Common Thread

[TaoNow]

In reading through a range of posts on this forum (visa, general) it seems that a large number of posters feel that Thai regulations are arbitrary, irrational, or directed at them. In my experience, none of this is true. In several decades of working within the Thai bureaucracy (Ministry of Health) and nearly 30 years of dealing with immigration (mostly at Soi Suan Plu) my approach to ease the frustration of regulations was to try to understand the reasoning behind them. I would talk to the officials themselves, lawyers, other knowledgeable folk, and read related documentation to learn the background of these regulations. While knowing the rationale did not necessarily make the process of approvals or renewals any easier, it helped to ease the stress and reduce anger at the system.

For example, take the requirement of 800,000 baht in a Thai bank for retirement and 40,000 baht a month income for non-retired, non-immigrant O visa holders. Some on the Forum have complained that these rules show that the Thai government only wants the rich, or that it wants to get farang to spend their money in Thailand. In fact, the reasoning behind these regulations is most likely to ensure that whomever settles here long-term has adequate financial means so that s/he will not be a burden on the state – whether or not they actually spend their income or savings in country. Thailand already has enough on its hands to cater to its own low-income. It hardly needs to encourage low-income foreigners to settle. And they are probably primarily worried about their nearest neighbors: Burma, Laos, and Cambodia. Burmese and Lao regularly cross the border to access subsidized health care at Thai government hospitals. This is a cost to the Thai economy since the hospitals are staffed and supplied according to estimated needs of the local Thai population. And the small fees the government hospitals collect from these foreigners does not come close to off-setting the total cost of the service.

Take for another example the recently enacted regulations limiting visa-exempt visitors to 90 days in country in a 180-day period. Many think this is unfairly targeting the Western drifter (“farang khii nok”). In fact, this law is most certainly the outgrowth of pressure from the US and its allies to root out international terrorists. Think back to the case of the Indonesian terrorist Hambali who was arrested in Ayutthaya in 2003. That was the wake-up call that Thailand needed to clean house – but the target was not actually the peace-loving visa-runners from Khao San Road.

A third example concerns the previous restrictions on land/house ownership for Thai spouses of foreigners. This law was first enacted during the Vietnam War era when there was concern that Vietnamese insurgents would marry (huu bao) Thai women and thereby gain a foothold in the country by owning land, building homes, and establishing a base of operations. The law which prohibited granting citizenship to children of foreign father-Thai mother couples had the same reasoning to it: Infiltrators could make dangerous in-roads via the citizenship of their children.

While understanding the background to some of these regulations that affect us Western ex-pats doesn’t make it any easier to process our approvals, at least it might be some solace to know that the law isn’t after us directly.

[Krub]

In reading through a range of posts on this forum (visa, general) it seems that a large number of posters feel that Thai regulations are arbitrary, irrational, or directed at them. In my experience, none of this is true. In several decades of working within the Thai bureaucracy (Ministry of Health) and nearly 30 years of dealing with immigration (mostly at Soi Suan Plu) my approach to ease the frustration of regulations was to try to understand the reasoning behind them. I would talk to the officials themselves, lawyers, other knowledgeable folk, and read related documentation to learn the background of these regulations. While knowing the rationale did not necessarily make the process of approvals or renewals any easier, it helped to ease the stress and reduce anger at the system.

For example, take the requirement of 800,000 baht in a Thai bank for retirement and 40,000 baht a month income for non-retired, non-immigrant O visa holders. Some on the Forum have complained that these rules show that the Thai government only wants the rich, or that it wants to get farang to spend their money in Thailand. In fact, the reasoning behind these regulations is most likely to ensure that whomever settles here long-term has adequate financial means so that s/he will not be a burden on the state – whether or not they actually spend their income or savings in country. Thailand already has enough on its hands to cater to its own low-income. It hardly needs to encourage low-income foreigners to settle. And they are probably primarily worried about their nearest neighbors: Burma, Laos, and Cambodia. Burmese and Lao regularly cross the border to access subsidized health care at Thai government hospitals. This is a cost to the Thai economy since the hospitals are staffed and supplied according to estimated needs of the local Thai population. And the small fees the government hospitals collect from these foreigners does not come close to off-setting the total cost of the service.

Take for another example the recently enacted regulations limiting visa-exempt visitors to 90 days in country in a 180-day period. Many think this is unfairly targeting the Western drifter (“farang khii nok”). In fact, this law is most certainly the outgrowth of pressure from the US and its allies to root out international terrorists. Think back to the case of the Indonesian terrorist Hambali who was arrested in Ayutthaya in 2003. That was the wake-up call that Thailand needed to clean house – but the target was not actually the peace-loving visa-runners from Khao San Road.

A third example concerns the previous restrictions on land/house ownership for Thai spouses of foreigners. This law was first enacted during the Vietnam War era when there was concern that Vietnamese insurgents would marry (huu bao) Thai women and thereby gain a foothold in the country by owning land, building homes, and establishing a base of operations. The law which prohibited granting citizenship to children of foreign father-Thai mother couples had the same reasoning to it: Infiltrators could make dangerous in-roads via the citizenship of their children.

While understanding the background to some of these regulations that affect us Western ex-pats doesn’t make it any easier to process our approvals, at least it might be some solace to know that the law isn’t after us directly.

Good old Uncle Sam behind the 90days in 180 rule and the land ownership rules.....surprise surprise....

[astral]

For example, take the requirement of 800,000 baht in a Thai bank for retirement and 40,000 baht a month income for non-retired, non-immigrant O visa holders. Some on the Forum have complained that these rules show that the Thai government only wants the rich, or that it wants to get farang to spend their money in Thailand. In fact, the reasoning behind these regulations is most likely to ensure that whomever settles here long-term has adequate financial means so that s/he will not be a burden on the state – whether or not they actually spend their income or savings in country. Thailand already has enough on its hands to cater to its own low-income. It hardly needs to encourage low-income foreigners to settle. And they are probably primarily worried about their nearest neighbors: Burma, Laos, and Cambodia. Burmese and Lao regularly cross the border to access subsidized health care at Thai government hospitals. This is a cost to the Thai economy since the hospitals are staffed and supplied according to estimated needs of the local Thai population. And the small fees the government hospitals collect from these foreigners does not come close to off-setting the total cost of the service.

I have never heard of Farangs being treated in the public hospital system.

Heaven forbid.

I always head for the private ones

.....but the target was not actually the peace-loving visa-runners from Khao San Road.

Really.................

A third example concerns the previous restrictions on land/house ownership for Thai spouses of foreigners. This law was first enacted during the Vietnam War era when there was concern that Vietnamese insurgents would marry (huu bao) Thai women and thereby gain a foothold in the country by owning land, building homes, and establishing a base of operations.

Yes, pure xenophobia.

Thais can own property in the UK and USA.

The law which prohibited granting citizenship to children of foreign father-Thai mother couples had the same reasoning to it:

Where did you get that idea??

There are many TV members with Luek Krung holding Thai and a foreign nationality.

[TaoNow]

For example, take the requirement of 800,000 baht in a Thai bank for retirement and 40,000 baht a month income for non-retired, non-immigrant O visa holders. Some on the Forum have complained that these rules show that the Thai government only wants the rich, or that it wants to get farang to spend their money in Thailand. In fact, the reasoning behind these regulations is most likely to ensure that whomever settles here long-term has adequate financial means so that s/he will not be a burden on the state – whether or not they actually spend their income or savings in country. Thailand already has enough on its hands to cater to its own low-income. It hardly needs to encourage low-income foreigners to settle. And they are probably primarily worried about their nearest neighbors: Burma, Laos, and Cambodia. Burmese and Lao regularly cross the border to access subsidized health care at Thai government hospitals. This is a cost to the Thai economy since the hospitals are staffed and supplied according to estimated needs of the local Thai population. And the small fees the government hospitals collect from these foreigners does not come close to off-setting the total cost of the service.

I have never heard of Farangs being treated in the public hospital system.

Heaven forbid.

I always head for the private ones

.....but the target was not actually the peace-loving visa-runners from Khao San Road.

Really.................

A third example concerns the previous restrictions on land/house ownership for Thai spouses of foreigners. This law was first enacted during the Vietnam War era when there was concern that Vietnamese insurgents would marry (huu bao) Thai women and thereby gain a foothold in the country by owning land, building homes, and establishing a base of operations.

Yes, pure xenophobia.

Thais can own property in the UK and USA.

The law which prohibited granting citizenship to children of foreign father-Thai mother couples had the same reasoning to it:

Where did you get that idea??

There are many TV members with Luek Krung holding Thai and a foreign nationality.

[hotgeekus]

Bro, you will get no sympathy here....

This site is full of the 'its your country, but do it my way' attitude. If it was so bad, they would go somewhere else. But no, they just like to complain about it.

[TaoNow]

Bro, you will get no sympathy here....

This site is full of the 'its your country, but do it my way' attitude. If it was so bad, they would go somewhere else. But no, they just like to complain about it.

Thanks Hotgeekus. Understood.

Just a quick reply to Astral's question about the law on citizenship for a child born to a Thai mother and foreign father: I was refering to citizenship at birth. When my two children were born in Bangkok in the 1980's the section on the birth certificate for citizenship had to be left blank despite the fact that the mother was Thai because she was married to a foreiginer. We were eventually able to get Thai citizenship for both by submitting a petition to the Ministry of Interior but it took five years for one and three years for the other. It can be done but not automatic -- unless the law has changed.

Also for Astral -- Some of Thailand's best physicians and nurses practice at some of the government hospitals in Bangkok (Siriraj, Chulalongkorn, Ramathibodi) and they have state of the art equipment there. But the wait times are certainly longer in the public facilities.

TaoNow

[TerryLH]

"the law on citizenship for a child born to a Thai mother and foreign father: I was refering to citizenship at birth. When my two children were born in Bangkok in the 1980's the section on the birth certificate for citizenship had to be left blank despite the fact that the mother was Thai because she was married to a foreiginer. We were eventually able to get Thai citizenship for both by submitting a petition to the Ministry of Interior but it took five years for one and three years for the other. It can be done but not automatic -- unless the law has changed."

The law was changed. Around 1993-94, I think.

[TAWP]

40,000 baht a month income for non-retired, non-immigrant O visa holders. Some on the Forum have complained that these rules show that the Thai government only wants the rich, or that it wants to get farang to spend their money in Thailand. In fact, the reasoning behind these regulations is most likely to ensure that whomever settles here long-term has adequate financial means so that s/he will not be a burden on the state – whether or not they actually spend their income or savings in country. Thailand already has enough on its hands to cater to its own low-income. It hardly needs to encourage low-income foreigners to settle.

I'm not sure what you are using but since thailand lacks any welfaresystem that includes foreigners, I would hardly agree that they have to put the family-income at a level that is 2.5 times above the average salary-levels to avoid any farangs that are 'poor'. 'Not rich' would be a better word. And there in lies the problem.

[astral]

Some of Thailand's best physicians and nurses practice at some of the government hospitals in Bangkok (Siriraj, Chulalongkorn, Ramathibodi) and they have state of the art equipment there. But the wait times are certainly longer in the public facilities.

Exceptions do not prove a rule.

Check out local hospitals in Isaan, for example.