Arkady

It's rather off topic but Thai spelling has also not been reformed for a long time, while Laos, with a similar writing system reformed its spelling after the communist takeover to make it easier to learn.  Thai still has a lot of redundant letters that had a role in the Pali language they were taken from but are not useful in Thai.  Thai likes to preserve original spellings of loan words and uses silent marks to do it.

English also preserves original spellings from other languages which is  one of the reasons that spellings are different.  On the other hand it makes it easy to figure out the the meanings of new long words taken from other languages, if you happen to know that language, usually Latin or Greek.  These polysyllabic words would be a mess if reduced to a baby spelling system.  In addition English has many words pronounced the same but spelled differently with no differentiation through tones possible, unlike Thai.  If all words that are pronounced the same had to be spelled the same, it would be difficult to figure which word was which in the written language.

Back to the topic.  The Immigration Act is over 40 years old.  So Thai officials seem happy with using that long term fix. 

6 hours ago, Kwarium said:

Thanks, it finally did! 31 names published in the Royal Gazette dated October 22nd!

 

Will they schedule an appt. to go get the certificate? Is there some ceremony or just photo op?

 

Congrats.

Let's hope they really can speed things up without opening up opportunities for ill-intentioned groups.  It seems that, while the process is dead slow, compared to other Asian countries, including China, the ill-intentioned groups have no trouble coming to Thailand and setting themselves up in criminal activities including boiler rooms, and romance scams.  Apparently there are also a large number of people still able to enter the country on forged or stolen passports.

On 10/21/2018 at 3:46 PM, elviajero said:

If you are working for yourself or a foreign based business you won't get a work permit, and even with the changes you cannot work without one. If you are being employed by a Thai business you will need a work permit, which you almost certainly won't get with a "retirement visa".

 

The changes have been made predominantly to make it easier for foreigners, working for Thai businesses, to get a work permit and move between employers.

That sounds right. I believe they have also now said that businessmen don't need a work permit to come to Thailand on short visits to see clients to clients or subsidiaries or to attend seminars.  That makes sense but doesn't make much difference because no one bothered to apply for WPs for these activities and most people never even imagined they needed to.

I don't see any other exemptions in the new decree on working of aliens.

Looking at the TNN video report on the link there is definitely some monkey business going on which seems to involve corrupt government officials.  The woman interviewed admitted that she had agreed to a marriage of convenience for money on condition she could get a divorce a year later.  But she said she never signed her name, just had a photograph taken with her new husband. She never saw the marriage certificate, let alone got a copy of it.  I guess there is a scam going on with district offices that they will issue the marriage certificate without doing the mandatory interview with the couple to ensure all details are correct and that it is real marriage, or perhaps they take another woman to stand in and pay officials to overlook that it is someone else.  Immigration must also be involved in the scam as there is no point in doing this unless you can use the marriage certificate to get marriage extensions for which Immigration is obliged to interview the Thai spouse, who is obviously not showing up at Immigration every year to help him renew his visa. 

The women are definitely to blame for agreeing to marry a stranger for B3,000 to 5,000.  But the whole thing is only possible with the connivance of corrupt government officials, something that was overlooked completely in the TNN report. What a surprise!

The woman interviewed complained that she cannot get married to someone else until she can get a divorce which is difficult without cooperation from her husband and without a copy of the marriage certificate. I suppose those are the "benefits" referred to in the poor English translation. Since the husband obviously has no interest in showing up to the district office to sign papers agreeing to an uncontested divorce, the woman effectively cannot get divorced at all. Her only option would be a contested divorce on the grounds of 3 year separation but that requires her to go to court which she clearly cannot afford since she is dirt poor.  On the other hand, since less than 50% of Thai couples don't bother to register their marriages, that might be regrettable but not be a huge issue, if she does enter a genuine relationship in future.

On 10/20/2018 at 4:32 PM, marcusarelus said:

Old wives tale.  There used to be an anti Farang law that deprived Thai women of some legal rights if they married a foreigner.  The reporters weren't capable enough to check if this was now or 50 years ago.  

The Thai Nationality Act used to strip Thai women of their nationality if they married foreigners but that was changed decades ago.  The British Nationality Act did the same thing until 1948.

Until 1999 the bureaucrats used to interpret the prohibition against foreigners owning land to mean that Thai women married to foreigners (but not Thai men married to foreigners) could not buy land. But that interpretation was revised in 1999 without the need to change the Land Code.

Since 1999 I can't think of any legal disadvantages that apply to Thai women married to foreigners. I can only assume they meant the benefit of being able enter into more fraudulent marriages with foreigners for money.  There would be little advantage to the foreigners of having a Thai wife, if she gets a divorce.  It would be of use in getting a marriage extension, if she is willing to go to Immigration with him every year. I can't see the use of having a marriage of convenience for a short period of time only and having no cooperation from the Thai "spouse".

15 hours ago, FarangRimPing said:

PR holders are required to report to the local police station every 5 years with their Alien Registration book, as we know. I assume that if you go through proper procedures to officially change your address, including going to the new location's police station with the Alien book, and then getting placed in a new Tabien Baan, the time ticker is reset to 0, so that you next have to report in 5 years from the time you last visited the new local police station.

 

Correct?

From what I recall change of address and 5 year endorsements are separate things. I changed address a few months before the 5 years were up and they offered to do the endorsement ahead of time. If you want to reset it, you can ask if they can. Otherwise you get it done after 5 years regardless of change of address.

No problem.  Just transfer to your Thai bank account.  No questions asked if under USD 50k. Problems only occur if you try to remit it out again.

23 hours ago, balo said:

Well he could have told them his passport was in the hotel room, but it seems to me he didnt know if he had a passport.

It sounded as if he was trying to tell them his passport was in his bag in his hotel room. 

I have travelled all over the world and normally like to leave my passport in a safety box at my hotel. I don't want it to get lost or stolen on the street or worn out from being in my pocket.

6 hours ago, jumbo said:

How 'fluent in Thai' do you need to be...

I mean I can definitely talk about my business and work, attend meetings and the general dinner conversations but if they ask me anything I don't deal on a daily basis with like; name me the parts of a car engine, than I am lost...

I also heard through the grapevine you need to know the text of the national anthem, but since I don't work karaoke yet singing would likely get me rejected..... number or provinces and info like that.

 Is there no list with the standard questions that PR's have from their days???

When I did PR they had not yet introduced the requirement to be able to speak Thai but I have done the citizenship interview which probably requires a similar level of Thai for those not applying for citizenship  on the basis of a Thai wife.  Friends who have done the PR interview told me that they were asked things like, "What do you feel is your contribution to Thai society?"  and "Do you have Thai friends?"  When he said he had Thai friends, they asked for the full names of 5 of them. I think it would be worth preparing the  answer about the contribution to society because that is an important part of your application. Otherwise it's worth preparing to introduce yourself, how many years in TH, what jobs have you done, your family.  Prepare to answer questions about your work. 

They don't expect total fluency at all.  An intermediate knowledge of Thai should be sufficient.  I don't believe they will ask you about the lyrics of the National Anthem.  I think someone is confusing the requirement to sing the National and Royal Anthems in the citizenship interview for those applying without a Thai spouse. 

On 10/1/2018 at 1:02 PM, ubonjoe said:

You can forget everything under 3.3.  They have not accepted applications under it for several years now (about 10).

They have even modified it since it was first posted. At one time it even had had a money in the bank option.

I think that order from 2003 has been replace somewhere along the way but was never made public

 

Someone, who was not working in Thailand, reported that he was annoyed about being turned away when he tried to put in an application under 3.3, so he went back with a lawyer who argued with them that they had no legal basis for refusing the application.  With ill grace they accepted the application before stuffing it permanently in a bottom drawer. They will definitely not process applications from people who are not legitimately working in Thailand.

On 9/30/2018 at 8:25 PM, BKKBike09 said:

Since when did the BE stop doing this letter (or rather, witnessing a declaration of intent to give up British Citizenship)? It looks like there may be new Home Office guidance as of start of this year. Nonetheless, if British by birth you still retain the right (once only) to get back your citizenship, if obliged to renounce it in order to obtain another nationality.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/677713/renunciation-of-all-types-of-british-nationality-v3.pdf

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/632943/registration-as-a-British-citizen-following-renunciation-v1.0.pdf

Brits are definitely not eligible to make an advance renunciation at the time of application under the above UK regulations. There must be evidence that another nationality has already been obtained or will be obtained contingent on renunciation of British nationality.  If the other nationality fails to transpire within 6 months, the renunciation will be automatically cancelled.  Meanwhile, the applicant would be stateless and ineligible to remain in Thailand on existing visa but ineligible to leave due to not having a passport.  To cap it all he would no longer be eligible for Thai nationality as a stateless person.  I can think of some ways they might try to fine tune things, depending on how far out of its way the embassy is prepared to go as weasels for the Thai government and to act against the interests of its own citizens, which now seems to be without limit, but all of this would be pointless because of the second set of regulations posted above, although it would earn extra fees for HMG. 

Since only one nationality is being targeted, it is pretty obvious that this is initiated by the embassy as part of its drive to reduce the number of things it has to do in the consular section to close to zero as part of the imminent downsizing to a desk in a business centre somewhere. 

2 hours ago, scorecard said:

I got PR 20+ years ago.

 

The imm. officer who did the first interview (spoke very advanced English), at Soi Suan Plu, immediately looked for my WP and annual Thai tax documents and scrutinized them.

 

He indicted clearly that two items were the 2 most important documents, he also explained to my agent that the regulations say 3 years but under about 6 or 7 years they won't progress the application. I had the WP and tax documents going back 7 years.

 

All in order. 

 

Whether the 6, 7 year 'policy' is still in place I have no idea.

 

Re, incorrect advise; I've mentioned before about a farang couple I met in Chiang Mai, their visa agent had told them that physically being in Thailand for 10 years brings automatic PR. And the 10 years of documents must show that visa / extension etc., documents have been lodged by the same agent, and the same agent must submit the application for PR.

 

All total bullshxx. 

 

More recently I'm aware of a foreign exchange student from Europe who has been studying here for a number of years, he's recently married his Thai sweetheart and they were waiting for his 10 years* in Thailand to come up so he can apply for automatic Thai PR. I mentioned to him the case I'm aware of in Chiang Mai.

 

*from a less than professional shop front near the students apartment.

 

He works part-time for a European company in Bkk and the company is keen to keep him here and in full-time employment, they got their internal farang lawyer to check the '10 year automatic PR' policy, the lawyer quickly reported there is no such thing. 

 

 

Quite right. Since the very first Immigration Act of 1927 PR has always been for people who have an occupation in Thailand. Since the introduction of work permits in the early 70s, it has been necessary to have one to apply for PR.  There has never been any such thing as automatic PR after 10 years in the Kingdom without a work permit. In fact, since the introduction of work permits there has never been any way to apply for PR without a work permit with the exception of the dependent spouse of a PR holder.

11 hours ago, tutsiwarrior said:

thanks for this advice regarding the refusal by the land office to cooperate with the usufruct...as I said earlier in this thread we had trouble with them when we went to register the usufruct 10 years ago but the lawyer I hired (I wasn't present) got in their faces and successfully forced the issue...

 

presently the court probate disposition document refers explicitly to the usufruct and my rights there under including the right to live at the property and control it until I die...and I'm presuming that some xenophobic clerk in a local land office ain't gonna attempt to mess with that...and I won't be transferring ownership to the step daughter, the MiL will in her capacity as the estate executor...

Hopefully they won't mess with it.  But the head of registrations has a lot of discretion over transfers.  There is a mandatory interview with the transferor and transferee and, if they permit transfer with usufruct attached, the transferee will be quizzed to ensure she understands the implications of taking possession of land with a usufruct encumbrance. 

My own usufruct experience was a bit easier.  The head of registrations just said to the missus, "I know that you have bought the land with the farang's money but I still have to ask you, if you fully understand the implications of giving him a lifetime usufruct."  LOL. But I have varying experiences with heads of registration in different land offices, since getting Thai nationality, which further emphasises how little consistency there is and how much power the individuals have.  One head tried to block me from registering land and told me to put it in the wife's name because she didn't regard me as real Thai but I argued fiercely with her for my rights under the constitution (they are not used to people talking back particularly upcountry) and she was shocked and backed down.  Another in the same province couldn't have been nicer.  Asked for minimal documentation from me and gave me some really valuable advice about a road planned adjacent to the land.  

So, if you have a problem, it might be worth getting the lawyer to come and argue with them again.  Since the new owner will not be paying anything for the land, there won't be any reasonable grounds for objection.

1 hour ago, samran said:

1st October marks a new budget year for the Thai civil service.

 

As such there is often a delay of a month or two as people are selected and budgets are disbursed.

 

Happened for my wife’s application when she was basically next in line to be interviewed but shouldn’t be a huge delay under this government. 

The members of the big committee that reviews applications after the interviews serve ex officio and I believe this is also true of the small committee that conducts the interviews.  So they have already been selected in the civil service reshuffle but some will be new faces.  The members of the small committee do not all attend the interviews in person, as they are allowed to send deputies of appropriate civil service rank.  Some one from the Bangkok gun licensing department was on the small committee at my interview and his job is definitely not one of the ex officio members but it is part of DOPA and he was of appropriate rank to deputise.  I am sure they will need to reorganise with the new faces but it should not take them too long to fix the schedule, given that the members can easily assign someone to sit in for them.

A nonsense post was deleted.

1 hour ago, jimmynewbie said:

Yes Prawit decided the outcome of the investigation long before 'Big joke' spoke

He really was upset about being caught out by CSI LA re his watches and think that is the main reason he went after them  

Its also the  3rd or 4th time they have put out warrants for the ST when nothing can be done , extraditions will never happen as they found out in the past (that's if they even tried which i doubt)   the UK or any country for that matter would not recognise stupid 'spreading fake news' charges especially now they are spreading the same news daily.

Makes you wonder how anybody here could defend this nonsense

Naturally there is no crime listed in the 1909 Anglo-Siam extradition treaty that is equivalent to the Computer Crimes Act. If an offence is not listed in the treaty, extradition could still be ordered by an English court, at the discretion of the British government, provided that the unlisted offence is also a criminal offence under English statutory law and the UK is under no obligation to extradite its own citizens, even for qualifying offences.  So basically there are no grounds to even file an extradition request with the UK.  The 1992 US-Thai extradition treaty doesn't specify a list of offences but says the offence has to be an offence in the requested nation punishable by more than one year in prison, which is definitely not the case for the charges against CSI LA.  Furthermore the US is also not obligated to extradite its own nationals, even if the offence qualifies.  I am sure CSI LA is already a naturalised US citizen, since he is established in LA for many years with a business and a family there. 

I guess that the ST lady took a decision not to return to the Thailand when she returned to the UK but the charges must be more of an issue for CSI LA, who presumably has family and friends in Thailand that he might want to visit.

In the light of the British Embassy's announcement that they will no longer issue pension confirmation declarations for Brits who need them for retirement and marriage extensions, although there is no direct relationship, does anyone have any recent confirmation that they are still issuing the declaration of intent for citizenship applicants? Their reason, as can be seen here,

 is that they have no way to verify pension income, which Immigration had pressured them to do, so they decided to discontinue the service completely. Obviously they have even less ability to verify an abstract concept like an intent to do something several years hence, conditional on something else happening. But they seem to have already lost track of the meaning of a declaration in the legal sense of an oath taken by a commissioner for oaths and notaries. 

The embassy has progressively narrowed down what used to be an impressive and wide ranging legalisation and notary service to a sad list of only about half a dozen specific things they are willing to do for which you now need to get an advance appointment, even though their work load must have already been drastically reduced.  I wouldn't be surprised if, given the cost of office space in their future home in a Sathorn office block, they are under pressure to reduce the list to zero by a certain date and get rid of the Thai vice consuls and let them join the Gurkhas security guards who are being put out to grass after a decades long association with the embassy.

It is my sense that it can only be a matter of time before they refuse to issue the declaration of intent, if this is not already the case.  HMG will not lose a wink of sleep at the fact that this will mean that British citizens can no longer apply for naturalisation in Thailand.  The numbers are so small that they have no need to fear petitions or questions from MPs.

SB obviously didn't bother to read your letter properly when you first submitted it but someone else must have reviewed it. If the MoI saw it they would knock your application back to SB for "re-checking"  which would cause you a lot of hassles and waste at least 6 months (don't ask me how I know this). You need to declare that you intend to renounce your Canadian citizenship after your application for Thai citizenship has been approved by the Thai authorities.  You cannot dilute this by putting in conditions, such as "if necessary".  They feel they need this for some reason nowadays because there is nothing in the Nationality Act that allows them to actually force renunciation of original nationality.  It is obviously quite effective with applicants from countries like India and China, which account for a large proportion of applicants, as they follow up with a letter to the embassy confirming you have been granting Thai citizenship.  Anyway it is not an issue with Canada.  So just do as they ask, if you still want to proceed.

I don't have direct experience of the OP's specific case but my understanding is that the property can be technically owned by your wife's estate, until the estate is settled. The estate of a Thai citizen is also regarded as Thai, regardless of the nationalities of the heirs.  You do not actually own it during this period but you can effectively manage the estate as executor or appoint someone to do this. If you inherit land as a statutory heir you will be given a year to dispose of, during which time the land remains owned by the estate. You will need to get the estate settled and pass the ownership of the land to your daughter before she registers her marriage.  A marriage ceremony and reception has no legal standing and doesn't create conjugal property.  Only registration of marriage does that.

You might find that the Land Office will refuse to transfer ownership without you canceling the usufruct agreement.  There is no specific law requiring this but this is what happened to me.  Our house was in the missus' name when I got Thai citizenship and I decided to pay a bit of tax to get it registered in our joint names.  Since I already had the usufruct which had cost me B20k, I told them I wanted to keep it and Mrs A told them she had no objection.  The officers said that was "mai suay".  So I asked them if it was illegal because we didn't mind it being "mai suay".  They couldn't cite any regulation against it but just point blank refused to do it in typical civil servant style and told me to choose between co-ownership and usufruct (Mrs A was not keen on surrendering complete ownership and I wasn't ready for a divorce).. No big deal, since I now own 50% of it but, if I could have kept the life long usufruct at no additional cost I would have.  It might be OK in this case with your daughter's consent because you will not be one of the owners.  However, you might be told you have to cancel the usufruct and set up a new one.  Hopefully that could be done by copying the wording of the existing one without having to pay a lawyer but there would be fees at the Land Office.

1 hour ago, SkyNets said:

Wait what!.... there's still a British embassy here ? lol

Yes, but they will soon move into an office building in Sathorn, since the UK Treasury has sold the rest of the historic site in Wireless Road.  Now they will be paying rent, they may want to cut down the Consular Section further to a much smaller space.  They may also have been under pressure from Immigration via the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to actually vouch that the information provided by the declarant is correct, which they obviously cannot do.  If this is the case, starting with the Brits would be the obvious thing for Immigration to do, since they probably represent the largest group of expat retirees.  Then it would be easier to make other embassies capitulate.  But this is only speculation and we will have to see whether any other embassies follow suit.

15 minutes ago, fimo said:

To counter that nazi british government, Thailand should offer citizenship to all UK expats that accept to transfer all their funds to Thailand ! ????

Thailand already offers citizenship to those with Thai wives who are earning 40,000 baht a month from a job in Thailand and can show a one off bank balance of 80,000 baht and a receipt for a donation of at least 5,000 baht to a registered Thai charity.  There are some other requirements but those are the only financial requirements which are already rather modest, particularly compared to the requirements for retirement and marriage extensions. The application fee is only 5,000 baht with a further 1,000 baht for the naturalisation certificate when you are approved.