Arkady

For interest here are the original ministerial regulations of 1967 that are being amended. It is interesting to note that ministerial regulations have only been issued once, two years after the current Act was promulgated.  They have never been amended since then, even though the Act has been amended significantly several times since then. It's also interesting that the ministerial regulations, like the Act itself, are fairly skimpy on detail.  Much of this detail is fleshed out by ministerial guidelines that are subject to even less scrutiny than the ministerial regulations, the latter being published in the RG and having the force of law.  Things like the affidavit and points allocation are covered in the guidelines which were last amended in 2009 when the affidavit was introduced for the first time.  Technically the guidelines don't have the force of law and can be amended at the stroke of a pen or even set aside in individual cases.  An example of this is the issue of whether applicants with PR can count periods on a WP and continuous prior to obtaining PR towards the 5 year residence period required for citizenship.  In the late noughties several people were permitted to do this and then they suddenly stopped allowing it with no change in the law, ministerial regulations or guidelines.  A number of applicants were then rejected for not having 5 years of PR, even though they had been advised they were qualified and SB forwarded their files to the MOI. 

Most Thai law is like this. An act of parliament that is deliberately vague and ambiguous in several places, followed by ministerial regulations that add some detail but leave much of the vagueness and ambiguity, followed by internal guidelines that may or may not be made public. In a system where precedence is of little or no concern, this structure allows the law to be interpreted differently by the courts in similar circumstances and permits bureaucrats to implement the law in a non-transparent manner and to make significant changes without parliamentary scrutiny.

Ministerial regulations Nationality Act 1967.pdf

The process going on at the MOI seems entirely consistent with the 11 Jan 2022 cabinet resolution to amend the ministerial regulations https://www.thaigov.go.th/news/contents/details/50427 . Here is a reasonable Google translation. The most significant impact of the new regulations is likely to be that SB will be axed from the process entirely, if the regulations go ahead in line with the cabinet resolution, and applications will have to be made to DOPA in the provinces they reside. It is hard to imagine DOPA which runs the direct office network, making things easier than SB in Bangkok and the process for those living in the provinces will be up in the air.  There may no longer be any advantage to moving tabien baans to Bangkok and, even there is, DOPA might put a stop to the practice by visiting those addresses or demanding an explanation of how someone works in an office in Samui from a home base in Bangkok.

15 hours ago, DrJoy said:

Check this out -

 

 

 

 

Exactly as I have said.  This is about drafting new ministerial regulations, not amending the Nationality Act or producing a whole new law, which, as I mentioned would require the full parliamentary process involving 3 readings and votes which would not be possible in the time left to this government and there is nothing mentioned anywhere about a new Act or any amendments. The ministerial regulations are important as they determine how the Nationality Act is interpreted and implemented but they cannot change any wording in the Act.

When people talk about a new law or changing the existing law, it makes me nervous, because anything could happen in that case. Rights of foreign husbands to apply could be curtailed, including their exemption from the need to have knowledge of the Thai language. Rights of luk krung could be curtailed and many other things that I will leave to your imaginations could happen.

5 hours ago, GarryP said:

Have you got a link to the new law? Also, I would be interested in seeing a sample of the language tests. I speak Thai about 90 percent of the time, and have no problem with listening and reading comprehension, but I cannot write the language to save my life. While I have already gained citizenship, I would be interested in seeing whether I would have failed using the new language tests.

Indeed it would be interesting to see, if one could pass the new tests, Garry. I got full marks for Thai language but I also can't write well these days, even though I passed the Por 6 exam for foreigners about 20 years ago. I was asked to write out the full name and address of the Nationality Section at Police HQ as my written test, which I was miraculously able to do because they had just made me redo the bank statement letter that had been addressed incorrectly by the bank. It the first year of reading and writing tests and I was the first person to request to do them and the MOI had not sent them any reading and writing tests.  So SB were forced to improvise.  Given that the ministry has always taken such a slap dash approach to SB and is contemptuous of the police, it is not surprising that SB's language testing is not considered methodical.

When I looked at the Life in Britain test the UK introduced for applicants for Indefinite Leave to Remain, an essential precursor to naturalisation, I had some doubts as to whether I could have become a British citizen by naturalisation.  I hope the new Thai tests will go to a similar extreme.

8 hours ago, DrJoy said:

Hurry up

Thai nationality law will change from 11 Jan 2023

 

According to new law, applicants will be required to pass Thai language test from Chula university, which will indeed be hard. 
Good luck

There is no new Nationality Act or amendment to the existing Act. That would require the full parliamentary process with three readings and votes and there has been no news on this.  At any rate the law is very broad brush and just states knowledge of the Thai language is required but exemption is given to those married to Thais.  Details of things like how knowledge of the Thai language is to be found not usually even in ministerial regulations that are published in the Royal Gazette, giving them the force of law, but in ministerial guidelines that are not published in the Royal Gazette.

There was a cabinet resolution some months back approving some new ministerial guidelines for more formalized language testing that the somewhat informal language testing that has been conducted by SB.  This may well use tests from CU which would be a logical approach and may well come into effect on 11 Jan 2023, as Jay says, but I haven't seen any announcement to this effect so far. 

Even more importantly the cabinet resolved to take the initial part of the application process away from SB and put the whole process under DOPA in all provinces, which could put an end to the practice of provincial candidates moving tabian baans to Bangkok in order to apply in Bangkok. Initial reaction from SB was reportedly that they were fairly optimistic about winning the tousle with the MOI to keep the status quo.  However, a recent post suggested that SB was resigned to losing the process next year.

Any news about applications no longer being made to SB?  If there is indeed to be a transition away from SB, I wonder what would happen to existing applications in process. 

Re new language requirements, it is important to bear in mind that new language testing guidelines will not have any effect on the exemption from the Thai language requirement for applicants married to Thais because the exemption is in the Act, as per the 2008 amendment, and can only be overridden by another act of parliament, not by ministerial guidelines or regulations. Nevertheless, tougher language testing could be an issue for those married to Thais who need points from the Thai language tests to qualify.

8 hours ago, BKKBike09 said:

Pleased to report that outbound e-gates were working today (3 Nov), including for 10-year passport (previously told by Immigration at SVB that the e-gates would not work with more recently issued 10-year passports, those with numbers ABxxxxxxx). Will advise as to inbound when I come back in a couple of weeks, unless anyone else posts on it before then.

 

Great news.  Let's hope the company that won the tender for this massive investment of taxpayers' dosh can keep them working continuously, now they've finally got them working several years after the target installation date.  Maybe pigs can fly.

3 hours ago, eldepinamar said:

Sorry, everyone, if this question was previously covered.

 

I'm PR for more than 6 years and was planning to apply for citizenship this year (not married to Thai). However, one unexpected thing happened and I have to leave the company I worked for (10+ years). I know that I need to have active work permit for 3 years (or more) before the application. Unfortunately my new WP with the new company is delayed by 2-3 weeks (just because my new company absolutely doesn't know how to handle people with PR  -- I had job offer 3 weeks before my old WP expired). Do you think it will be a big problem if my WP is interrupted by 2-3 weeks? Thanks!

I'm afraid this will be a problem, if anyone at SB or the MOI notices the gap.  One or two days might not matter but two to three weeks is more likely to, since the internal regulations clearly call for continuous WPs and visas.

You could try to wing it and hope no one notices but I would guess there is a strong possibility that some one would notice, since checking continuity of visas and WPs is a very easy thing for staff to do and maybe score internal points picking up on something. You filed will be looked at by SB, the MOI office staff and the staff of the departments that send representatives to the MOI interviews. The downside would be that you do an awful lot of work preparing the documentation, only to be dinged on the technicality.  It is probably better to go to SB and tell them the situation.

7 hours ago, alex8912 said:

A Thai can buy many acres of land in the USA easily and they can get a 10 year multi entry tourist visa and then easily renew it another 10 years. Why in the world are you being such an over the top apologist? I'd love to hear from some normal retirees here. Rich Thais can buy so many different investment properties in the USA and not just one that sits on less than a 1/2 acre of land. You also seem to forget a Thai can easily marry an American and get a green card then citizenship too. There seems to be maybe 4 posters on here that have Thai citizenship ( maybe). 

Like many US embassies these days, since Trump gutted the Foreign Service, there is now a massive waiting list to get an appointment for a tourist visa at the US embassy in Bangkok and the consulate in Chiang Mai.  A Thai might have to wait more than a year. I believe India is even worse. At least Americans can just hop on a plane and enter Thailand without a visa.

1 hour ago, yankee99 said:

My SB contact told me to change everything back to my province before taking the oath. 

 

This helps when its time to get your id, blue book, etc no need to return to bkk

Interesting. So, if that is current SB advice, there is no way of telling whether applicants in the announcements applied in Bangkok or in their provinces, unless the announcements post the addresses in their application forms. Does anyone know, if this is the case?

This keeps on being reported as if it is a proposal by the government for a new law or amendment of an existing law. It is not. 

It is already an existing section in the Land Code (Section 96 bis below) as a result of an amendment made by the Democrat led government in 1999.  The current government obviously does not have the ability to get a law or amendment of its own of this type through parliament with the public participation process and vetting by the juridical council required with hardly any parliamentary time left before elections and significant opposition to land sales to foreigners throughout Thai society, including probably its own MPs.  

In fact all the government needs to do is issue a one page Interior Ministry regulation in the Royal Gazette to update the qualifying investments for the THB 40 million to investments that are actually available today. So if they really want to do it, it will be done.  Section 96 bis was sabotaged by the Interior Ministry subsequent to its promulgation in 1999 because no existing qualifying investments were ever specified in ministerial regulation.  Regulations were delayed for 3 or 4 years until Taksin was in power and specified only qualifying investments that had already ceased to be available and others that were supposed to be issued but never were.  So no foreign purchases of land have ever been authorised under 96 bis. Nevertheless the Post hilariously quoted today someone saying that it worked really well to revive the economy in the late 90s 555.

Section 96 bis The provisions prescribing the acquisition of land by foreigners by virtue of the provisions of a
treaty under first paragraph of Section 86 shall not apply to the foreigners who bring in the capital for
investment more than forty million Baht as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations whereas the acquisition of
land for purpose of residence shall not exceed one rai and shall be approved by the Minister.
The acquisition of land by foreigners under paragraph one shall be in accordance with the rules, procedures,
and conditions prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations. The essential issues shall be included in the
Ministerial Regulations as follows.
(1) The type of business in which the foreigners invest that economically and socially benefits the country or
which is declared by the Board of Investment as eligible for the application of the investment promotion under
the law thereon.
(2) The period of maintaining the investment shall not be less than three years.
(3) The land that the foreigners may acquire shall be within the locality of Bangkok Metropolitan
Administration, the City of Pattaya, Municipality, or the zone designated to be the residential area under the law
on city planning.

On 10/22/2022 at 11:31 AM, sinthavee said:

19th Oct list (175 people) has many people from Chiangrai, some from Chiangmai in addition to most from Bangkok as usual. Chonburi & Phuket residents are also listed(1 or 2).

 Don’t know if they applied in those provinces or shifted to those provinces after final interview.

David brother, when was the final interview held for them?

Congrats to all on the list.  

AFAIK applicants who moved their tabien baans to Bangkok have always felt they needed to maintain the Bangkok address until after announcement in the RG.  I think the greater number of provincial addresses reflects greater efforts made to set up systems to facilitate applications in the provinces with larger numbers of expat workers, perhaps to support the MOI's push to take over the entire process from SB.  That might leave people living out in the boonies in the lurch, as it is hard to see the MOI setting up systems in all provinces when they might never be used.  However, they might not be willing to overlook the use of borrowed Bangkok addresses, as SB does.  

3 hours ago, teetersb said:

I am looking for information on getting a Yellow Book for a Tabien Baan. I have tried many different searches, but I'm not finding info on how to get/apply for one. Any help or direction to Posts would be greatly appreciated.

https://www.thaicitizenship.com/yellow-tabien-baan/

1 hour ago, Myran said:

Alright, I give up. PayPal is a big meanie and are barring you and other expats in Thailand from their service out of spite, laziness, incompetence, and malice. They could easily make their services available to us, but would rather lose that income for the reasons above. It's probably some sort of conspiracy as well.

Logically they could as Thai credit card companies and other financial providers are able to do so but PP has chosen not to. Imagine the furore, if they tried to pull the same stunt in the US and closed the accounts of green card and work permit holders.  They would be accused of racism and shamed into finding a work around without any doubt whatsoever.  But discriminatory racist business practices are OK for PP in third world countries. 

38 minutes ago, jombangkok said:

Totally blindsided but my company has informed me that as they are not responsible to help with anything non-business related, they will not be providing any help at all. The documents I asked for were the following:

• Monthly ภงด1 (needs via Rev Dep. with power of attorney)
• Current company affidavit
• Company affidavit from companies 1-3 years prior to submission date
• List of shareholders
• Company registation copy
• Copy of last 3 years financial statements and receipts (needs via Rev Dep. with power of attorney)
• BOI certificate copy

They essentially said that I need a POA (Power of Attorney) for some, which they have to provide, which they won't. And even the documents that does not need it, they won't provide them. They also won't validate any documents authenticity (I asked them to maybe put a stamp on the 50tawis they sent me).

 

Am I completely screwed or is this salvageable?

They sound a right load of so and sos. I don't see how it would doable without cooperation from your employer.  Even if some documents could perhaps be certified by the RD, most will need the company's certification and you will need the PofA and a letter confirming your position and salary.

Do you mean to say that, if a Thai employer asked them for a salary letter with certified company affidavit, if required by a bank to get a mortgage on a house, they would also tell him to naff off and look for another job, if he insists on troubling them for documents not directly instrumental in them making money?

4 hours ago, yankee99 said:

I dont fly a lot but bank deposits and car registration at 7/11 is definitely worth it.  Thinking about it 7/11 has many things non-citizens cant do

Using 7/11 services is definitely a modest goal and not recommended to give as the reason someone wants citizenship at the Lamlukka interview 555. But we take what we can get. For me it 's just being able to show one document or maximum two, if tabian baan included, instead of the whole shooting match of passport, WP, PR and PR books. If you are not working, it is a constant irritation being asked for a WP, despite having PR.

For the manned Thai immigration gates, you can also use them with PR.  But with a Thai passport it's fun when an IO or some Thai busybody tries to shoo you out of the queue and you just flip over the Thai passport and watch their face fall. I actually did the busybody thing myself when I was close to missing a flight and there was a bunch of Indians in the Thai queue in front of me. They became aggressive and refused to budge. But when they got to the front of the queue, the IO just pointed a wagging finger towards the back of the long alien queue and packed them off without saying a word. Of course I gave them a big smile as they filed past me.

11 hours ago, Kalorymetr said:

While, there may not be problems with dual citizenship, there may be obstacles like the one mentioned few post before - golf club not allowing a guy because he's not Thai and that's it. What will you do, go to the police?

 

This is very unlikely, but possible.

Go to the police station and file a Section 112 criminal case. Since you are a Thai citizen, they are obliged to accept the case. If not you can complain to police national HQ.

On 9/29/2022 at 8:04 AM, khongaeng said:

I have flown in and out of the country 6 times since getting my Thai passport.  Since I have an ABTC card I always go through the Fast Track lanes which means I get stamps in my passport.  I don't have a single foreign stamp in my Thai Passport as I have always entered my destination country on my foreign passport, I only have Thai stamps which looks strange.  It has never caused me a single problem.  I always have to show both passports during check-in but from then on I only show the passport that I need at the time.  In Thailand at immigration and again at the gate, I show my Thai passport.  When I land in the foreign country I use my foreign passport.  Last week, the Thai immigration officer even politely asked me how I got Thai citizenship as her friend wanted to go through the process.  

 

I would never consider specifically picking a route that allows me to travel through a country that allows visa-free entry using a Thai passport.  The Thai authorities just don't care.  If one day they decided to give dual citizens a hassle, they would have to deal with an uprising of half of the elites in this country who have purchased or acquired another citizenship as part of their "safety net". So my message to anyone stressing about this is Don't Worry.

It would be difficult to inconvenience those elites by just enforcing existing legislation and bringing in new legislation to inconvenience them would be impossible under the 2017 constitution which, for the first time, prohibited involuntary revocation of nationality from those who are Thai by birth. Those who vulnerable to a move to suddenly enforce existing legislation, which is admittedly ambivalent and open to interpretation, are are naturalised Thais. In the past the main targets were those who acquired nationality through birth in the Kingdom to two alien parents but it is arguable that they are now protected by the constitution, if they are considered Thai through birth. Foreign women who acquire nationality through a Thai husband are not vulnerable. 

1 hour ago, BKKBike09 said:

Curiously when I came back in a couple of weeks ago from the US the immigration officer asked me if I still had my foreign passport. Naturally I said no. Not sure why she asked, and my answer seemed to satisfy her.

 

It was slightly odd only because I flew in from Taipei, rather than direct from a country that would have required a visa in a Thai passport. I've been in a couple of times before that on direct flights from Europe and never had the question.

 

I wonder if the Immigration system now receives passenger information direct from the airlines showing where a passenger's journey first originated. If you flew Airline A from Europe all the way to Thailand but with a transit stop in say Singapore, the info would show the origin as Europe. Whereas Airline A to Singapore and Airline B SIN-BKK would show a Singapore origin. 

Hard to know, if she asked just out of curiosity or if there was a more sinister purpose. Also what would have been her reaction, if you said no. If she could see your itinerary on her system and noticed no US visa in your passport, then she would know your answer was incomplete, i.e. not using it on this leg but still have it. 

A friend came back from Oz with a completely blank Thai passport just weeks after getting his citizenship and they asked him if he still had a Kiwi passport. He said that he did and the IO said he could see on there system from his previous trips.  Seems that he was curious and happy that he could make a correct match.

I went to the US in August on ANA with a new Thai passport and  came back through Tokyo which scrapped visa free travel for Thais due to COVID. When I was checking in from the US to come back ANA's system gave me the option of changing nationality to travel on a different passport which I did. Otherwise there could have been a mismatch as Thai Immigration would have received the wrong passport details. My guess is that the airline sends them details of passengers' complete return trip, since they have it anyway and it would be of more use for destination countries to know where passengers have travelled from, rather than just where they transited. Anyway the IO stamped my passport without comment.

Anyone know when the e-gates will be functional?  I didn't even see them and wondered, if they have been carted off somewhere to salvage parts for scrap.  It is incredible that a new system that was many years in the planning, tendering and development and cost taxpayers vast sums of money should just be left to become obsolete and scrapped without ever using it. But as time goes on, that is looking more and more likely. This is a fast moving field and the system must already be somewhat out of date.  But that is exactly what happened to the infamous airport explosive detectors ordered during Thaksin's watch. One has a nasty sense that the problems with the e-gates are similar - i.e. so much of the purchase price went under the table that there wasn't enough left for the developers to produce a viable system or maintain it.  As traffic builds up at Swampy, they are going to need them, as they are intended for pre-registered foreigners both living in Thailand and abroad as well as Thais.   

On 9/24/2022 at 9:56 AM, scorecard said:

From a couple of discussions with the Imm. officers 25 years ago, over 90% of applicantions were rejected. Is it the same today?

If talking about applications accepted by Immigration but rejected by the Immigration Commission, I doubt it has ever been nearly as high as 90% in normal times because Immigration filters out those that are not qualified according to the letter of the regulations. Referring to mere enquiries to Immigration that are told they are not qualified or not yet qualified, then, of course, the percentage would be much higher.  Thaksin's regime as PM was another matter. In the early noughties entire batches of applicants were rejected out of hand because the evil, xenophobic interior minister Purachai hated all foreigners and claimed without citing any evidence that the applicants all lacked merit and were probably all crooks - just like him and fellow politicians.  Maybe that was the period you referred to.

Some people apply, despite being told by Immigration that they are unqualified because they insist that, according to the letter they are qualified.  A case in point is the notorious humanitarian category where the regulations imply you are qualified by virtue of supporting a Thai child or spouse without working in Thailand but Immigration demands  a work permit and Thai tax receipts.  One guy reported in this thread that he did that with his lawyer threatening to sue the officers in the Administrative Court, if they refused to accept his application. But he never posted again, so presumably he ended up in the circular file, possibly with another reason given for reject to avert legal action. I am sure he would have posted in triumph, if he had been successful. 

I think the borderline cases that are accepted by Immigration but rejected by the Commission are few and far between but there are certainly oversights by Immigration. I know of two cases that were initially accepted by Immigration but later sent back by the MoI because it was noticed that both applicants had extra jobs that they naively referred to in their documentation but didn't have WPs for the second jobs. They were both told that the Labour Ministry rep on the Immigration Commission might well have insisted on their prosecution, if they had proceeded to that stage and were advised to fix the problem and re-apply.

One thing that puzzles me though is that, since they introduced the Thai language requirement in the early noughties, I have never heard of anyone failing the Thai language interview which seems as if it would be quite difficult for someone with only basic Thai. Probably there is a lot of self-selection of people who decide not to apply because they know their Thai is poor or non-existent. However, you would think this was an area that, since it is subjective, there would be quite a few failures. I can only assume that either the interview is just for show and everyone passes, no matter how awful their Thai, or that those who fail are too ashamed to post about it. 

My own experience on this topic during my application, also about 25 years ago , was in a meeting with a Pol Maj Gen at Immigration to whom someone had introduced me.   He showed me a pile of files of rejections and invited me to thumb through them and I recognised a couple of names. They were mainly applicants working for 2 million baht registered capital companies which was the minimum required for a work permit. He said that a cut off of of 5 million baht had been set and all employers smaller than that were automatically assumed 'man of straw' companies to save the officers having to do detailed investigations to check that they were real businesses. He said the applicants were not told the real reason for their rejections and some applied again and again with the same pitiful results.  But I doubt that category was anywhere near 90%, as most applicants tend to be employees rather than operating their own small businesses.

1 hour ago, onthemoon said:

Let's keep pushing.  I already mentioned to the Secretary of State of the Ministry of Industry when he proudly presented the LTR to one of the foreign chambers of commerce earlier this year that it's all fine and good, but why do PR holders need a work permit? Obviously, it is not really necessary as LTR holders - who are a lot less vetted than us - don't. He said that they never thought of that, because there are so few PR holders, so it's easy to forget.... He promised to bring it up in the next meeting with the minister. I am not holding my breath.

It is a good point. They have now demonstrated clearly that WPs are not regarded as absolutely essential.  When WPs were first introduced in the early 70s,  PRs who were working were given life time WPs as long as they remained in the same profession, as part of the transitional provisions of the first Working of Aliens Act.  It would seem reasonable now to reintroduce that.

Also the exemption from having 4 Thai staff was never applied to PRs until fairly recently.  I got WPs with zero Thai staff.  Then Immigration insisted that the Labour Ministry should close the loop and insist on 4 Thai staff, the same as they did. A Labour Ministry official seemed quite embarrassed about it when I enquired and pointed to some wording in the the second Working of Aliens Act that was scrapped by the junta, that rambled on about the need to protect jobs for Thai citizens but didn't mention PRs as justification. When I pointed out that PRs have been given life long visas and should be expected to allowed to work, he just shrugged. 

Since they have also demonstrated that 4 Thai employees are unnecessary and used to find them unnecessary for PRs, there should be pressure to reinstate this privilege for PRs.  If LTRs can convert to PR, they will have problems if the higher grade visa has less privilege.  Surely the people they want to apply for LTRs are also the very people they want to apply for PR.  What contradictory nonsense!

On 9/21/2022 at 11:22 PM, Misty said:

Theoretically the PR should be a good program, but in practice it falls short of the mark. Many of the drawbacks Arkady mentions above make it so, as does the fact that the application process itself has become inherently corrupt in recent years. I qualified and put together a complete application only to have it refused, as we later found out because I didn't use an agent and didn't offer VIP fees.

 

That being the case, far from being nonsense the LTR program is a welcome new option. Run by the BoI, thus far the application process is straight forward and there's been nary a whisper of VIP fees. Frankly, the BoI has been a real pleasure to deal with in comparison.

I didn't realise the LTR visas were administered by the BOI. That is definitely a plus point compared to Immigration. When I was preparing to apply for PR there was an option to apply for PR through the BOI for which one of the requirements was to invest in special Bank of Thailand bonds. I made an appointment with the BOI to find out, if I would do better to apply to the BOI than to Immigration. I had already had a nasty experience with Immigration when they demanded B40k in "tax" when I went for my first locally issued NON-B visa. The tax assessment was made on the basis that they saw a number of entries to Thailand in my passport for a few days each in the preceding months and assumed I was working without any evidence.  They refused to issue the NON-B if I didn't pay.  I did get a receipt but it was just scrawled on a scrap of paper.  So I thought the BOI might be a better option, despite the need for the bonds and, strangely enough, an HIV test.  Immigration just demanded tests for leprosy, elephantiasis, alcoholism etc for PR as AIDS had not yet appeared on their radar.  

At the meeting with the BOI a couple of well education young Thais explained very politely that, despite being heavily promoted by the government, the BOI PR scheme was unfortunately non-functional because the Bank of Thailand had refused to issue the special bonds. (This is similar to what happened to the 1999 amendment to the Land Code allowing foreigners to buy a rai of land in exchange for a B40m investment - the special government bonds were never issued and the qualifying real estate funds were no longer issued by the time of the amendment.)  

It occurs to me that they could have easily set up another PR scheme with investment criteria  and no Thai language requirement to be administered by the BOI, as in the past, but make it functional.  But I guess the current thinking is that it is better to sell residence as a short term lease than a freehold.

47 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Well said. Quote: "No influential Thai politician is interested and even educated types usually have no idea the PR system exists".

 

Many years back I asked my then 19 year old Thai son to take the blue book for the family car to the Gov't office in Bkk and do the annual road tax renewal, and please transfer the ownership name from my name to your name.  Two seconds later he yelled 'my car'. I confirmed.

 

He took every document in existence with him, my passport, my PR book, family tabien baan book and all his docs.

 

His number was called, he went to the counter and encountered the dragon from hell.

 

He stated his purpose, dragon lady picked up my PR book and said 'i've never this book before, PR doesn't exist in Thailand, this is a fake book' and she made a motion of tearing up the book.

 

Son quickly snatched the PR book from her hand, quickly scoooped up the documents and fled. 

Shocking but these things happen due to the ignorance of PR amongst officials. I got the fake red book treatment at the Phya Thai district office in Bangkok when I went there to register my marriage, an incident which somewhat spoiled what should have been a joyous occasion. The head of registrations first of all declared that there was no exemption from the freedom to marry affidavit for foreigners with PR.  When I argued with him he suddenly lost his rag and said my red book was fake because red books and ID numbers with 8 prefix were only given to Chinese foreigners. Muttering a few curses at the dolt we rushed to the Sathorn DO where they were all smiles and rushed to do the job before closing time.

Time was that there were thousands upon thousands of Chinese migrants with PR and everyone knew what a disintegrating red book was. Since PR was the only visa longer than three months and was easy to get, there must have been hundreds of farangs with red books too.  But then they made it hard to get and introduced a myriad of new visa choices. 

Personally I think PR makes a lot more sense than LTR visas, Elite cards and other nonsense they come up with from time to time. Because it is quite expensive it is already a potential money spinner, if they were to choose to broaden it out and they could charge more to the super wealthy who want to apply after one year or some such.  All they need to do is rejig the regulations a bit and get rid of the red books and blue/white books and replace them with a smart card.  They also need to let PRs  work without a WP in non-strategic industries, or at least restore the right to get a WP with no Thai staff, which used to be the case and which they are happy to give to LTRs who have a lesser claim to the privilege IMHO.  In spite of all of this PR is the one type of visa that has endured nearly 100 years already, while all other visa types come and go.