jeebusjones Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I've just recently come back from the Thai/Laos border at Nong Khai. While stamping into Thailand, I couldn't help but notice the massive signs up all over the place explaining the new visa regulations. I also noticed these signs the last time I was at Suvarnabhumi Airport, and saw the same rule posted on Immigration's website. The wording of the rule is very, very funny. It states the following for people using visa exemptions: the total stay "should not exceed 90 days within a 6 month period, beginning from the date of first entry." It seems to me that this rule is very deliberately worded to leave the door open for some serious flexibility in its implementation. "Should" is a very flexible word. It's like giving polite advice, or explaining something that's just a good idea, but not set in stone. For such a serious rule, shouldn't the sign have a bit stronger wording? Why doesn't it say the stay must not exceed 90 days, or may not or can not? Is it just a mistake in English? Or is it a deliberate way to add flexibility to the rule and not lose face later? I've been wondering about this since day one, and the recent reports of people getting their fourth stamp confirm my suspicions. Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gummy Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Not strange at all. The wording of "should" means exactly that. There is no way a deliberate overstayer can be physically prevented from doing so therefore the words "may not" or "can not" would be meaningless and hence the term "should" identifies very clearly, and makes you aware of the legal position. By the way fines for overstaying increase on 15th March to 500 THB per day of overstay so maybe more people will be "encouraged" to comply with current visa legislation and should they wish to stay longer get an appropriate visa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 By the way fines for overstaying increase on 15th March to 500 THB per day of overstay so maybe more people will be "encouraged" to comply with current visa legislation and should they wish to stay longer get an appropriate visa. Overstay is charged with 500 Baht/Day since long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astral Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 There is no concept of "should/could/may/might" etc in the Thai language. It is 90 days in 180 and that is IT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gummy Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 By the way fines for overstaying increase on 15th March to 500 THB per day of overstay so maybe more people will be "encouraged" to comply with current visa legislation and should they wish to stay longer get an appropriate visa. Overstay is charged with 500 Baht/Day since long ago. Over the many years never needed to buck the sytem so never did know how much the fine is, but just happened to be in in Immigration at Suan Plu this morning and the illuminated sign was saying just that hence my statement. Guess it must have been saying that since last year then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeebusjones Posted March 12, 2007 Author Share Posted March 12, 2007 Not strange at all. The wording of "should" means exactly that. There is no way a deliberate overstayer can be physically prevented from doing so therefore the words "may not" or "can not" would be meaningless and hence the term "should" identifies very clearly, and makes you aware of the legal position. I don't think this is the case at all. That's like saying it's impossible to prevent people from committing murder, so it's meaningless to say you must not kill people. Think about it: You should not kill people, or you must not kill people. Which one is more appropriate? There is no concept of "should/could/may/might" etc in the Thai language. It is 90 days in 180 and that is IT. I'm not very fluent in Thai, but I presume this is accurate. However, since this rule is directed to foreigners who will undoubtedly be reading the English text and not the Thai text, don't you think they would have had it translated correctly? That is a pretty substantial mistake to someone who fully understands English. I guess by now I should expect such things... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarragona Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 That is a pretty substantial mistake to someone who fully understands English. I guess by now I should expect such things... I would say your understanding of the way 'should' can be used in English is too narrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbsears Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 TIT, they don't hire natives speakers to translate. They probably don't care if there is a little ambiguity. The law is written in Thai and that is all that will matter if a case goes to court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maestro Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Incidentally, anybody who wishes to see Police Order 608/2549 – it is not a law – can find the link to it in the topic “Thai Immigration Laws, Regulations, Police Orders” pinned at the top of this forum, both the original Thai text and the (not so good) English translation. -- Maestro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astral Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Incidentally, anybody who wishes to see Police Order 608/2549 – it is not a law Now that is what I mean about language and interpretation.. If you read the Immigration act, it clearly states that such orders issued pursuant to the conditions in the act, can be issued by the Immigration Committee, and are additions to the law!! It is like a "write your own salary" clause in a contract. See Section 7 of the Immigration Act Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeebusjones Posted March 13, 2007 Author Share Posted March 13, 2007 Incidentally, anybody who wishes to see Police Order 608/2549 – it is not a law – can find the link to it in the topic “Thai Immigration Laws, Regulations, Police Orders” pinned at the top of this forum, both the original Thai text and the (not so good) English translation.-- Maestro Well, this seems to answer my question. I hadn't seen this one before, which offers a different translation than the signs posted at the borders. http://www.immigration.go.th/nov2004/2notice/rtp608EN.pdf Section Three: "...must not exceed thirty days per entry with a total period of stay not exceeding ninety days within six months from the date of the first entry into the kingdom." They got the translation right here. Guess the signs at the border are just mistakes after all. Thanks for all the input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cali4995 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 (edited) Incidentally, anybody who wishes to see Police Order 608/2549 – it is not a law – can find the link to it in the topic “Thai Immigration Laws, Regulations, Police Orders” pinned at the top of this forum, both the original Thai text and the (not so good) English translation.-- Maestro Well, this seems to answer my question. I hadn't seen this one before, which offers a different translation than the signs posted at the borders. http://www.immigration.go.th/nov2004/2notice/rtp608EN.pdf Section Three: "...must not exceed thirty days per entry with a total period of stay not exceeding ninety days within six months from the date of the first entry into the kingdom." They got the translation right here. Guess the signs at the border are just mistakes after all. Thanks for all the input. here's the loophole, the "law" might as well be just called a "guideline" because the individual immigration officer can always make his personal determination on the spot. there is no room for arbitration. the only one who has found a loophole is the thais. they never play without a stacked deck, have you noticed? Edited March 13, 2007 by cali4995 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now