Guest Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 Just a few thoughts. The purpose of governments is to HELP their citizens. This is done by building roads, providing schools, providing courts, providing police, providing a large assortment of 'welfare' type products. The governments purpose is to serve the people - not the people serve the government . We pay taxes with the prospect that money will be spent for the benefit of all the citizens and not just to the benefit of the government. Therefore embassies should provide some services for its citizens and citizens should expect some of those services to be of a 'welfare' nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elef Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 Hi MM, that's theory and all will forget that the day after the election day. elef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 Not really theory. If you believe it is a theory then you will pay the taxes and never question what happens to the money. But if you believe the government is suppose to serve the people - then you will ask for accountability. Why there is no accountability is that almost nobody questions their government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carew66 Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 Outside the specifics of this thread - I'm ambivalent as to the fate of this chap - I agree with MM's statement above. He's right you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 Quite an interesting discussion going on here. Specially about what an Embassy should do or not in the case of one of its nationals. Let me shed some light on this. First of all it's not the Embassy but the consular office within the Embassy that is responsible for the wellbeing of its nationals abroad. But there are rules. They may vary from country to country, but mostly the lines are quite similar for EU and American consular offices. Consular offices will assist when requested to do so. This may be by the person himself, immediate family, or the authorities of the country for which the consular office is responsible (this may be several countries). Consular assistance is never given without a specific request, unless it concerns a minor. Let's go to the case in question. A foreigner, most prabably British is found in despair on Sukhumvit. Apparently he's not requested any assistance from any consular office and he's not been arrested by the Thai authorities either. He's over 18 years of age. Is there a task for the consular office? Most certainly not yet. Should he go back to his home country? that's a question only he can answer. But let's say that the consular office, without being ask is going to help, or better said, going to force consular assistance upon him. There will be several problems. He may be ill and needs a doctor, or he may be mentally disturbed and in need of a psychiatrist. Neither service will be available at a Embassy. So, is the Embassy going to forcibly move him to a hospital? I can tell you that the officer that makes such a decision without the explicit request of the perosn in questions, will end up in much trouble. It's only the local authorities themselves that can take such a decision, if they consider him a health problem, or a danger to himself or others. Another point to consider is that he may be wanted in his home country and does not want to return at all. I've known westerners incarcerated in immigration that did not want their consular office's help, for fear of being arrested upon returning home. And handing out money to people that have run out abroad is not a task of a consular office. Otherwise the lines at Embassies would be much much longer than you see already, especially in Thailand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FIGJAM Posted January 19, 2005 Report Share Posted January 19, 2005 suadum said:Why is he more deserving than any one of the 100's of 1000's of kids IN THE STATES who go hungry every day. Start with them. Ahhh, they are just little black kids of welfare moms in the ghetto of some rust belt city (or maybe some snot-nosed trailer-trash white kids, no matter) so you can't identify, right? But crazy farang stuck overseas could be you, chai mai? Naw dude, you need to get priorities straight IMHO. This guy chose to travel abroad, obviously had enough money/education/initiative to do that, so if he bollocks it up, tough shit. I feel bad for him, but there are many many more people deserving of my taxpayer cash who are stuck in situations beyond their control/making. Using this kind of logic you should feel much more compassion for people who, out of unpredictable accidents (and am not talking about the guy on Suk, now), find themselves suddenly destitute in a foreign country than people who, already starving, deliberately choose to have (many) children who, they already know for sure, are themselves going to starve... In a similar way, we should offer no help to, for example, businesses (and people alike) in tsunami-affected areas which (using your words) "need to starve for a bit to understand the error of not planning for an emergency" (e.g. getting insured). Again in your words: "we are all adults. We do not need big brother to get us out of trouble" and "there is [almost] no safety net [in Thailand], you are on your own. Plan accordingly." And since you also say that "there is not enough resources to go around. Something has to not be funded" and you get your priorities based on personal responsibilities and being in situations beyond ones' control/making it's clear that the ones who have to be "served" first are the ones become suddenly destitute (out of unpredictable or unavoidable accidents: a car accident, a theft, a scam, an illness, economic crisis etc.) and who, until then, have been giving to the society (by which they have now to be helped) then you should help those "little black kids of welfare moms in the ghettos" and "the trailer-trash white kids" whose parents, despite already living on the dole, irresponsibly and voluntarily chose to put themselves and their offspring in even worse conditions and put an even heavier burden on the whole society and then the people living in foreign countries living even more irresponsibly and whose govts are themselves totally irresponsible and unfair (e.g. 3th world countries with nuclear bombs and/or planning to send men on the Moon whose majority of citizens are starving to death)... What about helping those kids in the ghettos and in the trailers and (if the resources allow it) in Africa etc. taking them away their irresponsible parents leaving the latter in the same conditions as the man on Suk? (personally I am all for it) These are the coherent results of applying your own logic, deal with it. BTW, your idea of travelers being of a somewhat wealthy/educated backgroud is nowadays completely wrong, you can get a Rome/Bangkok R/T flight for as little as 500 euro which is roughly the same kind of money the welfare state/social security give monthly to "deadbeats" here in Italy (and I reckon it's more or less the same in the other major EU countries, Germany, France, UK...). I am sure that he will take a plane ticket if you buy it for him. But likely not use it except to trade it in at pennies on the dollar for more shit to feed his habit. Buying him a non-refundable ticket?.. Yeah, maybe I'm cold. But I'm right. You look both cold and dead wrong, to me... P.S. your remarks on "little black kids of welfare moms in the ghetto of some rust belt city" and "some snot-nosed trailer-trash white kids" are telling... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 Hi, Guys, I'm not really certain I like where this is heading. Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 Nowhere. I stand by what I said in the context I said it (to High Thaied in response to something he said; and about the situation in the States, not elsewhere). Figjam extrapolated at his own risk of being incorrect. He was, but I will not go further here out of respect for the board rules. Figjam, PM if you want to continue along that road. Cheers, S "ghetto-raised son of parents who were poor enough, but chose not to go on, welfare" D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FIGJAM Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 khunsanuk said:Hi, Guys, I'm not really certain I like where this is heading. Sanuk! Ok chief, roger that I got used to PC and other opportunity reasons (which I understand although I don't share) getting in the way of interesting discussions... :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FIGJAM Posted January 20, 2005 Report Share Posted January 20, 2005 suadum said:Nowhere. I stand by what I said in the context I said it (to High Thaied in response to something he said; and about the situation in the States, not elsewhere). Figjam extrapolated at his own risk of being incorrect. He was, but I will not go further here out of respect for the board rules. Figjam, PM if you want to continue along that road. I don't see (and you haven't pointed out) any incoherence, anyway since this topic seems to be getting too "hot" for the board and we are not going to discuss it further here and since there isn't anything personal in these discussions nor I want to get personal, there is no reason to continue the discussion via PM if it can't be done on the public, open board. S "ghetto-raised son of parents who were poor enough, but chose not to go on, welfare" D Stressing that you were (your words) one of those "snot-nosed trailer-trash white kids" is totally unnecessary and uncalled for, unless you feel the need to "defend" your position once been shown the coherent consequences of your "theories" which you are, in reality, wishing to apply only to the ones you for some reason dislike. Like that poor sod on Suk. Ciao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.