Quote

 

Therefore, in my view you are correct regarding Sections 4 and 25 but in addition Section 27 appears to cover and protect non-Thai people's rights and liberties.

 

That is assuming that Sections 4, 25 and 27 are all extant. They are not mutually exclusive, rather they are additive.

So, perhaps you didn't read the rest of it?

 

@VBF

Section 27 is under Chapter 3 -  Rights and Liberties of Thai People

 

I repeat, the Thai Constitution is not for foreigners. 

 

2 minutes ago, jonclark said:

Probably unsurprising that you have not heard the rich complain.  They are way above your social level and wouldn't be seen dead talking to an aging poor person outside of a 7-11. Enjoy your beer. 

Meee-owwwww!!! ????

25% for highly trained English personnel? 

 

Do they accept foreigners to work in the hospital or is it for Thai citizens only?

7 minutes ago, eliassfeir said:

Generally pensioners which have not much more than their pension and live day to day from it, they sort of hate Thailand, they can't stand Thai men, and they're only here because of the cheap sex. 

English teachers as well. 

Thailand wants to attract wealth retirees whose health costs based on there ability to pay and or insurance plan

I will happy to return to what I know and have lived for many years fully satisfied I have never invested and just continue and enjoy.

Duel pricing and high wine prices will keep out any link to those who may change these simple people

8 hours ago, Nickelbeer said:

No expat can ever expect justice from a Thai court. He should have been smart enough to realize this.

In Thailand, you will get exactly the amount of "justice" that you can BUY!!!!!

Rubbish. I know several foreigners who have prevailed in Thai courts; from family law to civil suits. One won a judgment against a Thai person for 60 million Baht. 

4 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

@VBF

Section 27 is under Chapter 3 -  Rights and Liberties of Thai People

 

I repeat, the Thai Constitution is not for foreigners. 

 

Nope. Otherwise Thai laws would consitutionally not apply to non Thais in Thailand. As all laws must legally exist within the constitutional framework with the exception of some laws regarding national security. The Constitution of Thailand is aimed and worded for Thai people for obvious reasons. But it does not exclude non Thais who live here. 

 

All people. That term includes all people that live, reside, stay inside the borders of Thailand. 

I see a lot of posts claiming the ruling of the courts is racist. It is not. Is it discriminatory? I believe so. Does is speak of nationalism? Maybe. But one thing Thailand always had going for it was the simple dichotomy of, you're either Thai or not.

 

Dual pricing isn't just a Thai thing. It's done even here in the US. We use the term "memberships" where you pay less if your a member and non-members pay more.

 

Personally, I do not support dual pricing. I will not support any establishment that engages in the practice. 

16 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

@VBF

Section 27 is under Chapter 3 -  Rights and Liberties of Thai People

 

I repeat, the Thai Constitution is not for foreigners. 

 

Unfortunately, i don't have a link to what you are quoting, however you are showing section 26 and I originally replied to a post from @jonclarkwhich quoted Section 27 thus:

 

Section 27 of the Thai  Consitution ...i guess even a foreigner is a person? 

 

All persons are equal before the law, and shall have rights and liberties and be protected equally under the law. Men and women shall enjoy equal rights. Unjust discrimination against a person on the grounds of differences in origin, race, language, sex, age, disability, physical or health condition, personal status, economic and social standing, religious belief, education, or political view which is not contrary to the provisions of the Constitution or on any other grounds, shall not be permitted.

 

Please concentrate on the part I have emboldened particularly in this instance All persons  and......origin, race...

Now the cop-out could be the "any other grounds" but unless that is clarified, I suggest @Neeranam that you are misinterpreting it.

1 hour ago, jonclark said:

So according to you this only applies to Thais...right so section 28 and all subsequent sections does not apply to foreigners in Thailand. 

 

We have no right to choose and practice our religion, choose our dwelling, travel within Thailand, have our consumer rights protected and be free from unlawful detention etc. We can be legally kidnapped???Your understanding of all people is not consistent with the law and the law is underpinned by...you guessed it the Thai constitution. 

 

If we take your definition on step further and your interpretation for "a person "as mean only Thai, then ...apply that to section 49.... I am not even gonna get into that one.  

 

 

https://www.constitutionalcourt.or.th/occ_en/download/article_20170410173022.pdf

 

Not according to me, I am just trying to educate you.

 

Read the thing and you'll see " a person" means a Thai person. It's obvious when you read the whole thing, especially the official(Thai version). 

 

For example, it says "a person" can form a political party, which obviously foreigners can't, or the ones to do with land.  I wonder if you thought it refers to foreigners as you are from the USA?

3 minutes ago, VBF said:

Unfortunately, i don't have a link to what you are quoting, however you are showing section 26 and I originally replied to a post which quoted Section 27 thus:

I am showing you the Chapter 3 title, which if refers to Section 26, obviously refers to 27 ????

 

https://www.constitutionalcourt.or.th/occ_en/download/article_20170410173022.pdf

This provincial decision needs to be stepped on by the real big fellas in BKK, but I doubt if it will.

I wonder if this will be appealed by the falang and taken to the higher courts in Bangkok as mentioned by previous posters. (Do the legal eagles of our esteemed members understand Thai law enough to give definitive opinion on this?). 

It's a bad decision in my humble opinion and 'won't benefit Thailand at all.' 

3 minutes ago, VBF said:

Unfortunately, i don't have a link to what you are quoting, however you are showing section 26 and I originally replied to a post which quoted Section 27 thus:

 

Section 27 of the Thai  Consitution ...i guess even a foreigner is a person? 

 

All persons are equal before the law, and shall have rights and liberties and be protected equally under the law. Men and women shall enjoy equal rights. Unjust discrimination against a person on the grounds of differences in origin, race, language, sex, age, disability, physical or health condition, personal status, economic and social standing, religious belief, education, or political view which is not contrary to the provisions of the Constitution or on any other grounds, shall not be permitted.

 

Please concentrate on the part I have emboldened particularly in this instance All persons  and......origin, race...

Now the cop-out could be the "any other grounds" but unless that is clarified, I suggest @Neeranam that you are misinterpreting it.

Thank you. If the constitution was only aimed at and exclusively applicable to Thai people. There would be no need to mention discrimination based on race or origin...as all Thai people (semantics aside) are the same race and origin and thus it is impossible for discrimination to exist based on race or origin within this constitutional framework.

9 hours ago, webfact said:

"According to press reports the court said that it did not see the dual pricing as discriminatory suggesting the higher rates charged to foreigners who could pay more were good for the nation."

Well there's a surprise, as short-sited as it may be - the Thai government is desperate and will continuously shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to planning and execution of all things important.

 

They really don't have a clue when it comes to how they should behave/posture/manage perceptions in order to draw foreign tourists to their country - everything is brown envelopes and dual pricing with these people and the younger folks are the only ones who seem to be wising up.

 

This as well as some of the other government follies will end up bringing them to their demise.

 

When will they (the junta) come to their senses and realize they are living in the past?

6 minutes ago, VBF said:

All persons are equal before the law, and shall have rights and liberties and be protected equally under the law. Men and women shall enjoy equal rights. Unjust discrimination against a person on the grounds of differences in origin, race, language, sex, age, disability, physical or health condition, personal status, economic and social standing, religious belief, education, or political view which is not contrary to the provisions of the Constitution or on any other grounds, shall not be permitted.

 

Please concentrate on the part I have emboldened particularly in this instance All persons  and......origin, race...

Now the cop-out could be the "any other grounds" but unless that is clarified, I suggest @Neeranam that you are misinterpreting it.

"All persons" means all Thai citizens, obviously as it is the Thai Constitution. 

 

I am Thai but my origin is Scotland, my race Caucasian. If any Thai  discriminates against me because of this(or gender etc), I can take them to the Constitutional court. Similarly, any ethnic Indian, Chinese, or Columbian Thai can. 

 

7 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

https://www.constitutionalcourt.or.th/occ_en/download/article_20170410173022.pdf

 

Not according to me, I am just trying to educate you.

 

Read the thing and you'll see " a person" means a Thai person. It's obvious when you read the whole thing, especially the official(Thai version). 

 

For example, it says "a person" can form a political party, which obviously foreigners can't, or the ones to do with land.  I wonder if you thought it refers to foreigners as you are from the USA?

Not from the USA sorry

Section 49  also says no person (Thai) cannot legally overthrow the government, which by your narrow definition of person infers a non Thai can legally and consitutionally overthrow the government as the constitution does not forbid a non Thai from doing this.

10 minutes ago, jonclark said:

Thank you. If the constitution was only aimed at and exclusively applicable to Thai people. There would be no need to mention discrimination based on race or origin...as all Thai people (semantics aside) are the same race and origin and thus it is impossible for discrimination to exist based on race or origin within this constitutional framework.

Absolutely not, this was written to protect Hilltribe people in Northern Thailand, gypsies in the South and 6' 4" Highlanders in the NE. 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

"All persons" means all Thai citizens, obviously as it is the Thai Constitution. 

 

I am Thai but my origin is Scotland, my race Caucasian. If any Thai  discriminates against me because of this(or gender etc), I can take them to the Constitutional court. Similarly, any ethnic Indian, Chinese, or Columbian Thai can. 

 

I disagree - I think it means All Persons physically in Thailand or connected in some legal way such as to place them under the Thai legal system.

We obviously don't agree - personally i think something has been lost in the translation / interpretation / proof reading as the various sections quoted appear contradictory. 

2 hours ago, Neeranam said:

Amazing, ain't it?

 

Many can't even speak the language, so obviously can't assimilate, yet expect to  get equal rights. Wokeness hasn't come here yet, get over it. 

This is rather a sanctimonious statement which I feel should be responded to. Many of us feel we are pretty well assimilated here, have our lives and loves, families and friends here and are able to converse with those around us adequately and do not necessarily live in expat enclaves. Whilst being able to speak the local language is important surely one can make contributions to a country without being highly proficient or even proficient in the language.  More difficult but doable, at least the Thai government think so, as they are happy to encourage this new long stay residents visa on the grounds of how much wealth they will bring, with no talk of a language proficiency requirement.

 

My next point is that Thailand has multiple languages. In my area Thai is only spoken extremely rarely. We do not use it for almost any day to day communications within family or with staff. This is probably the case for roughly half the countries population. So it is a little difficult to become really proficient in a language which is rarely spoken day to day in ones life. 

 

Next point, when one is attending a medical facility of any kind, I hope that we can agree it is extremely important for the patient can clearly understand the diagnosis and treatment being proscribed. However this often involves quite a lot of detailed medical and technical language. These aren't usually words that come up in daily conversation. Good for you if you can follow a detailed medical conversation in Thai, but it is beyond most of us. This lack of complex and technical vocabulary does not mean we are not well assimilated or second rate people, it just means that certain words are beyond our comprehension. According to my good Thai Doctor friend most rural Thai's cannot follow a detailed medical conversation either, either because of poor educational levels or linguistic deficiencies.  We had an example of the reverse situation occur a decade or so ago. We were in the UK, my Thai wife was a guest in the country on a limited time visa. She became extremely ill and had to be rushed to hospital. She needed emergency surgery. She was in surgery within an hour of arrival at the hospital. Whilst my wife was in surgery a nurse came and asked me to go into the theatre. My wife's English was plenty good enough to converse and assimilate with the UK locals, it was just not up to the technical directions of the surgeon. I had to translate his instructions on to my wife. The hospital apologized after saying because of the urgency they just did not have enough time to get a translator in. Turned out they could call on Khmer, Lao and Thai language speakers which really impressed me for a hospital in a reasonably rural area. 

 

My overwhelming sorrow in all of this court case fuss is the lack of kindness perceived as being shown to guests and foreigners who live here, many who have contributed their time, money and skills to the betterment of this land, have their lives and families here, and I believe they deserve better. Contrasting to the UK situation we found ourselves in, the emergency surgery was provided free of charge and I am eternally grateful to the NHS for dealing with our case in such a prompt, kind and gracious manner.  How would I have felt if we had been charged substantially more than the locally appraised cost of the surgery - well probably not as positively as I do about the UK is the answer. 

5 minutes ago, jonclark said:

Not from the USA sorry

Section 49  also says no person (Thai) cannot legally overthrow the government, which by your narrow definition of person infers a non Thai can legally and consitutionally overthrow the government as the constitution does not forbid a non Thai from doing this.

Section 49 is talking about all the previous liberties, they can't be used to overthrow the government. 

 

I don't understand your thinking here. Obv a foreigner can NOT overthrow the Thai government.  

 

 

8 hours ago, khunPer said:

That is true - "...good for the nation" - the major question is merely how much more an alien shall pay?

 

Im not sure about that...in a longer perpective, media have a way to bring news quicker to Iceland than to Mae Hong Son this days????

Felt

5 hours ago, pedro01 said:

Makes sense - rather than spending another 100 THB on entry somewhere - leave the family there, fly to Hong Kong, pay more than you would have in Thailand but the same as the locals.

I like to visit other countries besides Thailand. Maybe you don't.

 

I have no family in Thailand.

2 hours ago, recom273 said:

Like I said, I'm sure they are out there .. Some do speak to some degree, but I do find their English ability lacking - not worthy of the using it as an excuse to price gouge. I like the way you use Bumrungrad as a typical example of a private Thai hospital - lol. I would imagine the English requirement to study at Harvard are pretty high. 

 

Where do I live? 1980?? I lived in the deep south of Thailand, and I visited what is considered a reasonably priced independent hospital. Sorry, this is only my experience of 12 years a long way from the VIP treatment of your international hospital.

 

 

I do use International Hospitals - I find that BNH Soi Convent is extremely expensive. My Step Mother got sick when we were in Pattaya and I found Bangkok Hospital there, the prices were eye watering.

 

Bumrungrad though - the prices are pretty reasonable. Bangkok Hospital Petchaburi too. It depends what we need really. Locally we live closer to Samitivej Srinakarin which is private but found Ramkhamhaeng Hospital very good and very cheap - English isn't as good but certainly good enough.

 

Also - one hospital in Minburi is great and inexpensive too. Can't recall the name now - so I won't guess.

But they aren't really that expensive. When my daughter was born at Bumrungrad - the birth package, including CS was about 125,000 Baht - way, way cheaper than private in the UK and a fraction of US prices. It is nowhere near the most expensive - not even close. 

3 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

But they aren't really that expensive. When my daughter was born at Bumrungrad - the birth package, including CS was about 125,000 Baht - way, way cheaper than private in the UK and a fraction of US prices. It is nowhere near the most expensive - not even close. 

One of my daughters was born there. They quoted 29,000 baht which increased to 39k for a cut(doctors there are not so keen on coming out for a natural birth, but she was put into ICU for 3 days without there actually being anything seriously wrong. But what can you say? This increased the bill by over 100%. 

Amazed the case even saw a courtroom. Common practice from zoos to taxis to shags to bribes. 
 

 

41 minutes ago, jonclark said:

Not from the USA sorry

Section 49  also says no person (Thai) cannot legally overthrow the government, which by your narrow definition of person infers a non Thai can legally and consitutionally overthrow the government as the constitution does not forbid a non Thai from doing this.

 

41 minutes ago, jonclark said:

Not from the USA sorry

Section 49  also says no person (Thai) cannot legally overthrow the government, which by your narrow definition of person infers a non Thai can legally and consitutionally overthrow the government as the constitution does not forbid a non Thai from doing this.

But illegally overthrow  a by election chosen gov. can be done seems by a Thai ....on condition a certain amnesty is accompanied with it afterwards i guess ...? ????

All covered by article 49?

8 hours ago, d2b2 said:

Thai courts are disgraceful. The kingdom is failing it’s people by failing to implement judicial reform. Thailand will remain a 3rd world country until it reforms it’s judiciary, government and police, but that is just how those organizations want it to remain.

So same-o same-o

3 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

Can you answer the question?

I am Neeranam's manager. I'm afraid he doesn't do requests - but is available for weddings and Bah Mitzvas

“Knowledge makes men gentle; reason leads to humanity; but prejudices can only eradicate both these dispositions.”

Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de la Brède et de Montesquieu

10 hours ago, webfact said:

the higher rates charged to foreigners who could pay more were good for the nation.

Ripping off foreigners is good for the nation as it turns out.

 

He should send this case to UN and get UN involved and see if another idiot judge uses the same reasoning