Australia joins the UK and USA with withdrawal of income verification

[cleverman]

Thanks to a Bangkok Post article by Fred Prager we will get clarification of what TI will accept instead of all the what ifs.

[malt25]

50 minutes ago, cleverman said:

Thanks to a Bangkok Post article by Fred Prager we will get clarification of what TI will accept instead of all the what ifs.

Good news that some "official" clarification is on the way. Unfortunately no bangkok Post, English version available locally. I trust someone will post on here what the details are once available.

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, cleverman said:

Thanks to a Bangkok Post article by Fred Prager we will get clarification of what TI will accept instead of all the what ifs.

Article or opinion piece

[soalbundy]

1 hour ago, cleverman said:

Thanks to a Bangkok Post article by Fred Prager we will get clarification of what TI will accept instead of all the what ifs.

Link ?

[pontious]

1 hour ago, cleverman said:

Thanks to a Bangkok Post article by Fred Prager we will get clarification of what TI will accept instead of all the what ifs.

There is nothing to get excited about. Just a letter saying he has lived here 12 years, embassy letters stopped and no info from IO on what they will accept. He suggest the  BP should follow up on it. Excitement over!

[luckyluke]

10 hours ago, Pattaya46 said:

Might be good to also notice than only 3 embassies (on more than 50) have announce to stop providing these letters..

Right, still expect that the Belgian embassy and the Austrian Consulate in Pattaya announce their new directives.

 

Or than : positive speculation :

 

They don't have to, as T.I. is satisfied with the way they generate their Income Letter.

[Pattaya46]

3 hours ago, cleverman said:

Thanks to a Bangkok Post article by Fred Prager we will get clarification of what TI will accept instead of all the what ifs.

I admire someone able to write an article on a big newspaper, to start it with a huge big lie... and still to sign the article of his name... 

Only 3 embassies until today, very far from "most if not all" 

Edited November 5, 2018 by Pattaya46

[JackThompson]

Agree with "what appears to be happening" - but not the justifications for it.

 

20 hours ago, Sophon said:

Thailand is no different to just about any other country in the world in that they are comfortable with a certain number of foreigners visiting and living here. You can't really blame them for wanting that number of tourists/residents to be "quality" people that brings the maximum economic benefit to Thailand.

It is not one group or the other.  There is no cost to Thailand from the lower-income group (aside from potential medical, which I addressed up-thread).

 

The exception are "package tour" types, who come en-masse, but spend little each, and at only a few locations.  In that case, you get the worst combination of infrastructure-stress benefiting a few large vendors.  Yet, this is still encouraged.

 

20 hours ago, Sophon said:

As long as more and more people want to move to Thailand, the immigration laws and enforcement will continue to be tightened.

...

If Thailand did as you suggest and allow any self funded foreigner to come and live in Thailand without any financial criteria, the number of foreigners here would explode overnight. That would create serious backlash and increased xenophobia from the Thai population.

If we could buy land or 100%-ownership of businesses - that would (and should) cause resentment.  I don't see a backlash potential - though do see signs that one is promoted by govt/media (possibly foreign-funded), in an attempt to manufacture one. 

 

To the extent an organic backlash potential exits, that would be limited to areas where foreigners are not primary-contributors to the local economy.  The solution would be to limit retirement settlement to certain "expat/tourist friendly" areas (Chonburi, CM, Phuket, etc) where retirees would be permitted to apply for extensions, and where most Thais living there do so specifically to sell goods/services into to that market.  Combined with the 90-day and home-visit system, an enforcement mechanism is already in-place.

 

20 hours ago, Sophon said:

To some degree you can already see that happening in the social media when a foreigner commits a faux-pas or more serious transgression (like e.g. the graffiti incident or the public urination incident). It used to be that Thai people were more forgiving for a foreigners minor transgressions, excusing us because as foreigners we weren't expected to know the rules of Thai society.

Those are criminal acts in Thailand and Western countries.  Some of this social-media posting may be manufactured outrage - likely paid for by China and/or xenophobic elements within Thailand.  Regardless, such persons should be arrested, prosecuted, deported and banned.  That process fits with "bad guys out," and would ideally be broadcast with interview-clips from "good farangs" condemning the behavior and applauding the response - in order to prevent any notion that Westerners in general (who benefit Thailand) condone such crude behavior.

 

20 hours ago, Sophon said:

Some people suggest that Thailand should follow the more relaxed attitude to visa and work permit rules of countries like Cambodia, Vietnam and The Philippines, and that if they don't there will be a major outflow of foreigners to those countries. But that is comparing apples with oranges. There is a reason why Thailand has far more expats living here (as well as tourists visiting), today those other countries just don't offer the same quality of life (bad hospitals, inferior infrastructure etc.).

I don't know on Vietnam - never spent time there or researched it.

Agree on Cambodia's lacking hospitals, which would deter elderly expats and those with significant health issues. 

The PI has good private hospitals.  There is decent infrastructure (reliable electric, etc) and shopping in Cebu and Baguio - without the danger/chaos of Manila.  Taxis are dirt-cheap.

 

20 hours ago, Sophon said:

And if/when the day comes that those countries catch up to Thailand, and start attracting a much larger number of expats, no doubt they will also start tightening their immigration laws and enforcement.

Only if they run out of poor people who need jobs that expat-spending can create.  Or, they simply don't give a flip about their poor.  This is especially unlikely in the PI.

 

20 hours ago, Sophon said:

The old chestnut that "Thailand doesn't want expats" anymore is clearly not true. If it were, if would be very easy for Thailand to change the immigration laws that allow pensioners to live here. Many/most countries don't have a provision that allows people from other countries to retire in their country, and it would not be difficult for Thailand to follow that path.

Most Western countries have retirement options, but with high-bars to deter people from poor-wage nations coming in to work-illegally.  Most lower-wage nations encourage people from higher-wage nations to come and stay. 

 

The practical issue is not "too many" foreigners (excepting en-mass package-tour types).  The policy would only need to change if wages in Thailand began to approach those paid in Western nations, such that expats were immigrating to take jobs from citizens at lower wages than the citizens currently receive.

 

20 hours ago, Sophon said:

...

If they were afraid of the backlash from Thai people being supported by that particular foreign demographic (I don't believe they would be, when have you known the Thai government to care much about what a (relatively) few Thai poor people think), they could just grandfather in anyone already in the system, but no longer offer the option in the future.

Immigration appear not to care about the Thai-jobs they are actively-destroying. 

 

20 hours ago, Sophon said:

...

No, Thailand still want foreign expats, but they want a limited number of people that both bring significant benefits to Thailand, and are also at the same time relatively unlikely to work here illegally (hence the financial requirements and the age limit for retirement extensions).

The "foreigners working" issue is a red-herring.  English teaching is the only work-sector where Westerners are at all likely to work illegally in significant numbers.  The roots of that problem are a combination of a strong need for English teachers, combined with: Schools outright refusing to provide the proper paperwork, ill-conceived Govt-restrictions for the job which are not consistent with the pay, and a lack of enforcement on the schools / hiring-personnel.

 

Of course, those coming from nations where pay-scales are lower than Thailand should be scrutinized, but from Western countries, little concern should exist.  To the extent it does, offer a reward for reporting illegal workers via a tip-line, paid by the illegal-worker's fine, before he is booted and banned. 

 

20 hours ago, Sophon said:

...

And as the number of people moving to Thailand to retire is still rising, I fully expect the financial requirement to be raised in the not too distant future.

This may indeed happen - but again, it would only make sense if there are no poor Thais who could use jobs paid for by "free money" flowing in from expat's foreign-reserves. 

 

Also, the retirement-rising factor may continue for a few more years, but few post-boomer retirees could ever reach current Thai financial-minimums.  The "good life" and safe-retirement, provided to the boomer-generation by an economic system created and enforced by their WWII patriot-parents, were not preserved.  Therefore, if Thais want significant retirees 10+ years down the line, they will need to settle for people with around 35K/mo to spend - which will still exclude most.  Better to milk what is available now to the greatest extent possible - not squander it.

[xylophone]

22 minutes ago, Pattaya46 said:

Only 3 embassies until today, very far from "most if not all

A friend has told me that The Canadian Embassy has followed suit...……..anyone know if that is the case??

 

Sorry if considered a little off track here.

[totally thaied up]

55 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

This may indeed happen - but again, it would only make sense if there are no poor Thais who could use jobs paid for by "free money" flowing in from expat's foreign-reserves. 

 

Also, the retirement-rising factor may continue for a few more years, but few post-boomer retirees could ever reach current Thai financial-minimums.  The "good life" and safe-retirement, provided to the boomer-generation by an economic system created and enforced by their WWII patriot-parents, were not preserved.  Therefore, if Thais want significant retirees 10+ years down the line, they will need to settle for people with around 35K/mo to spend - which will still exclude most.  Better to milk what is available now to the greatest extent possible - not squander it.

Most of my friends 45 and under have AUD$400K loans in Australia. None of them will be retiring anytime shortly. Those of my friends between 20-30 cannot get even 20K together or are trying to get a deposit for a home loan and many are paying cars off. My niece that is 25 had to get a loan off her rich sister (she married into a real old money family and is 28), so she could get a loan for a house. In case of an emergency, none could get real money together. 

 

None of these people (school friends and their children) will be moving to Thailand soon. Really, in my group of school friends, only two of us moved offshore and everyone is waiting for the baby-boomer parents to die off so they can own a house or at least, be left with money or be left with a house. 

[JackThompson]

14 hours ago, cyberfarang said:

Where is the logic of investing millions of bahts into something they cannot own and cannot declare, yet not having enough funds in a Thai bank to obtain their visa extensions? Are we really meant to feel sorry for these people?

I advise never to invest more here than one can afford to lose, but I still feel for those who did not expect TI to change the rules mid-stream.  Likewise, I feel sorry for those who got married in the West due to love and idealism, only to be robbed-blind by a court-system that actively-rewards divorce.

 

Expats here may have bought a house or condo, thinking they could stay based on their qualifying income, but now (perhaps) they can not.  In the past, those on existing retirement extension-schemes were "grandfathered" in - but this time?   Suddenly "gross income" has possibly become "imported-net" - and we don't even know which income-streams may qualify. 

[onera1961]

17 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

Expats here may have bought a house or condo, thinking they could stay based on their qualifying income, but now (perhaps) they can not. 

In the worst case scenario, could they get a loan based on their condo property to satisfy TI's requirement of 800K? Not sure if Thai banks would give them a loan. Then they can pay pay off the loan from their monthly incomes of 65K.

[garyk]

17 hours ago, Psychic said:

I have mentioned this on the other thread in a slightly different way but I'll say it again.

 

I brought about 5 million baht here to buy land and build a home in the full realization I would never own the land.

 

I furnished it and improved the land at a cost of approximately, I'd guess, another 1 million baht.

 

I brought another 1 million in to buy a vehicle, plus motorbikes etc.

 

All from accounts that paid vastly more than anything available in Thailand.

 

Because I planned in taking my last breath in that house with my wife.

 

I was willing to deal with the nonsense of reporting every 3 months like a criminal, supplying a 3 inch pile of redundant paperwork every year to extend what amounts to a "visitor's visa", paying for the privilege of visiting my native country.

 

And in return I was told by Thailand's government that if I could show a certain income level, not one baht less, I would be allowed to stay in Thailand with my wife, put our child through university.

 

The rules of the game were that I would simply show adequate income and we would all just get along.

 

Realistically, living a normal, I'd guess it would be classified " middle class life" here as an aging couple we don't need anywhere near 40,000 baht a month to live.

 

We don't go to bars, our homemade food is cheaper and better than going to restaurants. 

 

If we want to party, being part of the social fabric we will do it at our home or visit friends.

 

It'd be nice if owning property and earning multiples of a Thai person's wage would somehow lead to some kind of permanent residence. If that included paying into a medical plan I'd be happy to.

 

But again, as has come up frequently, I need to either self insure or risk being cut off by private insurance companies.

 

But I don't need to keep massive funds here. Personally I have more than 7 million baht available on credit cards and could transfer at least another 3 million if I had to.

 

I am neither the "money means nothing to me" type on this thread or the "destitute falang" some think hangs around every corner.

 

I'm probably like most affected fairly well suited to life here.

 

I have a private pension plan from early retirement that easily meets the requirements.

 

I have low monetary thresholds for what I need to live here based on my lifestyle.

 

I have investments that garner decent yields every year in my native country that seem unavailable to me here and when necessary I was going to draw on them for things like a pool and a new car.

 

That is simply not going to happen anymore. I am not going to sink significant amounts of money into this country.

 

Because, in my opinion, they have reneged on a contract we both agreed to no matter how absurd I thought the conditions were.

 

I was told I needed to show a certain income level. I am willing to do what they require to show that level of income. I will allow them to access my tax information online.

 

Apparently that is not an option.

 

I'm not going anywhere. My life, my home and my family is here.

 

But I am not putting a dime more than I have to into the Thai economy.

 

Because they broke the contract.

 

I'll put the lump sum into a Thai bank and I'll put most of the withdrawals into my wife's account.

 

If foreign transfers aren't necessary, we'll move them back.

 

If that's a problem, I'll move more down, it was all going to her anyway.

 

I'm fortunate enough to be able to do that.

 

Some can't. They made a life here and expected the rules to stay the same.

 

But here's an important difference.

 

I, personally, knew 4-5 people who, to be honest were a little jealous when I came here.

 

They weren't coming here to marry and buy property when they asked me if Thailand was a good place to retire. You know, rent a 20/30K place by the ocean and live well on 100,000 baht.

 

I told them, sure. The bureaucracy is a bit of a bitch but otherwise life is good.

 

Now what do I tell them?

 

You got to sink tens of thousands of dollars into a Thai bank, report like a criminal every 3 months, tell the government every time you go stay in a friend's house, fill out paperwork to renew every year  and pay money every time you want to visit home.

 

No, I don't.

 

I say look at Mexico.

 

My buddy stays in Cabo (true he stays cheap). Beer's cheaper, market food's the same, beaches are clean, humidity is nonexistent, get a 5 year visa and come and go as you wish, a 1st world country is an hour away.

 

As I started this long rant by saying, I think I am typical of those I know of married "Falangs" in this country.

 

If you want to go back 10 years in bank statements you'll find I have fulfilled the 400,000 many times over.

 

Probably enough to take me from this mortal coil.

 

To me this is not about the money every month or the ability to fund a one time deposit, it is about a basic breach of faith.

 

The Thai government can do as they wish. As I am constantly reminded, even with family and roots and a social network, I am only "a guest".

 

No matter how long I stay here with the same wife, in the same house, contributing to the same neighbourhood...I just might be a cheat, working the system, taking advantage of poor Thai women to stay in this blessed country.

 

Well I like most long married " falangs" am not.

 

This is my home. The people I love most live here.

 

I do what I have to to play your bureaucratic, nonsensical game so I can stay with them.

 

I am the proverbial "small potato".

 

But you know those 4-5 people I knew who were thinking of retiring to Thailand.

 

They're not doing that anymore.

 

That 20-30 million baht each..100-150 million baht total over decades from me..small potato...isn't coming here anymore.

 

Multiply that by a few hundred thousand and it begins to look significant.

 

Not to mention I have friends come visit.

 

Then we do go to bars and restaurants.

 

The " guy with good ideas" I think has come up with another winner.

 

This is where they send someone home and say "come up with something" on Friday night and report on Monday with your "good idea".

 

Like no riding in the back of pickups.

 

Apparently, " looking busy" is more important than actually making sense here.

 

But this "good idea" is really going to hurt.

 

And since they are dealing with foreign government agencies it is not going to be as easy to ignore as a Royal Thai Policeman waving through a pickup with 10 children in the bed.

 

As always, we wait in anticipation for clarification.

 

Rant over.

 

 

 

 

 

 

One thing about it is, your in good company. I never did invest a penny here other than a pickup. But, I think I am the exception to the rule.

My hobby is birding,  I came here a few years ago and have traveled extensively. 

Every little town here has it's farang that has built a nice home, and drives a nice car. I used to ask the restaurant owners where the farang lived in the small towns I would stop in. They all knew where they lived.

I would hate to speculate on the untold million of dollars invested here like you have described.

Thousands and thousands of guys just like you all over Thailand.

 

Best of luck.

 

Edited November 5, 2018 by garyk

[sambum]

9 hours ago, HappyAndRich said:

You do not seem to understand what I mean and are talking about. For me the rules regarding how you show income is totally irrelevant. What I am talking about is the reckless risks so many people are taking by moving to another country without having enough saving for a rainy day. In my opinion you just can´t move to another country without having the minimum of 1M baht or equivalent in other currency.

As of now Thai immigration have not changed anything. 3 major embassies have stopped issuing income letters, due to that they now has the legal pressure to guarantee that the amount written on them are true. They can´t or will not do that. Blame your embassies, and not the Thai Immigration.

 

Yet nothing is changed and there are no official statement of any changes or Immigration. I believe they will sort it out to the best. Otherwise it´s just to show the money for the ones who wish to stay. Can sound hard, but it´s the fact.

You have one way of looking at it, I have another. You won´t change, and I won´t change. Let´s leave it with that.

That's the most sensible thing to do.

 

However, I feel that I must reply to a couple of your points before "calling it a day" 

 

The topic is entitled "Australia joins the UK and USA with withdrawal of income verification" due to the fact that Thai Immigration are now insisting that the Embassies now check the financial statements made in order to acquire the letter - something they can not legally do. So again, the fact that Immigration have "moved the goalposts" (not changing the rules, by the way - just the way that they are interpreting them) is the main cause of the problem here. They have had the same rules for years and we have been living and abiding by them for years, but now they are interpreting them a different way - not the Embassies' fault, or me or my neighbours' fault.

 

And it is not about the rights or wrongs of having money saved up for a rainy day - that is a totally different subject, and a choice that is up to the individual concerned as to what he/she is willing or financially able to do. By the way, I agree that it is a sensible thing to do, but sometimes personal circumstances do not allow us to do the sensible thing.

 

However, as you said earlier, I think we must agree to differ on a few things before things get out of hand, so have a nice day!

[sambum]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

I advise never to invest more here than one can afford to lose, but I still feel for those who did not expect TI to change the rules mid-stream.  Likewise, I feel sorry for those who got married in the West due to love and idealism, only to be robbed-blind by a court-system that actively-rewards divorce.

 

Expats here may have bought a house or condo, thinking they could stay based on their qualifying income, but now (perhaps) they can not.  In the past, those on existing retirement extension-schemes were "grandfathered" in - but this time?   Suddenly "gross income" has possibly become "imported-net" - and we don't even know which income-streams may qualify. 

"those who got married in the West due to love and idealism, only to be robbed-blind by a court-system that actively-rewards divorce." Me! me! (Twice!) 

 

"those who did not expect TI to change the rules mid-stream" Once again, "Me!"

 

And it would be nice to have some statement from TI (Thai Immigration) regarding alternative ways to prove income that are acceptable to them rather than the "money in a Thai bank" option.

[Pattaya46]

 

17 minutes ago, sambum said:

They have had the same rules for years and we have been living and abiding by them for years, but now they are interpreting them a different way - not the Embassies' fault, or me or my neighbours' fault.

I disagree. 20+ years ago TI asked embassies to provide a letter with indication of your income. This year they remind embassies that the amount must be the real income. How is that "interpreting a different way" the initial request? TI never asked for a letter with a imaginary income amount.

Edited November 5, 2018 by Pattaya46

[sambum]

1 minute ago, Pattaya46 said:

 

I disagree. 20+ years ago TI asked embassies to provide a letter with indication of your income. This year they remind embassies that the amount must be the real income, not an imaginary one. How is that "interpreting a different way" the initial request ?

I personally don't know of anyone who has provided "Imaginary" figures to the British Embassy in order to acquire their "Proof of Income" letter.

 

You say it yourself  "TI asked embassies to provide a letter with indication of your income" - not verification of your income, which is what they are now asking for. That is what I meant by "interpreting a different way" - one word can make a world of difference!

[Russell17au]

Each embassy could require the applicant to provide the proof of their income before they sign the Statutory Declaration or it is not witnessed by them. Also it is not illegal for the embassy to obtain you financial records if you give them your permission to do so.

[HappyAndRich]

25 minutes ago, sambum said:

They have had the same rules for years and we have been living and abiding by them for years

Sure, we agree to differ. But, I just have to say one more thing too. 

The reason they want the embassies to guarantee, which they can´t as you say. Do you think that is because all have been living with and abiding the rules?
Probably not, and that is of course why this request that might lead to a change has been raised.

By the way, A really nice day to you as well.

[sambum]

9 minutes ago, HappyAndRich said:

Sure, we agree to differ. But, I just have to say one more thing too. 

The reason they want the embassies to guarantee, which they can´t as you say. Do you think that is because all have been living with and abiding the rules?
Probably not, and that is of course why this request that might lead to a change has been raised.

By the way, A really nice day to you as well.

"Do you think that is because all have been living with and abiding the rules?"

 

Probably 99% of people that use(d) the Embassy letters abide(d) by the rules - I said much earlier in one of these threads that the ones they should be concentrating on are the ones who DIDN'T use the Embassy letters - the ones that ARE using dodgy Visa agencies - they are the ones who are falsifying their income and have led TI to "make a change".

 

However, that is definitely my last word on the subject - further discussion is pointless, but if you really must have the last word - go ahead!

Edited November 5, 2018 by sambum

[fforest1]

10 minutes ago, HappyAndRich said:

Sure, we agree to differ. But, I just have to say one more thing too. 

The reason they want the embassies to guarantee, which they can´t as you say. Do you think that is because all have been living with and abiding the rules?
Probably not, and that is of course why this request that might lead to a change has been raised.

By the way, A really nice day to you as well.

Well maybe they only want Happy and Rich people in Thailand...

[sambum]

25 minutes ago, Russell17au said:

Each embassy could require the applicant to provide the proof of their income before they sign the Statutory Declaration or it is not witnessed by them. Also it is not illegal for the embassy to obtain you financial records if you give them your permission to do so.

"Also it is not illegal for the embassy to obtain you financial records if you give them your permission to do so."

 

Shhhhh! It might mean somebody having to actually do something positive, and are the British Embassy not "downsizing" as they have sold their "home" for 42 million quid?

[luckyluke]

8 minutes ago, fforest1 said:

Well maybe they only want Happy and Rich people in Thailand.

Don't think they care if your happy or not.

 

HappyandRich is lucky has he seems to be rich and happy.

 

 

[BobBKK]

30 minutes ago, sambum said:

"Do you think that is because all have been living with and abiding the rules?"

 

Probably 99% of people that use(d) the Embassy letters abide(d) by the rules - I said much earlier in one of these threads that the ones they should be concentrating on are the ones who DIDN'T use the Embassy letters - the ones that ARE using dodgy Visa agencies - they are the ones who are falsifying their income and have led TI to "make a change".

 

However, that is definitely my last word on the subject - further discussion is pointless, but if you really must have the last word - go ahead!

That's not true. I know many American friends who 'swore' they had the income but didn't and laughed about it (how foolish the system was). I can't see what all the fuss is about. IF you have the income, and immigration accept that 65k into your account is proof what's issue?  IF immigration don't accept 65k into your Thai bank is proof then that is madness.

[cleverman]

6 hours ago, malt25 said:

Good news that some "official" clarification is on the way. Unfortunately no bangkok Post, English version available locally. I trust someone will post on here what the details are once available.

Don't you have Internet access

[cleverman]

I don't believe it. All I did was inform you lot that a newspaper had published a complaint about the letter matter. Now it's turned into the 5th or 6th thread on the income letter just repeating over and over  what has been posted thousands of time already. Already. 

[malt25]

14 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

That's not true. I know many American friends who 'swore' they had the income but didn't and laughed about it (how foolish the system was). I can't see what all the fuss is about. IF you have the income, and immigration accept that 65k into your account is proof what's issue?  IF immigration don't accept 65k into your Thai bank is proof then that is madness.

I think the main issue is... what do the Immigration consider, require, to verify the income ? Will they accept monthly deposit into Thai bank account ? Will they require document proof of where said deposits originated ? Will overseas bank statement showing withdrawal of $$$ one day & same $$$ deposited into Thai bank account a few days later suffice ?  Or, if using a broker to execute transfer to save on fees & exchange rate, will they require this documentation as well ?

To my mind the affidavit or statutory declaration was an utter waste of time & expense. It verified nothing except the bonafides of the signature. No actual proof of income.

Until the IO advise, officially, what they require for income verification, we are none of the wiser. It's a matter of just wait & see.

Them's my thoughts anyway !

[malt25]

16 minutes ago, cleverman said:

Don't you have Internet access

Don't you have anything better to do ?

 

[HappyAndRich]

1 hour ago, fforest1 said:

Well maybe they only want Happy and Rich people in Thailand...

Nope, they want people that can prove means for stay for real, not on a paper that states a number nobody have been able to check.

[Farrows3399]

There is too much paranoia and projection here. Ie, they want to get rid of westerners, the Chinese conspiracy (they are behind this)... But consider that Thai immigration has not  changed any requirement numbers whatsoever. All they did was make the very reasonable request that the embassys just verify Income. I'm sure Thai immigration is just as surprised at the reactions as everyone else. In other words their motive for this request was not to end income letters/combos