Arkady

1 hour ago, kst said:

Reached khet at 08:30am as per appointment and got myself moved to blue tabien baan + thai ID issued by noon with no further hiccups.

 

Then sent required docs to HR so they will update revenue department, social security, group insurance on my behalf. Also asked them to cancel WP. 

 

Thereafter went to update driving license and also got an appointment for passport for 21st Sept at Chaeng Wattana. Purposely chose this place so I can also head to immigration to cancel visa on the same day. 

 

Long day but quite satisfied with the amount of things done. Will leave the rest for another day.. 

Congrats.  I have never bothered to change my driving license or tell them I changed my nationality to Thai.  The license already had  my 8 prefix ID number I got with PR and it doesn't specify nationality.  So I couldn't be bothered.  It is a lifetime license, so it's been a few years now. I guess it has my nationality in the magnetic strip, if that actually works.  I think I will just leave it like that, unless I lose it or they revoke lifetime licenses which has sometime been threatened.  I think PRs who got 5 year licenses after they received PR and have their correct Thai ID numbers on them can just wait until they expire and give them their Thai nationality detailed when they have to renew.

18 minutes ago, qualtrough said:

We just had the good news that those swearing their oath in August last year have now had their names appear in the RG. Historically, I believe the interval from oath to RG was something more like 3 months, so 1 year was quite a wait. I may have this all wrong, so if so please feel free to correct.  But here's my question. Is it likely that people who took their oath a few months back will be waiting a year as well, or is there any chance it might be quicker for the next batch?

I don't think there is a set time after oath taking. I think first of all the list just sits in someone's in tray waiting to be signed for sending to the RG.  Then once there they tend to sit on it for some time which you can see from the gap between signing the order and publication date in the RG which can be up to 5 months but that is very unusual.  It is more likely 2-3 months.  In the case of a coup they can publish a new constitution in the RG the very next day.

2 hours ago, mvdf said:

May I ask how this works with exit/entry as a Thai citizen of foreign lineage.  You exit Thailand with your Thai passport (the passport you show Thai immigration). What happens if they (immigration or the airline) check for a visa on the Thai passport during check in and clearance formalities and don't see one (as you intend to enter the UK with your British passport) ? Do you reveal your UK passport? I'm genuinely curious. ????

I think you would have to, if you want to get past him and get to the plane.  His argument would be that he needs to know you can enter the other country, even though that is the airline's job.

There are other threads describing the reverse case where Thais living abroad enter on a blank Thai passport that they got from their local Thai embassy.  The IO can see they must have a foreign passport as there is no visa or exit stamp in the Thai passport and may ask to see the foreign passport.  Sometimes the IO has delivered a BS lecture about not being allowed two passports and insisted that anyone with a foreign passport is a foreigner who must enter Thailand on a foreign passport.  Assuming it is the passport of a country that is allowed a transit visa  (pre-COVID) the IO has occasionially sullenly banged a transit visa into the foreign passport before the traveller understood what his game was.  They may then be stuck with visa extensions or overstay fines. Most of the people harassed in this way have been Thais naturalised as aliens or look krung and have nothing to fear.  So they can just stand their ground and refuse to show the IO the foreign passport on the grounds that they have a constitutional right to enter on their Thai passport and there is no need for the IO to see the foreign passport.  In all cases of this type if the traveller demanded to see the supervisor, the situation was resolved with an apology and an entry stamp in the Thai passport.  

Re Neeranam's question about what happens if own land and lose Thai nationality, I shudder to consider this.  Probably you are expected to divest yourself of it but I don't think this case is actually specified in the Land Code which prohibits transfer of land to foreigners.  You might be able to hang on to it, unless someone complains.  If you wanted to sell it, you could probably use a copy of your idea card while the Land Department still accepts photocopies of ID cards and doesn't put the ID card in a smart reader.  You could do this until the expiry date of your ID card and if it happened when you were over 70, you would have a lifetime ID card as they don't bother renewing them after that.  Anyway it would be a potentially precarious situation.  

8 hours ago, onthemoon said:

I believe they changed a law and now foreigners can own up to 1 rai of land if they inherited it (from example from their wife). I'm not a legal expert, so you might want to double-check this.

In the unlikely event that you lose your Thai nationality, you might want to check if that law applies somehow also to you too. 

That provision is in the 1954 Land Code and was there since the beginning but it is now redundant because it was contingent on the treaties Thailand had with various foreign countries allowing their nationals to own land in Thailand ostensibly on a reciprocal basis.  If you were a national of one of these countries you were able to inherit land in the same way that you could buy land, with the approval of the minister which was not always easy to get.  Thailand never liked this aspect of the treaties which were somewhat imposed on it because Thais figured out that they could own land in most of those countries without the treaties.  Apart from the US Amity Treaty all the rest were revoked by the early 70s and the US was persuaded to delete the clause about land ownership from its treaty.

The status quo is that the land of a deceased Thai national goes into the estate and the estate of a Thai is also considered Thai.  The executors have 12 months to dispose of the land and give the proceeds to the foreign heirs.  In practice, if there is just one foreign heir, such as a spouse,  I guess it would be possible to give up the right to the land to a Thai citizen who could act as nominee, if the heir wanted to continue living in the house and had a trustworthy Thai nominee. 

25 minutes ago, DrJoy said:

You're not required to give up your original nationality to get Thai. However, you (Naturalized Thai) have to depart and enter Thailand using your Thai PP only.

 

The Brit was given warning many times not to use his Brit PP, but he never listened.

 

He broke Section 19 (2)

Maybe you know him but I only know the details in the RG announcement. So I don't know, if he was warned or if he attempted to appeal the decision like the Chinese couple.  Since they used section 17 on him he was clearly Thai through birth in Thailand and I would argue that situation would now be covered by the 2017 constitution which prohibits involuntary revocation in the case of those Thai through birth. Of course they might argue that Thai through birth means birth to a Thai parent but that is not what the constitution says. Most likely he was born to expat parents and for, all we know, he might not have cared about his Thai nationality.  He might have been brought up in the UK and lived his life there and just came to Thailand on holiday without bothering to renew his Thai passport or maybe never even had one. Of course it would be tragic if he was living in Thailand and just didn't have his Thai passport handy for some reason.

Some of you may recall the case a few years go of a naturalised Thai scientist who was having one of those terrible defamation rows with a well connected Thai.  His opponent was unaware he was a naturalised Thai and disgustingly used his connections to have Immigration blacklist him.  As luck would have it he was on a trip where he lost his Thai passport.  Since he couldn't be bothered to delay his return trip by several days while he went to a Thai embassy to get a new passport, he decided to travel back on his farang passport, not knowing about the Immigration blacklist or of the risks to a naturalised Thai or using the farang passport.  When he arrived, all hell broke loose and he was arrested and told he was to be deported.  But Immigration was stunned by his claim that he was actually Thai.  He was held in the airport for about three days while he got irrevocable evidence of his Thainess but no one ever threatened him with revocation.      

8 minutes ago, WhiteBuffaloATM said:

drjoy: incredible. with my thai child we are scrupulously careful to use his thai passport entering/ existing thailand and his UK passport in & out everywhere else………

It doesn't matter for them because there is nothing they can do under the law.  Under Section 14 they have the right but not the obligation to renounce Thai nationality at the age of 20, if they wish to retain their other nationality.

10 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

 

That does not prohibit somebody from still having both nationalities.

It means you cannot use your other nationality while in the country. That has been discussed many times previously in this topic.

What I can say is that AFAIK there are no revocations of Naturalised Thais under Section 19 on record at all in the RG.  There are a number of revocations of people Thai through birth in the Kingdom to alien parents under Section 17, most of which are for residing overseas for more than 5 years (Section 17.1) but I know of one case in 2004 under Section 17.2 for making use of father's nationality. In the announcement it was specified that the evidence that he made use of father's nationality was that he entered the Kingdom on a British passport.  BTW there is gender bias in that Section 18 dealing revocation of women adopting Thai hubby's nationality doesn't have the clauses to do residing abroad for 5 years or with making use of former nationality.  However, this is no doubt because the section was merely cut and paste from earlier nationality acts pre-dating the current 1965 Act going back to the 30s or 40s when most countries including the UK and Thailand automatically cancelled a woman's citizenship, if she married a foreigner.  So it was originally assumed the women had no former nationality to make use of and later no one wanted to inconvenience their Thai hubbies by adding these provisions.

I think the point that BkkBike09 is making is that the past is no guarantee of the future and who's to say they might not suddenly decide it was a national security issue and that using a foreign passport to check in with an airline or just having it in one's pocket when passing immigration constitutes evidence of use of former nationality. One could also perhaps try to make a case that a false declaration was made.  I have discussed here in the past the conversations I had with several of SB crew at the time the affidavit was first introduced which they themselves found puzzling and irksome at the time. They said they had been to meetings with the MoI when the affidavit was being introduced where the MoI was saying that their legal section's advice was that there is nothing in the Act that allows them to require evidence of renunciation post facto, as some other countries do, and they had come up with the affidavit as the best way to encourage voluntary renunciations or to dissuade a flood of people with Thai wives but no PR from applying, as was feared after 2008 amendments. (In the case of Chinese, Koreans and Indians et al who comprise a large proportion of the applicants, their embassies will do the job of revocations for MoI and the MoI may have assumed that other countries would do the same until the British embassy put it in their face that this was not the case). The affidavit reflected a distinct change in MoI thinking as people just before that were being asked in MoI interviews if they were lucky enough to be able to retain their original nationality according to their country's laws.  It took the MoI took 2 or 3 years to update the guidelines to reflect the 2008 amendments which SB told me was deliberate and, indeed, only a trickle of people applied under the amendments for the first two years.  In addition to the 90 day reporting there was an archaic revolutionary decree prohibiting women from being out after 10pm without a male guardian that Thaksin tried to re-enforce during the 'social order' campaign when cops went around testing girls' pee pee in night clubs.  Even worse is the example of the requirement for TM card reporting when moving around the country which I believe was in the 1972 Immigration Act but never enforced at all until the Prayut government decided to dust it off for use on 'national security' grounds and allegedly for the convenience of foreign embassies when someone disappears or is murdered. It would be a stretch to say that naturalised Thais are more of a threat to national security than the far greater numbers of look krung and Thais naturalised as aliens who have dual nationality but anything is possible. The former revocation targets, people born in the Kingdom to alien parents, are now protected by the current constitution which prohibits involuntary revocation of nationality from those Thai through birth.  So that leaves only the very small number of naturalised Thais they could go after which would seem not worth the candle but you can't say the  chance is zero, so it is something to be be borne in mind.

1 hour ago, david143 said:

I visited my Amphur on 1st Sep .
They said we will call you back after 3 days.
I didn't get any call,
on Monday 6 SEP , i called Amphur myself and they informed me come Tomorrow on TUESDAY 7 @ 9 AM
I took my Day off from Work , i was on the way for Amphur , i was in half way when Officer called my mobile and said i have problem at my home flooding i will not able to go Amphur, please come on 8 SEP @ 9 AM.
I took another Day off from Work, Went to Amphur 8:15 , officer was already there, he took 3 hours to complete my Blue Book process.
it was 11:45 AM
next step ID card section, once i went to that section they said  you have to come tomorrow , we don't take Walkin , <deleted> , i was already out of my mind since the day first, and yesterday everything has been out , i was with my 2 brother in Law, my wife and my father in law.
We DAA nak ti sud laey, i am not you servant to come everyday for you, yesterday i took day off, today i took day off, and now you telling me i need another day off, who the hell are you to say so, you are Govt staff i pay Tax so you get salary, nearby office was Boss, he took us in his Office and say sorry and said kindly wait i will sort out,
after 10 min he back in office and said please come back @ 3 pm, and we will process your ID.
My question was only 1.
all the staff free, playing mobile, no customer at all, and you can't process my ID , i need my ID today , there is no Tomorrow, we all working .
so i got ID card @ 16:15 all amphur staff gone, only 3 left for me to process my ID.
Damn i took 3 day off, in 9 days,
The day got Certificate, The day you called me and staff absent, yesterday for ID.
Now whenever another Tang Dao will come for ID which is they need to process 19 People from 4 and 5 RG, they will consider them really good.
I waited for 3 hours for Blue book , staff should tell me go and get que , they are all shut up and that is the point we got it to Daa them naaaak ti sud baa oye
i Got my Shiny Blue card at 16:15 with no fees and actually amphur already closed since 15:30 ????

Well I am glad you got your ID card without having to take yet another day off work. Your khet is an utter disgrace - a load of idle bustards.  It is reminiscent of the old style kararatchakarn lording it over the peasantry.  There are old stories of peasants being made to wait outside in the sun while the lords and ladies went out to have lunch or told to come back another day after they had walked shoeless for 10km to their local district office.  My own blue book update and ID card stint also took the whole day from 9.00 am to after 4.00 pm.

You remind me of something that others should be warned of.  I had the same experience where the ID card section tried to tell me to "f" off and come back another day because I hadn't made an appointment with them. I said I had actually come in personally and made the appointment but they pathetically argued that appointment was just with the tabien baan section which was completely unrelated and they had no contact with them, even though they are in the same room.  Of course this is ridiculous that they can't coordinate with each other and that the tabien baan section can't warn you to make a separate appointment with their colleagues.  It is advisable to make appointments with both sections separately, even though you have no idea how long the tabien baan section can take.  Maximum seems to be 3 hours.  

13 hours ago, khongaeng said:

My experience was actually similar, but fortunately it was caught at SB.  When I initially applied, I was told by SB officer that they didn't need a copy of my WP from the first 2 years of my 3 year period prior to application, but that they only needed a copy of my current WP.  Then I got a call back from SB 1 year later that they needed a copy of my first WP, "just in case". I quickly rushed back to the office to provide a copy of my first WP, and that was the end of it.  

 

By the way, at no point did anyone want to see that actual old original WP, they were happy with copies of every page with any sort of details printed or hand written.  I was only required to show my current WP when I first applied at SB and at the NIA interview, I never had to show it again, even though I diligently maintained it throughout the process. 

Copies of old WPs are certainly acceptable but I actually had the old WP because I had insisted on getting my cancelled WP back at the Labour Ministry. I was glad I had it because another applicant was summoned to bring his old WP to the MoI at the same as I was and the MoI made him get a notarised copy from the Labour Ministry. 

It is astonishing that SB could keep on repeating the same mistake of not collecting copies of old WPs from applicants who change jobs within the three year qualifying period.  It is obvious that this is needed and you would think they would learn from their mistakes.

14 hours ago, SteveB2 said:

Apart from a translation, my degree certificate, UK ACPO background check and divorce certificate all needed an 'Apostille' attached to them. I hired a legal firm in the UK to carry out this onerous legal task for me.

 

Word of advice:- insist on having a member of your UK legal team hand carry any important documents to the Thai Embassy in London for any necessary admin processing and stamps - They informed me that while queing to get in the Thai embassy, there was one guy from Thailand in the que who had sufferred the Thai Embassy(UK) loose his original degree certificate and other important documents 3 times before he eventually bit the bullet and travelled all the way to the UK so as to handle the Thai Embassy visits himself...

Good advice re Thai Embassy in London. There have been many reports of them losing documents sent to them for legalisation.  It seems that they are totally lackadaisical and couldn't care less. 

I was once asked for an apostile of my passport for a business deal in Germany. They said it must be an apostile, not legalisation by the embassy.  I enquired at the British Embassy by email and two weeks later a real British consular officer called me to say he had never heard of apostiles but had done some research and found out they could only be done in the UK.  So I went to the German Embassy without an appointment where they happily did an apostile of my British passport and witnessed my signature on the agreement. 

On 7/3/2021 at 11:43 AM, scorecard said:

 

I understand all of that; 

Yes there has been an ongoing discussion for years whether Certificate of Residence holders should/should not need a work permit, my personal opinion (repeat just my personal opinion) is that they should not need a work permit but perhaps ther

Your points taken/accepted. 

 

With all respect I submitted a message prompted by a post specific to the final date to return under the Covid 19 situation.

 

No further comment.   

 

When WPs were introduced in the early 70s anyone who had PR at the time and was in a job was exempted from the need to have a WP for life, as long as he remained in the same profession. That was in the transitory provisions of the original Working of Aliens Act. It would have made more sense if they had just exempted  PRs without exception.

2 hours ago, scorecard said:

I applied in 1198/1999 (not sure which).

 

- My degrees, long-term investment documents (mutual funds), police clearance had to be submitted in Thai and in English.

- After my English documents were translated to Thai, I took both sets of documents to my embassy where they were all stamped 'SEEN AT xxxxxxx EMBASSY', a date was written under the stamp then a signature of an embassy consular employee, my understand is that any consular employee (from the home country) could sign.

- On my first visit to Soi Suan Phlu with my agent, the agent spoke to a person at the counter and a more senior officer was called to the counter. The senior officer asked if we had free time for an interview there and then. I indicated 'YES'. At this point no documents at all had been submitted.

- The senior officer took my agent and myself to another wing of the Soi Suan Phlu buildings and he unlocked an interview room, not a small room, with a big desk and chairs.

- When we were walking to the interview room the office spoke to me many times in perfect English. Thai language wasn't used in the interview. My agent also spoke perfect English.

- We sat down, a maid brought some coffee and cold water. 

- The officer said 'the first step is for me to accept all your documents and check each document. probably about 1 hour and I'll ask you questions as needed to ensure I fully understand your documents.

- First check completed the officer started a general/comprehensive interview about my job, my past history, my academic studies and all with emphasis on what I believed I was contributing to Thailand and several times he asked if I was training/sharing my knowledge, skills, experience with my Thai colleagues. I recall he also politely mentioned 'please make sure you speak to your Thai work staff in English to ensure their English skills develop'.

- The officer was very pleasant, good 2 way discussion/conversation, clearly well travelled, he listened well to my answers and followed up as needed. I felt no intimidation whatever. Several times he stopped and asked 'do you have any questions for me at this stage.' 

- He also asked about my family in Thailand, where they lived, what language we spoke at home, what sports my son played. When I mentioned 'my son plays rugby' he gave a big smile and shared that he had played rugby in New Zealand when he was at school/university and he loved to watch rugby but unfortunately it's not shown very often on Thai TV.

- He then indicated that the interview was complete, but he did ask again 'do you have any more questions for me'. Then he said 'I need about 10 or 15 minutes to talk to my superior, and I'm going to recommend you to receive the Certificate of Residence, I'll be back quickly'. And he politely asked if we could wait, I answered YES.

- He scooped up all the documents in distinct groups then make them look neat and put big clips on the 3 or 4 piles of docs.

- He disappeared then reappeared less than 10 minutes later. With a big smile he shook my hand and said 'I can confirm you are now on the recommended list for this year for your country'.

- My agent politely asked 'what are the next steps?' The officer responded:

• 'There are no more interviews.'
• 'Your documents and my accepted recommendation will go to a very senior Immigration committee later this year, that committee meets once a year. The committee have never rejected any recommendations. The only difficulty can be if the maximum number of foreigners for your country has been exceeded, but if that happens, and it's never happened, that person will automatically head the list or recommendations for that country for the next year.  But your submission and interview has been very early for this year and I can tell you that you're number 1 on the list for your country for this year.' He called someone then gave us the planned date for the senior meeting. 
• 'Quickly after the senior committee meeting (normally finished well inside one day) you will get a registered letter advising that your application has been approved and details of what you must do next'. He also mentioned if you get worried about receiving that letter come back to the main counter and ask for me and I'll follow up for you.
• The officer also mentioned that the committee was made up of several very senior Immigration officers and several military Generals. He asked me 'are you aware of General Prem, he was the PM for many years now retired'.
• I indicated YES, when my letter arrived it was signed by General Prem. 

You must have applied in the 80s, if your letter was signed by Prem. He did serve as PM and Interior Minister simultaneously then but quit politics completely in 1988.  Chatichai Choonhaven succeeded him as PM in that year.

My two interviews for PR in 1997 were all in Thai and the second one was not particularly friendly. The interview took place in a room with the TV blaring a soap opera in the corner and another applicant being interviewed 3 feet away from me and other cops chatting noisily in the background.  The interviewer was clearly looking to pick holes in my application and looking for excuses to reject me. I had to get an introduction to a Pol Maj Gen at Immigration who was friendly with the parents of one of my staff and he vouched for me so I could  leapfrog over the gatekeeper who was only a captain. A friend who told me he had paid something was called to the second interview and just showed the name card of the appropriate pol gen and was told he had passed without having to answer any questions.  He got his PR in June having applied in December the previous year.  I had to wait till December.  

Requirements for translation and notarisation of docs and police clearances seem to have varied over the years for both PR and citizenship, depending on who was in charge at the time. But now both processes seem to have gravitated to maximum strictness in these areas.  Notwithstanding curved balls that came my way in both processes I have to say I was lucky in having to do only a bare minimum of translation and notarisation for both but, of course, at the time we all thought the requirements were a real pain.

1 hour ago, DrJoy said:

In Thailand you are at the whim of the officer you are talking to (Hua naa jai dee maak)

 

They checked your WP but for khongaeng they didnt bother 4 months of gap.

 

Likewise, some one in this thread posted his horrific experience about getting his yellow book corrected.

 

For me, I went to khet chatuchak with only my original PP and Thai translation of it. I was out in 2 hours with my 1st shiny YB + Pink card.

My application was missing the first WP which was nearly 2 years of the 3 year qualifying period because my SB case officer refused to take the copy from me, saying they only wanted the current one.  This sounded very wrong to me and I urged her to take it but she wouldn't and there was nothing I could do. So it wasn't a big surprise when I got the call from the MoI section head 3.5 years later saying it was missing and telling me to report to the office the same day with old WP in hand, although it was a surprise that she called in person.  As a result of my case officer's stubborn incompetence, my WPs probably got more scrutiny than they otherwise would have.  Anyway, I am of the view that WP gaps will still be grounds for rejection, if they are noticed.

57 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

The last time I never returned a WP, it was 1500 baht fine, but if you have become Thai, you'll never have to do this. 

One could argue that the visa/extension doesn't have to be cancelled too, as they can't charge you for overstay when leaving the country as a Thai, can they? @ubonjoe@Arkady

For peace of mind, I did cancel, and for the gratification of saying "Goodbye"! 

I assume you got fined for not cancelling the WP because you wanted another one.

Theoretically they can and they do fine people of Thai parentage who arrive on foreign passports, claim their Thai citizenship, overstay and leave on a Thai passport. They can argue the case and might win, if they don't mind giving up their flights and staying to fight in the Admin Court.  But these people have no excuse for their behaviour because in the eyes of Immigration, even though there is no mechanism for cancelling their visas, they should have arrived on Thai passports or left on the foreign passport without overstaying, or applied for free one year extensions on the basis of their Thai nationality and then left on the foreign passport. There is no risk to using a foreign passport for those who are Thai by birth.  I think that naturalised Thais have a perfect excuse to say they had to give up the foreign passport and didn't think they needed to cancel the visa after being naturalised and, as I said, many people have done this without ill effects.  But, if you want to play safe, given that there is always a first time, make the effort to cancel your visa. 

58 minutes ago, GabbaGabbaHey said:

Keep in mind there is no more physical booklet, it is currently e-WP in your mobile phone app. I did print screenshots of my WP and provided them with signature whenever I was asked for it, which made officers happy. It's also good to capture screenshots for memory and just in case, you know what I mean.

 

OMG!  I had no idea they had introduced digital WPs. 

The blue WPs were actually not that bad but what is really bad are the two totally redundant PR books. A single smart card would do the job and there are already piink ID cards. But they must have printed several million copies of the red books with the brittle glue in the spines when the first Immigration Act came in in 1927, so they will want to keep on issuing them till the end of the century. The red books also provide police with a redundant position in every Bkk cop shop and some upcountry.  They have full time alien registration officers who do about an hours work each a month.

1 hour ago, david143 said:

@Neeranam and @GabbaGabbaHey Brother
The day i will go for Cancel Visa do i need Thai passport too, or Just
ID card
House Registration Co

I dropped by at CW to cancel my PR on the way to apply for my Thai passport at the nearby Consular Section. No problem. Cancelling PR is simple and takes about 20-30 minutes.  I think it is necessary as you have an ID document as a PR in the form of the red book that needs to be returned. But there has been some debate here as to whether you need to cancel your visa, if you didn't have PR. Some people have had problems trying to do it in the past because CW didn't have a clue and made them come back another day or wait around for hours while they called around to figure how to do it. Others didn't bother to cancel their visas and had no problem when they travelled in and out with their Thai passports.  I don't know, if CW has become organised in cancelling visas by now. While others who travelled in on a foreign passport and out on a Thai passport have often had problems with overstay fines on the way out, there is no record of this ever having happened to naturalised Thais when first using their Thai passports. 

Your decision to complete the loop at CW or not, if you don't have PR books to hand back. It's probably safest to do it to avoid potential hassles on the way out in case things change but the risk seems pretty low.

In Thailand embassies can legalise documents from their countries but translations, which seem OK if accompanied by a stamp showing name and contact details of translator,  have to be certified by MoFA.  The translation checkers at MoFA are of variable quality and often overlook copious errors in translation while insisting on changes that are incorrect.  But one of the things they have there is a database of signatures of all the consul officials at foreign embassies who are authorised to sign. In addition to certifying translations, they also legalise the signature of the consular official of anything legalised by an embassy.  One of their favorite corrections is in the Thai spellings of names of consular officials working at foreign embassies.  Translators will just have a shot at transliterating foreign names into Thai or at writing the names of Thai consular signatories that are printed in English on the English documents and, if challenged, will claim they are familiar with the Thai spelling for this or that consular official, even if they are not.  This is not good enough for MoFA because they have the correct Thai spellings on record and will reject any translation that doesn't comply with what they have on record.  So always ask for the Thai spellings of the names of consular officials of anything you need translated and notarised by MoFA. 

Many embassies have drastically reduced their legalisation activities.  The British embassy used to legalise anything that came out of the UK or olonies like BVI on a walk-in basis but now has a very short list of things it will legalise, such as passport copies. If you try to go there to legalise something not on their list, they will not give you an appointment. Some things like birth certificates now have to be apostiled in the UK instead.

I applied for PR in the late 90s and wasn't asked to get anything certified by my embassy or MoFA. Degree certificates were accepted in English without legalisation by embassy but foreign languages other than English had to be translated. All copies were certified as true and correct by myself.  No home country police clearance was required.  There was no Thai language requirement or panel interview, just two separate interviews by Immigration officers asking exactly the same questions.  We were informally guaranteed to get PR before they opened for the next year's batch and this was honoured. We applied in December and were approved in three batches, in June, September and December of the following year.

49 minutes ago, DrJoy said:

Do you have the link to the RG which mentions Chiang Mai address? Any male candidate from CM?

Here you go.  Number 86 on this 2016 list of naturalisations (i.e. all except wives of Thai husbands which are not considered naturalisations) had a Chiang Mai address.  You may find some more recent ones, if you comb through the RG announcements but I don't have 2018-20 on file.  In the 2017 naturalisation announcements I also spotted a Lampang, a Trat and a brace of Nonthaburis.

6.pdf

On 7/15/2021 at 7:52 AM, Michael Hare said:

I have had PR for 20 years and at times I have considered citizenship. What puts me off is that I doubt that I could process citizenship in Ubon Ratchathani. I did my PR at Soi Suan Plu and even though it was easy, just the going backwards and forwards to Bangkok was tiring. If the whole process of getting citizenship could be done in Ubon, I would jump at it. I am getting tired of getting Work Permits every two years with PR. 

I think you are probably right that Special Branch in Ubon would be unable or unwilling to process your application. I don't recall seeing Ubon addresses in the lists of new citizens but nothing to lose by asking them though.  Applying in Bangkok would certainly require a number of trips, some at short notice.

1 hour ago, DrJoy said:

If your Home country does not have an Embassy in Thailand then what is the way around? Does anybody know about it?

You asking about PR or citizenship?  For citizenship I believe there are provisions to get docs that you need from your embassy from your Foreign Ministry or other competent ministry back home, if no embassy in Bangkok. However, I don't know how this would work in practice. For PR I am not sure what you need from embassies these days but I guess the same would apply.