LogicThai

That's a cliché, for the Belgians, that is. Regarding the French, it is quite accurate, I am afraid. Not everybody in Belgium is fluent in English, obviously, but the level of fluency (not just in English btw) is quite high. I am a native French-speaking Belgian, I lived and worked in 6 countries (including Thailand), I speak 5 languages and I work almost exclusively in English. And it is not just me; for example, my brother is accredited with the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. The Belgian ambassador to Thailand routinely publishes podcasts and webcasts in our national languages and in English, and everybody in the Belgian community finds that totally normal, even expected.

But then presumably the said Farang needs to be on the Tabien Baan for that house number, which cannot be the regular blue TB, it has to be the Yellow TB for foreigners.

It really depends where one tries to grow rice. There are very suitable areas, where one can grow 2 or 3 crops per year. Unfortunately, most of Thailand is not in that case. Rice growing is labour-intensive but requires limited skills, which suits the Issaan area of the country well, despite not having the best soil for that, because it has/had plenty of unskilled people.

This is most surprising. How could that be? All public hospitals have an ER ward, where you see an endless stream of patients who hurt themselves in a variety of ways, the largest proportion being from road accidents. Surely, the universal healthcare covers that too? I am under the SSO, which is different from the Universal scheme, but there is no mention whatsoever of accidents not being covered. I am not opposed to private healthcare insurance. In fact, I had quite a deep look into private insurance schemes in Thailand, and I found that the schemes are on the whole quite unattractive. There are many exceptions, limits, and overall the value for money is pretty poor. I am surprised that so many Thai people buy such poor value schemes. It may be a status thing, or maybe they simply do not want to queue for hours in a public hospital? For myself, in addition to SSO, that I never actually use, I have an international private healthcare insurance that provides extensive coverage worldwide, including Thailand. It only covers in-patient care, and it has quite a hefty excess to keep the premium at a reasonable level, and for whatever small health issue, I self-insure and pay for private care whenever needed (although I could use SSO, I suppose).

I don't know about the tax on farmland, but it does not seem to be a big concern, if at all. It certainly does not get mentioned around me, as I am sure it would if real money had to be paid out ???? Land tax for our villa in Koh Samui is only a few hundreds per year, so how much could it fetch for a few rai of farmland, really?

Why would the 30 baht scheme not cover accidents? AFAIK, be it the universal healthcare cover of the SSO, all medic al needs are covered. It is true that the level of care in public hospitals looks spartan by European standards, but I was under the impression that pretty much all conditions are treated. My father-in-law had a heart scare recently, he was rushed to the public hospital in the Amphoe and adequately treated there, then referred to the central hospital of the province for further tests etc. I offered to have him treated at the private hospital instead, but he declined, and I agreed because the private hospital (Ekachon) does not really look any better. My in-laws have life insurance, but no private healthcare insurance. They have been treated for illness and accident in the public system in the past, quite satisfactorily it seems. I remember that my mother-in-law went private on one occasion for some ailment she had, and then declared that it was a waste of money. As for the economics of farming, it is true that rice farming has become totally unattractive in recent years, to the point on being unsustainable. As they advanced in age, my in-laws have adjusted accordingly. First, they stopped farming on leased land, then they sold the portion of land they could not farm themselves anymore. They diversified (rubber, manioc, sugarcane) and now they only grow rice for their own consumption (and ours…). They also gave up on cattle, but not for economic reasons. Surprisingly enough, my mother-in-law developed a candy-making business that seems amazingly lucrative. I am not well versed in agro-economics, but it looks to me that Thailand is no different from other countries. Farming beyond subsistence is not attractive anymore, if it ever was. Like elsewhere, global trade suffocates the least-productive. Issaan farming never was particularly competitive, but it was protected by subsidies, tariffs, a ban on foreign seeds etc. Contrary to what happened in Europe among others, Thai farmers never seem to have recognized the value of unionizing, creating cooperatives, captive banks, etc., so that an entire ecosystem of traders and intermediaries capture whatever added value is produced.

We applied yesterday for a Thai passport for our 12-year old son. Exactly the same procedure. Both parents present, no questions asked, walk-in (at the "Temporary" passport office in MBK in Bangkok - Looks pretty permanent to me...), no queue, done in 15 minutes. Both parents and the applicant had to sign the application on an electronic signature pad. Interestingly, they made a photo of both eyes of the applicant, in addition to extensive finger-printing. Big Brother has come to Thailand at last...

Very true. The day before the election, my in-laws gathered with my wife and her siblings to decide what party to vote for. They perused a booklet that listed all the parties and candidates and their respective programmes. In the end, one might suppose that, this being Buriram, they all voted for Anutin's party, and that even if they did not, it did not impact the national outcome, but I was honestly surprised and impressed that they took the care of meeting and discussing their electoral strategy as a family. I am beginning to think that this country deserves a lot better that what it got so far.

I am not sure that the Lèse Majesté law is so big of a problem, honestly. It is quite reasonable for a country to have a law specifically protecting the constitutional head of state against slander and personal attack. Many democratic countries have such laws in place, and not just monarchies, actually, some republics have it too.

Well, I managed to Change from Non-O Retirement no Non-B and then WP, without leaving Thailand, but that was during COVID, and by way of canceling my Non-O, applying for one of those temporary extensions they were handing out at the time because it was not possible to leave the country, and from that one applying for a Non-B etc. I am now back to a Non-O Retirement like before, that I will need to cancel again if I need to apply for a WP. But this time, I will consider replacing it with a Non-O Marriage, which presumably can be done in Thailand without requiring to travel to a consulate in a nearby country.

And there comes the Irresistible Force Paradox (IFP) : "What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?"

I have been considering changing extension from Retired to Marriage, despite the Retired being so much more straightforward, for one single reason: Retired is (quit understandably, to be honest) incompatible with a Work Permit. Should I come to need a Work Permit again, a change of reason would be necessary, and switching to a more classic Non-B visa would be even more hassle that a Marriage, needing to leave Thailand, go to a consulate somewhere, apply for a Non-B, come back, go to Immigration again after a while etc. And I understand from some former colleague that switching from Non-O Retirement to Non-B might not even be possible, thus necessitating to use another visa type to bridge the two. Unless I misunderstood?

Well, yes, whatever your current Permission to Stay, you can cancel it and apply for a Non-B, and then a WP. That's the common path. Depending your starting point, you may have to leave the country and apply for your Non-B abroad, as is the case for a Non-O Retirement. Other PtS (improperly called Visa) may allow a direct shift. When I did that, borders were still closed, they had me cancel my Non-O, made me apply for a COVID-Special or whatever it was, and from there a Non-B. The point of preferring a Non-O (Marriage) (or Parent of a Thai child, for that matter) is that you do not need to cancel your current PtS, you can keep it as it is and right away apply for a Work Permit.

My company arranged the entire process: Cancellation of the WP and the Non-B, and Immigration granted 21 days, during which I secured a Non-O (Retirement). Retrospectively, I probably should have gone for a Non-O (Marriage), because my Non-O (Retirement) is incompatible with a new WP. But Non-O (Retirement) is so much easier and faster to secure. It only took 45 minutes at Immigration.

Indeed. Reading this thread made me realise that I had stupidly forgotten that today was the 90-days deadline. I applied online, and that was done in a matter of minutes. The irony is that we went to town today, and I drove past the Immigration Office, where I usually do the reporting in-person. But from now on, I will apply online. Well, actually, I should never have to, I normally travel out of Thailand and back quite frequently.

For everybody's further information, I did just what was recommended, I appointed an attorney in Belgium, who competently handled the legalisation process. The total fee for the service (excluding the various stamp duties and translation fees, which would have to be paid even if I had done the whole thing myself) amounted to 604, 17 €. I had to insist that EU VAT was not due since I am a resident in Thailand, which was accepted. The process apparently was anything but smooth, and I am quite happy to have outsourced it to a specialised local law firm. The part of the process in Thailand, i.e. the final legalisation at Thailand's MOFA, is proving a bit difficult, as their post-COVID process is to force everybody to make an appointment online. They only accept the first 30 walk-ins every morning, who get served after the people who have an appointment. Currently, it takes about 2 weeks to get an appointment, which makes it hard for people who urgently need their documents legalised.

That old wisdom is pretty much gone now in Western countries. Quality of education is in free fall, and while what passes for a good education is certainly still a better entry point into the working life, it is no guarantee of a good job, nor of keeping even a not-so-good or a bad job, and there are not really many "good companies" left. And from a certain age, well-educated or not, one becomes unwanted, and eventually discarded. As for getting a pension upon retirement, most governments have been moving the goalpost and will continue to do so.

Well, it is a matter of perspective, I guess. Obviously, the Royals are working, in the sense that they have a large number of engagements and public functions. However, most of those can be considered entirely ceremonial and very dispensable. Ribbon-cutting and visits of choc9late factories are hardly necessary, and if so, could be performed by ministers and local authorities. Justifying the existence of a royal family by the things they do to justify their existence is a sort of circular reasoning. As for the funding of their lifestyle and upkeep, the Sovereign Grant in the UK, and to an extend the Civil List in other countries with a monarchy, is funded by the income of the Crown Estate, which for all practical purposes is the property of the state. Wherever a monarchy was overthrown, the Crown Estate of that country was simply taken over by the Treasury of the country. The Crown Estate is quite distinct from the private wealth of the royal family. In a number of cases of abolition of the monarchy, the deposed monarch retained much of not all of his family’s private wealth, to this day. For example, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany had to flee in exile in the Netherlands, but the new German government sent him several trainloads of private items, and the deposed Kaiser remained the owner of many properties in Germany.× Justifying the funding of the royal family in the UK or elsewhere by the fact that it is funded by an estate that in effect belongs to the state anyway is another circular reasoning.

I am a citizen of a constitutional monarchy. In my country, that particular institution Is not a divisive matter, and there is little to complain about the behaviour of our royals. Like most of my countrymen, I am not particularly in favour of abolishing our monarchy. However, as a principle, I have to admit that there is an issue with the very institution, in every country where it still can be found. Historically, the higher classes of society (the nobility and the wealthy) gradually put in place systems to curb the absolute power of the sovereign, not necessarily because of lofty democratic ideals, but because the power of one, from father to son, was a major constant threat to them and their own standing. But the fundamental fact is that hereditary monarchy, even tempered by a constitution to the point of being ceremonial only, is simply incompatible with democracy. Irrespective of whatever actual power or influence is left with today’s constitutional monarchs, it is not acceptable that the position of Head of State in a democratic country is left to the whims of genetics and to one particular family grabbing or receiving the throne/crown centuries ago. Equally unacceptable for a citizen of a democratic country is not to be able to elect the Head of State, nor to be able to be a candidate to the role of Head of State. And from the point of view of human rights, it is unacceptable to maintain an entire family of prisoners of state, whose lives are tightly controlled, which causes many issues with them, especially now that they are under constant scrutiny. It is a recipe for disaster to force individuals that never chose that lifestyle to be held to such impossible standards. In conclusion, while a constitutional monarchy is not harmful to the point of needing to be overthrown, it is incompatible with a democratic society, and it is also quite cruel to maintain an entire family of innocent people in a gilded cage as a tourist attraction and to satisfy a craving for waving the flag from time to time.

This is spot on. I recommend reading "The Way Thais Lead: Face as Social Capital", by Larry Persons (ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-6162151163). As the publisher writes: I know the author, and I read his book. He has a much more sympathetic view of face and Thai society than I have. In my view, face is a fatal social disease, that poisons Thai society and stands as the single biggest obstacle to any meaningful change.

It is a good question. Many, if not most, are actually sino-thai, whose Chinese cultural heritage seems to differ from other Thais in many ways, and lead them to be a tad more responsible and forward-thinking. But since they tend to be considerably wealthier than average, they might instead behave badly in the belief/certainty that money can get them out of trouble.

That's an excellent point. PR is really permanent. One would wish that they made it less daunting to get, and somewhat more attractive, of course. But indeed, permanence is peace of mind, and probably worth pursuing as such.

Obviously. Being married and the father of a Thai child, that's what accountants call a sunk cost.... This said, even if eligible, the process to obtain PR is long, convoluted and expensive, while the actual benefits of being a PR are quite flimsy. On cost alone, having to fork out 200k so that one does not have to apply for a yearly extension of Non-O that costs 1,900 baht seems like a pretty poor investment, with a payback of 100 years... The other benefits of being a PR are of very limited relevance. What foreigner wants or needs to serve as a director on the board of a Thai public company?

In addition to the employment-based PR application that we all know about, there seems to be several other options: Employment Investment Humanitarian Expert Extra Circumstances "Humanitarian" is described in various websites as "Marry a Thai citizen for at least 2 years, or be the biological mother/father of a Thai child". This last part is quite encouraging, if true, as many foreigners are married to a Thai citizen and/or father of one or more. It does not remove the requirement of 3 years of legal presence under the same visa (which is a bummed for me, who have swung from Non-O to Non-B and back, and there is mention level of salary/income (30,000 baht per month on average, it seems). Some of that is implied anyway in the requirement for maintaining presence in Thailand in the first place (like 400k/800k per year etc.). And the implied requirement of a level of fluency in Thai language is there too. I wonder where this leaves us. Is PR application on "Humanitarian" grounds more easily accessible than the "Employment" route?

I cannot answer the question for Phuket, but we have been owning a villa in Koh Samui, that we built off-plan 11 years ago, primarily as an investment. The first few years brought very good returns (about 8% YoY in the first 5 years), with short-term rentals. Then there were all sorts of issues about Thailand (Rd Shirts, etc.), so we switched to long-term rental, accepting lower but steadier rental income. Then COVID happened. Even though tourists have been back in Samui, we decided not to put the villa on the market again, because of the hassle, maintenance, rehabilitation etc. Houses take a beating under tropical climates, and tenants, especially longer-term ones, are quite careless and do not treat the house well, which means repairs etc. It is a mid-market villa (3 bedrooms, private pool), nice but not a millionaire house on top of the hill with a killer view. It is a good product, with monthly rentals on Airbnb at about 70k. Long-term rental would be much lower (I was quoted 30k last week). Had I known then what I know now, I would not have bought the villa. Now, we simply keep the villa for ourselves. It is a great place, we enjoy spending time there, and now that there is this night ferry service from Sattahip, it makes it a lot easier to go to Samui for a week or two. But if really wanting to invest in holiday villas in Samui, or in Phuket, I think that 3 or 4 smaller villas are a better bet than one single luxury one. Much more liquid, and in a way easier to manage as a smooth operation, a bit like a hotel or resort.