Promula

I was just talking to a very attractive Thai who works in my local coffee kiosk which has pretty much all Thai custoners. She's been there a couple of months.

Apparently she worked as a receptionist at a Patong hotel before but got laid off. She said that she's on slightly less money now but won't go back when the hotel reopens as she doesn't miss having to speak with unpleasant foreign guests every day. 

It's not a "can't return to my country" letter, it's a "can I be assisted to obtain a non imm visa in-country" letter. 

I went from amnesty to an in-country non-b for a job I couldn't begin due to a serious health problem the week before the job start day. My non-b expires on 20 November. Now I have no idea if I can use the letter to apply to stay until 30 Nov, and during that 10 day extension period will I still be on non-b or will return to being a tourist? Still trying to find ways to get a non-o retirement, as my immigration office insists that I can't use my non b to get a retirement extension.

1 hour ago, Aspaltso said:

I really like to topic in this post because it makes sense. One of the reasons many tourists started coming here was because people were friendly, and the lifestyle was great. That's still the case in many parts of the country, but there has definitely been a shift in attitude, and I can see that going back as recently as 2009 when I got here. Tourism has fattened the pockets of some, but has also brought unwelcome influences, and actually brought struggles onto others. At the very least it's good for Thais to get back to their provinces, and appreciate the simple things about their country.

That's exactly what my TGF said. A cousin of hers used to work in a restaurant in Koh Chang and had quite an unhealthy nocturnal lifestyle. She went back to Isaan a few months ago, is working on a farm, and seems happier and healthier.

5 minutes ago, pookondee said:

If thats the case, why is the guy in charge so keen to kickstart tourism and pass this new visa scheme?

After all, Its ingrained in ALL Thai politicians to dislike foreigners.

 

IMO they must be copping huge pressure from the public and certain business sectors, trying so hard to be seen as to helping Thailand open up again.

I expect the PM is giving about 15 minutes of his time per week to international tourism. He'll have an inbox of dozens of issues per week to be dealing with. 

18 minutes ago, Bartman1369 said:

People who were charged extreme amounts of money for 3 months extensions have have paid for nothing. 

Nobody forced them to enter into a bribery situation. They're hardly going to be able to complain and get their money back. The agents and IOs are laughing all the way to the bank. 

15 minutes ago, khunjeff said:

I was living here almost 30 years ago, and there certainly were not "very few international tourists". There were more than ten million a year even back then, which, while a drop in the bucket compared to (pre-pandemic) today, was still an awful lot of visitors.

 

 

5 million, not 10 million.

52 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Wrong....concerns over the lack of international tourists is a major problem....the impact on the London economy in particular is serious. Many, many livelihoods depend on tourism....people are concerned.

Wrong. Of course there are "concerns" from interested parties, but not the majority of the population. Furthermore, more Brits travel abroad and spend their money than foreigners arrive in the UK to spend their money, so international tourism in net terms is actually damaging to the UK economy.

9 minutes ago, kingstonkid said:

I also as most people know live north of BKK in sunny PT.  For us here tourism is important to the point that we have Dreamworld but then again the kids love it  because there are less people around.  Thais usually pack the place anyway.  As to the local economy yes it has and probably will affect some businesses  NOVOTEL is/was building a new hotel.  But to the average Thai they could care less about the tourists and more about their daily lives.  There really is  no change here.

Indeed. Take the UK for example, which also receives many millions of tourists per year. Does the average Brit worry about a declne in international tourist arrivals? They couldn't care less, and have far more important things to think about.

It does seem that a lot of foreigners in Thailand are self-important

8 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

No, the people who got visas are here legally and they can get visa extensions , those who didnt get visas are here legally and they cannot get visa extensions 

I haven't seen anything that states the latter of your comments. Do you have a link?

8 minutes ago, Disparate Dan said:

I live in a province not far from BKK where any tourism is almost exclusively domestic. Sure, the downturn has been felt because the economy (the corruption and the other stuff we can't mention) affects every citizen and everyone is angry. But round here, no-one is keen to see foreign tourism back. There is no flu, no-one wears masks and life goes on as before. Why mess it up further?

Yep. It's only a small minority of Thais that have made themselves economically dependant on foreign tourist arrivals. I think the vast majority would prefer them kept out for the foreseeable future, and perhaps the entire future.

2 minutes ago, Guderian said:

It seems that the "new normal" in Thailand is to simply ignore the laws and do whatever you please

That's the old normal too. People have been jumping red lights and riding their motorbike along pavements etc since forever.

1 minute ago, genericptr said:

Why is the government responsible? I thought the visa holder was responsible for following the terms of the visa.

Because they couldn't process 150,000 applications and had wrongly estimated that nearly all of them would leave instead.

4 minutes ago, genericptr said:

they gave amnesty to people who stayed after Sep 26th without getting an extension (which meant they were on overstay by a few days). I left already but I could have literally just done nothing and still gotten amnesty. I bet they do it again in October too.

They wanted to make some people like you leave to show that they're enforcing the law. They succeeded, and then unenforced it ????

2 minutes ago, genericptr said:

So they gave people who simply overstayed their visas amnesty until Oct 31st? I never thought I'd see the day to get freebies from immigration.

They made a mess of things by underestimating the number of people that would leave in September. They could make a lot of money in overstay fines now but perhaps realise that they are partly or mostly responsible for those overstays.

5 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

 

>> In some cases it happened that the landlord of the place you are renting is not willing to notify IO that you are staying there and file your TM-30.  But with a copy of the rental contract and your passport ID-page, you can register yourself as tenant of the place, and subsequently file your own TM-30.

So you don't need their ID or tabian baan then?

32 minutes ago, hotchilli said:

Vietnam

More noisy and less developed than Thailand.

People there don't just ride their motorbikes on the pavement, they'll beep their horn at pedestrians to get out of their way. 

9 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

But that means that if the previous tenant registered the condo of which you are the owner in order to file his TM-30, the next tenant won't be able to do that as the condo where he is staying is 'already registered' (and that is what this thread is all about).  So that new tenant would have to go to the local IO to have that previous registration cancelled in order to be able to register again and do his own notification.

> It might be easier that you register as owner of all the condos, and notify IO with an on-line TM-30 when a new tenant moves in.  Since 30 June 2020 this only has to be done ONCE as long as the tenant stays on the same Visa on which he entered Thailand (irrespective of extensions, or domestic/international travel). 

Precisely. This law doesn't mean that the foreigner as the tenant can register themself.  It means the tenant can register a foreigner staying with them.

• either the householder. aka the house-master, which according to section 4 of the Immigration Act means the chief possessor of the residence in his capacity as the tenant;
• or the owner;
• or the possessor, ie the householder.

............

This means the owner or the tenant of the property where the foreigner is staying, not the foreigner as the tenant themself. 

6 hours ago, Hanuman2547 said:

 

•  

 

Since the original posted that these are important factors in choosing a place to live

- has fresh air year-round

- has good infrastructure and plenty for a foreigner to do

- has good airport links

- Is near the sea, as beaches and islands are the best thing about the tropics

- Has mountains and forests rather than endless flat rice paddies

 

I would think the very first criteria would rule out Thailand.  Some of the dirtiest air in the region.  Mountains could be found up north but no beaches.  Yes, Phuket has one big hill but hardly qualifies as a mountain.  I wouldn't say "no" to Phuket but I would probably avoid Patong. 

 

One of the biggest drawbacks to me is the poor air quality which is why I will never live full time in LOS.  I'd prefer just 4-5 months over the northen hemisphere winter.  

 

I've been in Phuket six months and haven't seen any air quality problems get. The US AQI is 21 today https://www.iqair.com/th-en/thailand/phuket

Do you have any info on what causes what you refer to? I'm aware that smog may blow in occasionally from Indonesia, but it's likely to be only a few days per year. There's nothing locally that could cause significant problems.

Singapore is ridiculously expensive. Phuket isn't. I think it's higher quality than Pattaya (apart from public transport) and worth a bit extra.

4 minutes ago, Nout said:

Nah no torching anywhere near here. I not you watched the smog moving out. Pattaya has a gigant green lung in the form of Pratumnak,  the whole city has its own microclimate and it nestles behind jungles and mountains.

A small hill with some trees on isn't going to stop thousands of square kms of smog that's built up in rural Chachoensao from moving south east.

50 minutes ago, patman30 said:

you might want to consider adding Cambodia to your list,
as much easier to stay for longer periods than the other countries you mentioned

Depends if there's anywhere that's developed enough for my tastes. After many years in Malaysia I find most of Thailand insufficiency developed for my needs, and I imagine Cambodia will be decades behind Thailand.

33 minutes ago, Dart12 said:

How much are each airline ticket?  that's a lot of flying just to avoid getting a visa

It's a contingency plan in case I can't get a b or o visa or if I feel restless and don't want to be settled in one place for months on end. Lots of people are feeling restless after half a year of very limited travel opportunity.

1 hour ago, wolf81 said:

I kinda wonder why Pattaya isn't recommended more in this post. I believe the air should be relatively clean all year round right? As long as not driving in city center, staying close to the beach (e.g. Jomtien area). .

 

 

I went there in January and could see the smog moving south east and out to sea. There's a lot of arable land nearby that gets torched.