ท่านเกี่ยวข้องหรือมีความเกี่ยวข้องกับบุคคลที่มีส่วนเกี่ยวข้องกับการฟอกเงิน หรือให้การสนับสนุนทางการเงินแก่การก่อการร้าย (ทั้งในประเทศ หรือต่าง ประเทศ) หรือไม่

[ถ้า)มี (โปรดระบุ) ______________________________________________

Could there be a sillier question ever asked on a bureaucratic document?

VOCAB

เกี่ยวข้อง connected/related

ฟอกเงิน money laundering

สนับสนุน support

ก่อการร้าย terrorism

ระบุ specify

It's not so strange I don't think.

I seem to recall on flights completing immigration forms for the USA and The Gambia (West Africa). I am almost certain that they ask you if you are a terrorist or have any connections to same!

I always chose to say no.

I bet some people tick 'yes' as some kind of joke, which backfires spectacularly!

Requesting a declaration that someone is not involved in terrorism or money laundering is one thing, but giving them the option to choose 'Yes' and then asking "Please Specify' :lol: just strikes me as an example of a document writer slavishly following a form ('genre') while rather having lost sight of the meaning of the question.

Still, what do I know. I posted it because it made me laugh out loud (and I thought the vocab might be of interest to others!).

Cheers

Sw

I bet some people tick 'yes' as some kind of joke, which backfires spectacularly!

I remember an Australian guy on entering the UK on a flight was asked the routing question when having his luggage searched, "Do you have any firearms or explosives Sir?" He thought it would be a laugh if he said "yes, I have a bomb". It was about 8 weeks after 9/11 and his feet didn't touch the ground!!!!

Requesting a declaration that someone is not involved in terrorism or money laundering is one thing, but giving them the option to choose 'Yes' and then asking "Please Specify' :lol: just strikes me as an example of a document writer slavishly following a form ('genre') while rather having lost sight of the meaning of the question.

Still, what do I know. I posted it because it made me laugh out loud (and I thought the vocab might be of interest to others!).

Cheers

Sw

Sorry Sw; you are right, it made me chuckle too. Thank you for the post

Lying on such forms can be dangerous.

Aren't most older American citizens obliged to answer 'yes'? The US government financed Afghan Mujahideen, and not every country excludes sovereign states' actions from the definition of terrorism.

Supporting the UK's policy on Iraq between the Gulf War Parts 1 and 2 seems to meet the UK's definition of terrorism. However, there's no financing element there that I'm aware of.

Richard.

While totally off the topic of this thread ;

This post reminds me of a form which made the rounds on my soi during the beginnings of the Red Shirt protests.

Obviously it was circulated by those pesky ‘other color shirts’ , and the red shirts didn't really see the humor in it .

Still as thai forms go, it’s quite funny .

Here’s a Jpeg of it;

Requesting a declaration that someone is not involved in terrorism or money laundering is one thing, but giving them the option to choose 'Yes' and then asking "Please Specify' :lol: just strikes me as an example of a document writer slavishly following a form ('genre') while rather having lost sight of the meaning of the question.

The question may well be asked because making a disprovable 'no' answer is an offence in its own right, giving the authorities a legal weapon aqainst the form-filler. Many current definitions of terrorism make armed rebellion terrorism, and many types of connection to its financing are possible. Consider these links:

(a) Paying a 'revolutionary tax' to a terrorist organisation.

( Being a customer of such a person.

If in these categories, can you safely answer 'no'?

I'm not sure I get the point of your question, Richard, I suppose its political of some sort.

The point of the thread was to set a 'puzzle' for intermediate readers to work out the meaning, with a little laugh at the end. The question 'Could there be a sillier question on a bureaucratic document?' was meant to be rhetorical and to stimulate interest in figuring out the meaning of the Thai language.

I have no doubt there are all sorts of serious issues revolving around the broad topic of terrorism, funding and our individual culpability. Though personally I think most such arguments are hugely spurious, that's undoubtedly a debate not only for another thread, but also another forum.

On the other hand, I did find tod's jpeg quite an entertaining language puzzle to solve, too. Thanks for that, tod.

I'm not sure I get the point of your question, Richard, I suppose its political of some sort.

It's only political in so far as I think some definitions are drawn too wide. Think about the accusations and counter-accusations of terrorism being flung about on News Clippings. I'm pretty sure come of the contributors have contributed financially to PAD - and I wouldn't be surprised if some have contributed financially to the UDD, though I can't remember anyone saying they'd contributed financially.

One used to get a better exchange rate if one brought in a few thousand pounds worth of £50 notes and had the right contacts - was that a connection with money laundering? My prejudices said yes.