aidenai Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) ^ So that's a 'No, I cannot show any legislation that overrides the Working of Aliens Act which clearly states that those here for the benefit of education (which is clearly all full-time teachers) do not need a work permit' then. Okay, gotcha. In a same way that you cannot prove that with 6) as a person who performs duties or mission for the benefit of education, culture, art, sports or other activities as may be prescribed by the Royal Decree, foreign teachers in educational institutions in Thailand are meant. However, there are the "Ministerial Regulation Application for and issuing of work permits and declaring employment of foreign workers B.E. 2554" and the documentations "WP1" and "WP5" that describe the requirements for foreign teachers to Thailand. This all cross-linked with the requirements set by Immigration through Police Order 777/2551 and 305/2551. Of course it's your right to think, the provincial Labour Offices and the Department of Employment, Office of the Foreign Workers Administration (work permit) are wrong in implementing the Working of Alien Act BE 2551 (AD 2008). Edited March 25, 2013 by aidenai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario2008 Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Chainat and Leeds are spot on and just quoting what the law says. as a person who performs duties or mission for the benefit of education, culture, art, sports or other activities as may be prescribed by the Royal Decree That does not mean teachers, the words duties or mission are the key factor here. It is hard to say what it exactly means, but you must think in terms of participants for Olympic games etc. that can be exempt by Royal Decree. And only with a Royal Decree are they exempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morakot Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 not everything is written into law with its details of precedent as clearly as everyone would like. That might be an impossible task, even in non-common law jurisdictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morakot Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Okay, gotcha. Better to ask for a change of venue for an adversarial trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oompie69 Posted March 25, 2013 Author Share Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) Chainat and Leeds are spot on and just quoting what the law says. as a person who performs duties or mission for the benefit of education, culture, art, sports or other activities as may be prescribed by the Royal Decree That does not mean teachers, the words duties or mission are the key factor here. It is hard to say what it exactly means, but you must think in terms of participants for Olympic games etc. that can be exempt by Royal Decree. And only with a Royal Decree are they exempt. They have an opinion based on their interpretation of the meaning behind the words used in sub-paragraph 6. Do they have a ruling or other way of substantiating their opinion ?.If not.Once again only an opinion and not a fact. The last part of the sentence states that other exclusions can be added to this sub-paragraph by means of a Royal Decree.The first part of the sentence has already been enacted into law . Edited March 25, 2013 by oompie69 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 This topic will now be closed. The point is rather simple, most teachers under most circumstances need a work permit to teach legally. //Closed// 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts