ludosiam

Any members who know of an alternative?

If the concern really is about people with a tourist visa working in Thailand (as per letter sent to the embassies) why not checking at places known for hiring such people instead of informing them that they still can fly back to Thailand and continue as usual?

I bought Neem Tree Oil here in Korat at a local garden supply shop. It's named "Man Sadao", should be available at almost every shop as the locals use it as well.

Hi Kalseo, sorry to tell you that you have to do a "visa run" here. They will stamp you another 90 days at the border. After that you should apply for a 1 year permission to stay at your immigration office.

Hi HOBC, a fire is the best way to get rid of that! Did it a few weeks back when my wife saw a plant establishing itself in our garden. BTW, the post is in the wrong topic.

I bought one at a local tools shop in Korat, Makita brand and works quite well. Price was around 4.500 THB as the other hedge trimmer took too many days off ;-)

Been in Indonesia a couple of times, always with a visa on arrival. Make sure you have small bank notes in USD to pay the fee. A business visa on arrival was also available, not sure of the fee anymore. No documents needed but not applicable to citizens from every country.

Just in case someone is still looking up this thread - Pasinee is closed since a while already

I'm quite well known for my antipathy against the way Thaksin was acting (can't say I don't like him as I don't know him) and supported PAD's goal therefore. But their latest protest near Preah Viharn went too far in my opinion risking trouble with villagers and possible damage to a neighboring country.

I'm a bid surprised that his last asset declaration in 2007 (614 Million Baht) is not being used in any investigations. He all he and his family members are telling the public is true then they're a bunch of very nice people supporting the poor dad overseas as his money must long be gone with that sort of life style.

Another point - if the daughter had provided the funds to purchase ManC shouldn't she be paying taxes on the money gained when ManC was sold again?

As other posters have already mentioned buying a company makes only sense if it comes with an operational, profit - making business or other assets worth the money, getting a company registered from scratch isn't that hard. An advantage you have (if applicable) when buying an existing company is that it might come with a tax record, but not sure if this is still needed for visa extensions

Hi Beggar, this is why I think the BoT is doing the wrong thing (given the other statements are correct). I bet you would be more careful to invest in foreign currency stocks now after realizing that there is quite a forex risk besides the prospective gains in stocks. Putting this into the Thai model: BoT wants the Baht / THB ratio stable but an influx of USD to invest in stocks here forces them to intervene. If they wouldn't intervene here USD investors could make a profit on the market but bear forex risks as their investment would decrease due to a stronger Baht. Thus it looks to me as the BoT fills up foreign investors bank accounts by taking these risks away and subsequently encouraging more investments. More investments, more pressure on the Baht, more interventions needed again and so on.

As far as I know the only really dangerous green snakes in Thailand are (bamboo) pit vipers, easily identified by a pronounced rectangular head. I have (or had) quite a few green snakes under my roof, they're tree snakes and do nothing but eating other unwelcomed guests. That said, since I got 2 cats from a friend haven't seen any of them, my guess they do not like to be disturbed, the 2 cats do chase about anything that moves (and is smaller than them of course).

Just my thoughts as someone without deeper knowledge of financial markets: If the dollar has dropped against the Baht because of an inflow of USD to Thai markets, isn't the BoT doing the wrong thing by keeping the Baht lower? If the Baht would strengthen as a cause of USD investment than certainly the loss in exchange rate would chip of some if not all profits thus dlowering USD investment. I can't imagine that big investors want to keep sitting on their THB for long.

You're right quicksilva, I too don't see where a legal problem does exist, this was a statement by a single person probably having some resentments against foreigners or is simply trying to gain the sympathy of a few. I doubt that any Thai government is interested in putting more restrictions on foreigners at the moment and consequently stopping foreign investment. But just as you do I agree there is a need to control foreign companies using nominees to gain control over vast amounts of land for commercial purposes where the profits will be lost for Thailand.

Thaiwanderer made a view good points, if invoking the land code the authorities might have a basis to investigate who is the main beneficiary of the purchased property. But I believe it will be impossible to prove who "uses" the property more in case the intention was to create a space for a married couple to live in an environment the wanted to. Said affidavit should be enough to prove the funds to buy said property were in fact a gift (sorry, common sense applied here again, lol). As in many other cases the authorities might (rightfully) see a need for some restrictions but don't know how to make it work. See the visa issues coming up on a regular basis for example, they do know what they want but it seems they can't make it work, probably due to several laws or interest (groups) contradicting each other.

Thaiwanderer, as far as I know the nominee clause is stated in the foreign business act and is applicable to companies only and not individuals. Therefore I believe there is no legal basis that an authority can ask for prove of funding from an individual based on the FBA's nominee clause, no matter if married to a foreigner or not. If they would base this request on the fact that she's "mai farang" we're back to the previous ruling stating a "mia farang" cannot own land is unconstitutional. If this is unconstitutional so would probably be any different treatment based on who they're married to. Besides that there is a common sense that all earnings made after the marriage took place are commonly owned if there aren't any agreements stating otherwise (and don't have to be made public anyway). So if I for example am married to a Thai wife, have earned 2 million Baht, put them in a joint account and buy a house for 1 million then how could the land department rule that none of these earnings can be used to buy a house? The comment that they're going after "mia farang" owned houses came from a single person, not even a MP and has caused so many discussion and fear for quite a few, but was nothing more than an opinion by somebody not really in charge (my opinion)

Thaiwanderer, in case of a nominee situation you're right, but I was more thinking about the situation where a foreign spouse is financing the purchase of a piece of property for residual purpose. If they start asking for prove of funding from a Thai national there need to be a legal basis first, and I do not believe they want to provide such a basis as it could be used against "themselves" to speak so.

In case of purchasing land for profit (doing business) I agree with the Thai authorities that this must be somehow regulated. But I don't agree that this is happening to protect the poor lad in the ricefields but made to wipe out competition, there are a lot of very wealthy Thais inside Thailand doing property business.

As Arkaday posted (excellent post!) it has been deemed impractical to check for funding in case a foreigner's spouse is purchasing land. If they would go through with this then maybe every person has to provide such proof of funding. This could be easily possible as the regulation about foreign spouses not being able to buy land has been ruled unconstitutional already and this would somewhat be the same. Wouldn't it be great to see how some politician is struggling to provide such prove?

I voted no because in my opinion with a good reason to stay in Thailand (having a child, work, study) you should be allowed based on the reason and not based on the cash you have available to spent.

When my old passport was full visited the immigration office at Suan Plu and transferred the visa to the new one, no problems.

when crossing the border to Vientiane on 6th January 2009 a notice at the immigration office border checkpoint got my full attention. It reads: As of 25 November 2008 holder of passport from the following nationals are requested to apply for visa at the Royal Thai Embassy / Consulate in their country or nearest. Countries listed afterwards are these where most members from TV are from. Now this wasn't implemented as I got my Visa at the embassy in Vientiane the next day, I simply didn't comply with the request as I see it. But could there be more to it soon - I hope not!

I had to to a trip on a short notice to restart my non immigrant "B" in Vientiane on 6.January and can confirm the latest info. Crossed the border in the afternoon without any queues, early bird at the new immigration office next morning at around 7.15 and approx. 5 people ahead of me in the queue. Handed in my passport with all required documents (be aware that the require the Laos entry stamp as a copy, i wasn't, but someone told me there and for 20B I had it done my a guy with a motorcycle). Next to the indoor place where my name had been called very soon afterwards and had a second breakfast downtown around 9.15. Next day early again, rushed to the border and crossed without queues back to Thailand.

Maestro, I think you hit the nail right on the head! Anyway, it can't be a violation of human rights, we're aliens

as for the question if they would throw you out: I had a friend with wife and kid here in Thailand, the school at which he was teaching was a bid slow with paperwork, he got permission to stay another 7 days and had been forced to leave the country. So yes, they will.