Jump to content

ThaiHome

Board Sponsors
  • Posts

    3934
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by ThaiHome

  1. Please explain if you were getting stamped in for 90 days based on Non-Imm "O" visa how you stayed in Thailand over 90 days requiring the 90 day address report? TH
  2. If you got stamped in for 90 days each time you entered, why would you have an address report slip stapled in passport? Post a picture of what you are calling your "retirement visa". It has already been made clear to those that understand the process that what you are calling "stamped in for 90 days" is in fact the 90 days address report and not your permission to stay stamp. TH
  3. Remake of the Three Stooges. We got up left after about 15 minutes. It was downright painful to watch TH
  4. If you have an address report slip in your passport ( Which you claimed to have), you had an extension. There is no other reason for having one as you only need to do the report if you stay in the country over 90 days and the only way to do that is to have an extension. Here is an address report. You do indeed appear to now have a real non-Imm “B†visa in your passport issued by a consulate outside Thailand. They are always a one page paste in. I posted an example earlier. When you entered back into Thailand, you received a 90 day permission to stay stamp. (See the photo I posted earlier). The visa is now meaningless (unless it is a multi entry, again see my photo an note the "M" under type). Forget about it, it has no value anymore. When you get the work permit (and assuming that it is for one year) you will then go to Immigration and get a one year extension on the permission to stay stamp mentioned earlier (see photo). The date on that will be 365 days from the date you just entered. You should also go ahead and get a multi re-entry permit (see photo) . It will also have the same “until date†as the extension and you should put the number of your re-entry permit on your entry cared when you re-enter after the next time you leave. Immigration is completely logical and the process is straightforward assuming you have the correct documents. It is you that does not understand the process mainly caused by using the wrong terminology for the various entries immigration makes in your passport. What you blame immigration for is actually your problem, they have done everything correctly (and have changed nothing in the process) and you don’t even know it, and apparently you don’t want to, you would rather go on with your misunderstanding that allows you to blame them. TH
  5. Now I see what your misunderstanding is about. The 90 day address report has nothing to do with your permission to stay stamp or your extension. It is a completely separate process that requires you to report your address if you stay in the country for more than 90 days. It is not how long you are allowed to stay in the country, and missing a report is not an “overstayâ€, it is missing a report and incurs a 2,000 baht fine when you go to the next report if you haven’t left and reset the address report clock. When you leave the country exit Immigration doesn’t care about the address report and they will not fine you if you are passed the date on the slip. In fact, you can take the slip out of your passport before you leave, and they don't care. As it appears you have been to immigration about switching over to a extension based on employment, I would bet you got a 7 day extension on the expiring 21 June permission to stay stamp which is why you did not get an overstay fine when leaving on the 24th. Look in your passport and I bet there is another permitted to stay until stamp with a 28 June date on it. TH
  6. To this day our company does not allow domestic flights on Garuda. The international divison has gotten off the list. Aeroflot is completly forbiden. TH
  7. Did you even read my post? If you got the extension, your "Visa" is meaningless. They will only stamp you in until the date on the re-entry permit. If indeed you are entering on a visa and getting 90 day stamps, all reports are they will still give 90 days regardless of the expiry date of the visa (which in not the re-entry permit). TH
  8. In 2010, immigration added a check for Stage 3 syphilis to the medical form. The only check for that is blood test. Immigration does not required the results of the test to be attached and still accepts the signed off form alone. Some clinics and all hospitals will not sign the form with the blood test. You can still get many of the small independent clinics to sign off without the blood test. TH
  9. You missed the point. Forget about the visa. With a re-entry permit the visa is meaningless. Immigration will only give you a permission to stay stamp date that matches the “until date†on the re-entry permit. That is what a re-entry permit does, it keeps the date of your current permission to stay stamp the same when you re-enter. Once you get an extension (and re-entry permit to keep it “alive every time you leave and return) the visa no longer means anything. If you are staying on 90 day permission to stay stamps why do you have a re-entry permit? The only reason is because you have a one year extension of an earlier permission to stay stamp. Here is my history back in 2001, the first time I worked in Thailand I have shown the visa I got in KL earlier. On that visa I entered on 17 Feb 2002 receiving a stamp (1) giving me permission to stay until 17 May (90 days). I left on 1 May 2001, returning on 3 May getting another 90 days until 31 July (2). I left again on 9 Jul 2001, returning on 10 July getting 90 days until 7 Oct (3). Remember that 10 July entry, it is important. On Sept 10 I applied for a one year extension (based on getting a work permit). At that point I was given an “Under consideration stamp†good until 10 Oct. (4). On Sept 12, I was granted the extension and was given a new permission to stay one year from the that 10 July entry (5). At the same time, I received a re-entry permit that allowed me to leave and return, receiving a permission to stay stamp of 9 Jul every time I came back in. On 11 Jun 2002, one month before my 9 Jul 2002 extension expired, I applied for another year extension, and again received it with date new date of 9 Jul 2003 and obtained another re-entry permit with a “until date†of 9 Jul 2003. Note that at this date 11 Jun 2002, my Non-Imm “B†visa had expired on 11 Feb 2002 but I have permission to stay until 9 Jul 2003. The visa means nothing. I received another extension in Jun 2004, but left for 2 years. I returned in 14 Oct 2004 on a one year multi entry Non-Imm “Oâ€. I have been here ever since, receiving extensions (based on work permit) that have expired on 13 Oct ever since. That visa expired in Aug 2005, almost 7 years ago. For you to say you have both a non-imm visa and a re-entry permit and you are getting 90 day permsion to stay stamps each time you come in does not make sense. Have you been getting a new visa(outside Thailand) each year, even though you have an extention? What number do you put on the entry card? The visa number or the re-entry permit number? I think you need some professional help. I recommend Steve at Indo-Siam. He has people that will take good care of you and his charges are very reasonable. I apologize for the long post on this, but I tend to get frustrated with people when discussing this as they often are thoroughly confused and refuse to understand how the system works. They just can't seem to get past the fact the visa is meaningless once you get an extension and re-entry permit. Then they blame immigration for being screwed up. Immigration is a pain, and the paper work is amazing, but it all makes sense if you understand the process. The only way I know to explain it is too show pictures and hope they can follow it. TH
  10. The young man is just a visitor and freely admits that. He is likely blissfully unaware that he is violating the employment laws. Not sure where the market is located, but as long as nobody makes a complaint he will be ok. The TV producers are likely well aware of the problems they could cause by showing him on the program. Appears to me that is part of the ongoing joke they are having at his expense. I agree that his ignoring the employment laws is wrong and makes a mockery of those of us that work legally. That is why when he gets busted I will have no sympathy for his plight, though I’m sure he will feel persecuted and will complain about it to all that will listen and on some Thai forum. TH
  11. I think you all are confusing the re-entry permit issued to keep an extension of a permission to stay stamp with a visa. It is very difficult to discuss this because people use the wrong terminology and do not understand the process. Without seeing the actual pages and stamps in the passports it is impossible to show them what they actually have. If you have a non-Imm “O or B†visa and enter before the “Date of Expiry†on it they will give you a 90 day permission to stay stamp regardless of the “Date of Expiryâ€. Here is visa. It is a Non Imm “B†multi entry good for one year issued by the KL embassy. If you enter with only this in your passport you get a 90 day permission to stay stamp regardless of the expiry date of the visa. A non-Imm “O†is identical and you get 90 days the same. After entering on the above visa and getting a 90 day permission to stamp, you can then go to immigration and based on getting a work permit, you can extend that permission to stay stamp for one year (from original entry). You can also extend based on marriage or being over 50 (both with income or money in the bank). The process of getting an extension is identical and it doesn’t matter if you have originally entered on a Non imm “B†or “Oâ€. You can still get a one year extension based on meeting the requirements above. Now that you have a one year extension and new permission to stay stamp good for a year, you need to get a re-entry permit in order to leave the country and be able to return keeping that same persmission to stay stamp date. Here a re-entry permit. It is not a visa. Note that is says “re-entry permitâ€. It also has a date “Valid until 9 July 2002. That date is my extended permission to stay date. It is not the expiry date of my visa. The expiry date of my visa (shown above) is now meaningless. When you return you put the number (blacked out) on the entry card. The immigration officer then finds the page with re-entry permit and gives you a permission to stay stamp that much the Valid utill date on the re-entry permit. If I stay inside the country for 90 days, a report of address form must be filed with immigration. You do not have to go yourself. This is not renewing an extension or permission to stay stamp. It is simply a report of your current address. When I leave and re-enter, immigration will give me a permission to stay stamp of 9 Jul 2002. Here are several such stamps. Note that on one I entered on 4 Apr 2002 and the officer wrote in “until 9/Jul/02†on the other I arrived on 23 May 2002 and the officer again wrote “until 9/Jul/02â€. When the 9 Jul 2002 date came close, I went to immigration and got another extension, another permission to stay stamp that was now 9 Jul 2003 and another re-entry permit with an “until date†of 9 Jul 2003. Please note, this is the process for a Non imm “O or B†visa. An “O-A†visa is completely different, though it looks identical to the visa in the first image. It just has “O-A: in the type field. For that type of visa you do not go to immigration (except for 90 day address reports). The immigration officer will give you a permission to stay that is one year from that date, regardless of the expiry date shown on the visa. With an “O-A†visa you can stay almost two years without going to immigration for an extension by leaving and returning just before the visa expires. I hope this helps explain the process and what I think happened to both cavanami and mekong. They did not have visas, but had re-entry permits with specific "until dates" and when they entered immigration gave them a permission to stay stamp that matched that. TH
  12. Go to link for pictures. Mutiny on the ‘Death Railway’Published by Andrew Drummond on June 17th, 2012 in General News 5 Comments, 769 views since 29th May 2012 From Andrew Drummond IN BANGKOK (click here for) Mail on Sunday – June 17 2010 THE prisoners of war were at breaking point. All day long they had been kept at a Thai railway marshalling yard in the tropical heat, covered in grime, drenched in sweat, prodded and pushed by Japanese guards shouting from the tops of cattle trucks that the prisoners were expected to board. The wagons were there to transport them to the infamous Death Railway running from Thailand to Burma – but the prisoners couldn’t take any more. Ignoring shouts of ‘Wait’ and ‘Hold on’ they walked off . . . the film set. It was the last day of shooting on The Railway Man, a film starring Oscar-winners Colin Firth and Nicole Kidman. Based on the book of the same name by British war veteran Eric Lomax, it is an account of how he came to terms with his treatment by Japanese torturers in Thailand 70 years ago. The young and old Eric Lomax played by Jeremy Irvine and Colin Firth And just as it had affected the real Second World War prisoners on the Burma-Siam railway – also the subject of David Lean’s 1957 Oscar-winner The Bridge On The River Kwai – the tropical heat, lack of food and relentless orders were too much for MANY OF the 100 extras playing British victims of Japanese brutality on set in Bangkok. MOST just walked off, leaving only 17 Iranians and a handful of backpackers to complete the shooting in the Bangkok darkness and production company officials complaining about ‘agitators’.] The mutinous extras complained that many of them started work at 6.30am yet were not fed until 5pm when they were given a small, COLD dish of boiled rice with a tiny serving of chicken curry. (FOR THOSE WHO COULD STAND IT, THE SAME MEAL HAD BEEN AVAILABLE AT BREAKFAST!) In return, they got 1,800 Thai baht for a 13-hour day (£36.42 per day or £2.80 an hour). CONFRONTATION WITH RALF EISENMANN The last straw came with an announcement by German production manager Ralf Eisenmann that overtime would be paid at just 200 baht (£4) an hour and the extras would get just half that for transport home after midnight. It made even the most dedicated of the extras unwilling to continue despite pleas for co-operation by managers, who, they said,told them that the film’s budget had been blown heavily in Britain. Fortunately for the film-makers, enough extras in British PoW uniforms remained to complete the final scene,which onl required 20 of the 70 available. The Railway Man is the story of Lomax, a Scottish officer in the Royal Signals who was tortured by the Japanese Kempeitai military police after being taken prisoner in Singapore in 1941 and sent to work on the Death Railway. The trauma affected him for most of his life and he was treated by the Victims of Torture foundation. Eventually he found peace after tracking down the Kempeitai interpreter, Nagase Takashi, (right) who was at all his interrogations and beatings. The mutiny in Bangkok is unlikely to have any effect on the way the industry treats extras in Thailand. Film companies come to Thailand for its cheap labour and they pick up extras to play foreigners in films by word of mouth, or through leafleting bars. Tom Stanton, from Peterborough, was one of those who refused to do the overtime. He lives in Thailand, making a living through modelling and advertising work, both of which are better paid than the film indusrty. He said: ‘Most of the people here earn much more money from other jobs. But if they’re not busy, then they’ll do this kind of extra work as you get to meet a good group of people – who you only see on films – and it’s usually a good craic.’ ‘I’m surviving on 200 baht per day so an hour’s overtime will last me a whole day. I might even have a beer!’ he said. The Railway Man is due for release next year. The producer and co-writer of the film Andy Paterson accepts that soem extras threatened to go home but blames this on agitation. He said that there had beem more than enought extras willing to work over time. “The extras came back day after day and had a great time..I know my productions inside out and take great pride in the way we treat people. “The one journalist we allowed to visit set in Thailand was the Daily Mail’s Baz Bamigboye. He declared our set to be the happiest he had ever seen. †. ARE THEY TAKING THE PITH? BRITON Andrew Chant, a freelance photographer in Bangkok, was an extra for two days. Here he describes the conditions on set: “I HAVE to salute the extras on this film because the conditions were awful – with a standard 13-hour day in blinding tropical heat and a rate of pay I’ve not seen since summer farm work as a teenager. “On the first day I left home at 5.45am and did not get back until after 8pm – without a chance for a shower and fed with only one dish of rice and pork. In the afternoon, a Thai woman who was playing a railway station bystander had collapsed in the heat and was treated by medical staff. It was during one of more than 20 takes of a scene on a platform at Bangkok’s main train station. “At the end of the day we were forced to stand in rows and allowed to go into the changing area, ten at a time, to collect our own clothes. “At 8.15am the next day, I was given the same khaki uniform, unwashed from the day before. It was still drenched with sweat. They agreed to give me a dry shirt when I complained. “It must have been even worse for the ‘Japanese guards’, who were placed on top of the trains for hours. There had been rumblings all day about the conditions and pay, which had already been cut from an initial promise of 2,000 baht (£40.47) to] 1,800 (£36.42). “Before my second day was due to finish, the production team tried to select who they needed for the last take, but almost everybody walked off the set and they were left with a bunch of Iranians and Chris Ashford, who said he was getting by in Bangkok on 200 baht a day. “Back at the changing area, I had to get help from two Thais to peel the shirt off my back. Again there were no showers so we had to put clean clothes on top of filthy bodiesâ€.
  13. From my limited knowledge and what I have read, it sure sounds like some sort of chemical poisoning. It could be from an incorrectly prepared puffer fish. I read that poorly or incorrectly process cassava chips can contain dangerous levels of cyanide. Though that sounds unlikely as you would think that several people would have gotten sick and/or died. Personally, I think the most likely reason is a reaction to a pesticide used in the room at way too high level. You do have to wonder if that is the case, how the girls were able to stay in the room for long enough to get that sick with the smell. Every pesticide I have been exposed smelled very strong and you would think they would have complained about that. Unless they were too drunk to notice and just passed out until they got sick and then were too weak to get out or seek help. The Thai authorities will undoubtedly try to minimize this as much as possible, just authorities in virtually every tourist place all over the world does. It is a very tragic story. Dying in an accident like this appears to be has to be the sadest things. TH
  14. The Bangkok Pundit has an article that discusses the actual wording of the proposed amendments to section 291. According to his translation there is wording in the amendments that explicating forbid changing the system of government from a constitutional monacrch The amendments are actually broader than Section 291(1) as not only do they not allow the effect of changing the democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State or changing the form of State, but they also do not allow the draft to the amend provisions in the Chapter on the King – which is Chapter II of the Constitution and which deals with the role of the King, the role and selection of the Privy Council, the Regent, and succession. There is no evidence in the amendments of a threat to “overthrow the constitutional monarchyâ€. They specifically prohibit it. His analysis of why the court accepted the petitions and what they will likely rule …The Court in its defence did not actually state what evidence of a threat there was. They have just said people said there was a threat so we would look into that. Based on the evidence presented, and the actual wording of the amendments is the most relevant, there is no evidence of a threat to overthrow the monarchy. Unless there is some no evidence introduced – exactly what is even hard to imagine – it will be very difficult for the court to find an argument to stop the amendments, let alone, do something beyond that like dissolving Puea Thai and banning its executives. The court then is much more likely to (a) either dismiss the petitions, or ( look for a face-saving move, such as, require a more strongly worded guarantee. This then provides the rationale for the court accepting the petition in the first place (and hence avoiding criticism of the court for delaying the amendments). It would mean we have additional delays in the amendments which was the whole point of the entire exercise in the first place. The government is then put in a position of defying an actual decision of the court – which is different from an actual order – as opposed to complying and there only be a further delay.* The easier thing to do for the government then is to comply…. As I had not seen anything on the actual wording, I was incorrect in my assumption the amendment did not have wording limiting what the CDA could do. I was correct that the the court issued the injunction to give them time to review the amendment and answer the question raised by the petitions. I also said, this is just a delaying tactic, there is little that can be done by the opposition to stop the passage. TH
  15. The uplifts from base salary for working in such places usually is around 20-40%. The base salary is going to be well over 100k USD a year for an experienced person. Working at a camp in West Africa would be 35% at 8 weeks on 2 weeks off. A camp in Saudi is 23% with same rotation. The other big contributor to big paycheck when working in a camp is the work week is usually 60 hours or more. TH
  16. ^ I would skip the jackets, but otherwise pretty close... TH
  17. Dress pants and shirt is not needed unless you intend to go the Le Normandie or someplace similar. Pressed casual slacks and short sleeve tucked in shirt with casual loafer type shoes are sufficient. I believe it is referred to as “business casualâ€. If it is a more informal place, you can get away with shorts as long as they are pressed and reach to just above the knee. No cargo or fisherman type. It helps considerably if they are name brand. TH
  18. Curious how you know, in advance, that the person will not be more skilled and just highly paid? TH
  19. The drafting process for the 1997 Constitution was always to come with a entirely new constitution outside the national assembly and in an atmosphere that was nothing like the divineness that permeates today’s politics. There was no elephant in the room such as Thaksin represents today, pulling the strings of his Shin Corp subsidiary political party and democracy movement with the single agenda to get his money back. The conclusion that PTP backing off forces the Court "to address the Charter Bill and publicly explain their reasoning" is illogical. By issuing the injunction the court was always going to have to address the petitions. That was the reason for the injunction, to give them time to review and make a ruling. Any ruling they make on the petitions has always had to be accompanied by an explanation. How does PTP backing off from ignoring the injunction change that? Then from the non sequitur that backing off from the confrontation with the court forces them address the issue you come up with another one. "The yellows and and Dems have been out maneuvered again". It appears that Thaksin is the one that has been "been out maneuvered" and has been forced to back off his single minded agenda, at least for now. I agree, let's do get serious and we can start with you actually addressing the questions I raised rather than continuing with your non sequiturs and spurious attacks on the Democrats. Why are constitutionally issues with whatever the CDA comes up with not reviewed by the Constitution Court but by the President of the National Assembly. If the intent was to only make changes to the Senate or do away with the party dissolution sections, those could be addressed by amendments made under the current section 291, why do they need a CDA to make these changes? What else is on the agenda for what in the current political climate will undoubtedly be a thoroughly stacked CDA? What would you expect a "truly democratic opposition" to do to stop the changes they oppose, such as giving Thaksin amnesty and returning his money? Is sitting on your hands quietly in Parliament while the democratic process is shredded on the orders and behest of a single person democratic and would meet your approval? Is going the court somehow undemocratic? Or are you just indulging in an instinctive, knee jerk attadck on anything that is done by Thaksin’s opponents? TH
  20. Let me say this right now, none of these comments in anyway imply that SJ is anything but a really nice guy. Several years back we had a guy working in our office, a really nice guy that everyone like a lot. He just wasn’t all there all the time. His stories of his adventures in Bangkok, though deadly serious to him, were the subject of much amusment to all of us, and he took it well. When it came time for his home leave and a trip back to the US, the consensus was it would be best if we could put a sign on a string around his neck that said “I’m Larry XXXXX, please return me to Bangkok†SJ's stories remind me of Larry. TH
  21. I’m sorry and I realize we are suppose to be nice around here, but to me, it those just look like excuses that are laying blame on others, in this case, Thai people in general not being able to produce enough “good†programmers. You have already acknowledged that there are “good†Thai programmers but say they are in such short supply that they get to choose who they work for and they have not chosen your company. Instead of blaming Thais in general for that, isn’t there actually a reason those “good†Thai programmers don’t choose your company and not fixing those reasons will eventually cause your company to disappear. Again, that is the free market at work which you don’t seem to want to understand. What I hear you saying is your company is too cheap and/or narrow/small minded to make it attractive for “good†programmers to come work for them. Has little to do with Thai people in general only specifically your management/owners. TH
  22. I don’t think I have met 3 people in 10 years living in Thailand and that have been robbed of their cash and cc’s. Meet several that have lost them. TH
  23. No, you apparently did not understand the quote. It is a exactly a problem with salary. You simply have to pay more then what the skilled person is now being paid to get them to work for you. I believe that is known as supply and demand setting the price. TH
  24. As is usual, you have missed the point because you refuse to use the facts or do any analysis of them, instead resorting to inaccurate hyperbole based on what you have been told is the issue by a biased reporting. The “Charter Bill†being considered does not have a provision to change the Senate to 100% elected or any other such changes. All it is doing is changing article 291 that deals with how the constitution can be changed. They are following section 291 to make this change. Again, the amendment being proposed sets up an alternate way to make changes via a Constitutional Drafting Assembly (CDA). There are no limits to what the CDA can come up with; including an entirely new constitution, which for some PTP and UDD factions is the announced intent. This is the exact same process that was used n drafting the 1997 Constitution which replaced the 1991 version by a vote of the National Assembly (not a national referendum). Personally I don’t see it doing away with constitutional monarchy system, but there are no guarantees that it won’t and in the amendment such constitutionally issues with whatever it comes up with is not reviewed by the Constitution Court but by the President of the National Assembly. Hopefully, even you can see why the opposition to Thaksin and his wholly owned political party and so called democracy movement are worried about what will come out of this new CDA and how it could be ramroded through. PTP could easily deal with these issues by making changes in the amendment to address them, but they have to date refused to do so and have overridden any debate about it. If the intent was to only make changes to the Senate or do away with the party dissolution sections, those could be addressed by amendments made under the current section 291. Why do they need a CDA to make these changes? What else is on the agenda for what will undoubtedly be a thoroughly stacked CDA? TH
  25. Stick had the storey on the Aussie throwing money around two weeks ago. He is not shy to tell anyone who cares to listen that he crashed his car and killed his wife and either killed or very seriously injured his child. He has photos of the aftermath of the accident in his mobile phone which he proudly shows strangers, gloating how the accident resulted in a $AUD 2 million insurance payout! That's 60 million baht in real money and he seems to be hell-bent on burning through it as fast as he can. In just 3 months he has already burned through millions and millions of baht. TH
×
×
  • Create New...