dumbnewbie

My understanding is that Hong Kong permanent residents can travel anywhere anytime in China without applying for a visa. Is this correct?

If it is correct, is that only for Hong Kong permanent residents who are also Chinese citizens (i.e., the vast majority of Hong Kong people), or does it also apply to foreigners (Westerners, etc.) who obtain permanent residence in Hong Kong?

Finally, how does a Western foreigner qualify for Hong Kong permanent residence?

Many thanks in advance...

If I was wrong, I apologize. It seems I'm wrong a lot lately. I should just kill myself already.

Jeez. Yeah, if the OP is truly unable to nurse her child as nature intended due to some medical condition or whatever, then OF COURSE my "rant" wouldn't apply, and I trust her to know that and not take it personally in that case. If she were to tell me that she were physically unable to breast-feed, then OF COURSE I would apologize to her for my "rant". I feel strongly about the subject, because YES, I WASN'T BREAST-FED. That's WHY I feel strongly about it! I'm quite certain it explains my childhood asthma and OF COURSE I wish I had whatever IQ points that infant formula cost me. Don't I have the right to express a strong opinion about something?

Western work ethics are so important to keep

God. What a depressing thing to read. How many people lie on their death-bed saying "I wish I'd spent more time in the office"? Not many, I'd imagine. Relax. Get high. Get pissed. Ordain. Marry a lady-boy. Become a peasant farmer. Write a novel. Whatever. But don't don't don't keep working for the sake of working. That's a fuc_king terrible curse to be under.

The reason you think it is depressing is because you never learned to "play for a living."

By that I mean doing something (working) that makes you so excited and energized that you would do it even if you were not paid to do it.

Rarely do people make career choices based on that.

And that is why so many of us end up in dull professions and can't wait to "retire."

Some people--a lucky few--actually love what they are doing and never want to retire.

Work = play for them.

Yeah - it's really amazing to think of people like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc. - they have all the money in the world, yet they keep working every day. Just think about that! It means they actually enjoy their work more than taking a non-stop trip around the world, staying in 5-star hotels and resorts everywhere they go, eating in the best restaurants, dating the cutest honeys...

Life really seems cruel - you either truly have it all, like those guys, or else you could be utterly miserable, caught in a catch-22 of wanting to be wealthy so you don't have to work, because you can't think of any work you wouldn't hate.

Is it really a choice? It doesn't seem like it. Seems a lot more like luck to me. Or fate, or destiny or whatever.

Baby formula??? How dare you? Really - you can't love your child enough to feed it mother's breast milk? Your child didn't ask to come into this world - YOU brought it into this horrible world. The least you can do now is give the kid a fighting chance by giving it the most nutritious, healthy food and the warmth and love of mother's breast. At the very least use a breast pump so the kid gets real human milk instead of industrial "formula".

Kids fed formula lose IQ points and also have greater likelihood of being introverted, depressed, unhappy, and unsuccessful. Oh yeah, those kids tend to have worse relations with their mothers. I guess because such mothers are less loving than those who breast-feed.

Shame on you for even considering baby formula. If breast feeding is so inconvenient, you shouldn't have had a baby.

Oh, and since money is your big concern, you can save a lot of money by not buying that crap. Sometimes the best things in life are free.

No idea about Thailand, but I heard foreigners on a tourist visa can get free health care in the UK, France, and some other countries with universal health care. Any truth to that?

You won't get it in the US though... actually, I correct that. Even uninsured US citizens and illegal aliens can get (essentially free) care for a life-threatening condition in hospital emergency rooms (I think Brits call them 'trauma centres' or something?), so I guess that would apply to foreign tourists as well. But routine medical care at a doctors office or clinic or hospital? No. I say "essentially free" because they will try to bill you, but can't refuse to treat you in an emergency situation, even if you have no insurance, no credit card, no cash, etc.

Anyone know about Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or European countries? What about other Asian countries?

Thanks Alohatiger, for the best post yet.

Like you, I suspect the US backs the yellows, since the Thai establishment has been pro-US and pro-West in general. But China isn't pro-US, and is trying to increase it's influence everywhere, especially in neighboring Asian countries. Isn't it possible that China is backing the reds? Especially since reds have been seen wearing Mao hats (you know, the big floppy green berets w/ the big red star on the front? Like the Chinese RED Guards used to wear?). The reds are also apparently now spouting Maoist military/revolutionary strategies like "forest surrounds the city" or whatever.

Thaksin was given refuge in Cambodia, which might mean something. Is Cambodia close to China these days? I know Hun Sen was installed by the Vietnamese, so I figured Cambodia, like Laos, is still pretty much a satellite of Vietnam. Vietnam hates Thailand for supporting the US during the Vietnam war. At that time Vietnam was supporting communist insurgents in Thailand. Also at that time, Vietnam and China were close allies, so China was also supporting the Thai communists.

I wonder if the "reds" have any link to the old Thai communist movement. It would seem likely, as they're from the same region and chose the color red...

Then again, all the "color revolutions" around the world in recent years have been US/Western creations, to liberate countries from the Russian sphere of influence... Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Iran...

Again, truly amazed that this topic isn't of interest to more people. Flabbergasted, actually. To me it's the most obvious and interesting question.

Wow. I really don't get it. Why the hate? Is it the question, or the way it was asked, or what? It seems like a legitimate and interesting question to me. Where do you get "trolling" from? As for "conspiracy".... what - you think there are no conspiracies in this world? Everything is just as it seems? Nothing going on in the dark? Are you naive, or what? Why do you think every government has intelligence agencies?

Take Myanmar, for example. The junta there has a close relationship with the PRC government. Meanwhile, the US and UK have been trying for a long time to help dissidents topple that regime and replace it with one more friendly to the West. That situation's pretty clear. So why wouldn't some similar dynamic be going on in Thailand?

Another question - if you don't have anything constructive to add to the thread, why not just go away and not come back? Why do you have to attack me and call me names? Please explain. I don't understand people like you.

Wow.... I'm really surprised by the lack of interest.

Really? You guys never wonder about the big picture, about what's really going on behind the superficial stuff?

You think Thailand exists in some sort of vacuum and no foreign power has any interest in what happens to the place?

Don't know, but interesting questions. Never heard of Payap... but Chiang Mai University is supposed to be good.

For a little perspective:

By The Nation

Published on May 13, 2009

Four Thai universities have been ranked among the top 100 best higher educational institutes in Asia.

In the ranking compiled by QS Quacquarelli Symonds, Mahidol University is the highest placed university in Thailand at 30, with Chulalongkorn University five spots behind at 35. Chiang Mai University, meanwhile, is ranked 81st and Thammasat University has 85th place among Thailand institutes.

Like your idea of hooking up with the Thai Paris Hilton! It's a nice thought anyway...

Just guessing, but I think your chances of making good business connections might be best at Chula. It's usually considered the best uni in Thailand and they have the best MBA program in Thailand. But I wasn't terribly impressed when I visited - a lot of mangy stray dogs. Imagine getting rabies while attending an elite university? Very strange.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Cheers.

Are you calling me a dog?

At the end of the day I would think most major countries could care less about what happens to 3rd world country such as Thailand whether its yellow or red has no consequence.

Major countries sure cared an awful lot about what happened to Vietnam and Afghanistan - so why not Thailand, which is a much more significant place in every conceivable way?

Don't mean to argue with anyone - maybe I don't come off right, but I'm just sharing my thoughts and trying to learn from yours. Cheers to all.

 And I'd be very surprised if the Taliban & al Qaeda aren't getting help from China and/or Russia.  

I think you are way off here.  Both China and Russia have their own problems with Islamic minorities, and the last thing they want is to encourage either of these two groups.  This is one are in which the US, Russia, and China are pretty much in lock-step with each other.

The US, Russia and China in lock-step with each other against Islamist terror? I wish it were true, but I don't see it. That would mean that the Islamists are so powerful that even the 3 most powerful countries on earth working together can't beat them. I don't think that's the case. My theory is that the US, Russia and China are using different Muslim groups against each other. It started with the Islamic revolution in Iran in the late 70's - who was behind that? The Soviets. They helped Iranian leftists and Islamists topple the pro-US Shah, and Iran has been vehemently anti-American and protected by Russia and China ever since. Then there was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980. The US created and backed the "Mujahideen" Islamists that bankrupted the Soviet Union. If the US didn't back them, there's no way they could've fought the Soviets for 8 years, much less win. (Just like the North Korean and Vietnamese communists could never have beat the US w/out massive help from China and USSR.)

So my thinking is that the Russians must've been pretty pissed at the way things went for them in Afghanistan, so after the US pulled out and forgot about the Mujahideen, the Russians sent some spies back in there to meddle and help 2 Mujahideen factions (the Taliban and their al-Qaeda allies) take over Afghanistan, with the purpose of helping them attack the US (as on 9/11), draw the US back to Afghanistan, and then bleed us to death there financially just like we did to them in the 1980s. Otherwise I just don't see how a bunch of cavemen with AK-47s is able to keep bleeding the US & allies all these years. Who's feeding these guys? Who's providing them ammunition and IEDs and most important of all, the satellite and other intelligence and strategy to keep the West off-balance all this time? For that matter, who helped them pull off 9/11 so spectacularly? Sorry, I just don't see how a couple of beards in a cave could do that w/out some massive intelligence and strategic help from a superpower.

Who helped the Bosnian and Kosovar Muslims take down Russia's ally Yugoslavia/Greater-Serbia? The West, of course - the US and NATO allies. Remember that the US "accidentally" bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the war against Yugoslavia? I don't think it was an accident because the Chinese were giving satellite intelligence to the Yugoslavs - helping them kill NATO forces. The US bombed it to send a message "don't F with us", but said it was an accident to avoid a full-scale war with China (knowing full well that nobody would believe it was really an accident, for reasons anyone can easily research). Who helped the Chechen Muslims (and the Georgians and Ukrainians) weaken Russia some more? Again, I'm guessing the US, UK, etc. Who were Saddam Hussein's biggest supporters (besides France/Germany)? Again, Russia and China. Who helps the Uighur Muslim separatists in China's Xinjiang province? The US. So maybe China has something to do with the Taliban & al-Qaeda. After all, China has a border w/ Afghanistan, and is close allies with Pakistan's government (they both openly hate India and semi-secretly hate the US), which at a minimum is playing a double-game with the US, if not merely pretending to be our allies while actually siding with the Taliban & al-Qaeda. I know - now we hear that the terrorists are attacking the Pakistani government & military, but I suspect maybe these are different groups, being used by the US to topple the Pakistani government because we're fed up with their double-dealing / treachery.

But sure, maybe I'm way off. Who knows?

No, the US is not involved. However the US is OK to deal with the Abhisit government. They would also be OK to deal with a Thaksin puppet government.

OK, but what makes you so sure about this? I don't know whose side the US might be on - I just imagine that they must favor one faction over the other. Why wouldn't they? Everyone on Thai Visa seems to have a strong opinion about the matter, so why wouldn't the US and other governments?

Contrast that with Burma though; the US is not OK to deal with the Burmese government. So if you are hard core red, you won't like that. Reds want the world to believe their movement is the moral equivalent of the peoples struggle in Burma. However, the world completely does NOT see it that way, and they are right.

Right. But who supports the Burmese (Myanmar) government? China. And who's behind the opposition to the Myanmar junta? The Anglo bloc mostly. And this same pattern is true in country after country: Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Venezuela... not to mention Tibet and Xinjiang/East Turkestan. And I'd be very surprised if the Taliban & al Qaeda aren't getting help from China and/or Russia. Think about it - the Afghan "Mujahideen" may have bankrupted the Soviet Union over 8 years of quagmire, but they sure as hel_l didn't do it singlehandedly. They had a LOT of help from the US through Pakistan, Saudi and other parties.

So I thought - maybe foreign powers are behind the unrest in Thailand too? I'm surprised this doesn't occur to anyone else. Really? Nobody else is thinking along these lines?

Really? I figure the cold war never really ended, it just got more complicated, with China, France/Germany, and maybe some others joining the Anglo bloc and Russians on the global chess board.

I mean, it's clear that the basic line-up hasn't changed one bit - it's still Russia and China against the West; they're the ones backing regimes such as North Korea, Iranian Mullah regime, Hugo Chavez, etc.

And it makes sense to me that the US, UK, maybe others are actively supporting the Iranian opposition in order to try to destabilize/overthrow the Mullah regime before they get nukes.

But the Thai situation isn't nearly as clear to me - maybe it really is just an internal thing and no foreign government much cares who comes out on top, but I doubt it.

Question for the OP: Which class do you identify with? I'd be interested in hearing how Brits (so sorry - I mean English, Scots, Welsh, etc.) classify themselves these days. In the US, we generally don't talk about class, but I would break down our society roughly as follows: poor/underclass (living on government funds and/or sporadic part-time minimum-wage jobs); lower-middle/working class; professional/managerial/upper-middle-class (includes most doctors, lawyers, etc.); wealthy/rich/upper-class (don't need to work, due to enough inherited and/or earned money to live very comfortably the rest of their lives, but many still do work). I guess only the latter two classes generally go to university. Is all that pretty much the same in the UK? Or do you have different terminology?

Next question: is nationality or class more important to you? Do you identify more with other Brits who come from a different class background, or more with other Anglos (Yanks, Canucks, Aussies, etc.) who come from a similar class background?

I've been wondering who is behind the 2 factions facing off in Thailand - the Reds and Yellows. It seems to me that perhaps foreign governments (the US vs. China?) may be behind them, but I haven't followed this story closely enough to even make a good guess as to who might be behind either faction.

Anybody else think foreign governments are involved? If so, who, and who's backing who? (and why?)

And your point is?

Who said anything about a point?

I didn't make up this list, but it struck me as being pretty true, so I thought I'd post it here to enlighten anyone who needs enlightening on the matter, and to see what you guys think.

Any thoughts or comments?

Myth #1: "Thai Bar Girls Are Not Prostitutes" Sure, Thai bar girls can be very nice, sweet, fun loving creatures but they spread their legs in order to make money. Whoever created the illusion that a woman who works in a sex establishment or freelances to make money by spreading her legs is not a prostitute is blind.

Myth #2: "Thai Bar Girls Are Looking For A Prince Charming To Rescue Them"

Thai bar girls' number one priority is taking care of themselves and their families. And their only method of taking care of themselves and their families is with money. Despite the fact that Thai bar girls are poor, they are quite happy living in their beautiful country. In addition, Thai bar girls enjoy indulging in their wonderful culture and have no need to find a prince charming to rescue them from their current situation.

Myth #3: "Thai Bar Girls Are Submissive"

I wouldn’t say Thai bar girls are submissive but rather gentle women that like to take care of their men and make sure that their men are happy. In addition, Thai bar girls have come to learn that there are a lot of tourists looking for love and therefore, they use their charm, personality and sex appeal to get what they want which is money.

Myth #4: "Thai Bar Girls Like Older Men"

When it comes to money Thai women like all kind of men (short, fat bald, midgets, etc.,). For some reason a lot of men believe the notion that Thai bar girls are with them because they actually like them. The reality is that the Thai bar girls are simply with them for money. In addition, Thai bar girls would much rather be seen with a sexy young Foreigner, than with a sweaty old man that can barely get a hardon.

Myth #5: "Thai Bar Girls Don't Like Thai Men"

Many male tourists will be surprised to know how many bar girls have Thai boyfriends. This should not be surprising simply because a Thai bargirl can relate a lot better to a Thai man than with a male tourist from the west. So why then does a Thai bargirl choose to work in a go-go bar, beer bar or other adult establishment if she has a Thai boyfriend? Well it all comes down to money, which is something everybody needs.

Myth #6: "Thai Bar Girls Earn A Lot Of Money"

Although Thai bar girls may work 6 days a week sometimes year round with few breaks in between, they don’t make a lot of money. Instead the little money Thai bar girls do make goes to pay for their personal expenses and the rest is sent to their families for support.

Myth #7: "Thai Bar Girls don’t like working in a Beer Bar/Go-Go Bar"

Actually, Thai bar girls enjoy working in a beer bar/go-go bar simply because many of them have friends and cousins that work at a beer bar/go-go bar. In addition, working in a beer bar/go-go bar gives Thai bar girls the opportunity to have some fun (drink, meet foreigners and party) and enjoy themselves outside of their routine lives.

Myth #8: "Thai Bar Girls love foreigners"

I wouldn’t say Thai bar girls don’t like foreigners but rather learned to accept them coming to their precious country for the past few decades for Intoxication and Intercourse Vacations. One thing is for sure, Thai bar girls love foreigners money.

Myth #9: "Thai Bar Girls are loyal to their men"

I don’t know how many Thai bar girls I have had sex with that told me they had a foreigner boyfriend. I mean Thai bar girls work in a go-go bar, beer bar, blowjob bar or freelance not because they want to but because they need money. So even though a Thai bargirl may meet someone she likes, their will always be new opportunities (new foreigners) she will come across that will provide her with more money.

Myth #10: "Thai Bar Girls are not educated"

Although Thai bar girls may not have received the educational opportunities that many foreigners from the west have received, they are a lot smarter than your average male tourist. For example, Thai bar girls are street smart, learn the tricks of the business of working in a beer bar/go-go bar and use their sex appeal to milk as much money from several male tourists all while remaining the sweet, beautiful, loyal, submissive uneducated females every male tourist believes they are.

Do you really want to be rich?

Really?

Really super rich?

Why not turn the tables and do what those ladies do in the USA?

Compile a list of all the rich single thai lady multimillionaires

Then go after them one at a time until you land one in a marriage

I would bet you a million dollars that right now there is some super, super rich Thai lady looking for love from anyone?

Of course I thought of this. But I guess this is much easier for women to pull off. First of all, there are a lot more wealthy single guys than girls (or ladies) to choose from. Secondly, age and looks are apparently less important to women than to men. I mean, it's rare to find a guy married to a woman much older or homelier than him, whereas the opposite is very common. I guess there are reasons for this? Also, women seem to only want guys who are more successful than they are, or at least as successful. Oh, yeah, and finally, one of the main benefits of great wealth for a guy is the playboy lifestyle and a chance with the young hotties you couldn't get when you were poor. Marriage sort of rules that out.

A bloke could try to hang himself but the cheap shoddy thai rope would probably break.

OK, just now I was reading another thread where someone mentioned that the only grocery store where he could count on finding food that isn't expired/rotting was located in a hi-so area surrounded by 100 million baht homes. A quick calculation shows that those homes are worth around USD 3 million or GBP 2 million. I didn't even know homes could be so expensive in Thailand.

But it got me thinking... all over the world, quality of life really is better if you have more money. Better neighborhoods (safer, quieter, better air quality, more beauty), better food, better health care, better schools for your kids... you name it.

Also... life is short.

So at the risk of sounding silly, I will ask here what I've been trying to figure out all my life: how does one get rich?

Is it possible for a farang to get rich in Thailand? Does anyone know of such cases? If so, how did they do it?

I'm not talking about the upper middle class - doctors, lawyers, dentists, etc. - that I understand. I'm talking about really rich, where you can afford a 100 million baht home, take frequent expensive vacations, send your kids to private schools, etc.

It really is largely a matter of fate, isn't it? To be seriously rich, you have to be born into that class, and thus go to the right schools, make the right friends, etc.?

Someone give me some hope, please?

Carlton Banks is a big fan...

Carrefour. French. Duh!

Well yeah, but I thought the French took food quality very seriously. No?

I'd like to reply to some of those who challenged my earlier post on the first page of this thread, but in the interest of keeping to the original topic, I will instead quote from the article mentioned in the OP, which I'm guessing few have yet read:

Though missionaries preaching the word of the Lord near raunchy entertainment spots have become a Bangkok mainstay in the last few years, I must say I have never witnessed any man or woman heed the advice of a preacher and refrain from descending into the Devil's pit of scantily clad young ladies. Perhaps this is why new tactics are being deployed...

Rather than simply preaching to passers by, the Thompsons' tactic is to pay the girls' bar-fines to bring them inside the centre... and attempt to persuade them to accept Jesus. The reward for acceptance is a weekly income of 800 Baht (£16), free accommodation and vocational courses...

The Thompsons' motive is ultimately one of religious conversion and the fringe benefits are the lure in a somewhat deceitful sales pitch. But perhaps it is short sighted to view the entire offering with such contempt. There is nothing stopping a girl taking up the opportunity, utilising the resources, saying Jesus is wonderful for six months and then moving on to a better life, and a new career...

The Thompsons cite that 35 out of approximately 1000 girls (3.5%) have taken them up on their offer of sanctuary.

OK. So in this particular instance, the missionaries are apparently trying to convert the people they're "helping" to Christianity.

The article goes on to speculate that perhaps the only reason more girls aren't taking them up on the offer is because they identify so strongly with Buddhism that they cannot imagine giving up that identity and cutting themselves off from the "Thai family". If this is the case, it could be argued that the price the missionaries are asking of these bar girls is too high to be helpful.

But I suspect there is a more pragmatic reason so few bar girls choose to be "helped". The article doesn't mention what vocations the Thompsons offer training in, but I can't imagine they pay anything near what prostitution does.

So what are we left with? To my mind, you have holier-than-thou Christians telling these girls that they're doing something dirty, shameful and immoral, for which they will go to hel_l when they die. And that in order to avoid such a horrible fate, they should change their religion and entire worldview AND that they should do menial labor for much lower pay and accept a dramatically lower standard of living for themselves and whatever family they support.

So this is why I posted what I did on the first page of this thread: it appears to me that the Christian missionaries in question are not motivated so much by a desire to provide real help where it's really needed as by a desire to combat the perceived "evil" of prostitution - i.e., fornication, adultery, sodomy, or whatever hateful, judgmental words they use to demonize any and all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. The Old Testament (Jewish Torah) prescribes the death penalty for extra-marital sex, just like Islam does. The New Testament, which is more pertinent to Christianity, says if you absolutely must have sex, it must be within marriage, but it's much better to have no sex at all, EVER, even if it means cutting off your genitals. Don't believe me? Start reading the New Testament - it's in there, and I can at least narrow it down a bit for you - it's in one of the following books: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts or Romans. So don't tell me Christianity isn't the most anti-sex religion on earth.

You see, some of us don't see anything morally wrong with sex outside of marriage, or with paying for sex. We simply can't believe in an angry, monstrous sky-god who would even care about such trivial stuff, let alone send us to hel_l to be tortured for eternity over it. Who's getting hurt? If people are being violently coerced or tricked into prostitution, that's a different story - punish the criminals. If STDs are being spread, I'm all for public health measures to combat disease. But a free exchange of sex for money? It's perfectly fair. Morally speaking, it's no different from dating and marriage, where the guy essentially pays for sex from the woman.

Lifelong monogamous marriage may seem like a wonderful ideal to religious people, but the reality for most of us is different. It's boring. Most people get bored having sex with the same person over and over and over and over again, certainly after a few years time. If we insist on holding people to this unrealistic standard, what happens is that you have "cheating", and lying, and horrible fights, and broken hearts, divorce, and long-suffering kids of divorce - and it's all so unnecessary. Marriage should be about more than sexual monogamy/monopoly. It should be about lifelong friendship and partnership and raising happy, healthy kids. Why should recreational sex destroy all that? Moral stigma should be reserved for people who break up a marriage and traumatize their children for life over something so trivial as sex.

It just seems to me that if we had more realistic expectations of marriage and more realistic acceptance of human sexuality, we'd all be so much better off. From what I know, many non-Western (i.e., non-Christian) cultures have a "don't ask/don't tell" policy when it comes to adultery - as long as the spouse doesn't know, it can't hurt him/her. And even if it is discovered, people should be mature enough to accept that it doesn't mean the entire marriage is over and destroyed. I mean really - chances are the spouses aren't having sex any more anyway, right? I have a lot of respect for people like Hillary Clinton, who chose to keep her marriage and family intact despite a highly public and embarrassing incidence of infidelity.

Bar girls, by and large, are not being exploited, and they certainly are not evil, and they don't need to be made to feel guilty and then "saved". They are providing a lot of pleasure, usually with a lot of good humor, and are getting paid nicely for their efforts, relative to other work they could be doing.

So if Christian missionaries really want to help people, I'd suggest there are a lot of other people with much greater need. That's all.