new2here

if i recall correctly, a Thai ID is physically inserted into the ATM, then once read a OTP is sent to the phone registered to that ID A THAI credit card from SELECTED thai banks will also work; I recall that Kasikorn and UOB are credit cards that currently work. i also know that perhaps strangely enough at BBL, their own BBL-issued CREDIT cards don’t work .. So there’s really 3 options: OTP using Thai ID card, Thai credit card from selected thai banks, ATM card from thai bank. clearly #1 isn’t going to be an option for a non-Thai, #2 works for nob-Thais IF they have a CREDIT card from one of the eligible banks, so the best solution is the ATM card

Naturally the exact definition of “alter” can vary from person to person. IMHO, when it comes to passports - I personally take the narrow definition .. that being any change constitutes “altering” .. and that would include the addition, deletion of any stamp, mark or other official act made within the passport itself…

yes. US passport numbers always change .. So, yes, you’ll need to update all kinds of places that have or use it actually as a sort of data point or personal identifier. Bank (for all accounts deposit as well as any credit accounts like credit cards), SSO, Revenue Office, Drivers License (Land Transport), National Credit Bureau (if you have a credit file), D-ticket (if you buy SRT tickets online), some loyalty programs (ie store frequent shopper programs) and any airlines your regularly fly and book with online.

I’ve seen people do this, notably with the older cambodia “sticker” visas - which apparently after some time, the adhesive wears down and the sticker can be removed somewhat easily The only risk - and I cede it’s probably small, but a risk none the less - is that for US passports (and I would reasonably think others as well) it is a violation of law for a person to “… alters any passport…” as per 18 USC 1543. and I think you could make a compelling case that the willful “peeling off” of a previously applied stamp would constitute “altering”. While a foreign official has no jurisdiction to address the matter as such, they can however refuse to accept the passport — ostensibly under the premise that it’s an altered passport - thus not valid. We hear sporadic reports of people being denied aircraft boarding due to passports having “novelty” stamps, again, rendering them altered and now invalid. example: https://www.thesun.co.uk/travel/15131117/passport-stamp-warning-novelty-souvenir-ban/

The part about 5MM compensation… Truth be told, that number looks to be a bit rich… 5MM works out to be about USD142,000 .. if we assume a MW has a working lifespan of say 20 years.. simple straight* math says that’s 7,100 pa or about 591 monthly .. translated into baht (at 1USD=36THB) 21,700 and assuming a straight 20 work days per moth. that’s around 1,063 daily .. Given the current minimum daily wage right now sits a touch over 350 per day, 5MM (again, on a fixed or constant dollar value and using basic math) seems to be rather inflated as far as compensation for >lost economic value< only of the deceased. but again this is speaking ONLY to the value of the deceased future earned income loss and not emotional value to the survivors nor claims of a punitive nature. (not taking into account time value of money not assumed rates of inflation)

Yes. they can.. I don’t say this to be callous but the reality is — that both the economic and social reality - so long as the “numbers” work out to be cheaper for migrant labour to be use versus domestic labour AND there is no material social price to be paid for this kind of tragedy - you bet it will continue If you start by holding on-site construction management *criminally liable*, and levying sizable fines - THEN you’ll see change take place..

I’ve said many times in similar threads.. You start with education (some may legitimately not know XYZ is against the law), step 2 is light enforcement (ie basic fines), step 3 is “the hammer” - you seize, confiscate forfeit to the “state” the vehicles and auction it off with proceeds to the state, of repeat offenders same for repeat offenders of illegal clubs, gambling venues and drunk drivers .. you seize and forfeit any assets used in the commission or derived from the crime in question. Once you start seizing and auctioning off tuk tuks of repeat offenders I’m sure you’ll see some meaningful change.

absolutely agreed. Coming out of C19 the rebound in demand was far faster than anyone would have thought.. and that came on the heels of carriers doing sweeping manpower reductions and aircraft storage - as C19 began to really bite - and the resumption of service meant unwinding furloughed crew and aircraft — both of which take substantial time to complete … so there was a pretty big capacity shortage initially .. so the carriers had to deploy where the demand was the greatest .. and the reality was that Asia - as a whole - was far slower to fully reopen than other parts. Thailand has long been a high volume, but low margin destination and with nominal onward connection traffic .. so it would make sense that it might be one of the last / later destinations that BA would look to either open or restart.

to a large extent i agree. Thai immigration law is written nationally and not provincially .. so what the law is in province A is the same as B and so on.. That said, I DO think that in totality it’s wise to allow some level of discretion or flexibility to allow each office, officer and case to be adjudicated based on the most relevant matters …. While i can certainly see a strong upside for saying “no discretion” and strict and literal adherence to national law, I DO think that leaving some minor wiggle room to allow for special circumstances to exist is wise.: because you’re bound to run not unique case that unfortunately fall outside of the literally law, and without allowing for discretion, might otherwise be a denial. But.. of course the tricky part is how does one police that discretion so that it’s bot abuses or taken too far.

I do think that they should have the same basic right - that is to the presumption of innocence and not be sacked until their guilt is proven.. that said, what often concerns me here is that given how centralized governmental entities are, I think it’s hard - very hard - for a true, unbiased, independent investigation to be done.. even from a public perception basis alone, you can’t really have entity A investigate allegations of malfeasance within entity A.. and even if you call on entity B, given their rather close ties to all the other entities, I’d question if there’s sufficient independence for them to report back what they’ve found without fear or favor.

I agree…. to me, this is where “tipping” kind of got “lost in translation” if you will. The US, in many cases, uses tips as a part of the staff basic/minimum wage — ie they’re paid less (under the otherwise legal minimum) per hour with the expectation that tips, when added to the basic wage, then totals equal to or above the mandated minimum wage. where as in other parts of the world, staff are paid full wage by the employer and tips remain a wholly supplemental component. I also agree that what also gets a bit muddy is the whole “tipping for what?” question. Its fair, to me, to ask if tipping is appropriate if you received the basics - nothing great or in your opinion, above basic - but you did get what you paid for - no more, no less.. is a tip to be expected or given.. fair question. i also agree that, socially speaking, the question of what/where/when is an acceptable or appropriate time to give or even accept a tip, is something that’s less then clear as well. I do think that many of your classic tipping scenarios (ie your table wait staff etc) are well established .. but where is that line drawn? fair question again.

That’s what I was thinking too .. my guess is that as in-seat power is becoming more the norm, that in the not too far future there may be an outright ban on these kinds of power banks be that in checked baggage (as it is now for many carriers) but also in cabin.. True, in-seat power tends to be much more common on larger aircraft (ie more long haul sectors) and less common on short haul fleet types.. but I do think that we might also see it becoming the standard across all fleet types.. and when/if it does become the norm, THEN i could see an outright ban on outside power banks being implemented.

I don’t think it’s that exactly.. Given the pervasiveness of “face” here; this kind of activity is hard to do.. no one wants to be the the guy to report to their boss on someone else’s failures… so I think he’s kind of got no other viable choice but to come in person and see .. What I somewhat worry about is IF the hammer starts to fall on the senior staff for failing to meet standards, that the senior staff then in turn take that out on junior staff - who in turn might then take it out on the passengers.. kind of how “bad news” tends to flow downhill.

Here’s my take.. I don’t really like so-called dual pricing.. but I acknowledge that it exists in some areas of the thai economy and isn’t an expressly prohibited practice under law - and also exists in other countries as well. I also acknowledge that the increase from 120 to 200 is, as a percentage, quite steep.. however, I must also acknowledge that even at 200, it is, on a relative basis, still cheap when compared to haircuts in other more “western” countries.. and yes, it’s also fair to recognize that prices don’t exist in a vacuum in that wages also play into the level of prices. However, for me, one thing I’ve long remembered is that nothing grows out slower than a bad hair cut… so.. in my mind, since I don’t get a cut all that often (for me it’s once every other week) IF you like the quality of his/her cut and you’re happy with it, it just might be worthwhile to stay with him/her, pay the B80 difference — and consider that like insurance against a bad cut had you risked it and gone somewhere new.. Just my take on it

I’m of two minds.. I agree that legitimate “whistle blowing” is a good thing as it can often uncover misdeeds that otherwise wouldn’t be uncovered or take much longer to discover and potentially cause much more harm.. and legitimate whistle blowing should continue to be legally protected… On the other hand, I am ALSO of the mindset that deliberate disclose of legitimate state secrets - and yes, I do believe that state entities can and do have legitimate secrets that deserve legal protection- should be a crime and punished severely. So, I guess where is the line between the two - when does otherwise legitimate whistleblowing become espionage or disclosure of protected state secrets?