reassuring.

I was referring to the percentage of Thais who are eager for political change which the electoral results partly reflect.Fifteen years ago I would have put the percentage higher for those more or less comfortable with the status quo, say 40%. What's changed - apart from the obvious point - is the near universal contempt for military interference in government but also and equally significant, the revolution in the thinking of the young - even the educated wealthy middle class. All very subjective I agree and the resources and cunning of those entrenched in power shouldn't be underestimated.It's a long game.

No, I meant what I wrote.It was an allusion to famous quotation from a young aristocrat in Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa's great novel , The Leopard.In other words, putting it into a local context, the unelected elites {no need to spell out the details) who control Thailand will have to accept there are major changes ahead which will diminish their wealth, influence and power.If they wish to retain a significant portion of their current favourable position, they will have to negotiate and compromise.It is called enlightened self interest, admittedly not a commodity in great supply in Thailand.

It reflects a real division of interests so it's is not nonsense or fabricated.Yes, unity should be the aim but that will involve painful compromises - a massive reduction of inequality on one side and the rejection of unfeasible populist policies on the other. If we want things to stay the same, things will have to change.

More like 10% against 90%.

I think we are effectively saying (and were advised) the same thing.I chose the option which seemed simplest.

Is it? As a supporter of marriage equality myself, I would have thought it well worth asking since in the UK at least civil partnership provides all the legal protections of marriage. I suppose the difference is essentially an emotional one, and that of course is important. It's a minority opinion but some distinguished gay commentators, such as Mathew Parris, prefer civil partnerships over marriage.Here's Parris on the subject: "I no longer see civil partnership as second-best to marriage. There’s a clarity about it: simple, and shorn of the baggage and hoopla. The estate is to become open to heterosexual couples too, and I offer you this firm prediction: more and more younger couples will choose it. Already I can think of three (straight) couples, friends who haven’t married because there’s something about that word they recoil from. The church (most of it), Islam and much of Judaism wish to define “marriage” their way. I say let them. Leave them to bark at intrusions on their terminology. Give them their word and their barbed wire, and let us find our own words."

I'm not sure that comparing required income for LTR wealthy pensioners with Thai levels is relevant.As for corporate expats working here I can assure you that the level is often far above (2 or 3 times or much more) Baht 225,000 per month especially when benefits in kind (often taxable) are taken into account. The point of the LTR scheme is to attract high potential foreigners who would like to relocate to Thailand long-term, the purpose being to help boost economic development and stimulate overseas investment in the country.The other categories of the LTR scheme are consistent with this aim but not the "wealthy pensioner" category.I think its great that some pensioners are able to take advantage of this scheme but the BOI rationale remains obscure.

As a matter of interest what is the rationale behind the "wealthy pensioner" category particularly as the financial criteria for income have been set at a relatively low financial level?