DrDweeb

As a matter of passing interest;

AMS is several metres BELOW sea level.

AMS has 5 runways.

Holland is, in fact, a swamp.

I propose that we accept as a given that it is possible to build concrete runways on a swamp.

It was reported to me (technically hearsay, since I did not second source the report) that Runway 5 (that's the one that is 12-15 minutes drive in a 747 from the terminal) delaminated last year, spraying concrete into 2 of the 3 engines of a 3 engine passenger jet during landing. It was subsequently closed for repairs.

I propose that we accept as a given that building concrete runways on a swamp is not an exact science.

I think I have been through Suvarnabhumi 10 times now, both domestic and international. IIRC my first arrival, was within 10 days of opening. From "wheels down" until I was seated in a taxi was 35 minutes. This is a very impressive number. I cannot complain, and is certainly better than I had been expecting. It was a bit longer last time, because my baggage was, literally, the last piece out

On my recent departure, like 10 days ago, the time from Sukh. Soi 4 at "Bus Stop" at 22:00, until I had passed through customs, was precisely 30 minutes. This figure, curiously, is more or less identical with the same journey to Don Muang.

So guys, really, except for the stupid monochrome signs which are difficult to spot and often occluded, lack of lavatories, an outdated design and dubious aesthetics, Suvarnabhumi is actually not too bad. Writing as someone who passed through airports 100+ times last year, I can personally vouch for the statement that there are plenty of worse ones to visit. Jetways break, concrete is not an exact science (I used to work for Pioneer concrete, so I have some specific knowledge here), and mega projects always have some issues.

Anyone recall the pr Christmas baggage disaster at LHR ?? My daughter got her luggage back last week. She transited LHR 19 Dec !!! I do not think any airport in the world can match that disaster. Millions of pieces of lost/delayed baggage.

So I think we should chill, and let the politics be politics. It is, after all, Thailand - LOS.

I now return you to your regular programming.

...

* If your purchase occurred in an airport located outside the European Union, and you are transferring to a European Union country, you will not be authorized to carry your purchases onto your next flight. They will be taken away from you.

Onboard purchases:

If your purchase occurred onboard an aircraft belonging to a European airline departing from an airport located outside a European Union country, it will be accepted when you transfer in a European Union country, as long as it is placed in a sealed bag accompanied by the proof of onboard purchase.

...

It looks like the security staff at Vienna airport know the rules and apply them.

Of course, it amounts to a reduction in duty-free import into the EU and favouritism for EU airlines, which may have been the intention to begin with.

--

Maestro

Indeed. Any moron with a chemistry set can create enough liquid explosive (100ml) to take a plane out of the sky.

The whole directive serves no security purpose, pisses off passengers and, as you rightly point out, disadvantages the rest of the world's duty free stores. Booze at AMS is more expensive than the high street on the items I checked last time - about what you would expect from the kloggies.

Dweeb

what about cigarettes?

in copenhagen they do confiscate ciggies - happen to me in 2005 and to my friend in 2004. Security calls customs and they search your bags.

Re-read the post. This is confiscation due to the new "fluid" rules for carry on, not the "duty free allowance".

Sheesh, some people.

Dweeb

Folks,

I transited in VIE on Sunday morning from BKK on the way to CPH.

My bottle of 21yop Ballvenie was purchased at King Power at Svarnabhumi, and dutifully sealed by the sales staff there in compliance with the new European rules about carrying fluids on board. (Stupid, dumb, idiotic and pointless rules - another thread perhaps).

During transit, the Vienna security officials confiscated every bottle of perfume and liquor from every passenger transiting from OS026 to OS301, and presumably to all the other connecting flights.

The official refused to give a receipt for the confiscated products, and behaved as you would expect from an illiterate borderline moron empowered with percussion firearms.

Not wishing to make any donations to the annual Christmas Party of the Vienna Airport Security Services, I found it necessary to show my contempt by detonating the offending bottle through the use of extreme downward force and the ample use of the earth's gravitational effect. Some fellow passengers found this amusing, while I found that it mostly hurt in my wallet.

So, you have all been warned. I do not know whether any other European airports are interpreting the rules in this way (certainly AMS did not last time I transited there), but it would be a rash decision to acquire fluid products duty free at BKK and have any expectation of carrying them through a european airport as handluggage during transit.

Dr. Dweeb

I was in Thailand as a young GI in the early 70's (Udorn) and fell in love with the place. When I retired in 2003 I moved to bangkok/Pattaya. I lasted about 15 months. The noise, pollution and complete character change of the locals was a total turnoff. Also the young "Monks" have made a mockery of Buddhism.

The food and beaches are still great. But that's about it. Its a great place to visit. You can have it for long term residency. Its also great if you are a middle aged, over weight alcoholic pedaphile looser with no friends. Regards.

Well, you need to go travel throughout the country for a while. And FYI - the paedophilia capital of the world is not Thailand, most of the farangs in Thailand are probably well under 50 and in my experience have plenty of friends. I have met only Thai alcaholics - you can read the alcohol statistics for Thailand yourself.

So, go live in Vietnam - you probably left your mind there.

Dweeb

Most politicions in Thailand are simply crooks. They are in politics only to protect their business interests.

Hah! That should read "most politicians the world over are crooks". Just because we're better at hiding the corruption in the west doesn't mean it's not there.

I can point to our ex-pres Bill Clinton as a shining example. The man grew up middle class, worked for the government his entire life, yet somehow (wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more) managed to become a multi-millionaire. And when his mother said live on CNN she wouldn't vote for him because he was a pathological liar, CNN never repeated the story and no other press would touch it. So much for a free press looking out for the interests of the people.

Remember the old Chinese saying: Power attracts the corruptible.

In the vast majority of cases, changing governments simply changes who's pockets the money goes into.

Actually, I think you will find the WhitwaterWorld and Kenn Starr business bankrupted the Clintons, and he was probably the poorest President ever when he left office. He has earned considerable money since his leaving office.

Dweeb

Before they get 'high end' toursists, it would be a good idea to clean the place up, last (and only ) time I was there it was a tip, dirty, smelly, bins overflowing (when there was a bin) old wrecks down side streets, dilapidated buildings, hotel in need of a touch of paint, and refurbishment

We were pounced on by cab drivers everywhere, even when we just got out of one

I consider my self one of these high end tourists they are speaking about, I usually spend about 7-800 quid on accomadation, not sure about how much I spend on tips, taxis, tuk tuks, normally spend about a £1000 while there on bits and bobs, might have a few Tbts left at the endof it

All in all I reckon I spent about £2500, that includes, airfare to and from BKK and to and from Phuket, and money while in Phuket, I suppose to some it may not be enough, but I thought it was more than enough in a place that I thought was dirty, in dire need of a clean up, the locals should have a more of a smile (while ripping me off)hotel staff that are surly, 2nd rate resturrants

I wont return there until its cleaned up a lot (which I cant see happening)

I have friends who run 2 bars there and I cant understand the attrction for them (there are JUST too many bars and the competition is hard)

There are a lot nicer places in the LOS that I prefer, so this is one tourist they wont have to worry about visiting there

and before any one decides to flame me, I have been to Chang Mai, Chang Rai, Hua Hin, Mae Hon Son, Koh Samui,Phukett, Koh Larn, Pattaya, Bangkok (another cesspit) and I was with the Royal Thai army when I was with the UK forces, and I find my self returning to some of these places even more, but Phukett, never again

You know - you sound so bitter - what happenned to you there ? Leave your heart?

Phuket is nice once you get off the Patong strip - plenty to do and see and nice beaches - also the small out of the way ones.

That being said, I have never been there at rush-hour - I may change my mind next !

Dr. Dweeb

Another quality post Dr. Dweeb.. :whistling

Uh BTW I only checked this thread 'cos I saw his name on the post and thought this has got to be interesting....

dissapointed really, but not surprised. So ladies I'm not really checking out what you do down there.

oh - a fan

Dweeb

perhaps those that are having , or are about to have problems with obtaining the right to remain in this country to support wives and family ought to avail themselves of the services of one of the more reputable law firms that should be able to help them.

rather than banging away hopelessly at the door of an immigration officer on a power trip , let an experienced law firm advise you on how to prepare the right documentation and how to present your cases correctly and respectfully at the immigration office.

you might just find it works.

rightly or wrongly , attitude and presentation are all in this country and can change a power hungry government official into a sympathetic public servant before you can say kha pom.

I suspect that Andy does not have the fianncial resources to exercise the Lawyer, Amity Company, or Retirment Visa (he is over 50) options. As some of you seemed to have missed, his wowman of many years, is dancing in Bangkok and he has the son, but, not the cutody to go along with the son and this is what Immigration said no to. I think that I understood correctly! Again a lawyer for such an operation can cost. I would hope that he explore the sole cutody issue suggested earlier.

nobody has questioned / supplied answers for ,

who will pick up the slack when the ' Andy's ' are forced out of the country .

is there no concern for the numerous locals being supported by people in this situation ??

Kind of like when the stupid kid get kicked out of class, thus passing the honorary title on to the next smartest person. Class is getting smaller folks!

On a more general note, may I suggest to everyone who intends to make Thailand their home for the forseeable future, that they learn the Thai language! By that, I mean learn to speak Thai well, learn to read/write Thai to a reasonable degree.

It irks me that I meet many 'farang' who have lived in LoS for years, (often 10 or 20 years+), and can still only speak one or two words of Thai. What sort of commitment to the country does that show?

Learn Thai, understand (not neccessarily agree with) the culture, and you stand a far better chance of integrating with the Thai community. Make Thai friends (who can help you out in time of need) etc.

It's not difficult . . . especially if you have 17 years to do it in!

Simon

I hate to disagree! I speak Italian, German, English, some Slovenian and cannot for the life of me learn this language with a nasal drawl. Everytime I finally am able to say the word propeprly, I have to sneeze!! Part of the problem is that I am not a young boy anymore, the other part being the dificulty of the language itself.

Good point. The mono-lingual anglophiles are so clueless about languages. I am fluent in a second language that I leaned after I turned 20. It was damned hard work making all those funny sounds. I know people who have lived in my country of residence for decades who speak awefully, no matter how hard they try. It hurts my ear to listen to them. However they can be understood and function with the language in normal daily life.

Asian languages are tonal to a far greater extent than the european languages. They are just hard to master ! Give Andy a break. Also aweful != zero (I think he used that word)

I would like to offer advice, but this thread is so full of useless static and stupid arrogant "holier than though" people it hardly seems worthwhile.

1: Legal = 1 year renewal - period

2: There is no option for sub-50 male unmarried parents

3: The over-50 option is expensive and a non-option for many retirees

4: Bizarre unproven combinations of 30+30+30+60 etc. etc are pointless thought experiments

5: There appears to be no process for a human rights appeal to immigration

Basically, The Thai Government says "Andy must go".

Personally I think most of the posters here in this thread are just so up themselves that it is unbelievable. Basically, the attitude is "you should have known better, f*** off its their country anyway, your a lazy no-good whinging pom and get off your ass and get-legal (see 1..5 above)".

Good luck Andy.

Dr. Dweeb

Nice post Dr Dweeb,but he does not have to go.

See http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=1072433

Well, I had not got far enough in the thread to hear of this bizarre order. This is the first time I have seen it mentioned. Clearly his rejection in "room 303" - very Orwellian - would appear on that basis to have been incorrect and he has been misinformed and mislead by the Thai authorities not being up to speed with the new regulations. But then again, who is up to speed ?

Lawyers cost money and not everyone can afford them, so we mortals need to relay on the integrity and knowledge of government official (sorry - rotfl) in order to function - plus the advice of the experienced in these matters.

It seems Andy may have a solution after all - hooooray

Dr. Dweeb

What - me? Intellectual ?

very sentimental post indeed. on one hand i feel sorry for u and ur dependants, on the other hand i must say that u dug this hole for urself by simply not being aware of the conditions that apply. i guess it's time to wake up and look at all available options to get out of this mess. and believe me there are quite a few available.

good luck.

OK. I can't resist...

No! There is basically ONLY ONE (long term).

Andy is lucky to be above 50.

The solution is: 7.17 (5) of the New Police Order of 01/10/2006 (606/2006).

Now that more information regarding Andy's situation was posted, I am confident in saying his case is solved/closed.

(We still have to make sure he has got the Thai birth certificate of his child with his name on it).

BUT MEANWHILE:

Thousands (no doubt) of "solo" or unmarried Farang parents under 50 have NO WAY to "get legal" since 01/10/2006.

Child custody does not matter.

Money in the bank does not matter.

Monthly income does not matter.

They must get married.

Saddly it's not possible in my case (I am married and can not get divorced) and saddly my own government requires the agreement of my wife to recognize my child.

I can not bring my child to my own country (not more than 3 months under a complicate procedure of "sponsoring" that would not even be considered as a "family case"!)

So basically I look like a pervert trying to bring a 2.5 years old with me in the plane.

Sorry but it's serious!!!

(Since the mother is working here, she can not easily accompany us)

On top of all this, we would lose a lot of my income (derived from property rented out) (and our purchasing power too) if we had to live in my home country anyway.

Also: I did not have 17 years to consider my options before the SURREAL (cf. fatehr must be above 50!) regulations of 01/10/2006 were implemented, please kindly note...

Although I sympathise with you and I have seen your posts in the past, what you have written above is misleading and incorrect.

I am under 5o with one child, unmarried. I have sole custody of my child gained via the Thai courts.

I have obtained VERY easily in Singapore an O visa single entry 90 days. All I had to show was the court papers showing me being sole custodian. No income/proof of, was required.

I can extend this in Bangkok.....this is a little more complicated but is do-able, or I can just hop over over to Singapore for 2 days every 3 months for a new O visa

Kindly!

Please tell me exactly what part of my posts above is misleading.

1) NON-O?

To make things clear:

I regard a NON-O visa, even a multiple entry, as a TEMPORARY SITUATION/SOLUTION.

It's not a satisfactory solution when you are raising a child!

I know I can easily get a NON-O visa (Single entry anywhere and multiple entry at friendly consulates).

And, as things stand now, I can get "back to back" NON-O visas.

I know a multiple entry gives me, practically, a 15 month hassle-free stay in Thailand (w/border runs every 3 months)

I am NOT happy with that, let's be clear!

2) ANNUAL EXTENSION? (The only valid long term solution).

The new regulations Police Order of 01/10/2006 (606/2006) are CLEAR: must be ABOVE 50.

But: You seem to say otherwise??

Please! I am EXTREMELY interested in your experience.

"I am under 5o with one child, unmarried. I have sole custody of my child gained via the Thai courts."

Please: WHERE did you receive the information that you would be able to extend your non-O in BKK? It's definitevely NOT in (the letter of) the new regulations!

3) Situation with Belgium: Saddly it's 100% accurate and it was just re-confirmed today by yet another email from the Belgian embassy in Bangkok!

I can not recognize my daughter in Belgium if I do not have the agreement of my wife!

I can not even bring her with me without her mother.

(They did not say it but it really is obvious: the case will never be accepted in Brussels. Sponsoring of a 2.5 y old child without any family link: no way)

Some countries now allow DNA test as proof. Worth a try ?

Dweeb

perhaps those that are having , or are about to have problems with obtaining the right to remain in this country to support wives and family ought to avail themselves of the services of one of the more reputable law firms that should be able to help them.

rather than banging away hopelessly at the door of an immigration officer on a power trip , let an experienced law firm advise you on how to prepare the right documentation and how to present your cases correctly and respectfully at the immigration office.

you might just find it works.

rightly or wrongly , attitude and presentation are all in this country and can change a power hungry government official into a sympathetic public servant before you can say kha pom.

I suspect that Andy does not have the fianncial resources to exercise the Lawyer, Amity Company, or Retirment Visa (he is over 50) options. As some of you seemed to have missed, his wowman of many years, is dancing in Bangkok and he has the son, but, not the cutody to go along with the son and this is what Immigration said no to. I think that I understood correctly! Again a lawyer for such an operation can cost. I would hope that he explore the sole cutody issue suggested earlier.

nobody has questioned / supplied answers for ,

who will pick up the slack when the ' Andy's ' are forced out of the country .

is there no concern for the numerous locals being supported by people in this situation ??

Kind of like when the stupid kid get kicked out of class, thus passing the honorary title on to the next smartest person. Class is getting smaller folks!

On a more general note, may I suggest to everyone who intends to make Thailand their home for the forseeable future, that they learn the Thai language! By that, I mean learn to speak Thai well, learn to read/write Thai to a reasonable degree.

It irks me that I meet many 'farang' who have lived in LoS for years, (often 10 or 20 years+), and can still only speak one or two words of Thai. What sort of commitment to the country does that show?

Learn Thai, understand (not neccessarily agree with) the culture, and you stand a far better chance of integrating with the Thai community. Make Thai friends (who can help you out in time of need) etc.

It's not difficult . . . especially if you have 17 years to do it in!

Simon

I hate to disagree! I speak Italian, German, English, some Slovenian and cannot for the life of me learn this language with a nasal drawl. Everytime I finally am able to say the word propeprly, I have to sneeze!! Part of the problem is that I am not a young boy anymore, the other part being the dificulty of the language itself.

Good point. The mono-lingual anglophiles are so clueless about languages. I am fluent in a second language that I leaned after I turned 20. It was damned hard work making all those funny sounds. I know people who have lived in my country of residence for decades who speak awefully, no matter how hard they try. It hurts my ear to listen to them. However they can be understood and function with the language in normal daily life.

Asian languages are tonal to a far greater extent than the european languages. They are just hard to master ! Give Andy a break. Also aweful != zero (I think he used that word)

I would like to offer advice, but this thread is so full of useless static and stupid arrogant "holier than though" people it hardly seems worthwhile.

1: Legal = 1 year renewal - period

2: There is no option for sub-50 male unmarried parents

3: The over-50 option is expensive and a non-option for many retirees

4: Bizarre unproven combinations of 30+30+30+60 etc. etc are pointless thought experiments

5: There appears to be no process for a human rights appeal to immigration

Basically, The Thai Government says "Andy must go".

Personally I think most of the posters here in this thread are just so up themselves that it is unbelievable. Basically, the attitude is "you should have known better, f*** off its their country anyway, your a lazy no-good whinging pom and get off your ass and get-legal (see 1..5 above)".

Good luck Andy.

Dr. Dweeb

Personally, speaking as a guy, I prefer my women completely depilated (except for the scalp - I cannot deal with a bald lady - but I digress). I have on occasion been with Thai ladies who did not require any treatment "down there" and were naturally smooth despite being 20+yo. This is the ideal as any experienced man will attest.

I might also add that many female apparel items are unsuited to ladies other than those who maintain a smooth pubic area.

As for shaving, I have done it so many times to gfs that I often think I should offer the service - lol.

Finally, I personally believe the quality and ease of copulatory activity is enhanced when the female is "hollywood" style.

Tha is all

DrDweeb

In America anyone can own a gun as long as they are not a criminal. Aliens who establish residency by just living in a State can go out and buy a gun and anyone can buy a shotgun. Too bad we in the USA allow law abiding people to own a firearm but not here.

The woman should have come out with a shotgun and blown his head into pulp. Handbags do little against a firearm.

A very backwards country is Thailand in this regard.

I agree with yankee-expat. The United States founders recognized that only a vigilant armed citizenry is an effective deterrent against armed criminals. Police are good only for taping off the crime scene AFTER the deed is done. If criminals are well aware that their intended victim is most likely armed, they will not risk a confrontation. However, in a country where the government has foolishly made it illegal to own self-defense weapons, criminals know going in that they are most likely going to find defense-less victims. Thus emboldened, they take the chance.

While the wife in this case was unlikely to have a shot gun at the ready, she may very well have had her own .357 Magnum. And if each of the other guests had their firearms, the thief would have found himself surrounded and outgunned. Not a bad formula for peace, I believe! Thailand is not alone in it's position regarding gun ownership. I believe this is more out of fear that an armed citizenry has the capacity to rise up against their masters than any other reason.

Iraq, they had guns, they had a dictator.

Japan has few guns and is really safe.

Do you really want to be at a party with a bunch of drunk people and have guns about? One stupid argument can lead to tragedy.

(oh and I am for the right to bear arms, I just think some of the extremists arguements are plain dumb)

In America anyone can own a gun as long as they are not a criminal. Aliens who establish residency by just living in a State can go out and buy a gun and anyone can buy a shotgun. Too bad we in the USA allow law abiding people to own a firearm but not here.

The woman should have come out with a shotgun and blown his head into pulp. Handbags do little against a firearm.

A very backwards country is Thailand in this regard.

By your standards, pretty much all countries in (western) Europe are very backwards.

I thought the US had one of the highest rates of deaths by firearms in the world, counting both accidents and murders. I sure don't want that in Thailand.

Too late. Thailand is already way ahead in that catagory.

Nation Master - Murders by firearm per capita

I think that most of the murders by handguns in the USA are in states that DO NOT allow the average citizen to carry a handgun. The higher the degree of gun control the higher the rate of murder by handgun. Look up the number of murders by race both doing the killing and being killed in the USA. It isn't the whites running around shooting the whites.

Of course there is a lot more whites than blacks. If you put 5 white marbles in a can and 2 black ones, shake the can and pick one out by random you are more likely to get a white one (duh). Are there a higher percentage of black criminals than whites? Yes. There are a number of reasons for this BUT just saying that blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks doesn't prove much.

I think he was pointing out that most gun murders are perpetrated by blacks on blacks. That actually does say a great deal.

Dweeb

Its a catch 22 for condo buyers. If you transfer less then 800,000 baht you wont get the necessary FET certificate. If you transfer more ,they might withold 30% of it. Ive got my swift form filled out and ready to post today, but wont do it until this matter is cleared. Between that and the anticipated empty rental condos vacated by the visa runners whose 90 days run out, it might be a good idea to hold off on condo purchases. IMHO

BoT has been rather clear on this: money transferred to buy a property is not concerned by the new rule. Of course u could always call them yourself.

A previous post indicated that property was covered. I gues the BOT has a website we could consult ?

Dweeb

Thailand Abandons Lockup on Foreign Stock Investments (Update2)

By Suttinee Yuvejwattana and Margo Towie

Snip ...

Pridiyathorn said the rules would remain in effect on other investments, including bonds and property.

Snip ..

To contact the reporter on this story: Suttinee Yuvejwattana in Bangkok at [email protected]

Last Updated: December 19, 2006 09:11 EST

Whoops - still problems for the condo buyers it seems

Dweeb

I had intended to bring in the dollar equivalent of 800,000 Bt for retirement purposes, but maybe now better to do a wire transfer from USA bank in THB instead of dollars.

Does anyone know if you take a beating converting USD to THB in USA, before transferring funds to Thailand?

It will depend on the bank. ABN Amro hit us for about 3.5 baht per dollar, exchanging at 35.5 back when the rate was 39. And that even though I specified I wanted dollars transferred, not baht.

Most National banks separate from government. Has the perosnal or structure of the BOT changed ?

Just curious.

Dweeb

I would like to know how Thailand is number 1 for tourism? Do you mean they ranked number 1 in a survey of satisfied tourists?

If you are talking volume then Thailand ranks way below the United States. You may be interested to know the state of Florida alone recieves well over 1 million visitors per annum.

NB. I see now you mention value for money - my appologies for misreading. It is the volume that is the most important to an economy however it is true to say that satisfied tourists will likely return.

http://www.thailandoutlook.com/NR/rdonlyre...yofThailand.pdf

12million in 2004

Dweeb

Let's face it, the go-go bars in Bangkok are boring now. A lot of the usual winter visitors who rent cheap apts. don't even come anymore. This is a trend that will continue.

They have been more than replaced by thousands more couples and singles from Northern Europe who are buying condos and houses like crazy in the likes of Hua Hin, Phuket, Pattaya area. I was recently thru Issan and farangs are acquiring land and building houses in areas they've never been before. The foreign resident population is increasing dramatically and, if you reboot your computer and walk and talk to real people you will come to the conclusion that this is but the first wave. True, a few long timers who came here over the years will leave. But that will not affect the numbers who stay in any dramatic way.

Well, that (farangs buying house/land everywhere) was true until the mooted changes in the administration of the companies law with respect to nominees and ownership of land by such companies being used as a vehicle for house ownership.

Foreigners cannot own land, period, only Thais and Thai registered companies (not sure about US companies, there is a special agreement for that). There are rules regarding Thai registered companies that have previously been openly flaunted and there are mooted changes in the administration of the government controls on Thai companies to change this. Home ownership based on Thai company land ownership is rather risky at the moment.

Of course the gf/wife can own land - which is what many have done and some have regretted.

There is leasing and there are some other tricky ways, but all of them have some hole in them somewhere which is potentially a large risk.

Generally, however your point holds, as I have also seen the expat population grow from essentially zero in Hua Hin to a substantial full time community. Same goes other places I am sure. Whether the growth in this area offsets the loss of people who will fall through the cracks of the new regulations is an unknown - but it is not an unlikely scenario.

Dweeb

Some people do not want to be helped! You are taking everything out of context. (4) & (5) are not separate entities, (5) is a continuation of (4) as are all other subsections. Instead of using one long sentence, the information has been split into sections where each section contains one piece of vital information and it fits neatly into the layout of the document.

I realise that English is not your native language but you appear to have a good command of it. The last line in (4) reads '20 years of age; or' That is not how English sentences end but signifies that it continues. The first line in (5) reads 'In the case of a parent, the said' Now put those two snippets together ''20 years of age; or' 'In the case of a parent, the said'" and tidy it up a bit to read -''20 years of age or in the case of a parent, the said'. The 'or' signifies that only one of the conditions must be met, if 'and' was used in place of 'or' then both conditions must be met.

Let's rewrite the sentence using only the parts pertaining to your case.

The alien has obtained a temporary visa (NON-IM) and proof of family relationship; in the case of a child, the child must not be married, living in the family home and not over the age of 20. All information that is not relevant has been removed.

I had a quick look at that, and I am not sure I agree with you. It may refers to a visa for the child or a visa for the parent separately in each section, in which case the parent needs to be 50+ - But hey, I have jetlag and its late. I will re-read this later, but to describe the text as opaque is polite.

Oh, I spend a lot of time reading legal documents, and this isn't one - lol

cheers

Dweeb

It seems intuitively correct. However, your point is overshadowed by the question of how considerable (or inconsiderable) the amount brought into the Thai economy by resident tourists and tourist-tourists actually is. Is there any reliable data I wonder? Without such data, this is all speculation. Apparently the Thai gov feels that the benefits of restricting resident tourists and others outweighs the financial benefits.

That's quite true. Nobody knows this number with any degree of certainty. The speculation runs the gamut from it's so little money that losing it would have no effect whatsoever on the Thai economy to Thailand will fall apart without the money that foireigners spend. Truth is obviously somewhere in between these two poles and it's really anybody's guess.

PS - To all of the tax fans on this thread, I would not suggest for a moment that the Thai government wouldn't love to see foreigners contribute more to the tax base (simply because they want to fill the coffers). My point is that to conclude that by making a minimal contribution to Thai gov't tax revenues, this somehow equates to foreigners spending habits having a negligible effect on the overall Thai economy is bogus.

This is what I was trying to say but you have said better than I did.

I hate the way some of the posters on here who dont quite understand what you are trying to say then go and make up what they want, be rude and start a new argument ( for example not once did I mention the ecomomy).

Add remedial English 101 to the list then.

I cannot be bothered to read all your drivel again, but methinks you have mentioned the economy directly or indirectly more than once.

Dweeb

Although most of the posters on this forum are reasonably good people who are contributing to the Thai economy, there is a rather large class of visa runners who really are the dregs of society. They aren't wanted in their own country and Thailand no longer wants them either. I once lived in a neighborhood populated with a lot of these people--severe alcoholics and drug addicts. They could live well here and were often financed by families back home.

There are all kinds of other groups as well, some involved in dodgy deals and others just plainly illegal activities.

Over the years the number of expats in the kingdom has grown and grown. I don't think the gov't has any kind of a handle on whose here anymore. And don't forget that there are lots and lots of people from around Asia that they have to condend with, and some of them are really up to no good.

The presence of some of the Mafia, including the Russian Mafia, also make for problems.

As the country develops, it needs less and less of a lot of these kind of people. Unfortunately, when they "draw a line in the sand", others get caught on the wrong side and can't stay either. But for the less desirable types, there's still Cambodia who takes everyone with open arms!

I think that the a lot of the long termers here overestimate their importance. If we are gone tomorrow, the country will survive just fine and there will still be millions of moneyed tourists coming for the winter months.

Well said Scott, I mainly agree with you, and a lot of other posters, that see lots of "unwanted" people here, that just are out to make illegal gains off the Thais as well and mostly other tourists; all this makes LOS a less attractive place to grow roots since there are more and more of this type coming everyday, and the ones that live here, at times turn to f.exp. selling drugs to make money to stay longer and get more Bahts in pocket. You only have to hear the stories that are going around (at least here) about the latest shootings over drugs, etc. LOS is becoming a place for the international criminals that live off the tourists and are giving it a bad name; this I see IMHO is the reason for the new laws on immigration, and believe me these are just the first "soft" laws, wait until they become more like the USA Immigration Service, then the "unwanted" will be thinned out, hopefully.

This is why LOS needs stricter laws and enforce them! Remember this is like the wild east now (like for 150 some years back, it was for the wild west) But those days are soon coming to an end, and we (the non-criminal type) are all better for it!

If you think for 1 second thant Russian Mafia (or French or whatever) folks use 30day tourist visas, you get todays prize for intellectual incapacity! The visa changes will have zero effect on this class of person, just as they have no effect in France, USA or anywhere else.

Your idea that people affected by this are going to become drug dealers is so far off beam that it hardly warrants response. Your arrogance and prejudice shines like a beacon of shit through your post. As does you failure to grasp even the simplest of known facts. You have reached the invalid (proof by existence) conclusion that the new laws will only affect the "undesirable" and that the "undesirables" will in fact be affected. It is clear from readings of posts, statements by officials etc that neither of these conclusions is warranted or factually correct.

That may be the intention, but it is clearly not the result.

And the correlation between "strict laws" and some vague notion of goodness is also radically at odds with human reality. Bad policy and bad administration make for a bad situation. "Strictness" is not at issue. The situation will not be improved by the current wave of hastily conceived and ill considered changes. The changes cannot be administered fairly, for simple logistical reasons, and that alone invalidates them on natural justice grounds. The Thais need to think a bit more carefully, rather than this knee-jerk action which clearly creates more problems for the "good people" than it creates for the "dross" that others refer to and to whom you allude.

There may be farang drug dealers, but so far I only met Thai ones who were openly flogging ther wares in various locations.

Dweeb

It seems intuitively correct. However, your point is overshadowed by the question of how considerable (or inconsiderable) the amount brought into the Thai economy by resident tourists and tourist-tourists actually is. Is there any reliable data I wonder? Without such data, this is all speculation. Apparently the Thai gov feels that the benefits of restricting resident tourists and others outweighs the financial benefits.

That's quite true. Nobody knows this number with any degree of certainty. The speculation runs the gamut from it's so little money that losing it would have no effect whatsoever on the Thai economy to Thailand will fall apart without the money that foireigners spend. Truth is obviously somewhere in between these two poles and it's really anybody's guess.

PS - To all of the tax fans on this thread, I would not suggest for a moment that the Thai government wouldn't love to see foreigners contribute more to the tax base (simply because they want to fill the coffers). My point is that to conclude that by making a minimal contribution to Thai gov't tax revenues, this somehow equates to foreigners spending habits having a negligible effect on the overall Thai economy is bogus.

Thanks for filling in in my absence. One does get so tired of people who know so little about economics.

Tax != economy

Also, it would be interesting to know just what the average retiree resident brings in. In my experience it is, by Thai standards, quite substantial.

Oh, I would also suggest to readers on this thread they investigate the problems that single parents of thai children are having. The new laws have dienfranchised LOTS of people who now have no legal way to remain in the country and support their children. This change in laws is way bigger than the 30 day visa run issue.

Dweeb

Hi!

I'm not here to say that this is some sort of "good revenge" on western people, as many of these farangs in this forum had nothing to do with their own country's visa rules applied towards Asians.

However, this is interesting:

Case: Farang complains that while he has lived here for years, he is "not" illegally working here, so Thai government ppl are imbacils by making it hard for ALL farangs to get visas.

Comment: Even for legitimate Asian tourists from rich Asian families, do you know how ###### hard it is for us to get a visa in "your" countries USA, Australia, Canada, NZ, etc???

Even with our "complete documents" and proof that we are only going to visit your countries, your embassies deny us outright. We just take it with a grain of salt, accept that it's "your" country's "right and prerogative", and accept and admit that many of our fellow Asians decide to overstay in your countries to find illegal work, ... and so we just accept the USA visa denial.

Despite this, I've never heard of Farangs complaining that legitimate Asian tourists have a hard time getting visas in the West.

Well, wake up, smell the coffee! It's the same thing here in Thailand. So many farangs working illegally, and so Thai government makes it hard for "all" farangs, including "legitimate" ones.

The "legitimate" farangs complain that the "hard" rules shouldn't be applied to them, and that it should only be applied to the "non-legitimate" farangs.

These "legitimate" want the Thai government to go through the "painstaking trouble" of "carefully" studying each and every case of each and every farang and to make sure that it's applied to only the "bad" ones.

Well I agree with them.

However, following that logic, shouldn't Western governments such as yours also extend the same courtesy, and also go through the "painstaking trouble" of carefully studying each and every case of each and every Asian tourist, and make sure that only the "bad" ones are singled out???

Instead of also (just like the current Thai government) giving a difficult set of "blanket" rules for all Southeast Asians ??? (except Singapore passport)

I'm not saying that the current difficult set of rules is correct, nor am I saying that Farangs "deserve" this revenge (As I said earlier, it's your government who is doing this to Asians, not necessarily you directly).

I'm just showing the big picture, and that this is a mirror of what your Asian friends go through when applying for visas in your "first world" countries.

Point to ponder.

To answer about MY COUNTRY policy toward some other countries :

Citizens from Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam usually have no problem to apply for a visa to the French consulate, mostly those people or go to France to visit their familly, or they apply as migrants and as usually they are hard working person they are accepted.

For Thai people it's a bit more tricky I do agree, simply because the past it was a hel_l a problem with them. In 1999, the police had to close 12 massages parlors, 3 restaurants and one hotel in Port Frejus (Var, France). Those businesses were illegally open by thais people who applied for visas tourist (not migrant visas) , were not conform to the usual rules on hygiene, security and with the social laws. They were also more related to prostitution than massage or restauration. Rather than to comply when the fire soldiers went there the firs time, they (thai culture I suppose) tried to pay tea money to some local political men ...

So yes, it can be difficult for thai people to go in France because we do not need extra hookers (we have enought already), massage is a medical act and you have to study several years before to have the right to do it, we do prefer the taste of viet and chinese food , we love chilly but definitively we love the african chilly that are more tasteful. People willing to enter in france have tp proove they have a work in their homecountry (to be sure they will go back), or they have a contact in France (have to give official documentation) who can take care of them in case of overstaying. On the other hand, when you are in France and if you want to stay more, you just go to the police and ask for a new visa (3 month), if you land a job then that is your boss who will sign some papers and the police will deliver you a 10 years work visa ... Difficult? I do nt think so as long as you follow the rules. Complicate? I do not think so, and you should ask the hundreds of thousand of migrants who choose to livei n France every years, or the millions of tourist who come to visit with their familly France every year. I do have more hassle to stay in Thailand, even if I have a business here (legally registred, paying taxes too). Fact is Thailand and Thai people is willing to get my money, but is not willing to have me here.

On the other hand, I do support the move made since some month by Thai authorities to kick out those so called tourist who do in Thailand the exact same things that I described. Kick those who open illegal business, kick those who do not stay legally, kick those who do not comply to the laws. But on the same time, make it simple for those who have a life to stay here. No legal immigrant in France have to live the country to beg a new visa non b from an embassy abroad .... it's wasting time and money. In france a legal migrant will simply go to the police and apply there (a sunday or a saturday will be fine). Even in some difficult case, the police can go to the working place to collect the signature from the person to not make him/her to go to the police station (case of foreigner who speak french a little and who mostly are scare to go to the police).

And the lover visa .............. How can I apply for any kind of visa about my love life as the person I love is a Ladyboy? Does any Thai laws can make things smooth? If she want to go in France, she simply show the PACS we signed and she is entitle to a visa (can NOT be refused), she can apply also as French, as she got SRS she can also choose to have Miss (And not Mister) if oneday she decide to be french ... Where is thailand here?

Forget to say that I am out of this misery this week, me, my business, my money and my LB girlfriend we move to Laos ....

France indeed seems like heaven on earth for the immigrants. that is why there is so much unrest in the outskirts of Paris.....

I did not notice the buddhists or christians or taoists or hindus or shintos or lutherans rioting.

Am I being clear ?

I live in Europe - you want that discussion, take it another thread and we will be happy to educate you

Dweeb

I dont need your advice about economics thanks as I am not interested in it. I am talking about 'the so called 'tourists' who may contribute to the economy by spending money, however they are possibly evading paying taxes in Thailand and possibly their own countries simply by remaining as tourists.

Lets face it tourists are tourists and should expect to be treated respectfully in a foreign country but equally they should respect the country they are visiting by not trying to buck the system as so many do in Thailand and at last the rules are being tightened up.

No one ever heard of global terrorism? Any country with an open door policy is crazy.

I can understand why so many are upset with the rule changes but at the end of the day those people complaning are only TOURISTS on a temporary stay and cannot expect a country to change its laws to suit 'tourists'.

How many long term 'tourists' are there? I am sure that those long term 'tourists' are a minority compared to the tourists who come here on their vacation and then go home, so I cannot see how their disapearance will have much effect on any economy.

I dont really care to be honest as I will be upfront with the proper authorities and pay taxes as necessary. If the laws change and I am unable to stay then I will sell up and go else where. Thailand is not the end all and be all.

If you are not eligible for a 'long term' Visa then sorry but youll have to go, end of.

Having proclaimed your ignorance of basic macro-economics and desire to remain in blissful ignorance, it behooves you to cease your pontifications about subject matter of which you are painfully and admittedly ignorant.

Your opinion about what constitutes a "tourist" is that, an opinion (i do not necessarily disagree btw)

You terrorism comment is illogical to put it mildly - please try Logic 101 at your nearest community college.

Your desire to pay taxes is admirable, though largely misplaced in Thailand - probably due to some childhood problem growing up in Scandinavia or some such place. The idea that "economic benefit = pay tax" is not a universal truism or a logical necessity.

The number of 30day visa-runner residents is very substantial and their contribution to local economy is significant. And remember, almost all of these people know a great deal more about the way the Kingdom operates than your average 14 day tourist.

As others have pointed out - the reason that 30 day visa-runner residents exist is because there is NO ADEQUATE VISA for the reasonably well heeled sub-50yo wishing to retire in Thailand, and for those over 50, the hassle and cost has been seen as far greater than the result, especially as Thai authorities have de-facto and/or explicitly accepted the model for decades. Many of the 30 day people will convert, but there will be a group for whom no adequate way to remain legally in the country will exist and their loss will be a net loss to the economy.

Sure, there are some wanting to be below the radar, they will have to find another shallow, but for most, it is just a great deal of hassle that they would rather be without.

It is also well to remember, farangs have almost no rights, we get nothing for free, and we pay "farang-price" for everything. 1 farang is not the economic equal of 1 thai - nor is the equal in legal terms - just ask Steve Millers family !

If Thais really succeed in implementing their xenophobic tendencies and driving the farangs away, it will be to the detriment of their economy - peiod. Same goes for every other developing nation. We have the wealth, capital knows no boundries, and we can vote with our feet.

That being said, I personally do not have a big problem with the 90/180 rule - its a pain, but I can live with it.

DrDweeb, please excuse me for butting into your disagreement with Phil. I must say, your mastery of written English is quite impressive. Your understanding of Thai macroeconomics is IMHO lacking. These thoughts are not original as they were provided me by a gentleman who became a Deputy Prime Minister. In fact, these thoughts were provided me over 30 years ago and are totally relevent today. This is a all about a socio-economic class struggle. Poor Issan Thais being empowered by Farang dollars. A gradual but quite real anomoly. The Thai urban professional does not want his next door neighbor to be an Issan farm girl with a half farang baby. And they certainly do not want to pay Farang prices for their new home.

I will bite my lip and leave the "class struggle" bit alone.

You are suggesting that (1) Isaan is receiving a disprportionate amount of the economic benefits through tourist dollars. (2) That this imbalance, is benefitting the poorest part of Thailand more, and that this bad because (3) the Bangkok urbans (who also benefit generally want the Isaan folks to stay in Isaan where they belong so they can get on with business as usual ??

Hmm, that sounds a less than compassioate macro view. Perhaps it indicates a fundamental problem in Thai society that deserves a thread of its own ?

Some unstructured thoughts ...

The influx of tourist dollars helps everyone in Thailand at all levels. (Evidence what happenned in the Tsunami aftermath, until tourism picked up again) True, many "Isaan girls" earn their money in the tourist industry (not all are bargirls or worse, the tourist destinations are litterred with honest hard working girls from the outer provices who do the grunt work for very little pay) and take that money and spend it on new homes in Isaan, send money home (all of them do I think) or buy clothes in Bangkok shops. Lots work in the Bangkok factories, shops etc. and other industry too I might add.

So these Isaan girls earn some money, learn english, study whatever and try to get ahead, almost always with the goal of helping the family. This is bad ??

In my experience Thais spend money, they do not save it, so the money never leaves circulation.

I would posit that most imported currency spent by long term "tourists" is not spent on the personal services of Isaan girls (I may be wrong - but that is not my experience) and thus is spent directly into the local expat economies (Pattaya, Bangkok, Phuket, Hua Hin, Chiang Mai etc. etc.). The long term "tourists" constitute a permanent base of people from whom foreign income is placed in Thailand, never to be removed. Their influence on the (oh shit I have to write it) "socio-economic class struggle" is no different than any other tourist, except they spend money 365days a year. So I repeat that the Thai economy is and has long been, very dependent on tourist dollars.

Thailand will not cease to exist if all the 30day visa residents left en masse. But local ecomies would suffer extensively.

Housing prices are determined by supply and demand. There seems to be oversupply of every level of housing in Bangkok - just some casual empricism on my part though.

That was a bit unstructured (I have jetlag), but I am sure you get the drift.

ciao

Dweeb

(clue.. Get a second passport.. wow that was tough)..

Get a second passport and use that! These are definitely the words of a genius! How many people who do not have dual nationality can get a second passport legally? 'Lose' your passport and then file a false police report, a false declaration to your embassy and pick up your new passport. Then, because you still have your old passport with the entry stamp in it, use it to leave the country. That, as I said before, is a touch of genius and now all you have to do is explain why you are leaving the country on a VOID passport.

I cannot speak for other nationalities, but the British government will issue a second passport,

if you can justify the need.

1. Travelling to one country, and then to a second the does not recognise the first. Say Israel, then needing to visit an arab country.

2. Need to trave whilst your passport is with an embassy to obtain a visa.

There may be other acceptable reasons.

A friend who works for a major newspaper has no less that 7 UK passports.

I tried number 2 with the Australian Embassy. Try spending the 5 working days a week in some country, say Karlsruhe DE., being a resident of Sweden, living i Nörreköping and travelling home every weekend. Now you wish to obtain a visa to ANY Easter Eiropean country. The passport needs to be surrendered in the country of residence or the country of issue for the visa.

This clearly should warrant the issue of an extra passport. The Australian Embassy told me to f***off and if I wanted a visa to Russia (job related in fact), then that was my problem and I should just go sit in Sweden for how ever long it too the Russians to issue it.

The 2 passport thing is OK for the UK folks, but personal experience tells me it is essentially impossible for aussies.

Dweeb