- Popular Post
-
Posts
7,517 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Downloads
Quizzes
Posts posted by Arkady
-
-
1 hour ago, DrJoy said:
That order is for Thai citizens only not for `Aliens`
Joe, please correct if I am wrong
The order specifies only ID cards and tabien baan. Since aliens don't have ID cards, that part can't apply to them and there seems no point in foreigners going to a government department with copies of passport, WP, alien book, residence book and other docs but insisting the officer should make their own copy of the tabien baan, if he wants it.
There was an order a couple of years ago saying that government officers could no longer demand a copy of the back of an ID card. I already had a good quality master copy of my ID card back and front. So I continue to run off copies from that. Of course these orders don't apply to the private sector.
Another order said drivers can carry a copy of their driving licence in their phone. I guess they are moving in the right direction but piles of trees are still being cut down to satisfy Thai bureaucracy. Recently went to change directors of the company and had to submit about 20 different forms and photocopies, some of them merely copies of stuff in their own database. They even had two sit up and beg Thai typewriters for the public to use because they don't accept handwriting. Amazed that anyone knows how to use them or that they can buy replacement typewriter ribbons. Still some ways to go to be a digital hub.
- 1
- 1
-
36 minutes ago, blackprince said:
Yes I have read it, both before I made my post above, and after you asked me to read it again.
Again I note that very few if any posters here have PR based on investment, I couldn't find a single one when I checked.
At least one person applied for PR under the investment category and reported that earlier in this thread. He said that, if he had to do it all again, he would apply under the regular business category. He got no privileges but attracted a lot more scrutiny and had to submit far more documents. You still need a WP, so it is hard to see any advantage.
I am still confused as to how it could be possible for PRs who applied under the investment category to buy land either alone or jointly with a Thai citizen. Can you cite the law or regulation that provides for this?
- 1
-
2 hours ago, blackprince said:
Yes they can buy land and the buildings on the land if their PR is based on investment. They can co-buy with a Thai citizen and both names appear on the chanote.
Nothing in the Land Code that provides for this, so I don't see how it could be done. BOI promoted companies are allowed to own land needed for the business and for a residence for manager but the right expires when the BOI privileges expire or are cancelled for any reason. So not all that useful. When the Land Code was promulgated in 1954 PR was the only visa longer than 3 months and was given to virtually everyone coming to work including Chinese coolies. So it wasn't considered a special status then and giving special land ownership rights to PRs in the Land Code would have been tantamount to saying just about all foreigners not on tourist visas can buy land. The Land Code has hardly ever been amended apart from the important early amendment to annul the provision preventing anyone from owning more than 50 rai of land with no exception whatsoever even based on rank. A lot of important people were unhappy with this but it took a coup to amend it.
- 1
-
- Popular Post
6 hours ago, GabbaGabbaHey said:I think forum admins just increased the number of posts displayed per page, but I'd also support moderators to remove some parts which regularly aim to derail the topic, by people challenging the process when they aren't even applicants themselves.
Definitely the thread attracts some haters. If we miss any inappropriate posts, please feel to PM myself or other mods. I am not sure, if anyone has time to clean up the older pages though, given the size of the thread.
- 3
-
30 minutes ago, jayboy said:
He also inaccurately describes the multiple re-entry stamp as a "renewal" which it obviously isn't.I'm also not sure getting the necessary stamp represents a restriction on freedom of movement: it took me half an hour last time.Having said that, I tend to agree the whole PR set up is rather creaky and all too clearly is a sclerotic arrangement designed for another age.Unfortunately I can't see where the pressure to reform - as opposed to tinkering about at the margins - will come from.
Interestingly, an American friend recently pointed out to me that holders of green cards (a kind of supercharged version of Thai PR with the right to work) needed to be careful if they were out of the US for more than a year since the Immigration authorities tended to get suspicious, sometimes aggressively so.US green card holders aren't cut off at the knees as Thai PR holders are in similar circumstances after one year's absence - but it indicates the logic of the thinking of all immigration bureaucrats on the subject.
I am not sure if Thailand just borrowed the concept of cancelling PR, if holders return without valid endorsements, from other countries that did the same thing or whether they had a a specific reason. But there are similarities with the Nationality Act which provides for revocation of nationality for naturalised Thais and those who are Thai through birth in the Kingdom to an alien father, if they remain abroad for more than 5 years. Historically these provisions were used almost exclusively against Chinese migrants and children of Chinese migrants born in the Kingdom. Probably the thinking was that Chinese who go back to China for long periods were not at all asilimated into Thai society and inpresented a security risk. It is also possible they could sell their PR or citizen documents to another Chinese who could assume their identity and move to Thailand. In modern times this seems to have been the motivation for the UK no longer allowing dual citizens to get right of abode stamps in their foreign passports. I was told that dual nationals, largely from African countries, were selling their foreign passports with the right of abode. However, biodata in passports may make this difficult or impossible today.
I had a girlfriend way back when I was living in the UK and she was a US green card holder who wanted to keep it up to retain the option of going back there some day. I went on a trip to New York with her just before her one year expired and this was the second or third time she had travelled there just before a year was up. The IO, a disgusting fat slob, was brutal with her, criticising her for maintaining her green card and kept her at his window for 5 minutes to intimidate her. God knows what difference it made to him. She eventually lost interest in the green card and let it lapse.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, jayboy said:Just to confirm your point, like many other PR holders I haven't traveled outside Thailand since mid 2019.Since then I have had no contact with Immigration, haven't reported to any other branch of the Thai government.I haven't in fact had to give my residential status in Thailand a single thought.If there was any doubt in my mind about the advantages of PR it's been dispelled in the pandemic.
Back in the day I got my PR just before the Tom Yam Kung crisis. Friends and acquaintances had been ridiculing my obsession with getting PR as soon as I could despite expense and hassles, which were actually much less than today. Suddenly everything hit the fan and farangs lost their jobs left right and centre, including myself. Losing their livelihoods was bad enough but losing immigration status and, in those days, even the right to buy your own mobile phone (most had company phones then as mobiles were still an expensive luxury) or vehicle made it panic stations for many people. For me nothing changed as far as my immigration status was concerned and I was able to buy my own phone and car without having to put them into Thai nominee names, as my friends had to. I also bought a condo without having to prove anything about the funds and got married without having to involve my embassy.
In those days before there was a route to citizenship for those with Thai wives without getting PR first, I always saw PR as a route to citizenship which I eventually achieved. Now in the pandemic I haven't even bothered to renew my Thai passport which expired just as the lockdowns started last year. Hopefully it will be worth renewing and going on a trip next year.
Each to his own and it is understandable that PR is not worthwhile to some. But everything for foreigners gets progressively harder in Thailand and every year I know of farangs who up stakes and leave after decades because they have had enough of being harassed by Immigration. Meanwhile, the PR and citizenship processes themselves have also been getting much more difficult. Every year you procrastinate, it is possible that some new onerous requirement will be introduced.
- 3
-
Y
5 hours ago, Morakot said:Thanks @rimmae2! I'll check with immigration and see what they will say about this.
I found more details about the entire process and it looks like that document legalization can via done by post at the UK Legalisation Office (FCO).
https://www.get-document-legalised.service.gov.uk/select-service
They will accept original degrees or certified copies by an officer from the British Council. The legalised document from the UK's FCO should then be sufficient for the Thai MFA to approve an authorized translation.
Of course this would take several weeks to send document from here to there and back.
--
Background info and shared frustration about the British embassy having stopped doing document legalization since 2018.
Yes, copies of documents certified via the FCO's service are acceptable to Thai MoFA but still need to be further legalised by the Thai embassy in London as far as I know. If you can get the copies certified by a solicitor or notary, it will be a lot quicker and you have more control over the process and much less loss of original document loss. HMG is extremely careless about other people's documents. In addition to losing my birth certificate, they once lost the passports of an entire batch of applicants (hundreds of people) for indefinite leave to remain (PR) in the UK with no compensation or apology. I think I saw something a service to get this done which used to include taking the documents to the Thai embassy but this can no longer be done as they only accept documents by mail. The Thai embassy is also very good at losing documents.
Immigration does allow you to submit certain documents after the deadline. This includes the more difficult to obtain ones like educational certificates and home country police clearance.
- 1
-
3 hours ago, EricTh said:
Are there any cases where a PR was granted to a person that is not paying income taxes?
In recent times I doubt it very much. But going back to the origin of PR in the 1920s it was issued to Chinese immigrants coming off the boat, if they could prove they had a profession they could support themselves with. There was no income tax at that time.
- 1
-
8 hours ago, ubonjoe said:
I am now aware of any pages being removed.
'After one of the updates of the forum the layout was changed so that more posts could be shown on a page.
At any rate the number of pages in the thread has always varies depending on what type of device it is viewed on.
-
1 hour ago, DrJoy said:
Arkady, why almost 200 pages were removed from this topic? Any particular reason?
Sorry. No idea.
-
11 hours ago, GarryP said:
My son was born in 1989 prior to the change in the law. As a result his birth certificate said that he was English, even though he was born in Thailand and his mother was Thai. We started the process of trying to get him Thai citizenship and were interviewed by the police in Ubolrathchathani as his mother's house registration was based in Ubol. Fortunately, while we were running about here and there to get him sorted, the law changed and he was automatically qualified as a Thai citizen so the law was retroactive. If I recall correctly, the change in the law was introduced when Anand Panyarachun was Prime Minister in 1992, but perhaps it did not become effective until 1993.
They did not issue a new birth certificate though, they just crossed out the part that had changed, wrote in by hand "Thai" and typed some stuff on the back of the certificate. I must admit that the District Office handled it quite well though and were helpful to me, despite it probably being strange to them that this foreigner came to get it sorted instead of the child's Thai mother.
You are right. It was in 1992. My apologies. Anand was PM, so it was not pushed through by politicians, as there weren't any at that time, but the process may have been started by politicians before the 1991 coup. Certainly the amendment allowing males married to Thais to apply without PR was pushed by politicians. Both amendments were aimed at giving more equal rights to Thai women.
-
- Popular Post
On 12/2/2021 at 3:13 PM, Badger18 said:Yes exactly.
It's not. It's more that since you haven't actually complied with the rules, it's reasonable to expect there may be some consequences, and I was asking what they were. It seems like nobody has run into a practical problem so far, which is obviously a good sign, but I'd be a lot more comfortable if everything was above board and there was no "lip service" involved. Of course you can always go ahead and renounce your original citizenship anyway, but if there doesn't look to be any risk in keeping it (and there's no tax angle) it'd be a pretty silly thing to do.
Interesting - but the right of abode is based on citizenship, surely, so you're still using your foreign citizenship. The consensus seems to be they don't care anyway, but in that case you can just use both passports.
I don't really get why they ask for a letter of intention if the whole thing is a fiction, but I guess it's just a case of TIT.
Before 2010 they didn't ask for this and in the MoI interviews some applicants were asked if their country allowed them to retain their citizenship and just said that's nice for you, if the answer was yes.
It is reasonable to assume that the reason they started asking for this was, similar to the reason for the attempted backlash by the mandarins against the 1993 amendment allowing Thai women to pass their nationality to their children. in 2008 the Nationality Act was amended to allow foreign males with Thai wives to apply for nationality without getting PR first and they were exempted from the requirement to have knowledge of the Thai language. We have evidence for the fact there was a backlash in the form of minutes from a meeting of the MoI legal department that declared the original version of the amendment was a threat to national security and insisted on tightening it up so that the foreign males would have to working in Thailand which was not specified in the original draft. It's a fair guess the mandarins imposed the affidavit requirement to make things harder and less pleasant for the floods of foreigners they expected to marry Thai hookers as a fast track to Thai citizenship. We also know from SB staff at the time that the legal department opined that they were unable to explicitly follow up on this requirement under the Act as it stands. At the same time as the affidavit was introduced they changed the basis for points allocation. Gone were the easy points for having a Thai wife and kids, while the points for PR were increased, as were the points for Thai language and the reading and writing tests were introduced along with the Knowledge of Thailand test. The change in the points allocation was obviously made to make it harder for those without PR and without knowledge of the Thai language. Obviously the affidavit and the letters to embassies once citizenship is granted are very effective in the case of nationals of countries that prohibit dual citizenship which includes China and India and these two account for a large proportion of applicants, although the trend in the past has been for Chinese and Indians to be more likely to have wives from their own countries and apply via PR.
- 1
- 3
-
- Popular Post
On 12/1/2021 at 5:40 PM, ubonjoe said:The section in the nationality act confuses a lot of people.
It only means they are old enough at the age of 20 to choose what they want to do instead of their parents.
Section 14 of the Nationality Act is confusing because the amended version in 1993 really was originally drafted with the intent of automatically revoking the Thai nationality of dual citizens by birth, if they didn't explicitly renounce their other nationality between the ages of 20 and 21. Someone rather important must have complained about this because, lo and behold, three weeks later a new amendment was promulgated that changed a few words with the result that dual citizens were instead given the right but not the obligation to renounce Thai citizenship between the ages of 20 and 21, although much of the threatening tone of the original is retained.
The motivation behind the original amendment that allowed the automatic revocation of Thai citizenship was that the nasty mandarins at the MoI were unhappy about being forced by politicians to concede equal rights to Thai women to pass on their citizenship to their children. Prior to 1993 children born to Thai mothers could only get their father's nationality and, if this was not available, they were stateless, unless the mother went through a revolting and humiliating process of making an afidavit to the effect that she couldn't say for sure who the father was but believed he was Thai. But this was still dependent on official discretion. This was not such a big problem before 1971 when all children born in the Kingdom were automatically Thai but it became a huge problem between 1971 and 1993 which was why politicians sought to change things. The mandarins didn't like the idea of thousands of look krung born to Thai women would automatically be Thai and wanted the power to revoke their Thai citizenship, if they retained foreign citizenship. Fortunately they were thwarted by whoever it was.
- 2
- 2
-
On 12/1/2021 at 12:33 PM, Badger18 said:
The reason they don't require you to give up your existing citizenship in advance will be that you would then be stateless until Thai citizenship was granted, and there's no guarantee at that point that it will be granted. So the fact that it's done that way doesn't mean it's OK to change your mind once your Thai citizenship comes through.
Taiwan does this and it has been a big problem for Vietnamese mail order brides. Sometimes the marriage breaks up or the husband dies before their Taiwanese citizenship comes through and they have to go back to Vietnam and live there as stateless persons. Vietnam allows them to surrender their nationality without another one but doesn't allow them to recover their nationality. Often they also have stateless children too who get condemned to a lifetime in limbo. There's a pretty good reason why most other countries don't allow citizens to renounce their nationality and become stateless. The Taiwanese attitude in forcing this is disgusting given that citizens born Taiwanese can have as many nationalities as they like.
- 1
-
1 hour ago, onthemoon said:
Noted. Paying into Social Security of having the Gold Card has the same effect, free treatment at a specific hospital. Or is there a difference I should be aware of?
Right now, Gold Card plus pension sounds like the smarter option.
It problably is. You don't need to live too long to make a profit from the pension relative to what you paid in, even though inflation is gathering pace and the government has no plans to adjust the pension for inflation. Just like the frozen UK state pension! On the other hand some SS hospitals are quite good and others are <deleted>. I believe Bangkok Christian Hospital in Silom, which is quite good, is on SS, whereas others I have been inside looked quite poor. if SS gives you a hospital that is much better than the government alternative where you live, you might want to consider opting in. Otherwise I wouldn't bother. There is not much consistency between hospitals in the private or public systems. Also some treatments may be available in one system but not the other.
Basically public health in Thailand is pretty <deleted> by Western standards but is a lot better than before the gold card and SS came along. The most scandalous aspect is that the civil servants who design the policies have their own scheme that is much better than the other two and also takes care of their families. Clearly the three systems should all be merged. Civil servants could then see how the other half live and would have an incentive to improve things.
- 1
-
1 hour ago, Kwarium said:
i was thinking of those not in Social Security. More information:
It is a pretty feeble social security system that makes you choose between inadequate private hospital healthcare and a tiny pension. They should consider dropping the word security from the name.
- 1
-
34 minutes ago, RJaidee said:
It depends where you get married. Where I had to get married I had to put forward 2 people and they were interviewed for about 10 minutes by the Amphur Headman. They dont do that where they have lots of Western / Thai marriages though.
555. What an earth could they talk about for 10 minutes with witnesses to a marriage registration? They are just there to witness the event. It is not up to the head of registrations to decide whether you can get married or not based on witness statements.
One type of witness interview that seems value added is the compulsory interview of buyers and sellers with the head of registrations in the Land Office. But I note that it is sometimes possible to give the head a tip to avoid the interview. This can be done either to save time and trouble, or in order to make it easier to deceive a buyer or seller. I was once asked what I wanted the land for in Ubon province and I told her I wanted to graze cows there, using the Isaan word gnua for a cow creating raucous laughter. (In fact someone else grazed their cows there without permission.) The seller is often asked if he really wants to sell at the declared price which is often significantly understated to avoid tax. Of course they know exactly what is going on but they sometimes tell you sarcastically you have got a great deal.
I think this can be considered on topic because the first thing you want to do after getting your ID card after visiting the Royal Palace for free is to buy land - just because you can.
- 1
-
5 hours ago, hotchilli said:
Some might suggest Lisa moved to Korea because her career only path in Buriram planting rice wasn't all it was cracked up to be.
Her other skills were going to waste.
Lisa is the step daughter of a well known Swiss chef in Thailand. She got a decent education in Bangkok.
-
On 11/8/2021 at 8:39 AM, onthemoon said:
Your experience is different from mine then. My witnesses were not asked a single question about my finances, but they were first asked how long they know me and how they know me to establish that they can say something about the following questions which centered around whether I am a reliable person and of good character. That's what they told me, I have no protocol of that interview.
Interesting. Goes to show that things can change depending on who's in charge.
- 1
-
6 hours ago, onthemoon said:
Interesting. In my case, the witnesses for my citizen application were character witnesses. I fully understand that the government wants to hear their statements, and they were asked questions accordingly.
I wouldn't know what the witnesses in for a marriage would witness. Every business contract in Thailand needs to witnesses and they just witness that the contract was signed by the two people, they don't need to know them or say anything about the signors' characters. So we might be talking about different things here.
I think witnesses for marriage don't have to know you but just witness your signatures. For citizenship they are not really character witnesses. They just have to verify certain facts in your application, i.e. how long you have been in Thailand, your job, your salary, your bank balance as per the statement you submitted, your condo and its value, if you have one. Many of these facts they are not in a position to know which makes it a pointless exercise and explains why SB doesn't always ask you to bring them, depending on who is in charge in your year. As mentioned, I still have copies of the 'interviews' and they were not asked about my character. Of course, if they put the witnesses to the trouble of coming into the office, they might ask more questions that are beyond the basic requirements.
-
7 hours ago, RJaidee said:
Update
My wife just spoke to the person who handled my file
Letter 1 for British Embassy is the intention letter. I have no need to do this again having submitted it already.
Letter 2, and this is directly from the person, we need to take a photo of us handing that over at the British Embassy and submit that as evidence.
The only way to to find out is to submit the evidence requested, find out why that is wrong, submit it again, and repeat until accepted.
Asking you to take a picture of embassy staff receiving the letter, when you have to check mobile phones and cameras at the gate, is the height of Thai bureaucratic asininity. They should also get a picture of the embassy staff chucking the letter unopened into the bin.
- 1
-
4 hours ago, khongaeng said:
From what others have said, it sounds like it is not required for witnesses to visit SB. When I visited SB during my paperwork collection phase, they. said that I needed 2 witnesses but that they could "arrange" them for me. Avoiding the possible awkwardness if payment was required for these "arranged" witnesses, I opted to find my own 2 witnesses. I assumed that they would have to come to the office, so I brought them with me when I finalized my application, but I suppose it may not be required. They were interviewed for less than 5 minutes and then were allowed to leave. I suppose this is an indication that their presence was not even required.
The witnesses need to fill in their personal details on a form and sign the fictitious witness statements but don't need to come to the office to do that. It is interesting that SB offer to provide the witnesses for you now. The MoI might be surprised that so many applicants have friends in the police. When I got married the district office provided two witnesses for 150 baht each but they didn't have to know us.
-
24 minutes ago, GarryP said:
My witnesses didn't visit SB, nor were they interviewed by phone, but I applied just over 9 years ago.
The wording of the interview transcript is pretty basic. I think I still have it in my file because I had to get the witnesses to sign them, since they hadn't been interviewed. It's just like I have known Joe Bloggs in Thailand for XX years. I confirm he works at XXXXCo and earns a salary of XXX a month, has a condo worth XX million smackers, has a bank balance of zillions of baht. Of course, if they come into the office, they will have to answer these silly questions like how much you have in your bank account.
-
22 minutes ago, onthemoon said:
It was smart to bring the witnesses on that day, because I didn't. They went the next day without me (I wasn't free) and it went smoothly.
So is SB insisting on interviewing the witnesses in most cases these days? For some years they were happy to write up imaginary interviews to avoid bringing them into the office.
- 1
Do Afro American men get treated with respect as teachers in Thailand ?
in Teaching in Thailand Forum
Posted
I met two English girls in a Bkk pub once. They had been just been for interviews together at a private school looking for English teachers. The two girls had the same education (which I didn't include teaching credentials), came from the same town, spoke clear English without heavy accents and were the same age but one was white and the other was black. Guess which one got the job. The head mistress told the black girl, "I am so sorry but the parents would never accept a black teacher. I am sure you understand my position." The sad thing is that she was probably right. The Thai Chinese parents could accept being conned by the school that tpok their money and illegally hired unqualified teachers but could not accept that one of them might be black.
Thailand is truly a form over substance culture.