News Forum - Decision on Hua Hin Hospital “dual pricing” case set for next week

[Stonker]

5 hours ago, AussieBob said:

The Junta imposed a 4 tier pricing model in 2019 for public hospital treatment charges, based on criteria that are unlawful under the Thailand Discrimination Act. 

Sorry, @AussieBob, but reportedly (not just here, but in all the reports) that's NOT what his case is based on, which is that it's illegal under the constitution in force in 2004 (presumably when he arrived here), which was the 1997 constitution.

That constitution was replaced in 2007, and the 2007 constitution was replaced in 2017, making that argument worthless - as I've said, he could arguably have a case on other grounds but NOT on the ones he's reportedly arguing.

5 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Those are the laws he is taking on and that is why it even reached the Court.  

But, according to all the reports they're NOT "the laws he is taking on"! 

... and it's "reached the court" because it's a civil action so he's entitled to take anyone to court even if he's wrong and he doesn't have a lawyer advising him (he doesn't).

... and I don't want to nit-pick but what "Thailand Discrimination Act" are you talking about?

While there are a number of Acts that you could try to apply, although it's difficult to see quite how, the only real case is discrimination based on the constitution - and, whether he or many others  like it or not, the current constitution is the 2017 version.

[Soidog]

7 hours ago, AussieBob said:

I guess that what is really needed is for each country to form their own group like the Japanese and Koreans have done, and that beyond that there could be some 'coming together' when dealing with an issue that affects us all. 

Seems like a good plan. I have suggested forming such a club on a couple of occasions. Both times it was met with less than enthusiasm. The main responses fell in to three broad categories:

a) Are you some kind of communist trouble maker?

b) I’m not doing that. If immigration find out they will kick me out. 
 

c) Cant be arsed !! 
 

I think as the average age of many expats is 50+, they simply want a quiet life and don’t want the added hassle. I personally think forums (fora?) like this are used as a substitute in some ways. A shame we can’t organise things better. 

[Stonker]

8 hours ago, AussieBob said:

The Junta imposed a 4 tier pricing model in 2019 for public hospital treatment charges, based on criteria that are unlawful under the Thailand Discrimination Act. 

I'm genuinely perplexed by what "Thailand Discrimination Act" you're talking about, @AussieBob as I can't find any, or any UN Conventions that Thailand signed up to, that could apply.

Employment, Occupation, Gender / Sexual preference or orientation, Disability, Race, yes, but NOTHING on Dual Pricing by nationality.

There simply aren't any.

The only articles that could apply are in the 2017 Constitution at Section 27 (Equal Rights / Unjust Discrimination) and Section 47 (Right to public health services provided by the state) but as these come under "Rights and Liberties of the Thai People" and since he's Dutch so not one of "the Thai People" they don't apply to him.

His entire argument is reportedly based on the constitution as it stood in 2004, which was the 1997 Constitution, which says in Section 52 that "A person shall enjoy an equal right to receive standard public health service", but again it comes under the same "Rights and Liberties of the Thai People" so ,again, since he's Dutch so not one of "the Thai People" that doesn't apply to him.

[AussieBob]

17 hours ago, Stonker said:

Sorry, @AussieBob, but reportedly (not just here, but in all the reports) that's NOT what his case is based on, which is that it's illegal under the constitution in force in 2004 (presumably when he arrived here), which was the 1997 constitution.

That constitution was replaced in 2007, and the 2007 constitution was replaced in 2017, making that argument worthless - as I've said, he could arguably have a case on other grounds but NOT on the ones he's reportedly arguing.

But, according to all the reports they're NOT "the laws he is taking on"! 

... and it's "reached the court" because it's a civil action so he's entitled to take anyone to court even if he's wrong and he doesn't have a lawyer advising him (he doesn't).

... and I don't want to nit-pick but what "Thailand Discrimination Act" are you talking about?

While there are a number of Acts that you could try to apply, although it's difficult to see quite how, the only real case is discrimination based on the constitution - and, whether he or many others  like it or not, the current constitution is the 2017 version.

Was not aware of all that - thanks.  What I am aware of is these from the past - I remember them being done years ago. 

Microsoft Word - Discrimination March 2014 (ilo.org)

» Thailand becomes member of ILO Convention on Discrimination (thaiembdc.org)

Sure, Thailand (like China) only signs on to things in cases where to do so would cause them economic hardship (trade embargoes etc). But I thought he had taken them to court, and the basis was Thailand's breach of their own Anti-Discrimination Laws/Rules, as enacted to comply with the UN Conventions - legal 'argument' needs legal precedent and has to be based on existing laws and/or regulations. If that is not the case, then I very much doubt he will succeed at all.  I guess next week we will find out.  But then again, maybe this is just step one, and the next step is to appeal using a Lawyer.  In that case I will be happy to financially support him, because the flow-on effects of a successful legal campaign, would benefit all Expats as it will result in all forms of price discrimination based on race or ethnicity being banned in Thailand.  Which I thought they already were legally, but never enforced - like so many other laws.

[AussieBob]

15 hours ago, Soidog said:

Seems like a good plan. I have suggested forming such a club on a couple of occasions. Both times it was met with less than enthusiasm. The main responses fell in to three broad categories:

a) Are you some kind of communist trouble maker?

b) I’m not doing that. If immigration find out they will kick me out. 
c) Cant be arsed !! 
 

I think as the average age of many expats is 50+, they simply want a quiet life and don’t want the added hassle. I personally think forums (fora?) like this are used as a substitute in some ways. A shame we can’t organise things better. 

Very true. And then add to that -  'why would I bother to help them by trying to manage things for them?'.  There is a reason there are professional dog trainers - because dogs can be trained.  There are no professional cat trainers (herders) because cats cannot be trained. Old western Expats come under the second 'cat'egory

 

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Was not aware of all that - thanks.  What I am aware of is these from the past - I remember them being done years ago. 

Microsoft Word - Discrimination March 2014 (ilo.org)

» Thailand becomes member of ILO Convention on Discrimination (thaiembdc.org)

Sure, Thailand (like China) only signs on to things in cases where to do so would cause them economic hardship (trade embargoes etc). But I thought he had taken them to court, and the basis was Thailand's breach of their own Anti-Discrimination Laws/Rules, as enacted to comply with the UN Conventions 

I think it may be an idea for you to read your own link, as the "ILO Convention on Discrimination" you've referred to is more accurately the ILO Convention on Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) and ONLY covers "Employment and Occupation", as I'd already mentioned.

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, AussieBob said:

... the flow-on effects of a successful legal campaign, would benefit all Expats as it will result in all forms of price discrimination based on race or ethnicity being banned in Thailand.  Which I thought they already were legally, but never enforced - like so many other laws.

Wrong. 100%, absolutely wrong.

Any such discrimination is based solely and strictly on nationality, NOT on "race or ethnicity" which is totally different and completely unconnected.

[Stonker]

3 hours ago, AussieBob said:

... I will be happy to financially support him, ...

Does your generosity extend to financially supporting the tens of thousands of expats who may find themselves paying hundreds of thousands if not millions of baht more, each, for State medical care which is currently given them at cost price or subsidised at many public hospitals, as the individual hospitals have decided (or can't be bothered) to charge different rates and his case may well change that?

A case he brought because he wasn't happy to pay 850 baht each time for his treatment for prostate cancer at the main provincial hospital.

[gazmo16]

My gut feeling is that even if he was 100% right he still won't win as this would not only undermine system they have decided to openly adopt towards Thais, citizens and then others. It would also cost them Face to loose to  Farang and money at a time they can least afford to give it way. 

Thais are wonderful people but their governments do pretty much what they want and as outsiders we really don't figure highly in their thought process.

[Stonker]

5 minutes ago, gazmo16 said:

My gut feeling is that even if he was 100% right he still won't win as this would not only undermine system they have decided to openly adopt towards Thais, citizens and then others. It would also cost them Face to loose to  Farang and money at a time they can least afford to give it way. 

Thais are wonderful people but their governments do pretty much what they want and as outsiders we really don't figure highly in their thought process.

That suggests that even if the verdict goes against him he could still have been "100% right".

Bearing in mind that courts anywhere are there to enforce laws but not to make or change them, could you suggest any law that possibly applies here?

Any at all, with even a vague connection?

[gazmo16]

 

7 hours ago, Stonker said:

That suggests that even if the verdict goes against him he could still have been "100% right".

Bearing in mind that courts anywhere are there to enforce laws but not to make or change them, could you suggest any law that possibly applies here?

Any at all, with even a vague connection?

You missed my point , I don't talk about the finer points of this actual case but the principal of a Foreigner taking the Thai Government to Court and a minister involved all within the Kingdom and not in some European Court House. I think whatever the case would be about it would struggle to hold it's own against these powers. 

 

Edited September 25, 2021 by gazmo16
removed content

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, gazmo16 said:

You missed my point , I don't talk about the finer points of this actual case but the principal of a Foreigner taking the Thai Government to Court and a minister involved all within the Kingdom and not in some European Court House. I think whatever the case would be about it would struggle to hold it's own against these powers. 

No, I didn't miss your point, I just don't agree with it as you're saying that he could still be "right" even if he's not only found wrong but clearly proven to be wrong - something I'm sure some here will claim however much he's shown to be in the wrong.

[Soidog]

5 hours ago, gazmo16 said:

You missed my point , I don't talk about the finer points of this actual case but the principal of a Foreigner taking the Thai Government to Court and a minister involved all within the Kingdom and not in some European Court House. I think whatever the case would be about it would struggle to hold it's own against these powers. 

You are wasting your time trying to have a constructive debate with that guy @Stonker. Make your life easier and ignore him. He spends his entire day googling and researching to find other peoples points incorrect and rarely expresses anything novel. I can only assume he was bullied at school.
 

As the saying goes - It’s hard to win an argument against a smart person. It’s  impossible to win one against a stupid person. 
 

Just ignore him. Unfortunately I still get to see his argumentative comments when others reply. 

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, Soidog said:

You are wasting your time trying to have a constructive debate with that guy @Stonker. Make your life easier and ignore him. He spends his entire day googling and researching to find other peoples points incorrect and rarely expresses anything novel. I can only assume he was bullied at school.
 

As the saying goes - It’s hard to win an argument against a smart person. It’s  impossible to win one against a stupid person. 
 

Just ignore him. Unfortunately I still get to see his argumentative comments when others reply. 

In your case it doesn't take much "googling and research", just a bare minimum of  general knowledge and the ability to apply it, and an interest in the subject.

It's rather insulting to others here to assume that they're as uninformed and inadequate as you are when the vast majority are more than capable of informed debate even if you're not.

[TheDirtyDurian]

Wow. 

Who would have thought that people paying the same price would be such a controversial idea.....

[Soidog]

16 minutes ago, TheDirtyDurian said:

Wow. 

Who would have thought that people paying the same price would be such a controversial idea.....

Agreed. It seems fairly obvious and reasonable to me that you should pay the same price for the same services. I guess the only situation where it can get complicated is where one group supplement a service via other means, such as taxation. 

[AussieBob]

21 hours ago, Stonker said:

I think it may be an idea for you to read your own link, as the "ILO Convention on Discrimination" you've referred to is more accurately the ILO Convention on Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) and ONLY covers "Employment and Occupation", as I'd already mentioned.

Stonker - I can see you are arguing with someone who is being less than 'reasonable' so I can see why you might be a bit 'shirty'

Check out page 1 of the Word document - Quote:  Discrimination refers to “any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin, which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation.” — ILO Convention No. 111, Article 1 (1) (a).  That is the UN definition of discrimination as it applies to all their charters. 

There is another link that I found which states that Thailand has ratified 7 of the 11 UN charters on discrimination (I copied the wrong one) - cant seem to find that one again today, but I found this: Treaty bodies Treaties (ohchr.org)   Thailand has ratifgied the charter on race or ethnicity.

Race and Ethnicity is definitely what 'Nationality' a person is - that is where they are from and what type of people they are.   The discrimination is because he is a 'foreigner' - not from here in Thailand. And I am sure he would have added to his argument that he was charged extra than Laos people, because he was a 'white' foreigner. I think he has both race and ethnicity covered.

Race | Definition of Race by Merriam-Webster

Ethnicity | Definition of Ethnicity by Merriam-Webster

But I still hear your argument about whether this was the basis for his case - I dont know anymore than you and maybe it was not the basis.  What I do hope is that he wins.  If he does not - then maybe I will submit a proposal to the Australian Fed Govt that all people from Thailand should be charged a higher fee for any Govt medical services that they are provided - fair's fair and all that?

 

 

[AussieBob]

21 hours ago, Stonker said:

Does your generosity extend to financially supporting the tens of thousands of expats who may find themselves paying hundreds of thousands if not millions of baht more, each, for State medical care which is currently given them at cost price or subsidised at many public hospitals, as the individual hospitals have decided (or can't be bothered) to charge different rates and his case may well change that?

A case he brought because he wasn't happy to pay 850 baht each time for his treatment for prostate cancer at the main provincial hospital.

Easy Stonker.  I am saying I will support his 'court case' costs - because the net effect could be to help all those Expats you mentioned by stopping the Thai Govt discriminating against Expats by charging them extra for all services and facilities - not just medical services. The issue is not the 850 Baht - the issue is a legal precedent against pricing discrimination in Thailand - what many call 'dual pricing'.   

Check out these links:

Two Price Thailand – Richard Barrow in Thailand

Home | 2PriceThailand  

It is discrimination and hopefully it will be ruled in a Thailand Court one day to be illegal.

[Stonker]

8 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Race and Ethnicity is definitely what 'Nationality' a person is - that is where they are from and what type of people they are. 

No, @AussieBob, absolutely no - race and ethnicity is fundamentally NOT what "nationality" is, either by legal definition or by rational thought, although it may play a part in the national character.

If it were, you couldn't be "Aussie Bob" as only aboriginals could be Australian, the Queen couldn't be British as she'd be forever a German, Sir Mo Farah would still be Somali, etc.

As well as looking at the definitons of race and ethnicity, maybe you should have checked Merriam-Webster's definition of nationality, particularly on national status which is the key point here.

8 hours ago, AussieBob said:

And I am sure he would have added to his argument that he was charged extra than Laos people, because he was a 'white' foreigner. 

So if he was a  'black' foreigner not a " 'white' foreigner" you think he would have been charged less??? 

Oh please ...

Thais are Tier 1, with full subsidy / discount, anyone from Laos would have been charged less than him but more than Thais as they are on Tier 2 for hospital charges, with a lower discount /  subsidy, like Cambodians, Burmese and Vietnamese, due to reciprocal agreements, while other foreigners (dependent on visa, not nationality / race / ethnicity) are Tier 3 or 4 with less and no discount / subsidy.

8 hours ago, AussieBob said:

If he does not - then maybe I will submit a proposal to the Australian Fed Govt that all people from Thailand should be charged a higher fee for any Govt medical services that they are provided - fair's fair and all that?

All Thailand did with the increases to charges in 2019 was to bring itself in line with what other countries such as Australia were already doing - except leaving hospitals the option to continue to subsidise foreigners.

Foreigners visiting Australia, including Thais, are  ALREADY "charged a higher fee for any Govt medical services that they are provided"!!!

Australia only gives emergency Medicare cover to visitors from eleven other countries with whom it has a Reciprocal Health Care Agreement (RHCA), which doesn't include Thailand, and even that's only for emergency / essential treatment. Everyone else pays in full!

https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/servicesandsupport/overseas-visitors-and-healthcare

"Fair's fair and all that" ???

How can the exact same thing, even down to RHCAs, be "fair" in Australia, but not "fair" in Thailand?????

[Stonker]

7 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Check out these links:

Two Price Thailand – Richard Barrow in Thailand

Home | 2PriceThailand  

I have - absolute hypocrisy at its height.

They complain about dual pricing here in Thailand, for example with health care, but say nothing about the exact same thing in their own countries - in Australia with Medicare which charges the exact same full price for foreign visitors (the direct equivalent to Tier 4 charges here) while England takes it a stage further and charges foreign visitors not just the full price but 150%!

7 hours ago, AussieBob said:

I am saying I will support his 'court case' costs - because the net effect could be to help all those Expats you mentioned by stopping the Thai Govt discriminating against Expats by charging them extra for all services and facilities - not just medical services. The issue is not the 850 Baht - the issue is a legal precedent against pricing discrimination in Thailand - what many call 'dual pricing'.   

So you're happy to pay to support him as you think it could bring down dual pricing charges for expats by a few baht, but you're not happy to pay if it puts up health charges by hundreds of thousands or millions of baht for expats, which is a far more likely outcome?

I see.

8 hours ago, AussieBob said:

It is discrimination and hopefully it will be ruled in a Thailand Court one day to be illegal.

Courts can only apply the law, not make it. That's for governments.

Hopefully, though, discrimination will indeed become illegal one day - but shouldn't those countries who can most afford it start to set an example first, instead of just telling others to do so?

[Soidog]

8 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Stonker - I can see you are arguing with someone who is being less than 'reasonable' so I can see why you might be a bit 'shirty'

Check out page 1 of the Word document - Quote:  Discrimination refers to “any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin, which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation.” — ILO Convention No. 111, Article 1 (1) (a).  That is the UN definition of discrimination as it applies to all their charters. 

There is another link that I found which states that Thailand has ratified 7 of the 11 UN charters on discrimination (I copied the wrong one) - cant seem to find that one again today, but I found this: Treaty bodies Treaties (ohchr.org)   Thailand has ratifgied the charter on race or ethnicity.

Race and Ethnicity is definitely what 'Nationality' a person is - that is where they are from and what type of people they are.   The discrimination is because he is a 'foreigner' - not from here in Thailand. And I am sure he would have added to his argument that he was charged extra than Laos people, because he was a 'white' foreigner. I think he has both race and ethnicity covered.

Race | Definition of Race by Merriam-Webster

Ethnicity | Definition of Ethnicity by Merriam-Webster

But I still hear your argument about whether this was the basis for his case - I dont know anymore than you and maybe it was not the basis.  What I do hope is that he wins.  If he does not - then maybe I will submit a proposal to the Australian Fed Govt that all people from Thailand should be charged a higher fee for any Govt medical services that they are provided - fair's fair and all that?

You should be by this guys side in court @AussieBob. I get tired of people trying to claim Thais aren’t discriminating against people because of race or colour of their skin. They are most definitely doing this. The fact they rely on foreign tourism so much makes it all the more disgraceful. I doubt that will keep Stonker quiet on the subject, but miracles happen. Great post

[Soidog]

9 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Easy Stonker.  I am saying I will support his 'court case' costs - because the net effect could be to help all those Expats you mentioned by stopping the Thai Govt discriminating against Expats by charging them extra for all services and facilities - not just medical services. The issue is not the 850 Baht - the issue is a legal precedent against pricing discrimination in Thailand - what many call 'dual pricing'.   

Check out these links:

Two Price Thailand – Richard Barrow in Thailand

Home | 2PriceThailand  

It is discrimination and hopefully it will be ruled in a Thailand Court one day to be illegal.

In regards to this particular case I’m sure the Dutch guy will be unable to prove his case. Many people who have commented here support him for a number of reasons. The key reason being that Thais do discriminate against foreigners. While it may well be true that other countries health care systems and large education systems charge differently for services; and health care is at the centre of this particular case, it’s hard to overlook the blatant discrimination that exists in Thailand. 
 

As a foreigner I would have no problem paying a higher price for health care if I deliberately jumped on a plane and travelled to Thailand for treatment. I would know this before I left and it would be a deliberate act. Equally, if I was in Thailand on holiday I should have health insurance which would take care of my costs. But if I live in Thailand on a retirement visa, married to a Thai or possibly (possibly) even an annual visa, I would not expect to pay more. The same goes for university tuition. This is a deliberate act to travel for the service.  

It’s also true that many other countries have dual or tiered pricing for healthcare. However, I know for a fact, that if you were a Thai on holiday in the U.K. and fell ill or in an accident, you would be admitted to hospital, treated and allowed to leave. You may (may) be asked to pay and if you could they may accept the payment. If on the other hand you said you didn’t have the money or provide the slightest excuse then you would be allowed to leave. 
 

Now, compare that to the kiosk staff at the Grand Palace or at a Thai national park where they will keep you waiting all day if you try to make the point you are a expat not a tourist and the price differential is 10-15 times Thai price. It not even a reasonable 3-4 times the price as we see in U.K for something large like university fees.  Then of course we have the 2 or 3 times the price even for essentials such a food in restaurants. You would never see that for people based on the nationality or skin colour. Yes, some seaside holiday areas in the U.K. push up prices and add a little 10-20% discount for people they see day to day living in the town. But this applies to people from the U.K. as well as foreigners. It’s discrimination and wrong, but it isn’t racial discrimination which is abhorrent. 
 

While I think this Dutch guy is on a hiding to nothing, especially if the hospital has a published price list showing tiered pricing, many of the more general points by some people on this thread have deliberately missed the underlying reason why most support this guy. 
 

I don’t mind paying more for preplanned health and university. I totally object to paying more for emergency health care, taxi fares, entrance to beach’s, national parks, museums, temples, clothes, motorbike hire, drinks and food prices, it is utterly disgraceful behaviour from the Thais and if this case does nothing else but raise a little awareness, then good luck to the guy. 
 

To defend the Thais on this as @Stonkerseems to want to do is to condone the discrimination rampant in Thai society. Which incidentally,  plays out to wider social issues such as corruption and discrimination based within their own people. Shame on you! 

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, Soidog said:

I get tired of people trying to claim Thais aren’t discriminating against people because of race or colour of their skin. 

Of course they do - I wouldn't deny it for a second!

They're some of the most racist people I've ever met!

... but that isn't what this case is about, however much some wish it was

[Stonker]

3 hours ago, Soidog said:

But if I live in Thailand on a retirement visa, married to a Thai or possibly (possibly) even an annual visa, I would not expect to pay more.

But that's exactly what Thais or anyone else does when they go to England under any of those exact same circumstances!

The only difference is that as Tier 4 in Thailand you pay the full price, 100%, while in England you either pay 150% of the price or 30,000 baht extra per year in advance even if you don't use anything!

Why do you "expect" Thailand to give you free in Thailand what they have to pay for in England?

Because you're so speshul?

3 hours ago, Soidog said:

The same goes for university tuition.

Yes - EXACTLY the same!!!

3 hours ago, Soidog said:

However, I know for a fact, that if you were a Thai on holiday in the U.K. and fell ill or in an accident, you would be admitted to hospital, treated and allowed to leave. You may (may) be asked to pay and if you could they may accept the payment. If on the other hand you said you didn’t have the money or provide the slightest excuse then you would be allowed to leave.

What delusional, unbelievable, uninformed, utter rubbish!

I've given the links to the NHS England rules countless times already, and if you think NHS Trusts are run by some generous old dear in pearls and a two piece who's just come from running the jam stall at the church fete who'll give you a smile and throw the bill in the bin you're on another planet. 

It's not just visitors who have to pay but anyone who doesn't have the right paperwork - some of the Windrush generation found themselves with bills for tens of thousands of pounds even after they'd been living in the UK for decades and had been working for the NHS for thirty years - but, of course, they were mostly black so they don't count.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/windrush-scandal-nhs-cancer-treatment-high-court-legal-challenge-ruling-home-office-a8675781.html

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-studies/article/abs/charging-overseas-visitors-for-nhs-treatment-from-bevan-to-windrush-and-beyond/16B098E57E41AB4978A9C410004D1E9F

3 hours ago, Soidog said:

Shame on you! 

You really are the epitome of why Westerners like you are so despised and hated (and I do mean 'hated') in so many parts of the world, with your 'what's yours is ours but what's mine is mine' outlook.

You expect the same prices as the natives because that's only 'fair',  but at any mention of an identical offence at home there's no attempt at logic or reason, but it's blind denials and injured innocence because no white Westerner would ever stoop so low, even when the facts are spelt out beyond any possible doubt.

The days of empire and entitlement are over.

[Soidog]

1 hour ago, Stonker said:

Of course they do - I wouldn't deny it for a second!

They're some of the most racist people I've ever met!

... but that isn't what this case is about, however much some wish it was

This is a good illustration of why I ignore you @Stonker. You spend all your time picking out the things which are perhaps technically incorrect, or a small lapse in accuracy with what people say. You deliberatly choose to ignore the sentiment, even though you yourself are subject to the same problems and discrimination by being a foreigner in Thailand. This is not a court of law. It’s a forum where members like to pass casual comments or pass on experience or ask questions and give opinions, perhaps even vent a little frustration. Your attempts to derail and nitpick is what gets boring. You are clearly an intelligent guy who is well read and enjoys doing his research. You hold many valid points worthy of reading, but get missed by your antagonistic tone. Why can’t you put it to a positive good and inform people in an engaging fashion rather than thinking you are some enlightened Perry Mason. 
 

This forum could be all the better for your input if you simply chose to make your points less aggressively. There’s simply no point in being right if no one is listening. 
 

Im making an effort here Stonker to appeal to another side of you which I hope exists? If not then fine.