Amras

5 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Let them show you the law, I wouldn't take "for some reason" as an answer.

I agree. I might push them again. They didn't say 'for some reason', they just said, in typical Thai fashion. You cannot. 

5 minutes ago, Maestro said:

 

In what province was that? Not all provincial branches of the Department of employment use the same unwritten rules.

Bangkok. Wouldn't put it past them not knowing what the hell they are doing. 

24 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

No, as a shareholder she doesn't count but she can be an employee too.

Ahh, maybe I didn't explain clearly. 

Even as an employee, if they are ALSO a shareholder, they don't count/cannot be used for Work Permit purposes for a foreigner. 

The employees must be non shareholders (cannot be an owner/shareholder of the business).

At least, apparently now, according to both our Lawyer and accountant (who don't know each other). As I also believed they could.

Edit: Although, I'd be happen to be proven wrong (or rather prove the lawyers wrong). As we could use her as an employee as we need 8. They were adamant she couldn't be a 'countable' employee for work permits though. For some reason. 

On 12/27/2017 at 3:06 PM, FritsSikkink said:

You don't get a visa for owning a business. You can get an investment visa if you invest 10 million THB. For a work permit for you there need to be 2 Thai's working for that company if you are married (your wife can be 1 of them), otherwise 4. You can get a non O visa for being married and work on that or get a non B with the paperwork and Thai's working for that company. What sort of business will it be as you might need additional permits for the business to run.

"For a work permit for you there need to be 2 Thai's working for that company if you are married (your wife can be 1 of them)"

I thought this as well. 

However, according to both our lawyers and our accountant, a shareholder (in this case his wife) of the business, does not count as one of the required employees for a Work Permit for a foreigner. 

We've been told this when also questioning them multiple times, as my partner is a shareholder in our company and can't be used as one of the employees for work permits. 

Maybe things have become more strict?

1 minute ago, z42 said:

I can't believe the gall of some posters here actually condemning this women. There are so many red flags in this case, the gear she supposedly had was never actually presented to the court, and her case file had her sign a confession which she said she was forced to sign, and she was denied access to a lawyer at the point of arrest.
Also anyone who knows anything about this drug would know that outside the source countries (south american nations) the likelihood of the end user getting the drug with a purity of above 40% is slim at best (because almost every level dealer cuts it with other substances to bulk it up). So on that basis alone the amount she will have had will have been literally 1 (yes one) grain of salt's worth.

The influential figure story was completely overlooked in court, not even any investigation into that. This whole case stinks to high heaven. Adn what makes it even worse is that actual criminals who have killed or maimed innocent people either in their cars or through intentional acts have not only escaped jail for those crimes, but also certainly done so through acts of bribery / perverting the course of justice (themselves gross crimes in their own right).

 

The random and inconsistent application of the law is a key calling card of a banana republic justice arm. It is sick, indefensible, and morally bankrupt as is. My heart bleeds for all involved in this case, these innocent kids and their father's lives have been destroyed, and for what? I feel sick to my stomach every time i hear about this case, a complete miscarriage and abuse of power.  

I feel the same. As much as I love Thailand, the upper echelon's of its society make me angry. Add to that the posters here who jump on the bandwagon all in the name of 'x'. Disgusting.

5 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

You can quote the laws and the penalties as much as young like. At the end of the day, if everyone is receiving the proper punishments for having cocaine, getting drunk and killing someone in their car or shooting people in the head in a nightclub, you'd have a point. But it doesn't happen. 

 

I'd much rather see someone walk or receive a lenient sentence for having a bit of coke than seeing them walk for murder or completey negligent driving. 

Agreed. Geez I haven't been reading a lot of comments lately, but damn. Most ThaiVisa posters are still the same. High mighty sitting behind their computer. 

It's 0.2grams for personal use. Hardly worth 15 years in prison. A significant fine maybe, community service (which would be good in Thailand) but not jail. 

While other's drive unlicensed or drunk and kill 1 or multiple people in car accidents walk away with no more than a sorry, it's pathetic really. 

She's not a dealer, she's not selling. 

Remember the only difference between Alcohol and other 'hard' drugs is one is illegal the other isn't. The all ruin a heap of lives, cause violence, dependency and so on. Except 'weed', you'd be hard pressed to find the same amount of negative social consequences of that plant. (Note I don't do any 'drugs' and rarely drink, but I also believe in the choice for other people to do and deal with, the consequences of their own choices). 

Asia and their war on drugs....while running people over in the street is more acceptable. I'll never understand it....

I not give my son learn English at school ,I teach him at home ,some of his friends learn English but not learn right. ,the teacher can't speak English,and 4 uniforms for 5 days ,unbelievable

I hope you teach your son better English than what you write.

And about the 4 uniforms, man that is ritch.

My son has vacation now too and you know what? He is playing everyday outside with his friends and uses atleast 3 sets of clothes a day.

A clean school uniform a day only means that the kids are dresed clean.

Maybe English is the posters second language? Give people a break, geesh. At least he is teaching his son rather than ignoring the need of it.

How dare they..they should be ashamed of themselves!

Don't they know they can only do such things in public places such as Soi Cowboy, where ahem, other vested interests also make their share.....

Totally OTT and frankly outrageous behaviour in a supposedly civilised country - Thailand is firmly in reverse gear and my wife and I are firmly headed back to the UK in a few weeks as a result.

Goodbye Thailand and we wish Thais all the best in their bleak future.................

Agreed. Already left for now. My Thai girlfriend too. Even she thinks Thailand is going backwards.

Doesn't Australia have a special word for these sort of people?

Bogan or something?

Bogan is far too polite, what they should be called would get you barred or restricted for a few days.

Maggot would be more appropriate (in terms of Australian slang) I would think.

I heard of traveling on a shoe string, but these con artists take the cake, still, good to know that good

hearted and trusting people are still to be found around.....

The problem is that the good hearted and trusting people get burnt by these scumbags and end up stop caring. So in the end the world is a less friendly and caring place.

These two need to be arrested, locked up for a couple of months and then black listed and deported. Without harsh treatment they will never change their ways.

Yep pretty much. I had a similar thing done to me by an English guy who said he lost his wallet and everyting in it. Gave me a copy of passport and ID so I helped him out. Then saw him the next day spending the money getting drunk.

Also helped out a Thai girl (friend of a friend once), same shit, but then it was more, a is she a waste of time test (wasn't much), turned out it would have been.

Will I help others again? Not so easily. And in most cases unless I know them probably not.

Moan Moan Moan fxxxxxx Moan. You all sound like a Thai wife in the middel of her menstrual cycle.

I think its great news and will solve many problems people are,and have been facing

Agreed. Never understood why things change for the better and people still sit in their armchair and complain like whinning little entitled b****s.

The the other posts....

Is it more expensive? Yes. Seriously it's 3000 baht more per 6 months (6000 baht per year) than getting 2 X double entry tourist visas (not counting extensions, flying etc).

You get a multi entry, can come and go as you please (no needing re-entry permits) for 6 months (stay likely 8 if you enter within the last week of the visa validity).

If 6000 baht a year is killing you for a visa with increased flexibility (as a tourist), you really shouldn't be here. Completely different story if you are working, a teacher etc. But this is a tourist/visitor visa.

This probably require an amendment to the Immigration Act, and should that be the case, the new form of tourist visa would only take affect once the amendment has duly been advertised in the Government Gazette.

hmm..did you even read the article? Or just the headlines?

"but was officially confirmed earlier this week following its publication in the Government Gazette."

People....

I agree, peasants should never be allowed to express opinions.

Opinions are the work of the devil, who allowed them to undermine all those in power. We cannot have such things going on anywhere.

What's wrong with using local currency...?.....using credit cards for food and minor purchases while overseas, is crazy!

Same applies to ATM withdrawals.

Not really. The Mastercard/Visa exchange rate is fine. The 2.5% currency conversion fee is the killer, which makes it not worth it. Unless of course you have a credit card that has no overseas transaction fees. Then it's negligible.

Which has nothing to do with what I said.

When making a payment with Cc or withdrawing money from an ATM you get a choice: this is xx in your currency, do you accept? Always say no, because that will be a bad exchange rate, and continue in lical currency. This process is called DCC, which is what this article is about.

Ahh sorry, in my haste, I quoted the wrong statement.

.....using credit cards for food and minor purchases while overseas, is crazy!

That was what I was replying too. Apologies.

What's wrong with using local currency...?.....using credit cards for food and minor purchases while overseas, is crazy!

Same applies to ATM withdrawals.

Not really. The Mastercard/Visa exchange rate is fine. The 2.5% currency conversion fee is the killer, which makes it not worth it. Unless of course you have a credit card that has no overseas transaction fees. Then it's negligible.

You can operate more than 1 account if you have more than 1 email address. Don't know about paypal linked to Thai account.

Quite frankly, why have two accounts. I have one Paypal account linked to various credit cards, such as Master card on my New York bank account, Visa on my German bank account and again another Visa connected to Bangkok Bank in Thailand. Depending what currency I pay in I can choose the credit card.

Paypal might have changed how they allow addition of cards?

However, I created a second paypal account with an address in Thailand for the very reason that buying stuff on Steam in THB is cheaper than buying them in AUD. Steam verifies your purchase currency by the base currency in your payment method (in this case get it's from Paypal that it's THB).

As a side note, if you can't add your overseas CC to your Thai paypal account and you do want a Thai Paypal account (or need it), just deposit funds into your normal paypal account (from your CC) and transfer those funds to your other Paypal account. Normally instant and then allows you to purchase within Thailand, using a Thai Paypal account.

I'm missing the NOT being married to a Thai claus. What does that have to do with anything? It's ok if you don't have a job, just don't be married to a Thai. Hahaha

It says OR, meaning, if you ARE married to a Thai, you can get a Non-O reasonably easily for visiting your wife/husband.

Technically, if they are working offshore and then coming back here when not working (ie too live), then they are not a tourist, but in fact returning to their place of residence (or home) and immigration can at their discretion decide you are no longer a tourist and give you trouble, hassle, headaches. Every country is the same and would class this person as a resident, not a tourist.

IO's have no such discretion. They cannot deny entry to someone qualifying for visa exemption that meets the entry requirements. Some regular visitors using visa exemption are being interviewed but only to ascertain that they are not illegally working. If you've got 20k cash, and if necessary an onward flight and proof of job/income from abroad, they cannot legally stop you.

Someone can legally live here on visa exemption/tourist visas. I agree that at some point they cease to become a tourist in the true sense, but there is nothing in Thai law to prevent someone living here indefinitely with a valid permit to stay and the means to support themselves.

Domicile and residence has no bearing on applications for visa exemption or tourist visas, or the number you can have. They only have a bearing on your tax liabilities.

Of course IO's have discretion. They obviously can't deny you on spot, but they can bring you aside, then a more senior immigration official, after interview, can decide if they should let you enter the country. There is no 'right' to enter a country that you are not a citizen of. To believe that no country has the legal right to deny foreign citizens (aliens) into their country is well...I don't know where you got this from?

Someone can legally live here on visa exemption/tourist visas. I agree that at some point they cease to become a tourist in the true sense, but there is nothing in Thai law to prevent someone living here indefinitely with a valid permit to stay and the means to support themselves.

That's a grey area. It's regarding intent and purpose of the visa. Someone could apply for successive tourist visas with a short break to Australia (as an example), but Australian immigration would end up denying your application, as you are obviously no longer a tourist and residing majority of the time in Australia. You need to get the right visa.

Just because Thailand currently allows people to do this (ie has a mai pen rai attitude to it), doesn't mean it's legally correct. Unless you have some evidence that shows in Thai law, no alien can be denied entry in Thailand? (Which would be different to every country elsewhere).

A more senior officer can indeed deny entry but only if the Alien is excluded under section 12 of the immigration act or the conditions required by Ministerial regulation.

A country can decide who they let in and who they don't. It's then passed to law! But an IO, senior or otherwise, can't and need a lawful reason to deny entry. As in one of the reasons passed in law. If a country decide to exclude people with ginger hair they can, but an IO can't. IO's don't make law they uphold it!

Nothing grey. There is no limit in law or otherwise that limits the number of tourist visas one can have. And nothing that stipulates how long or how often someone stays in the kingdom before they are no longer considered for a tourist visa. When you apply for a tourist visa the consulate/embassy can deny but they will only do so if the conditions of application can't be met. Some consulates/embassies will limit the number unless the person can prove they have income to support their stay.

"Unless you have some evidence that shows in Thai law, no alien can be denied entry in Thailand?"

Try reading whats written. I never said "no alien can be denied entry". I know a visa does not give the right to entry, but we are talking about the rights of individual IO's and their enforcement of the law. As long as the Alien meets the entry requirements an IO cannot deny entry. If they do the Alien can appeal under section section 22 of the immigration act and the final decision would lay with the Minister in charge of the act.

All the evidence you need is in the Immigration Act, B.E. 2522.

Great. Thanks for that. Had a good read. It would seem that they could at least use their discretion to detain and interview you *causing annoyance. (section 16).

Weren't there a number of 'crackdowns' on abuse of both tourist visas (for a short time) and especially in-out (and multiple) visa exempt entries many times last year? I specifically remember a significant issues at a Malaysian border (with tourist visas) as well as a number of people being refused entry elsewhere (on both visas and visa exempt entries).

I'm guessing these were ministerial directives and thus allowed under section 14? The Minister shall have power to issue public notice in the Government Gazette requiring the alien entering into the Kingdom to have with either money or bond , or shall have power to order an exemption under any condition.

Strangely it also seems (after some further reading), prior to 2008 you could only stay 90 days out of every 180 days, but this was suspended (http://www.immigration.go.th/nov2004/doc/temporarystay/policy778-2551_en.pdf).

So where is the legal basis from the ongoing (inconsistent) crackdowns? It would seem, that even if the act and amended act actually allows continuous stay (no limit), there are people who are turned away/refused entry.

So again...this elite visa may be costly to some, however, what's the price of not having to deal with inconsistent enforcement of the immigration act (or random ministerial directives under section 14)?

immigration, clearly have no desire to annoy people spending 500k on a visa, as seen by the many positive posts of people with it. The only ones who talk about it not being good value, seem to be the people who can't afford it (which for now is me as well, although I'm not against it).

Technically, if they are working offshore and then coming back here when not working (ie too live), then they are not a tourist, but in fact returning to their place of residence (or home) and immigration can at their discretion decide you are no longer a tourist and give you trouble, hassle, headaches. Every country is the same and would class this person as a resident, not a tourist.

IO's have no such discretion. They cannot deny entry to someone qualifying for visa exemption that meets the entry requirements. Some regular visitors using visa exemption are being interviewed but only to ascertain that they are not illegally working. If you've got 20k cash, and if necessary an onward flight and proof of job/income from abroad, they cannot legally stop you.

Someone can legally live here on visa exemption/tourist visas. I agree that at some point they cease to become a tourist in the true sense, but there is nothing in Thai law to prevent someone living here indefinitely with a valid permit to stay and the means to support themselves.

Domicile and residence has no bearing on applications for visa exemption or tourist visas, or the number you can have. They only have a bearing on your tax liabilities.

Of course IO's have discretion. They obviously can't deny you on spot, but they can bring you aside, then a more senior immigration official, after interview, can decide if they should let you enter the country. There is no 'right' to enter a country that you are not a citizen of. To believe that no country has the legal right to deny foreign citizens (aliens) into their country is well...I don't know where you got this from?

Someone can legally live here on visa exemption/tourist visas. I agree that at some point they cease to become a tourist in the true sense, but there is nothing in Thai law to prevent someone living here indefinitely with a valid permit to stay and the means to support themselves.

That's a grey area. It's regarding intent and purpose of the visa. Someone could apply for successive tourist visas with a short break to Australia (as an example), but Australian immigration would end up denying your application, as you are obviously no longer a tourist and residing majority of the time in Australia. You need to get the right visa.

Just because Thailand currently allows people to do this (ie has a mai pen rai attitude to it), doesn't mean it's legally correct. Unless you have some evidence that shows in Thai law, no alien can be denied entry in Thailand? (Which would be different to every country elsewhere).

It is not even equivalent cost of 1 business class flight back to UK per year. And it is 6 years if you get a stamp for a year at the end of your fifth year.

Those over 50 or married need to stop trolling, or those eking out an existence in the LOS - this is for people under 50 and not married!

For people in the Oil and Gas game it is peanuts - less that 2 days rates per year.

I would imagine you get treated better and don't have to bother with immigration.

I am seriously considering this.

You're right that it can give you 6 years.

Many Oil and Gas workers can enter for free as often as they want and can stay for 30 days each time. Anyone that wants to fast track immigration can buy it. I believe the going rate is 850 Baht. Assuming a 4/4 rotation thats 6 fast track entries per year for 6 years totalling 30,600 leaving 469,400 of their hard earned wedge to spend on limos, ladies that don't act like ladies, girlfriends, beer etc.

I get the convenience, but I don't see the value especially for regular visitors that have short stays (60 days or less) and qualify for visa exemption.

People should stop seeing immigration as the enemy. As long as your reason for entry is legitimate, you meet entry requirements, and you can finance your stay you will never have a problem being admitted.

Hmm yes and no. There's been reporters of those exact people having issues. Technically, if they are working offshore and then coming back here when not working (ie too live), then they are not a tourist, but in fact returning to their place of residence (or home) and immigration can at their discretion decide you are no longer a tourist and give you trouble, hassle, headaches. Every country is the same and would class this person as a resident, not a tourist.

So depends how much value you place on assurance. For some it's worth it, for other's it's worth it although they can't (yet) afford it (me) and for some who might never afford it they can be bitter.

There's ALWAYS another way. It's all about the value to you (the person getting it). Value is subjective.

In my opinion all this is so typical of the holier than thou farang mentality.

If the standards were so low, in comparable terms to other aviation sectors, they would be banned now.

Simple as that.

I think most posters are from the era where you had to check the oil and brake fluid on the "motor" weekly before risking taking the family for a drive into the country for the day.

Things have changed and changed dramatically. The modern turbojet and airframe is something completely different to what your conceptions may have been. They simply do not need the maintenance regime that was demanded in the past.

Granted they still need the ego massage of the pilots but that will change as the paying public wakes up to the fact that a computer can do a better, safer, more predictable job than a human can.

Howls of derision no doubt will be forthcoming.

Why does the pilot actually have to be in the aircraft? It's only a flying computer. Something goes wrong....control it from a position of safety.

You are wrong in so many ways. Thailand flagged aircraft is already subject to restrictions. and the countries who imposed those restrictions are the airlines who receive the flights. Thai Airlines International - TG is not subject to US restrictions yet. This is attributable to TG making sure it's aircraft are in good shape before entering US airspace. It is easy to do when there is only one destination, LAX and a handful of flights.

Your comment about the service requirements of modern aircraft is way off. Have you ever seen the maintenance manuals for a modern aircraft? There are multiple diagnostics and verifications that must be undertaken. Only a complete idiot with zero knowledge of aviation would make the claim that computers can replace pilots. Equipment breaks down. Computer software is usually written by emotionally unstable people who intentionally leave vulnerabilities or error who make coding errors. One need only look at the travesty that is adobe flash or the mess that MS IE is to understand that point.

How can you make your assertions with a straight face? One of the reasons why the AF plane crashed off the coast of Brazil is because the French pilots thought just like you - computers can't be wrong and were unprepared when the autopilot disconnected because the air speed measurements were wonky. Time and time again we have seen what happens when electronic systems fail on aircraft. The failure of the 2 aircraft control computers is considered to be a major factor in the FD AB crash off of Indonesia. Computers breakdown, software fails. An aircraft needs a human to be there when it happens. Flying a real airplane is not the same as playing on a personal computer flight simulator.

Computer software is usually written by emotionally unstable people who intentionally leave vulnerabilities or error who make coding errors. One need only look at the travesty that is adobe flash or the mess that MS IE is to understand that point.

Hmm....I'd quite disagree with that. " Only a complete idiot with zero knowledge of programming would make the claim that.." Oh the irony.

Programmers don't intentionally program bugs, claiming so show you know nothing about programming. There are people who's only job is to look for and bug fix.

Yes I agree with you that computers can't replace people (YET), one day they will (maybe not in my life time though), but by that time AI will be pretty sophisticated. We aren't there yet.

"

A question of careful planning and dovetailing. Not all Universities abroad begin their year from August !"

UM, the OP is talking about High school. Not universities.

Don't most English speaking countries start their primary and secondary education in the fall?

Maybe many/most, but not all. Australia for instance begins in Summer (February).

Wow, just wow. There's a lot of very unhappy people here and why I often don't read through a lot of comments. Feel sorry for a significant number of you.

1. Because some Thai's scam foreigners, well tough luck mate. It's karma (although the guy getting scammed here could very well be a perfectly decent human being).

2. This happens everywhere. People prey on people wanting companionship, yet magically, Thailand, blah blah.

3. I doubt he was likely hoping to scam the guy 'coming to meet him' as some have suggested. What scammer would pay someone else money, in the hope of scamming them more later on.

4. This guy like many others, simply believed in the genuineness of someone else and was taken advantage of. Just like I was by an Englishman a few years ago in Chiang Mai, who I genuinely thought needed help. Too bad he was another scumbag. The world is screwed because people lack compassion for others. Lack of compassion allows scammers to behave like they do with no thoughts for others. When people get screwed over there goes their compassion for others and the cycle just spirals downwards.

I feel sorry for the guy. I don't think it's karma getting him (where's the proof he did anything to anyone), unlike half of the posts suggest. <deleted>.

Contrary to what I posted earlier, after further checking it does seem that the current law expects Foreigners to carry their actual passports or - if they have one - a Thai ID card. While it does depend on circumstances, copies are not valid.

Two different rules. One is a valid recognised form of Photo ID (doens't specifically state passports) (which would include a locally issued drivers license). The other regulation is the Immigration act which states that you must be able to prove you are lawfully in the country. So there are two different rules. For most tourists though, the only recognised photo ID is their passport.

The translation of possession of passport is either 'be able to show' or ' have on person', I believe (from what others have said), that it depends on how it is interpreted.