Proposed amendments to Thailand’s Hotel Act and Immigration Act have drawn criticism from members of parliament, despite passing their first reading in parliament. The changes are intended to reduce duplicate reporting requirements for foreign visitors staying temporarily in the country, but critics argue they fail to close existing loopholes because illegal accommodation providers would remain outside the system.
Get today's headlines by email 
The amendments, proposed by the cabinet and a Bhumjaithai Party MP, seek to simplify the notification process for those responsible for reporting foreign guests. Under the draft legislation, the responsibility would rest primarily with the householder, property owner or hotel manager, who must notify authorities within 24 hours through electronic channels. Foreign visitors would no longer be required to submit duplicate notifications themselves, except in cases considered necessary for national security or public safety.
Opposition parties argued during the parliamentary debate that the definitions of the three groups responsible for reporting remain unclear. They said the proposals do not cover all types of accommodation available in Thailand, particularly unregistered properties, leaving significant gaps in enforcement.
Official records show that of Thailand’s 20,000 legally registered accommodation providers, only 50-60% have submitted information on foreign guests to the Immigration Bureau. Opposition MPs and some members of the governing coalition have therefore urged the government to speed up amendments to the Hotel Act, with several draft proposals already prepared to expand the law to cover a broader range of property types.
Thienprasit Chaiyapatranun, president of the Thai Hotels Association, said the version debated in parliament would apply only to licensed hotels, leaving illegal accommodation providers beyond regulatory scrutiny. He noted that licensed hotels are already required to report foreign guest details to the Immigration Bureau, while many other accommodation types are not subject to the same obligation.
Mr Thienprasit said this makes it more difficult for authorities to trace the whereabouts of foreign nationals staying in non-hotel properties. He added that while the proposed amendments would reduce administrative duplication for businesses and support law enforcement, the government’s wider objective of improving oversight and security would only be achieved by bringing illegal accommodation providers into the reporting system.
Bangkokpost reported that lawmakers also questioned the proposed definitions of a householder and the owner of a dwelling. They noted that many property owners now rely on management companies or intermediary booking platforms to handle guest reservations, arguing the revised legislation should clearly identify which party is legally responsible for reporting guest registrations to the Immigration Bureau.
Join the discussion? 
11 July 2026
-
2
-
1
Recommended Comments
Create an account or sign in to comment