CLTH

4 hours ago, jackdd said:

I agree that the TM30 is over the top and if somebody wants to do anything illegal he would avoid it anyway

But instead of asking for some new vetting procedures, you should just ask to open PR to more people. For example i don't see any reason why Thailand should not allow a retiree, who has been in the country for let's say 5 years and who has a state pension for the rest of his life, to get PR.

 

Smart Visas are more like a total fail.

The person who has it (and his family), does not have to go to the immigration office once a year, that's about the whole advantage compared to a non-b visa. (90 day reports and the work permit are handled by companies who employ people with 200k+ salary anyway, so this doesn't change anything for the holder of the visa)

For this little advantage they probably spent thousands of hours in meetings, had to setup new processes, new offices etc.

I would call the Smart Visas another case of wasted tax payer money.

 

That's actually not what i said, you should read it again (and you should also read the law, while you are already at it), i said certain categories are exempt from TM28 (section 37 (3) and (4) in the immigration act), because different people brought this up, even though it has nothing to do with TM30

TM30 does not have any exemptions, it applies to everybody who is a temporary visitor in Thailand. Immigration just currently does not enforce it for BOI visa holders, but this is actually not in accordance with the law and they could start enforcing it any day. People will know about it once they get fined for it, and then they will be told by the IO: This has always been the law, you should have known about it.

To your points: 

- basically every submission done by the major western chambers, every discussion we have (and my last was with senior security, army and police at government house) all talk about making PR and citizenship easier to get and to extend it on a humanitarian basis to those who have been married to Thai citizens. There is a whole matrix of issues we address, ID cards, more modern work permits, longer work permits and work rights for spouses amongst other things. 

Pragmatically, you won’t see retirees be given a path to PR. Very few countries do and it probably won’t fly.

My comments on the night were shortened as, if you were watching it, I was given a short amount of time given the immigration people were late, to speak in more depth about what the members of major chambers thought about it, and what we have proposed to government. So I went where the conversation was heading. 

- the smart visa i probably one of the more innovative developments in the past 20 years here. It isn’t perfect and it’s first iteration attracted limited amounts of people. The BOI revised it and I know of people who are now being able to apply for 2 year S visas based on a solid business plans and showing adequate finds (50,000 per month). The whole idea is to attract people to set up a company in Thailand, so of course you want them to. Advising these people on the process and seeing it in action, it is only marginally more complicated that when I set up my own firm here. It wasn’t that hard and they did it themselves with limited assistance from an accountant. 

Cause we view these things in context, and not through he myopic lense of the crowd that night, government deserves kudos on this front and for the fact that PR applications are now open for 7 months this year, not the normal 2 weeks in December. I made a big point that people should take advantage of this if eligible. 

- you are correct. I misread, but am aware of the difference. At our function earlier in the day, immigration made your point.

However, and I stress, the issue of TM30 exemptions was drilled in upon. Immigration, to the face of the head of HR of central group no less, said what I have. It may not be in the law, but the explanation given was that the place of work, contained on the work permit was a reportable address and they were happy with that. A fudge? Probably but despite appearances to the contrary, they looking for work around as to the orders they have been given.

Same goes for tenants with three year leases being able to register for the online system instead of landlords. Not in law, but a workaround for them to make it easier for tenants. 

As for the Chinese and Indians coming first. They were simply out of the blocks first and organised their meetings first. I dare say there are a few land holders amongst them, and landlords are just as up in arms about it. The Australians had no trouble getting the immigration people to come along - so I’m not sure about your totem pole analogy. 

Just now, zydeco said:

Well, we'll never know, now, will we, as you decided to run the conversation to your likeing, instead of what I bet 99 percent of us wanted to hear.

I've worked here 20 years dealing with the government. It wasn't going to happen. Maybe in private, but there is no way he was going to throw his superiors under the bus in a public forum. Their English wasn't great, but they aren't stupid and understood all the issues. Underestimating the officials is something which too many people on this site easily fall into the habit of thinking. 

3 minutes ago, zydeco said:

So you are the person concerned. Did someone appoint you as moderator of the event? I would like to know, because the question being asked by the lawyer was probably the single most important question to be asked all night long. And you enabled immigration to avoid it. Thanks a lot.

No, there was a moderator, and he could have asked the question again. I was there. It wasn't happening and the conversation was getting rowdy and unproductive.

It was a policy question and if you think he was going to answer it, then I've got a bridge over Sydney Harbour I'd like to sell you.

On 8/17/2019 at 9:15 AM, jackdd said:

Then there is Chris Larkin, who just seems to have no idea about a variety of topics, but likes to talk a lot.

He suggests a stricter vetting procedure, to allow people to stay longer in Thailand. At this point i wondered if he ever heard of permanent residency, because this is exactly that.

Then he says that Thailand has a working registration, and foreigners could be part of this as well. Foreigners can be part of it (yellow book), but this system isn't working at all. If somebody would make a statistic about the percentage of people who live where they are registered this is probably way less than 50 percent, doesn't he know such basic things?

At 1:26:50 Sebastian actually brings up an interesting question for the IO, but instead of letting the IO answer, Chris Larking jumps in and helps the IO to avoid this critical question.

 

The immigration officers... i wonder if immigration just wants to troll. They send immigration officers who can't really speak english, to take part in a panel hold in english. They didn't even understand half of the questions. And many other questions were simply left unanswered, because can't lose face.

Why did nobody jump in and translated the questions for them?

PR isn't available to everyone so there has to be a better mechanism than the TM30, which in and of itself does nothing to prove your bonafides.

If you'd bothered to watch the whole thing, you'd see I did strongly recommend that people apply for PR and citizenship, two issues which I actually do know alot about.

As for helping the IO avoid questions, lets just say it was an effort in crowd control. At various points, it was getting overly hostile, and if you knew anything you'd know that isn't the way to go about convincing the people who need to be convinced. Not to say my point was invalid. The Thai government has done well in opening up PR applications early this year (as it has done since the coup) and citizenship applications have been processed as fast as they ever have. Smart Visas are also a great initiative by this government.

As for the analysis of certain categories of visa holder not having to go through the TM30 process. You are spot on, Immigration did actually say this (but after the filmed Q&A) at other forums. BOI visa holders aren't being asked for the TM 30 and Non-immigrant B holders and their dependents who get extensions of stay at Chaengwattana at the desk which handles non-immigrant B visas will not be asked for it either. I was told this twice in the same day at two seminars I attended that day.