TaoNow

(apologies for cross-posting to those who've seen this, but some "generals" may take note )

In reading through a range of posts on this forum (visa, general) it seems that a large number of posters feel that Thai regulations are arbitrary, irrational, or directed at them. In my experience, none of this is true. In several decades of working within the Thai bureaucracy (Ministry of Health) and nearly 30 years of dealing with immigration (mostly at Soi Suan Plu) my approach to ease the frustration of regulations was to try to understand the reasoning behind them. I would talk to the officials themselves, lawyers, other knowledgeable folk, and read related documentation to learn the background of these regulations. While knowing the rationale did not necessarily make the process of approvals or renewals any easier, it helped to ease the stress and reduce anger at the system.

For example, take the requirement of 800,000 baht in a Thai bank for retirement and 40,000 baht a month income for non-retired, non-immigrant O visa holders. Some on the Forum have complained that these rules show that the Thai government only wants the rich, or that it wants to get farang to spend their money in Thailand. In fact, the reasoning behind these regulations is most likely to ensure that whomever settles here long-term has adequate financial means so that s/he will not be a burden on the state – whether or not they actually spend their income or savings in country. Thailand already has enough on its hands to cater to its own low-income. It hardly needs to encourage low-income foreigners to settle. And they are probably primarily worried about their nearest neighbors: Burma, Laos, and Cambodia. Burmese and Lao regularly cross the border to access subsidized health care at Thai government hospitals. This is a cost to the Thai economy since the hospitals are staffed and supplied according to estimated needs of the local Thai population. And the small fees the government hospitals collect from these foreigners does not come close to off-setting the total cost of the service.

Take for another example the recently enacted regulations limiting visa-exempt visitors to 90 days in country in a 180-day period. Many think this is unfairly targeting the Western drifter (“farang khii nok”). In fact, this law is most certainly the outgrowth of pressure from the US and its allies to root out international terrorists. Think back to the case of the Indonesian terrorist Hambali who was arrested in Ayutthaya in 2003. That was the wake-up call that Thailand needed to clean house – but the target was not actually the peace-loving visa-runners from Khao San Road.

A third example concerns the previous restrictions on land/house ownership for Thai spouses of foreigners. This law was first enacted during the Vietnam War era when there was concern that Vietnamese insurgents would marry (huu bao) Thai women and thereby gain a foothold in the country by owning land, building homes, and establishing a base of operations. The law which prohibited granting Thai citizenship at birth to children of foreign father-Thai mother couples had the same reasoning to it: Infiltrators could make dangerous in-roads via the citizenship of their children.

While understanding the background to some of these regulations that affect us Western ex-pats doesn’t make it any easier to process our approvals, at least it might be some solace to know that the law isn’t after us directly.

In reading through a range of posts on this forum (visa, general) it seems that a large number of posters feel that Thai regulations are arbitrary, irrational, or directed at them. In my experience, none of this is true. In several decades of working within the Thai bureaucracy (Ministry of Health) and nearly 30 years of dealing with immigration (mostly at Soi Suan Plu) my approach to ease the frustration of regulations was to try to understand the reasoning behind them. I would talk to the officials themselves, lawyers, other knowledgeable folk, and read related documentation to learn the background of these regulations. While knowing the rationale did not necessarily make the process of approvals or renewals any easier, it helped to ease the stress and reduce anger at the system.

For example, take the requirement of 800,000 baht in a Thai bank for retirement and 40,000 baht a month income for non-retired, non-immigrant O visa holders. Some on the Forum have complained that these rules show that the Thai government only wants the rich, or that it wants to get farang to spend their money in Thailand. In fact, the reasoning behind these regulations is most likely to ensure that whomever settles here long-term has adequate financial means so that s/he will not be a burden on the state – whether or not they actually spend their income or savings in country. Thailand already has enough on its hands to cater to its own low-income. It hardly needs to encourage low-income foreigners to settle. And they are probably primarily worried about their nearest neighbors: Burma, Laos, and Cambodia. Burmese and Lao regularly cross the border to access subsidized health care at Thai government hospitals. This is a cost to the Thai economy since the hospitals are staffed and supplied according to estimated needs of the local Thai population. And the small fees the government hospitals collect from these foreigners does not come close to off-setting the total cost of the service.

Take for another example the recently enacted regulations limiting visa-exempt visitors to 90 days in country in a 180-day period. Many think this is unfairly targeting the Western drifter (“farang khii nok”). In fact, this law is most certainly the outgrowth of pressure from the US and its allies to root out international terrorists. Think back to the case of the Indonesian terrorist Hambali who was arrested in Ayutthaya in 2003. That was the wake-up call that Thailand needed to clean house – but the target was not actually the peace-loving visa-runners from Khao San Road.

A third example concerns the previous restrictions on land/house ownership for Thai spouses of foreigners. This law was first enacted during the Vietnam War era when there was concern that Vietnamese insurgents would marry (huu bao) Thai women and thereby gain a foothold in the country by owning land, building homes, and establishing a base of operations. The law which prohibited granting citizenship to children of foreign father-Thai mother couples had the same reasoning to it: Infiltrators could make dangerous in-roads via the citizenship of their children.

While understanding the background to some of these regulations that affect us Western ex-pats doesn’t make it any easier to process our approvals, at least it might be some solace to know that the law isn’t after us directly.