Expat group launches online petition calling for TM.30 to be scrapped

[lkv]

3 minutes ago, ThomasThBKK said:

You have no idea what you are talking about, Foreign investments have nothing to do with BOI companies. Every influx of foreign money into Thailand is a foreign investment, i invested in a bunch of thai companies all thai limited obviously as the founders are Thais, makes absolutely no sense for them to be a BOI company. 

all RE sales are down hard this year, many developers stopped developing at the pace they had last year ... Numbers don't lie.

There are good reasons Singapore is rich and foreign business friendly while Thailand isn't.

 

 

So the sales are down because of the TM30, is it?

 

This petition is about TM30.

 

Listen, I'm not a fan of TM30. But how are you gonna pitch this in a logical way, so that it's credible and it makes sense?

[ThomasThBKK]

1 minute ago, lkv said:

So the sales are down because of the TM30, is it?

 

This petition is about TM30.

 

Listen, I'm not a fan of TM30. But how are you gonna pitch this in a logical way, so that it's credible and it makes sense?

They are down because of all the bs going on here, fake elections, immigration bs tm30 included etc.

Change has to start somewhere.

You can stay as narrow minded as you want but everything adds up.

I really don't care if you get it, but you are just plain annoying here. 

[Peterw42]

3 minutes ago, steve654 said:

 

Sounds like a bit of a money grab to me.  How would I know if the hotel where I stayed filed a TM30 24 hours after I arrived there?  I wouldn't really know until I go to immigration 30 days later to extend my stay and then they tell me I owe them 2,000 baht.

That is the hotels problem, not yours, so long as you can show you stayed there etc.

The fines are levied to condo/house/airbnb stayers

[lkv]

11 minutes ago, ThomasThBKK said:

 

Change has to start somewhere.

You can stay as narrow minded as you want but everything adds up.

I really don't care if you get it, but you are just plain annoying here. 

Now listen to what I am saying to you.

 

Change can only be initiated by the locals themselves, not by foreigners.

 

Right now, your statements represent a danger to the stability of the regime. 

Edited July 30, 2019 by lkv

[steve654]

3 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

That is the hotels problem, not yours, so long as you can show you stayed there etc.

The fines are levied to condo/house/airbnb stayers

Good to know thanks.  If I ever go back to Thailand one day, I'll keep my hotel receipts for proof.

[Old Croc]

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

No, you don't.

Section 37 (4) says foreigners have to report. But below it says subsection 3 and 4 do not apply to foreigners who entered under section 34. If you entered Thailand legally, you entered under 34.

So only foreigners who entered Thailand illegally have to report if they stay somewhere else for 24 hours.

I disagree! 

The paragraph to which you refer states:

 

"For the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) not to be applicable to any of the cases mentioned in Section 34 and on what conditions, it shall be prescribed by the Director-General."

 

(Note: English translations of this legislation do vary slightly depending on the source)

 

I interpret that to mean the Director-General can give an exemption to someone from the need to report, not that there is no need to report.

[lkv]

@ThomasThBKK

 

I think it went a little over your head, with fake elections and all that.

 

Let me explain to you that, in all countries where revolutions took place, they were started by locals , because they were unhappy with their condition of living.

 

Now, the current administration is not in the mood for you to imply the elections were fake and all that. They need to keep the Thai population under control.

 

And you want to start a riot?

 

Talk to Andrew first, ask Andrew about his Police visit, because he thought Subarnabhumi was hell.

 

I advise you enjoy your Elite visitor visa in peace.

[rexall]

44 minutes ago, steve654 said:

If I come to Thailand legally with my passport, are you saying that 24 hours after arrival I need to fill out a TM30 still?

If you stay in a hotel, the staff does that for you without you having to think about it. If you stay at a residence, the owner, manager or "house master" must file a TM30 within 24 hours of your arrival. Technically, you as the guest/renter are NOT responsible for filing the TM30, and it is the owner who will be fined for failing to report. Still, Imm may hold you responsible during your extension of there is no record of reporting.  If you stay at a hotel and then return to your residence in Thailand, another TM30 is required, assuming you have been away for more than 24 hours.

I know, dude, it is pretty unbelievable until you manage to wrap your head around the reality. Don't take my word for it.

[jackdd]

56 minutes ago, ThomasThBKK said:

2. Shall stay at the place as indicated to the competent official. Where there is proper reason that he cannot stay at the place as indicated to the competent official, he shall notify the competent official of the change in residence , within 24 hours from the time of removing to said place.

The important word here is "cannot", in Thai they use the same wording.

So only if you can not stay at the place as indicated to the competent official (by writing it on an arrival card you indicate it) you have to notify them. If a tourist writes a hotel on the arrival card, then arrives there and can not stay there because the hotel is full already, then yes, he would technically have to do it. But if the tourist just said he changed his mind and didn't want to stay there then he doesn't have to report.

Similar to all the people staying at their wife's or gf's house, if your wife kicks you out so that you can't stay there, then you would technically have to report. If on the other hand you just decide to move out because you want to, or make a trip somewhere else, then there is no need to report.

And you don't need to say it's unclear, the wording "can not", is used in the official Thai law as well, making the intention clear.

 

The wording on the petition page show that they are clearly referencing 37 (4), which means the author, who claims to be a lawyer, didn't read the law properly.

 

15 minutes ago, Old Croc said:

I disagree! 

The paragraph to which you refer states:

 

"For the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) not to be applicable to any of the cases mentioned in Section 34 and on what conditions, it shall be prescribed by the Director-General."

 

(Note: English translations of this legislation do vary slightly depending on the source)

 

I interpret that to mean the Director-General can give an exemption to someone from the need to report, not that there is no need to report.

If this is what they wanted to say, they would have written it this way. Just compare the wording of this law, with the wording of other laws.

This section clearly means all who entered under 34 are exempt, but exceptions can be made. I recommend reading the original Thai law, then you don't have to interpret english translations.

[RBOP]

I can confirm at least one International School is quite concerned about this reporting as its a huge amount of reporting for overnight sleepovers / field trips. I have to tell the parents of my child's best Thai friend that when having a sleep over they have to do a TM30 if we are to comply with this. Sign the petition please! 

[wobalt]

Most of the people I know in Thailand are exactly that, Europeans who come to thailand for European winter. There would be 200 in my condo block alone.
These are the people that are directly impacted by TM30, 

Why are tourists impacted by the TM30 BS? They hold usually a Visa and not an extension. what they have to do at immigration unless they apply for an extension?


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Peterw42]

2 minutes ago, wobalt said:

Why are tourists impacted by the TM30 BS? They hold usually a Visa and not an extension. what they have to do at immigration unless they apply for an extension?


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

You have answered your own question, they are impacted when they want to extend their stay. Many will come on a 30/60 day stay then extend.

 

[steve654]

55 minutes ago, rexall said:

If you stay in a hotel, the staff does that for you without you having to think about it. If you stay at a residence, the owner, manager or "house master" must file a TM30 within 24 hours of your arrival. Technically, you as the guest/renter are NOT responsible for filing the TM30, and it is the owner who will be fined for failing to report. Still, Imm may hold you responsible during your extension of there is no record of reporting.  If you stay at a hotel and then return to your residence in Thailand, another TM30 is required, assuming you have been away for more than 24 hours.

I know, dude, it is pretty unbelievable until you manage to wrap your head around the reality. Don't take my word for it.

Seems a little ridiculous doesn't it!  It motivates me not to visit the country any time soon.

[The Stranger]

I think you really need to ask yourself if you want to live in a country that will deport you for signing such a harmless petition.
 
That in itself might not be significant, but what does it mean about having a minimum of dignity and personal freedoms, after all?
 
I don't believe Thailand is that country. But if it turned out to be that country, better end up getting deported than living like this!
 

Absolutely, this is what I said to my close friends that were afraid to sign the petition, ultimately they did.

Sent from my oppo f9 using Tapatalk

[schlemmi]

12 hours ago, Arkady said:

 

Actually Section 37 does not allow a blanket exemption for foreigners who entered the Kingdom for temporary stays on grounds specified in Section 34.  The translation appears to say this but is poor.  If you refer to the Thai, it is clear that the exemptions can only be given by the secretary general.

And in thr following line i wrote:

That all has to be done under the conditions  defined in the "Police rules" (ระเบียบกรมตำรวจ). This rules have to be released by the "Chief of the police" (อธิบดีกรมตำรวจ). As far i only could find a very old release from the year 2522 directely after the 1st revision
of the Immigration Act was released.

 

 

I never refer to others than the original thai versions.

[brianthainess]

On 7/28/2019 at 7:12 PM, jackdd said:

Section 37 = form TM28 not TM30

Foreigners who entered Thailand under section 34, this is probably everybody here, are exempt from this 24 hours reporting when going to another province under section 37.

 

The author should understand the laws before making a petition about them.

Sorry for this but could you explain this further in layman's terms are you saying that once you have a 1 year visa/extension then we become exempt from this. ive read section 37 but to me it still says report. did i miss something ?

[todlad]

They should have proof read that letter before asking anyone to sign it. 

 

I know you are bristling at that comment and I know I will be called a pedant but I am happy to help, whether I sign the petition or not.

 

[DrTuner]

13 hours ago, Arkady said:

There were no O or O-A visas then and retirement was not yet envisaged as a reason to enter the Kingdom for a temporary stay.  That all came later under ministerial regulations.  

And there lies the original culprit. Once Thais saw there's baht to be made from pensioneers, they created a class of visa for them. Then, instead of clearing up the PR route, they blocked it with the work permit requirement and let the pensioneers hang in limbo forever, on temporary permits of one year back to back. 

 

It all goes back to greed and years of "fixing it", in true somchai style. And now it's creaking at the seams.

[jackdd]

20 minutes ago, brianthainess said:

Sorry for this but could you explain this further in layman's terms are you saying that once you have a 1 year visa/extension then we become exempt from this. ive read section 37 but to me it still says report. did i miss something ?

The text of the petition is clearly referencing section 37 (4) of the law.

Section 37 also says "The provision of (3) and (4) shall not apply to any cases under Section 34 by any conditions as prescribed by the Director General."

As far as we know no conditions exist, so people who entered Thailand under section 34 (foreigners who entered legally), are generally exempt from 37 (4)

[DrTuner]

3 hours ago, jaffas21 said:

The amount of people signing this isn't a lot. I guess people including me don't want to appear on the authorities radar for signing something like this.  Good idea though it is.

I don't see anything in their privacy policy about signing the petition, just about the comments on the website. Put me off. I would like to have clear and binding contract where it states the names and other data are only given to immigration upon their request and can/will be deleted after that. It's the era of data misuse now.

[wobalt]

You have answered your own question, they are impacted when they want to extend their stay. Many will come on a 30/60 day stay then extend.
 

Ok but wif they don’t want an extension (as possible 90% of them), they would have nothing to do with TM30


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[schlemmi]

23 minutes ago, jackdd said:

The text of the petition is clearly referencing section 37 (4) of the law.

Section 37 also says "The provision of (3) and (4) shall not apply to any cases under Section 34 by any conditions as prescribed by the Director General."

As far as we know no conditions exist, so people who entered Thailand under section 34 (foreigners who entered legally), are generally exempt from 37 (4)

The conditions exist since 2522. I try to upload the concerned file but it is in Thai.

1.pdf

[DrTuner]

4 minutes ago, schlemmi said:

The conditions exist since 2522. I try to upload the concerned file but it is in Thai.

1.pdf 180.49 kB · 0 downloads

Brilliant, how did you manage to dig this one up? 

 

TVF & isaanlawyers could do a service and dig all of these up to be translated and held in one place. Every single piece of legistlation and orders since Siam changed to Thailand. Then every one would be able to see how it got off the rails.

Edited July 30, 2019 by DrTuner

[lamyai3]

3 hours ago, steve654 said:

Makes perfect sense now.  Someone enters Thailand illegally and then right away fills out a TM30 form to let immigration know where they are ????

Not right away. First thing they'll do is assemble a bomb and move it to another location, then they'll file the report. It's all explained in the video. 

[NCC1701A]

1,964 signatures. doubled in about 24 hours. so should reach the goal within a week. 

 

keep spreading the word.

Edited July 30, 2019 by NCC1701A

[Arkady]

3 hours ago, jackdd said:

No, you don't.

Section 37 (4) says foreigners have to report. But below it says subsection 3 and 4 do not apply to foreigners who entered under section 34. If you entered Thailand legally, you entered under 34.

So only foreigners who entered Thailand illegally have to report if they stay somewhere else for 24 hours.

 

Yes, but look at that sentence in the translation. "The provision of ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) shall not apply to any cases under Section 34 by any conditions as prescribed by the Director General."

 

The English is gibberish with no clear meaning which raises a red flag. In fact the meaningless phrase "by any conditions" is also generated by Google translate which confirms it is a literal automaton translation by someone with a tenuous grasp of English. In cases like that you have to go to the Thai original to see what it meant, as I have just done. Thai legalese is an acquired taste but a better translation, IMHO, might be: "The provisions of ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) shall not apply to any cases under Section 34 under any conditions that may be prescribed by the Director General."

 

The good news appears to be that the Director General of the Immigration Bureau has the authority to make exceptions to these reporting requirements with no need to change the law.  I would suggest that he immediately uses this authority to exempt everyone from the ridiculous archaic regulation.

[Arkady]

34 minutes ago, schlemmi said:

The conditions exist since 2522. I try to upload the concerned file but it is in Thai.

1.pdfFetching info...

2522 is 1979 which confirms what we already knew, i.e. that the regulations are in the current 1979 Immigration Act. 

 

As mentioned earlier, it is very likely that these regulations were in place before that and were used to control the Chinese population during the period when Chinese immigration was in the thousands per year before the mid 50s. The red alien books issued by local police stations, which are still issued to permanent residents today, were designed for this purpose and it stands to reason that aliens had to report in to local police stations when they moved around the country.  They may even pre-date the original 1927 Immigration Act which introduced the concept of permanent residency for aliens who could proved that they had a profession through which they could generate enough income to support themselves in the Kingdom.  I can't find the wording about reporting within 24 hours in the 1927 or 1937 Immigration Acts but there are some later Immigration Acts that I cannot locate.  At any rate it is possible that it was cut and paste into the main body of the Act from some a ministerial regulation.

 

In the days before the Land Code, the Working of Aliens Act and the Foreign Business Act there wasn't much disadvantage to being an alien, apart from perhaps this sort of reporting. Chinese without Thai nationality could own businesses, own land with some manipulation involved and work freely.  So Chinese males entitled to Thai citizenship through birth in Thailand often didn't claim it so as to avoid conscription. 

[albertik]

On ‎7‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 7:12 PM, jackdd said:

Section 37 = form TM28 not TM30

Foreigners who entered Thailand under section 34, this is probably everybody here, are exempt from this 24 hours reporting when going to another province under section 37.

 

The author should understand the laws before making a petition about them.

Please advise us precisely where can we find "section 34" I went to the Immigration website but was unable to locate "section 34"  Under what Major article?  Thanks 

[lipflipper]

Has about as much chance as a snowball in hell.

Sent from my EVR-L29 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[jackdd]

1 hour ago, schlemmi said:

The conditions exist since 2522. I try to upload the concerned file but it is in Thai.

1.pdf 180.49 kB · 7 downloads

Thanks for posting this, this clearly confirms what i said before.

This document in itself is such an order by the director general which could set conditions according to the law.

But they don't set any conditions (Why do you say the conditions exist? There are none mentioned), they just say that people who entered under 34 are exempt from (3) and (4). (For anybody reading the document to confirm this: They use a different layout in this document, for example they copied the contents of 34 into this section, and subsections 3 and 4 have the numbers 2 and 3 in this document, but the meaning is the same)

 

22 minutes ago, albertik said:

Please advise us precisely where can we find "section 34" I went to the Immigration website but was unable to locate "section 34"  Under what Major article?  Thanks 

http://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/thai-immigration-act-temporary-stay-in-the-kingdom-sections-34-39/

Edited July 30, 2019 by jackdd