Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

"tea Money"...good Or Bad, Advantage Vs Disadvantage

Featured Replies

If it wasn't for tea money there would be no policemen in Thailand.

Good or bad?

There may be good t money and there may be bad t money i just wish that somebody would explain it to the Thais

No hope there methinks

  • Replies 107
  • Views 5.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I also consider bribing oneself out of a police incident such as drunk driving or speeding not to be too bad, because traffic safety is a matter of statistics, not a matter of individual or coincidential situations.

But bribes to allow for doing damage to other people's wellbeing or property are evil in nature.

Drunk driving is nto bad because it is a matter of statistics? I am flabbergasted. Drunk driving skews the statistics, and it does allow for doing damage to other people's wellbeing or property.

When I was a volunteer EMT, 100% of all fatal traffic accidents to which I responded were drinking-related even if the people killed were not always the ones drinking and driving.

As Robblok posted before your post, paying a bribe to get out of a drunk driving charge only encourages people to drive drunk. And "statistically," that will lead to someone getting hurt.

I'm surprised you take such shortcuts in (mis)interpreting my post.

Of course drunk driving is bad!

But being able to bribe out doesn't have much negative effects IMO, because firstly the bribe is already a fine, so there is a punishment.

Second, most people don't have enough money to pay such bribes, especially repeatedly.

So on the whole, drunk driving still gets curbed and 2 or 5% bribing their way out will not affect the statistics much.

First, in Thailand, bribing your way out fo a drunk driving charge is fairly common. On this forum alone, I have read of numerous instances where this has happened.

Second, I doubt that very many people are "curbed" of drunk driving because they had to pay 1,000 baht for a bribe. Whereas in the US, losing your license and paying several thousands dollars in fines and legal fees does have some effect on the people who drink and drive. In Sweden, where the penalties are much more serious, there has been a huge decrease in drunk driving cases.

Third, "will not affect statistics much" infers that at least some people will bribe their way out of a fine, but still drive drunk again. So even if that is a statistical minority, when that small statistic kills someone you love, then it is a pretty significant statistic to you.

I am not sure where I am misinterpreting your post. Both posts diminish the importance of bribing your way out of a drunk driving arrest. I categorical object to such an attitude. I never believe this is an acceptable course of action.

In no way can I condone this happening even just once as the consequences can be just too serious.

I do think the point about buying your way out of a DUI for 100 bht does make some sence, but it's only the low price I have a problem with not the principle of paying your fine on the spot to the cops saving everyone a lot of time and money.

There is a huge difference, though. In Thailand, the "on the spot fine" goes right into the police officer's pocket. In many jurisdictions in the US, and I imagine in other countries as well, the official fine goes into victim compensation funds, traffic safety programs, road work, the courts, etc.

Corruption of any kind, whether in Thailand or elsewhere, is a blight on society and is theft, pure and simple.

Their is no jurisdiction in the US where the fines cover the cost of the Court system it only slightly reduces the taxpayer burden. Courts are not a cash flow positive enterprise giving their profits to those things. All the things you mentioned except a small part of the compensation fund are funded by taxes not fines and come from the general fund of states towns and the federal goverment because the cost to run them is higher than the fines they collect. ..... however I get your point about the cops pocketing the cash.

True, fines do not pay for courts, but they do contribute to court costs as certain percentages of the fines go directly to the courts. Additionally, specific fees such as the blood tests for determining the blood alcohol content come directly from the fine.

A quick Google came up with this case in Indiana:

Here’s how a typical speeding ticket (in this case a ticket from Indiana that we paid though our Traffic Justice Program) is divvied up:

State Courts: $49.00

County Courts: $18.90

City Courts: $2.10

Law Enforcement Fee: $4.00

Jury Fee: $2.00

Highway Work Zone: $0.50 (??)

Auto Record Keeping Fee: $7.00

Document Storage Fee: $2.00

Infractional Judgments: $99.50 The fine!

Public Defense Administration Fee: $3.00

Judicial Insurance Adjustment: $1.00

Judicial Salaries Fee: $18.00: Do you think murderers and rapists pay this fee too?

DNA Sample Processing Fee: $2.00 Very common service for traffic tickets.

Court Administration Fee: $5.00

Total Cost Of Ticket: $214.00

  • Author
We just got my wifes son into a course he wanted to do but didnt think it was possible, hes not the sharpest tool in the shed, until "tea money" became involved. "Welcome aboard, your in son!wai2.gif Krap."

So he gets into the course by paying. Will he be able to complete the course? Will it cost more tea money for him to graduate?

Maybe he will get a job, but there must be a good chance that he will be kicked out when his employers realise that he is a Dumbo

Hes far from a dumbo. He just doesnt like alot of subjects at school which is alot like myself. So, getting him a trade seems logical which once again is alot like myself.
  • Author

If it wasn't for tea money there would be no policemen in Thailand.

Good or bad?

Hmm, Id pick the third choice...ridiculous.
  • Author

So a little bit is tea money,more money is a bribe and a lot of money is corruption.

Seems to me corruption works well for the people who can afford it.

No matter how you call it is a part of life here and no way to get around it,a lot more in your face here compared to farang countries.

No way. Corruption is ripe and "in your face" in heaps of countries outside se asia.

Third, "will not affect statistics much" infers that at least some people will bribe their way out of a fine, but still drive drunk again. So even if that is a statistical minority, when that small statistic kills someone you love, then it is a pretty significant statistic to you.

This is the key for understanding what I was trying to say.

Taking particular cases (i.e. someone dear to me) as a reason is never a good guide for deciding a policy.

First, in Thailand, bribing your way out fo a drunk driving charge is fairly common. On this forum alone, I have read of numerous instances where this has happened.

yes, on this forum, which is not representative of Thai driver population. I would expect most here to be able to pay the fine/bribe.

But how many deadly drunk driving accidents are caused by members of this forum?

In Sweden, where the penalties are much more serious, there has been a huge decrease in drunk driving cases.

Sweden has seen a decrease of everything, except of people leaving the country to go live somewhere else.

The policy has to be designed to crackdown on 95% of drunk drivers causing accidents in Thailand, not concentrate on "bringing to justice" every single case.

Edited by manarak

The policy has to be designed to crackdown on 95% of drunk drivers causing accidents in Thailand, not concentrate on "bringing to justice" every single case.

What's wrong with cracking down on all drunk driving? You have to stop the drunks before they cause accidents.

It is the greatest thing ever IMO.Quick justice no court.on your way beautiful.

It is the greatest thing ever IMO.Quick justice no court.on your way beautiful.

Quick justice? Santika!

It is the greatest thing ever IMO.Quick justice no court.on your way beautiful.

Quick justice? Santika!

I love it especially when you get them down from 20000 to 500

It is the greatest thing ever IMO.Quick justice no court.on your way beautiful.

Quick justice? Santika!

I love it especially when you get them down from 20000 to 500

Today one of the school gardeners had a fatal accident at the school gates - no helmet. Cost him more than 500 baht.

SC

Edit: my brother came off his bike too, once, outside his work, at a substantially greater speed. They cut his helmet off, they cut his leather jacket and jeans off, kept him in hospital for a couple of weeks while they removed a ruptured organ - serves him right for swallowing a wurlitzer, I suppose, and now he's right as rain, though he might have been sensible enough to wear a helmet even if it were not proscribed by law. But there's plenty here daft enough that they rely on the police for their common sense

Edited by StreetCowboy

It is the greatest thing ever IMO.Quick justice no court.on your way beautiful.

Quick justice? Santika!

I love it especially when you get them down from 20000 to 500

Today one of the school gardeners had a fatal accident at the school gates - no helmet. Cost him more than 500 baht.

SC

No helmet

I today 10 guys were in the back of a truck going to work no helmets

The policy has to be designed to crackdown on 95% of drunk drivers causing accidents in Thailand, not concentrate on "bringing to justice" every single case.

What's wrong with cracking down on all drunk driving? You have to stop the drunks before they cause accidents.

Because the whole game is a matter of probabilities and statistics anyway

1- all drunks cannot be stopped because only a tiny fraction of drivers are controlled

2- many different types of "drunks" are caught over the limit. there is a big difference between an occasional drinker tested with 0.6 or 0.7 0/00 coming back from a dinner where he had a glass of wine or beer too much and Somchai the construction worker who gets pissed every second day with his friends for more than 2 0/00 and then drives home semi-asleep in his truck or the professional truck driver who made a habit of driving with a mix of Red Bull, meth and alcohol in his veins.

3- cracking down on everyone until the last extremity creates an atmosphere of fear and stress.

so, better make sure that somchai and the drugged truck driver are cracked down upon rather than the guy coming back from dinne with a glass too much and don't bust a nut if the latter gets off the hook by paying a bribe.

The policy has to be designed to crackdown on 95% of drunk drivers causing accidents in Thailand, not concentrate on "bringing to justice" every single case.

What's wrong with cracking down on all drunk driving? You have to stop the drunks before they cause accidents.

Because the whole game is a matter of probabilities and statistics anyway

1- all drunks cannot be stopped because only a tiny fraction of drivers are controlled

2- many different types of "drunks" are caught over the limit. there is a big difference between an occasional drinker tested with 0.6 or 0.7 0/00 coming back from a dinner where he had a glass of wine or beer too much and Somchai the construction worker who gets pissed every second day with his friends for more than 2 0/00 and then drives home semi-asleep in his truck or the professional truck driver who made a habit of driving with a mix of Red Bull, meth and alcohol in his veins.

3- cracking down on everyone until the last extremity creates an atmosphere of fear and stress.

so, better make sure that somchai and the drugged truck driver are cracked down upon rather than the guy coming back from dinne with a glass too much and don't bust a nut if the latter gets off the hook by paying a bribe.

Whenever i don't have a leg to stand on, I rely on prejudicial stereotypes. I don't know about you, but I am self-aware enough to appreciate the impact one or two pints has on my driving, and I accept that what I consider tolerable in my risk-benefit trade-off when I consider whether to take the car home or get a taxi in the morning, may differ from the opinion of others, including a magistrate.

The bloke who's going to pay a bribe for his extra glass will take the view "I'm going to pay the bribe anyway, so might as well head on to a nightclub, share a bottle of Johnny Walker with the ladies there, and then take the same magic teleport that got me home last week; let's just hope this week there's not some copper stuck under the car when I go out for milk in the morning..." - see? it's not a very convincing argumentative technique, relying on ridiculous stereotypes.

SC

The policy has to be designed to crackdown on 95% of drunk drivers causing accidents in Thailand, not concentrate on "bringing to justice" every single case.

What's wrong with cracking down on all drunk driving? You have to stop the drunks before they cause accidents.

Because the whole game is a matter of probabilities and statistics anyway

1- all drunks cannot be stopped because only a tiny fraction of drivers are controlled

2- many different types of "drunks" are caught over the limit. there is a big difference between an occasional drinker tested with 0.6 or 0.7 0/00 coming back from a dinner where he had a glass of wine or beer too much and Somchai the construction worker who gets pissed every second day with his friends for more than 2 0/00 and then drives home semi-asleep in his truck or the professional truck driver who made a habit of driving with a mix of Red Bull, meth and alcohol in his veins.

3- cracking down on everyone until the last extremity creates an atmosphere of fear and stress.

so, better make sure that somchai and the drugged truck driver are cracked down upon rather than the guy coming back from dinne with a glass too much and don't bust a nut if the latter gets off the hook by paying a bribe.

Whenever i don't have a leg to stand on, I rely on prejudicial stereotypes. I don't know about you, but I am self-aware enough to appreciate the impact one or two pints has on my driving, and I accept that what I consider tolerable in my risk-benefit trade-off when I consider whether to take the car home or get a taxi in the morning, may differ from the opinion of others, including a magistrate.

The bloke who's going to pay a bribe for his extra glass will take the view "I'm going to pay the bribe anyway, so might as well head on to a nightclub, share a bottle of Johnny Walker with the ladies there, and then take the same magic teleport that got me home last week; let's just hope this week there's not some copper stuck under the car when I go out for milk in the morning..." - see? it's not a very convincing argumentative technique, relying on ridiculous stereotypes.

SC

Up to you.

I think people as you describe wouldn't be deterred by high fines and prison anyway.

I can only speak for myself, I don't drive drunk. It may happen that I am occasionally slightly above the legal limit, but that's rare and 1 or 2 0/00 more don't make me a big danger on the road.

Taking a taxi in those cases would just be for avoiding a potential fine, not making a safer trip home, especially because the taxi driver himself may be on drugs. And it's a huge inconvenience to get back the next day to pickup my vehicle. So, yes, I'd happily bribe my way out and wouldn't feel guilty for it one bit.

BTW, zero traffic accidents in 21 years of driving (except one critical fail the first day when learning to drive a motorcycle, but it was without consequence and was more an operation mistake than a traffic accident).

Edited by manarak

The problem is "tea money" can cover so many different situations. We seem to have become fixated with the issue of drunk driving although the OP was asking about situations where it worked or didn't - if i remember that far back correctly..

Personally I would rather it wasn't seemingly such an accepted part of the culture but when it came to pay for a house and land in the GF's name I ended up paying tea money to get an usufruct added at the same time as the transfer was done - purely because the head land office guy was refusing to do it at the same time - he wanted to leave it a week to 10 days. Did not say it could not be done just that he wasn't going to do it there and then even though I had a lawyer there arguing my case. I was not going to be around and wanted it to happen there and then so ended up paying for it with an envelope.

In that instance, as an earlier poster mentioned, it was I suppose a win-win - but if he had been following the law no reason why it should not have happened without the additional "encouragement" and it cost me extra money I had not budgeted for.

I also realise that this just helps the issue permeate more and more but I also feel (rightly or wrongly) that a few farangs resisting the reality aren't going to make a ha'pence worth of difference.

Edited by topt

Because the whole game is a matter of probabilities and statistics anyway

1- all drunks cannot be stopped because only a tiny fraction of drivers are controlled

2- many different types of "drunks" are caught over the limit. there is a big difference between an occasional drinker tested with 0.6 or 0.7 0/00 coming back from a dinner where he had a glass of wine or beer too much and Somchai the construction worker who gets pissed every second day with his friends for more than 2 0/00 and then drives home semi-asleep in his truck or the professional truck driver who made a habit of driving with a mix of Red Bull, meth and alcohol in his veins.

3- cracking down on everyone until the last extremity creates an atmosphere of fear and stress.

so, better make sure that somchai and the drugged truck driver are cracked down upon rather than the guy coming back from dinne with a glass too much and don't bust a nut if the latter gets off the hook by paying a bribe.

Certainly, all drunks can not be stopped. But if there is enough risk of being caught AND charged, there will be less drunks driving, and therefore less deaths and injuries because of drunk drivers.

There is absolutely no difference between an occasional drinker that gets over the limit and kills someone and a professional driver that gets drunk and kills someone.

Cracking down on as many people as possible will make others less likely to drink and drive. It won't stop everyone, but if it stops a few people from drinking and driving, that's got to save a few lives.

Do you really think the guy coming back from dinner with a glass too much has less chance of killing someone than the drugged truck driver? They are both drunk and just as likely to kill someone.

Do you really think the guy coming back from dinner with a glass too much has less chance of killing someone than the drugged truck driver? They are both drunk and just as likely to kill someone.

Obviously the guy getting over the limit by 0.2 0/00 a few times (2 or 3 times) a year has much less risks of causing an accident than the professional driving most of the time for 6 days a week on drugs and alcohol and probably more intoxicated. Plus "professional" needs to be taken with a grain of salt, with that word I simply meant a guy whose job is driving a truck.

Edited by manarak

  • Popular Post

no its wonderful paying someone who is already getting paid your hard earned money to do something he has to do anyway.

everyone loves giving money to theives who have no right to it, love throwing away money, i may go out back and burn some right now.

Do you really think the guy coming back from dinner with a glass too much has less chance of killing someone than the drugged truck driver? They are both drunk and just as likely to kill someone.

Obviously the guy getting over the limit by 0.2 0/00 a few times (2 or 3 times) a year has much less risks of causing an accident than the professional driving most of the time for 6 days a week on drugs and alcohol and probably more intoxicated. Plus "professional" needs to be taken with a grain of salt, with that word I simply meant a guy whose job is driving a truck.

There a lot of people getting over the limit a couple of times a year ... and killing people. They all need to be stopped.

"The accomplice to the crime of corruption is frequently our own indifference."

Bess Myerson

What's wrong with cracking down on all drunk driving? You have to stop the drunks before they cause accidents.

Because the whole game is a matter of probabilities and statistics anyway

1- all drunks cannot be stopped because only a tiny fraction of drivers are controlled

2- many different types of "drunks" are caught over the limit. there is a big difference between an occasional drinker tested with 0.6 or 0.7 0/00 coming back from a dinner where he had a glass of wine or beer too much and Somchai the construction worker who gets pissed every second day with his friends for more than 2 0/00 and then drives home semi-asleep in his truck or the professional truck driver who made a habit of driving with a mix of Red Bull, meth and alcohol in his veins.

3- cracking down on everyone until the last extremity creates an atmosphere of fear and stress.

so, better make sure that somchai and the drugged truck driver are cracked down upon rather than the guy coming back from dinne with a glass too much and don't bust a nut if the latter gets off the hook by paying a bribe.

Whenever i don't have a leg to stand on, I rely on prejudicial stereotypes. I don't know about you, but I am self-aware enough to appreciate the impact one or two pints has on my driving, and I accept that what I consider tolerable in my risk-benefit trade-off when I consider whether to take the car home or get a taxi in the morning, may differ from the opinion of others, including a magistrate.

The bloke who's going to pay a bribe for his extra glass will take the view "I'm going to pay the bribe anyway, so might as well head on to a nightclub, share a bottle of Johnny Walker with the ladies there, and then take the same magic teleport that got me home last week; let's just hope this week there's not some copper stuck under the car when I go out for milk in the morning..." - see? it's not a very convincing argumentative technique, relying on ridiculous stereotypes.

SC

Up to you.

I think people as you describe wouldn't be deterred by high fines and prison anyway.

I can only speak for myself, I don't drive drunk. It may happen that I am occasionally slightly above the legal limit, but that's rare and 1 or 2 0/00 more don't make me a big danger on the road.

Taking a taxi in those cases would just be for avoiding a potential fine, not making a safer trip home, especially because the taxi driver himself may be on drugs. And it's a huge inconvenience to get back the next day to pickup my vehicle. So, yes, I'd happily bribe my way out and wouldn't feel guilty for it one bit.

BTW, zero traffic accidents in 21 years of driving (except one critical fail the first day when learning to drive a motorcycle, but it was without consequence and was more an operation mistake than a traffic accident).

I have to take issue with you here. No matter whether you are slightly over the limit or a lot, any amount decreases your ability to drive, and to think anything else is extremely irresponsible. You may be able to navigate home, but your reflexes will not be the same. When the child runs out in the road in front of you, you may not react quickly enough to avoid him whereas if you were sober, you would be able to do so.

You can say whatever you want, but taking a taxi home would be to make for a safer ride home. But it is for people like you who think you can drive just as well when drunk that the fines are there. Frankly, I don't care if you take a taxi because of a fine or because of common sense, the fact is that you are off the road.

Your professed attitude is really hard to grasp. All your comments about statistics are simply not the case when you consider the study fo statistics, but regardless, you are ignoring the human aspect of what is happening. Statistics may reflect what is happening to the population at large, but it has no relevance to individuals. A person who is injured by a drunk driver is 100% injured. It does nto matter to him that he is only one of a small percentage fo people so injured.

The point you seem to be presenting is that drunk driving is OK because you personally have never caused an accident, if you are not too drunk, and only a small number fo drunks cause accidents. I categorically reject that notion. I would fine and take away the license of any drunk driver, so each and every one caught and so fined is one more in that quest,

If you choose to drink, take a taxi home, period. The "inconvenience" of having to go get your car the next day is far less than the "inconvenience" of causing an accident.

Do you really think the guy coming back from dinner with a glass too much has less chance of killing someone than the drugged truck driver? They are both drunk and just as likely to kill someone.

Obviously the guy getting over the limit by 0.2 0/00 a few times (2 or 3 times) a year has much less risks of causing an accident than the professional driving most of the time for 6 days a week on drugs and alcohol and probably more intoxicated. Plus "professional" needs to be taken with a grain of salt, with that word I simply meant a guy whose job is driving a truck.

Of course someone who breaks the law more often is more likely to cause an accident. But as a per kilometer driven basis, both are the same. The person who drives drunk only once has the same chance of causing an accident on that one trip has the same chance of causing an accident of someone who drives many more times a year drunk on any one specific trip.

We just got my wifes son into a course he wanted to do but didnt think it was possible, hes not the sharpest tool in the shed, until "tea money" became involved. "Welcome aboard, your in son!wai2.gif Krap."

That easy it was....Woohoo!

Although both are dodgy, there is a enormous difference between if the employee took this money and pocketed it, versus the owner/organisation putting this money into their actual revenue. The latter would merely be the school bending their own rules and probably not illegal (unless its a Government facility).

If its the former, and staff take bribes like this for enrolment then I'd find it hard to believe they don't also take bribes to "pass" people who are not good enough. So why would you want to bother with a course that is essentially worthless once the "qualification" is issued? If you can pay to pass what's the point?

Edited by fire and ice

We just got my wifes son into a course he wanted to do but didnt think it was possible, hes not the sharpest tool in the shed, until "tea money" became involved. "Welcome aboard, your in son!wai2.gif Krap."

That easy it was....Woohoo!

Although both a re dodgy, there is a enormous difference between if the employee took this money and pocketed it versus the owner/organisation putting this money into their actual revenue. The latter would merely be the school bending their own rules and probably not illegal (unless its a Government facility).

If the former, and staff take bribes like this for enrolment then I'd find it hard to believe they don't also take bribes to "pass" people who are not good enough - so why would you want to bother with a course that is essentially worthless once the "qualification" is issued? If you can pay to pass what's the point?

It shows that the candidate is committed, and values the qualification, taking it seriously, if they are willing to pay for it. People who expect qualifications just because they are clever and can answer a few questions in an exam devalue the whole education system

SC

Representatives of Pharmaceutical go to doctors in Europe, offer them a two week luxury holiday with the whole family.....

if they prescribe a type of medicine, at least XXXXX packets a month. ( Even if it's a dangerous medicine)

Would you call that tea money?

I prefer 200 baht to cops here, when speeding......w00t.gif

Edited by sirchai

We just got my wifes son into a course he wanted to do but didnt think it was possible, hes not the sharpest tool in the shed, until "tea money" became involved. "Welcome aboard, your in son!wai2.gif Krap."

That easy it was....Woohoo!

Although both a re dodgy, there is a enormous difference between if the employee took this money and pocketed it versus the owner/organisation putting this money into their actual revenue. The latter would merely be the school bending their own rules and probably not illegal (unless its a Government facility).

If the former, and staff take bribes like this for enrolment then I'd find it hard to believe they don't also take bribes to "pass" people who are not good enough - so why would you want to bother with a course that is essentially worthless once the "qualification" is issued? If you can pay to pass what's the point?

It shows that the candidate is committed, and values the qualification, taking it seriously, if they are willing to pay for it. People who expect qualifications just because they are clever and can answer a few questions in an exam devalue the whole education system

SC

Had to read it twice and then got it was sarcasm. Great post.

Problem is because of this type of corruption you always have to wonder did the guy who i want to hire know the law his trade.. or did he just pay someone for his credentials. Hmm i wonder if this Dr bribed someone to pass or really know what he is doing....... Ah what the hell just let him operate on my sick loved one tea money is cultural and i have to accept it.

Representatives of Pharmaceutical go to doctors in Europe, offer them a two week luxury holiday with the whole family.....

if they prescribe a type of medicine, at least XXXXX packets a month. ( Even if it's a dangerous medicine)

Would you call that tea money?

I prefer 200 baht to cops here, when speeding......w00t.gif

That is something that is regulated where i come from, i would call it corruption if it is prescribed when not needed.

tea money....Pure captialism at its best thumbsup.gif

When I was driving on the outside lane of a two lane road, not a highway, for only a short distance because of really bad potholes, I was pulled in by the BIB, who were very pleasant I must say, one of them, smiled at me shook my hand and said in English "300 Baht", I got out of the car, locked it and remained very pleasant, pretended I was phoning, and pointed to the potholes. he then said "you go".

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.