https://aseannow.com/rss/44-thailand-news.xml/National and regional news from all around ThailandenEven a 6 year old knows the difference between 'too' and 'to'. You fail, now back to India with you.Wed, 20 May 2026 20:17:06 +0000Add the British to the top of that list. Count the times their nationality appears in crime or self harm stories and there's your leader. Is it reasonable to keep all of them out? No more so than painting the others on your list with the same brush.Wed, 20 May 2026 20:13:47 +0000https://aseannow.com/thailand-news/thailand-eyes-higher-tourist-tax-for-foreign-visitors-r1896/Thailand is considering raising its proposed tourist entry fee for foreign visitors above 300 baht as officials review rising insurance and healthcare costs linked to the tourism sector. Get today's headlines by email Tourism and Sports Minister Surasak Phancharoenworakul said the long-delayed tourism levy, first proposed in 2020, may need to increase because of inflation and higher insurance premiums. Most of the revenue would be used to provide insurance coverage for foreign tourists, particularly for treatment at private hospitals, while the remainder would fund maintenance of tourist attractions and infrastructure improvements. The discussion comes just one day after the government announced plans to end the current 60-day visa exemption scheme for travellers from 93 countries. Authorities intend to return to shorter visa-free stays similar to the system used before 2024. Officials are considering two possible methods for collecting the fee. One option would add the charge to airline tickets, while another would collect it through the Thailand Digital Arrival Card (TDAC) system, which foreign visitors are already required to complete before entry. Airlines have reportedly raised objections to charging only foreign passengers while exempting Thai nationals, warning the system could create discrimination concerns. One proposal under review would require all passengers to pay the fee initially, with Thai citizens later applying for refunds. Using the TDAC platform is viewed by officials as a more practical alternative because it is already integrated into the arrival process for foreign travellers. Authorities said further discussions are needed before a final decision is made. The final amount of the tourism fee will depend largely on the projected cost of accident insurance and unpaid medical treatment involving foreign tourists. Studies cited by officials estimate that unpaid medical bills from overseas visitors cost Thai hospitals around 2.5 billion baht each year. The Tourism and Sports Ministry is expected to continue talks with the Thai General Insurance Association to determine suitable insurance premium levels before the levy is finalised. Thienprasit Chaiyapatranun, president of the Thai Hotels Association, said the government must clearly explain what incidents would be covered by the insurance fund. He questioned whether protection would extend to floods, construction accidents or motorcycle crashes involving riders without licences. Bangkok Post reported that he also called for greater transparency regarding how much revenue from the tourism levy would be directed towards infrastructure projects. Related story Cabinet-cuts-visa-free-stay-back-to-30-days Join the discussion? Already a member? Adapted by ASEAN Now Bangkokpost 21 May 2026Wed, 20 May 2026 20:10:55 +0000Thailand is considering raising its proposed tourist entry fee for foreign visitors above 300 baht as officials review rising insurance and healthcare costs linked to the tourism sector. Get today's headlines by email Tourism and Sports Minister Surasak Phancharoenworakul said the long-delayed tourism levy, first proposed in 2020, may need to increase because of inflation and higher insurance premiums. Most of the revenue would be used to provide insurance coverage for foreign tourists, particularly for treatment at private hospitals, while the remainder would fund maintenance of tourist attractions and infrastructure improvements. The discussion comes just one day after the government announced plans to end the current 60-day visa exemption scheme for travellers from 93 countries. Authorities intend to return to shorter visa-free stays similar to the system used before 2024. Officials are considering two possible methods for collecting the fee. One option would add the charge to airline tickets, while another would collect it through the Thailand Digital Arrival Card (TDAC) system, which foreign visitors are already required to complete before entry. Airlines have reportedly raised objections to charging only foreign passengers while exempting Thai nationals, warning the system could create discrimination concerns. One proposal under review would require all passengers to pay the fee initially, with Thai citizens later applying for refunds. Using the TDAC platform is viewed by officials as a more practical alternative because it is already integrated into the arrival process for foreign travellers. Authorities said further discussions are needed before a final decision is made. The final amount of the tourism fee will depend largely on the projected cost of accident insurance and unpaid medical treatment involving foreign tourists. Studies cited by officials estimate that unpaid medical bills from overseas visitors cost Thai hospitals around 2.5 billion baht each year. The Tourism and Sports Ministry is expected to continue talks with the Thai General Insurance Association to determine suitable insurance premium levels before the levy is finalised. Thienprasit Chaiyapatranun, president of the Thai Hotels Association, said the government must clearly explain what incidents would be covered by the insurance fund. He questioned whether protection would extend to floods, construction accidents or motorcycle crashes involving riders without licences. Bangkok Post reported that he also called for greater transparency regarding how much revenue from the tourism levy would be directed towards infrastructure projects. Related story Cabinet-cuts-visa-free-stay-back-to-30-days Join the discussion? Already a member? Adapted by ASEAN Now Bangkokpost 21 May 2026 View full articleWed, 20 May 2026 20:10:55 +0000BoneWed, 20 May 2026 20:09:28 +0000Ask any member on here if numerouse cases of jihadi involvement and child groomers have been brought out in the open by Tommy Robinson, if it wasn't for him we could have a jihadi or a radical islamist as your next door neighbour. He exposes them and the government don't like it and they would rather silence him, when we ask questions we are called racist's, islamaphobes and right wing dangers to the UK. I know the 3 members will no doubt call me out but its expected from them.Wed, 20 May 2026 20:09:10 +0000China’s leader Xi Jinping has hosted Russian President Vladimir Putin in Beijing just days after receiving US President Donald Trump, staging two high-profile meetings that underline China’s ambition to position itself at the centre of global diplomacy. Get today's headlines by email Putin’s arrival outside the Great Hall of the People followed a carefully choreographed welcome: cheering schoolchildren, a military honour guard, cannon fire and a marching band. The ceremony closely resembled the reception given to Trump during his own visit the previous week. Two major presidential visits in such quick succession highlight the image Beijing appears keen to project — a global power able to engage with rival leaders while remaining aligned with none. For Chinese officials, the visits demonstrate the country’s growing economic weight and diplomatic reach. “The new era of world affairs is less centered around the West,” said Samir Puri of King’s College London, noting that China often uses its influence gradually rather than directly intervening in conflicts. Russia leans on BeijingDespite the similar ceremonial treatment, the political context surrounding Putin’s visit differed significantly from Trump’s. Putin has travelled to China more than 20 times and is widely seen as having a close personal relationship with Xi. Yet Russia’s war in Ukraine and sweeping Western sanctions have pushed Moscow into greater dependence on Beijing. China is now Russia’s largest trading partner and its biggest customer for oil and gas, strengthening what analysts describe as an already uneven relationship. Talks between the two leaders concluded with more than 20 agreements covering trade and technology. However, there was no approval for a long-delayed Russian gas pipeline project that Moscow has sought for years. A lengthy joint statement issued afterwards also produced few major breakthroughs. “Both China and Russia need each other, but Russia clearly needs China more than before on the global stage,” said Zheng Runyu of the Centre for Russian Studies at East China Normal University in Shanghai. China’s shifting diplomatic approachXi also appeared to negotiate from a position of strength in meetings with Trump. China’s expanding trade links worldwide, alongside its dominance in rare earth minerals and advanced manufacturing, have given Beijing greater leverage in its dealings with Washington. Both Trump and Putin also face ongoing military conflicts that have proved costly and prolonged. The war in the Middle East has become a global crisis affecting Trump politically at home, while Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has entered its fifth year and left Moscow increasingly isolated internationally. Against that backdrop, analysts say Beijing has been able to set the tone for its engagements with both leaders. The situation marks a notable shift from just a few years ago. During the COVID-19 pandemic, China closed its borders and faced rising tensions with Western governments. Relations deteriorated further amid confrontational “wolf warrior” diplomacy and criticism over human rights concerns in Xinjiang and Beijing’s tightening control over Hong Kong. Western countries imposed sanctions and export controls, while China responded with countermeasures. Diplomatic ambitions and limitsFive years later, China has sought to reposition itself as an indispensable centre for diplomacy and trade. Beijing has moderated its diplomatic tone and worked to repair ties with countries such as Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. Leaders from several Western nations have visited Beijing to strengthen economic cooperation with the world’s second-largest economy. Xi has long promised what he calls the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation”, and the recent sequence of state visits provides a powerful domestic image of China as a country courted by global leaders. Yet the meetings have also highlighted limits to Beijing’s influence. During discussions with Putin, Xi urged an end to the conflict involving Iran, describing a halt to the war as “of utmost urgency”. However, he made no mention of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. China has attempted to maintain a neutral position on the war in Ukraine, though the United States and European governments have repeatedly urged Beijing to cut the economic support they say is helping sustain Russia’s war effort. Analysts say China faces a difficult balancing act. While calling for peace in some conflicts, its reluctance to criticise Moscow risks undermining its claim to act as a neutral global broker. At the same time, instability in Iran and disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz directly affect Chinese economic interests, particularly energy supplies. Xi’s diplomatic push therefore comes with challenges, especially in Europe, where governments remain wary of China’s intentions and its close ties with Moscow. Join the discussion? Already a member? Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 21 May 2026 View full articleWed, 20 May 2026 20:06:41 +0000The goal was to deflect from Epstein. Next up invade Cuba, Canada, California. Anything to distract and deflect.Wed, 20 May 2026 20:03:33 +0000A parliamentary committee has sharply criticised the British government’s handling of plans to introduce digital identification, describing the initial rollout as “nothing short of a fiasco”. Get today's headlines by email In a report examining the policy, the UK Home Affairs Select Committee said ministers failed to properly explain their intentions when the scheme was first announced, sparking public concern and political backlash. Prime Minister Keir Starmer unveiled plans in September last year to introduce compulsory digital identification for workers. The proposal was designed in part to combat illegal employment by making identity checks easier for employers. However, the government reversed course three months later after strong criticism from opposition politicians and civil liberties groups. Sudden announcement sparks backlashAccording to the committee’s findings, the initial announcement came as a surprise to the public and lacked sufficient detail. Committee chair Karen Bradley said the government’s communication had created unnecessary alarm about the scope of the programme. “The government’s early attempts to set out its plans for digital ID were nothing short of a fiasco,” she said in the report. Bradley said the proposal appeared suddenly and left ministers unable to answer key questions about how the system would operate or how personal data would be protected. As a result, many people feared the policy could represent excessive government intrusion into private life. She added that public opinion had previously been broadly supportive of moving away from paper documents toward digital identification but that the poorly explained rollout had unsettled voters. Shift from mandatory to voluntary systemThe government has since abandoned the idea of compulsory digital identification. Instead, it is continuing with plans to offer a voluntary digital ID that people can store on their smartphones, similar to digital payment cards. The app-based identification would include basic personal information such as name, nationality, date of birth, photograph and residency status. It could be used to confirm a person’s age or their right to live and work in the United Kingdom. Ministers initially argued that digital verification could help reduce the use of fraudulent documents or borrowed National Insurance numbers by people working illegally. But the proposal quickly attracted criticism from privacy advocates. Campaign group Big Brother Watch warned that digital identification systems could raise serious privacy concerns. A petition submitted to UK Parliament opposing digital ID gathered around three million signatures, with critics arguing the policy risked enabling mass surveillance. By January, the government dropped the requirement that digital IDs be mandatory. Effort to rebuild trustThe policy was relaunched in March as a voluntary programme, with ministers presenting it as a tool to simplify access to government services. Cabinet Office minister Darren Jones opened an eight-week public consultation and established a “people’s panel” of 100 individuals from across the country to help shape the scheme. Bradley welcomed the decision to remove the mandatory element but said consultation should have taken place earlier rather than after the policy was relaunched. She also welcomed assurances that the government would not create a centralised database for the digital identification system. However, the committee warned that public trust would be crucial for the project’s success. Bradley said digital ID could only gain widespread use if people believed their information was secure, stressing the need for strong privacy protections and cyber security standards. “Digital ID will not achieve widespread adoption unless the majority of people can trust that their data is secure,” she said. She added that rebuilding confidence would take time and warned that further mistakes could seriously damage public support for the programme. Join the discussion? Already a member? Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 21 May 2026 View full articleWed, 20 May 2026 20:00:24 +0000Virtually everything that Trump and Netanyahu planned for this war has gone sideways, and the extent of the poor information they must have had is really quite astonishing. Either that or both simply suffered from ridiculous and dangerous levels of hubris. Which is quite possible knowing Disaster Don.Wed, 20 May 2026 19:59:40 +0000Yes. Unless you are quite wealthy or own a home free and clear. Southeast Asia is infinitely more reasonable than America as an example. I am back here right now and the prices of goods and services are both stunning and ridiculous. Anyone who buys into that 3% inflation garbage is living an alternate reality.Wed, 20 May 2026 19:57:44 +0000Very tragic. The only way to survive here on the road, is to be patient, have eyes in the back of your head, drive with caution, and always, and I mean always watch out of the other guy. Chances are, he does not have much driving skill, nor patience, nor reason, nor common sense. You cannot be too careful on the road here. Especially considering that the toy police offer no traffic safety, prevention, enforcement of the law, or concern toward the prosecution of very reckless drivers. Those of us with driving skill, and a strong desire for not only survival, but the avoidance of terrible injury, are constantly scanning the road, in front of us, beside us, and behind us. There are an exceptionally high number of reckless fools on these roads, and it is the only way to preserve our lives, and those of our families, and friends, who may be driving with us, and depending on us.Wed, 20 May 2026 19:54:30 +0000The administration of US President Donald Trump has indicted former Cuban President Raul Castro over the 1996 shooting down of two aircraft operated by the Miami-based exile organisation Brothers to the Rescue, escalating tensions between Washington and Havana. Get today's headlines by email Federal prosecutors unsealed the indictment on Wednesday, accusing Castro, who was Cuba’s defence minister at the time, of helping direct the attack in which Cuban fighter jets destroyed two civilian planes on February 24, 1996. US authorities charged Castro with conspiracy to kill US nationals, four counts of murder and two counts of destroying an aircraft. Five additional defendants were also named in the case. Four men were killed in the attack: Carlos Costa, Armando Alejandre Jr, Mario de la Pena and Pablo Morales. US frames charges as long-awaited justiceAnnouncing the indictment at Miami’s Freedom Tower, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the families of the victims had waited nearly three decades for accountability. Blanche described the victims as “unarmed civilians” carrying out humanitarian missions aimed at helping Cuban migrants crossing the Florida Straits. “Nations and their leaders cannot be permitted to target Americans, kill them, and not face accountability,” he said. Kash Patel called the indictment “a major step toward accountability”. Brothers to the Rescue was founded in 1991 by Cuban exile Jose Basulto during a period of increased migration from Cuba to the United States. The group used aircraft to search for Cuban rafters at sea and alert the US Coast Guard. The United States and international investigators concluded the planes were shot down over international waters. Cuba has long maintained the aircraft violated or approached its airspace. Former Cuban leader Fidel Castro previously denied that he or Raul Castro directly ordered the attack. Havana rejects accusationsCuba’s current president, Miguel Diaz-Canel, dismissed the indictment as politically motivated and accused the Trump administration of distorting the events of 1996. Writing on social media, Diaz-Canel said the case was intended to justify possible military action against Cuba. Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla also criticised the White House after it issued a statement marking Cuba’s independence day and condemning the island’s communist leadership. Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos de Cossio accused the administration of catering to anti-Castro Cuban exiles in South Florida, a key Republican support base. Analysts see broader pressure campaignPolitical analysts said the indictment appeared to fit within a wider US campaign to increase pressure on Havana. Orlando Perez, a political science professor at the University of North Texas at Dallas, said Washington seemed to be pursuing both private negotiations and public confrontation with Cuba’s leadership. Perez pointed to recent reports involving alleged Cuban interest in drone and asymmetric warfare capabilities, including possible threats targeting the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay and nearby areas in Florida. He warned that the indictment could strengthen hardline elements within Cuba’s ruling establishment rather than weaken them. William Leogrande, a specialist in Latin American politics at American University School of Public Affairs, said the move would likely be popular among Cuban Americans in South Florida but could further damage prospects for diplomacy between the two countries. “It appears that the Trump administration is trying to lay the political groundwork for military action against Cuba,” he said. Debate grows over possible military actionThe Trump administration has repeatedly threatened military action against Cuba in recent months, though critics argue such a move would face broad opposition in the United States. Lee Schlenker of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft said Cuba posed little direct threat to US national security and warned harsher sanctions or military action could trigger a humanitarian crisis and increased migration. Some Democrats in Congress have already sought to restrict potential military action. Senators Ruben Gallego, Tim Kaine and Adam Schiff introduced a Senate war powers resolution earlier this year requiring congressional approval before any aggressive action against Cuba. The lawmakers renewed those efforts following Wednesday’s announcement. Join the discussion? Already a member? Adapted by ASEAN Now. Source 21 May 2026 View full articleWed, 20 May 2026 19:52:34 +0000Wed, 20 May 2026 19:47:11 +0000Reward for honest travelers: EU opens its doors to Thailand with a new cascade system The European Commission has officially given the green light to the so-called EU visa cascade system for Thai nationals residing in their home country. This decision marks a historic milestone in relations between Thailand and the European Union and promises a significant reduction in bureaucracy. The measure, adopted on May 8, 2026, is effective immediately for Thai passport holders applying for a short-term Schengen visa at embassies or consulates within Thailand. The stated goal of the initiative is to drastically simplify travel to Europe. Those who can demonstrate a verifiable, legitimate travel history will benefit from visas with significantly longer validity and multiple entry permits. For frequent travelers, this means the end of repetitive, expensive, and stressful application processes. Source: https://www.schoenes-thailand.at/2026/05/18/belohnung-fuer-ehrliche-reisende-eu-oeffnet-mit-neuem-kaskadensystem-die-tore-fuer-thailand/ If Europe had as strict a visa and immigration policy as Thailand, human rights activists and others would resort to roadblocks in Europe. How long can they stay European tourists in Thailand without a visa? And how long can Thais stay in Europe without a visa? Is it fair?Wed, 20 May 2026 19:44:02 +0000I read somewhere that there is a document you can request from immigration. I don't know what it's called but it will list every entry and exit date. You can get the stamps, they're never going away but you need to be mindful to avoid the automatic gates. I was ushered towards one of these gates last year but said I need the stamp then they directed me to a different section....they still exist. Edit : What you want is your 'travel record' from immigration.Wed, 20 May 2026 19:41:15 +0000For those interested, the 93 counties are listed in an article from The Nation, on May 20 at https://www.nationthailand.com/news/tourism/40066453 While many are critical of this decision, it must be remembered that it is merely a return to pre-extension visa conditions. You still get 30-day Visa-Free Entry, and if you do want to stay longer you can apply online for a 60-day Visa (that can be extended to 90-days). If it's any consolation, just remember that there are a further 102 countries whose citizens must apply for a visa regardless of how long they wish to visit Thailand!Wed, 20 May 2026 19:31:53 +0000I believe you are mistaken. Money is of central importance to all this administration does. The enrichment of Mr Trump and his cabal "trumps" every other consideration. One only has to look at the constant grifting, from comparatively low level merchandising (watches, phones, clothing and bibles(!), to the active soliciting of massive donations from overseas disguised as investment in "family businesses" to the shady (and largely misunderstood by the public- myself included) cash mining operations with various virtual currencies, to the very obvious but unregulated insider trading linked to many sudden decisions. It is all about money. The very small number who make very large amounts are the effective drivers of the administration's economic, fiscal, and much of it's foreign policy, to the detriment of the American public. It is all about money. Now the same allegations, generally speaking, can be levelled at all administrations; however Trump takes it to a new level, and hss no interest in benefitting anyone outside his immediate circle. Farmers can go bankrupt, the poorest can be stripped of education provision, healthcare, any social assistance; the worlds poorest can frankly die, in millions, from easily preventable disease. Yet his wealthy backers, his oligarchs get richer and richer. Now personally I have no particjlar political distaste for individual wealth, but I don't think that it's accumulation, either personal or for a favoured few should be an aspect, let alone the central aim, of a Presidency.Wed, 20 May 2026 19:14:47 +0000Wed, 20 May 2026 19:13:57 +0000You are missing one crucial point here: Those soldiers or policemen were US citizens, who may or may not have shared the same opinion with those more than 100.000 US protesters but at the end of the day, none of them would see the other side as lesser human, which explains that no one died and only 47 were injured. Now compare that to the IDF. The Israelis do not see the Palestinians or Lebanese as humans. Same goes for anyone they think is helping their enemy. They have said it and acted on it. Palestinians have not massacred Hundreds of aid workers, medics, journalists, UN staff and more than 20.000 kids. The Israelis would massacre each and every peace activist and later deny it or blame Hamas like they have always done and only in the few cases when their crimes are undeniable they would claim, it was a mistake. They executed a 5 year old girl who was begging for her life. What makes you think they would spare some peace activist?Wed, 20 May 2026 19:01:51 +0000"...posed a serious risk of prejudicing the trial and derailing the entire case, potentially forcing a costly retrial..." The defendants in the 2018 Leeds Crown Court case had already been found guilty and were coming in for sentencing when confronted by Robinson in his live stream. So the trial couldn't be prejudiced, they had already been found guilty! Additionally, filming outside a trial isn't contempt of court. How many times have you seen MSM journalists scrum a defendant when entering court and asking them questions. The most recent was Russell Brand who was greeted by a phalanx of reporters outside court. "...Tommy Robinson is not a journalist..." He worked for Rebel Media in 2017-18 as a journalist after winning a Shillman fellowship there. In January 2020, Robinson was given the Sappho Award (also known as the International Free Press award) by the Danish Free Press Society at Christiansborg Palace in Copenhagen.Wed, 20 May 2026 18:58:50 +0000Will the Iranian opposition take note of this; essentially another US sell out of liberal forces.Wed, 20 May 2026 18:58:40 +0000As I pointed in another thread on an identical topic (too many threads need merging by Moderators), Lavan Island was the subject of a 1969 dispute between Iran and Qatar. For that treaty to be abrogated by the UAE, risks inflaming a situation arising between Qatar and Bahrain over islands that was also originally settled by the same maritime agreement. This agreement is of importance for a number of reasons. It governs drilling rights. It was also important for Bahrain to assert sovereignty; Iran, under the Shah, always laid claim to bahrain, as a"lost" Iranian province, with a majority of the population being Shia (and the ruling family being sunni Saudi bedu). There is naturally a history of tension on the island, not least because of the late Amir of Bahrain, Sheikh Isa Bin Salman Al Khaifa's decision, likely at the behest of his brother, to appoint Ian Henderson ("Butcher of Bahrain") to head the Bahraini Special branch (Mukhabarat, secret police). Torture became a thing on the island, presumably as Henderson practiced lessons learned from the Kenyan Mau Mau uprising. Pushing the UAE to seize settled Iranian territory is likely to further inflame tensions in the Gulf, and contribute to even more discord between the previously united GCC states (Qata and the UAE have been on opposing sides in proxy conflicts). That won't benefit the US and the Western states. It benefits Israel though, who derives virtually all of its oil from the former Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan, via Russia.Wed, 20 May 2026 18:56:57 +0000Wed, 20 May 2026 18:53:20 +0000Isn`t that what you always do? Never really address the subject of a debate but start throwing insults or accusations instead if someone dares to critizice you? You live on stolen land, in stolen houses and eat stolen food and the earth beneath your feet is soaked with the blood of the indigenous people and legal owners you murdered. I am not sure if "super survivor" is an apt description. After Milenia of being hated, shunned, expelled, and sometimes even murdered has this thought never crossed your mind? "Maybe it´s us?"Wed, 20 May 2026 18:42:34 +0000