Thailand Elite - Tourist or Investment Visa?

[jackdd]

In past topics we sometimes had the discussion which type of visa the Thailand Elite visa is. Some said it's a tourist visa, because that's how it is treated by Thai authorities. Others said it's an investment visa, because it allows a stay up to one year (90 days max for tourist visa).

I came across an official text stating what it is: It's neither.

Source: http://web.krisdika.go.th/data/comment/comment1/2554/c1_0123_2554.htm

They used Thai immigration act section 17:

Quote

In certain special cases, the Minister, by the Cabinet approval, may permit any alien or any group of aliens to stay in the Kingdom under certain conditions, or may conditions, or may consider exemption from being conformity with this Act.

 

So they could just set the rules for the "TPC visa" (that seems to be the official name) however they wanted, which can be found here:

http://web.krisdika.go.th/data/law/law2/%a402/%a402-2e-2556-a0005.htm

 

Point 2 from the rules is interesting because of two things:

- It says you have the right to get the visa affixed at any Thai embassy or consulate. Doesn't Thailand Elite say this is only possible in Thailand, for example when arriving an the airport?

- Imho this says you have the right to get as many 5 year (it doesn't say up to, it just says 5 years) visas affixed as you want while your membership is valid. Did anybody ever try to get a new visa with 5 year validity affixed in your passport shortly before the membership ends (paying 5 years, getting nearly 11 years)?

Edited July 30, 2019 by jackdd

[richard_smith237]

I've had a Thai Elite Visa for about 13 years.... (life Time Membership). 

 

Regarding visa status specifically, TM6, TM30, 90day reports, extensions etc Thai Elite Visa permits you no more, no less privilege than a Tourist Visa - its just longer term (5 years, 20 years or Life for Original Members where as a Tourist Visa is very similar, virtually the same, but for a shorter periods).

 

Ergo - its basically a longer term more convenient Tourist Visa which is purchased.

 

 

Point 2: You are correct (unless this has changed) the 'sticker' is affixed at the Airport. 

 

Membership is for 5 years, the Visa is based upon Membership - there has been discussion that if someone gets their passport renewed after 4 yrs 11 months of membership, would they get another 5 years in their Passport - the answer is no, expiry remains the same. 

 

I receive 5 year SE Visa stickers, when renewing a passport a new sticker is affixed which expires at the same date as the original (this may differ with the one year PE Visa Sticker which is renewed each year if I'm not mistaken). 

[ThomasThBKK]

 

It's not really a tourist visa, read the post there and rest of thread.

There was a regulation issued after it got changed from 90 days to 1 year visas and approved by the cabinet - i can't find the original text anywhere about this regulation tho. (EDIT: Must be the last one you found)

 

It must be classified as one of: 

 

Quote

(5) Business

(6) Investments as approved by Ministries and Departments concerned

(7) Investments or activities relating to investments subject to provisions of laws on investment promotion

(15) Other activities as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations

 

So i guess 15) is what they did when using Section 16.

Edited July 30, 2019 by ThomasThBKK

[ThomasThBKK]

May 2013 cabinet agreed to changes to the elite card sheme: https://www.pattayamail.com/travel/thailand-elite-card-ready-to-relaunch-26643

 

Your second link is from November 2012 tho - i guess that fits the latest changes that have been made after it was relaunched.

The old visas are prolly not goverened under this, the lifetime ones for 90 days each.

 

Quote

Article 3  When a person under Article 1 travels into the Kingdom The immigration officer shall inspect the residence for one year at all times. That travels into the Kingdom for an unlimited number of times

 

Article 4  Temporary permission to stay After the end of the license period under Clause 3, the Immigration Officer shall have the power to allow to stay for one year at a time. By submitting an application in the form and paying fees as prescribed in the ministerial regulations

 

This is good to know thanks, it basically means they have to let us in and we can also do a 6th year.

 

 

Edited July 30, 2019 by ThomasThBKK

[CartagenaWarlock]

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

t says you have the right to get the visa affixed at any Thai embassy or consulate. Doesn't Thailand Elite say this is only possible in Thailand, for example when arriving an the airport?

When I talked to the sales lady before I got my 20-year TE, she told me I could get the visa stamped in the US embassy (I was in US when I applied) or inside Thailand in Bangkok if I am already in Bangkok. Of course to be in Bangkok I need to enter Thailand using a Tourist visa (the passport I used for TE visa does not allow visa exempt entry) which I obtained in Singapore.

[ukrules]

2 hours ago, jackdd said:

Doesn't Thailand Elite say this is only possible in Thailand, for example when arriving an the airport? 

I had my 5 year visa inserted at the Chaeng Wattana immigration building, I then stayed for a full 5 years without leaving at all until a few weeks before it expired, at which point I got an extra stamp for 1 year when I returned to Thailand after a short holiday.

[jackdd]

7 hours ago, ThomasThBKK said:

It must be classified as one of:

So i guess 15) is what they did when using Section 16.

You should read what i wrote.

It musn't be classified as any of these, and it isn't any of these, because by using Section 17 of the immigration act they can set rules which are exempt from being in conformity with the immigration act.

[ThomasThBKK]

4 hours ago, jackdd said:

You should read what i wrote.

It musn't be classified as any of these, and it isn't any of these, because by using Section 17 of the immigration act they can set rules which are exempt from being in conformity with the immigration act.

 

(15) Other activities as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations

 

Whenever section 17 is used it is classified as this - other activities as prescribed in the Ministerial regulations (the ones u found)

 

 

Why would using section 17 contradict this? Section 17 just means they can make up a reason, the only special rules mentioned are: 

 

Article 2 The  person under Clause 1 is entitled to receive a Privilege Entry Visa from the embassy, consulate in a foreign country. Or from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or from the Immigration Bureau For use for a period of five years with no limit to the number of times throughout the membership card period, with the exception of the registration fee.

 

Article 3  When a person under Article 1 travels into the Kingdom The immigration officer shall inspect the residence for one year at all times. That travels into the Kingdom for an unlimited number of times

 

Article 4  Temporary permission to stay After the end of the license period under Clause 3, the Immigration Officer shall have the power to allow to stay for one year at a time. By submitting an application in the form and paying fees as prescribed in the ministerial regulations

 

The rest of the immigration act still applies in full.

 

They should have added an exemption that allows work permits, 5 year driving licenses etc tho...it's a bummer they didn't. Would be a great selling point.

[jackdd]

48 minutes ago, ThomasThBKK said:

(15) Other activities as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations

 

Whenever section 17 is used it is classified as this - other activities as prescribed in the Ministerial regulations (the ones u found)

Because if they used 34 (15) they would just have written something like: According to 34 (15) they add the following activities...

They would not have written according to 17 they ... do something

 

But i can also prove that you are wrong, because i found a document which the Council of State keeps updated when new ministerial orders are released: http://www.krisdika.go.th/librarian/get?sysid=683094&ext=htm

Under point 14 in this document you find all "other activities" which have been added by ministerial orders to 34 (15), and there is nothing related to the TPC visa.

[ThomasThBKK]

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

Because if they used 34 (15) they would just have written something like: According to 34 (15) they add the following activities...

They would not have written according to 17 they ... do something

 

But i can also prove that you are wrong, because i found a document which the Council of State keeps updated when new ministerial orders are released: http://www.krisdika.go.th/librarian/get?sysid=683094&ext=htm

Under point 14 in this document you find all "other activities" which have been added by ministerial orders to 34 (15), and there is nothing related to the TPC visa.

thanks, makes sense actually.

 

We are closer to finding out what we actually bought - what an ordeal. I find it utterly misleading that even Thai Elite is calling it a tourist visa.

Did you find anything about what it allows and doesnt allow further, investments etc should be allowed - but maybe not? its certainly different than a business visa

[jackdd]

1 hour ago, ThomasThBKK said:

thanks, makes sense actually.

 

We are closer to finding out what we actually bought - what an ordeal. I find it utterly misleading that even Thai Elite is calling it a tourist visa.

Did you find anything about what it allows and doesnt allow further, investments etc should be allowed - but maybe not? its certainly different than a business visa

That's all i could find. For sure there will be further rules, but maybe not on a level which would require publication in the Government Gazette, so we can't see it (or maybe i just didn't find it, the search function for these documents is not good). I could imagine, that for example for driving licenses, they just sent a memo to all DLTs which said something like: Treat the TPC visa like a tourist visa.

[elviajero]

10 minutes ago, jackdd said:

That's all i could find. For sure there will be further rules, but maybe not on a level which would require publication in the Government Gazette, so we can't see it (or maybe i just didn't find it, the search function for these documents is not good). I could imagine, that for example for driving licenses, they just sent a memo to all DLTs which said something like: Treat the TPC visa like a tourist visa.

If such a memo were sent, it's more likely to have said to treat the PE visa like a Non-immigrant visa because the DLT are not supposed to issue DL's to tourists.

[jackdd]

6 minutes ago, elviajero said:

If such a memo were sent, it's more likely to have said to treat the PE visa like a Non-immigrant visa because the DLT are not supposed to issue DL's to tourists.

If this would be the case, then i wonder why all DLTs issue driving licenses to tourists. Or can you name one that doesn't?

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, ThomasThBKK said:

We are closer to finding out what we actually bought - what an ordeal. I find it utterly misleading that even Thai Elite is calling it a tourist visa.

It's the closest thing to an entry clearance visa that Thailand have.

 

The TE website is misleading, but only in comparing the PE visa to a TR in connection to work.

 

It is not a Tourist Visa, it is a "Privilege Entry" visa.

 

IMO they have created a new class of visa under Section 17. And because of the investment element they can use 34.7 and 35.6 to issue the 5 year stay permits.

[jackdd]

19 minutes ago, elviajero said:

IMO they have created a new class of visa under Section 17. And because of the investment element they can use 34.7 and 35.6 to issue the 5 year stay permits. 

By using section 17 they don't need to conform to the immigration act, so they don't need to "use" anything. They just write it's valid for 5 years and it gives one year permits and then that's what it does.

[elviajero]

2 minutes ago, jackdd said:

If this would be the case, then i wonder why all DLTs issue driving licenses to tourists. Or can you name one that doesn't?

So you've visited them all have you? My local office wouldn't issue one until I had a non-immigrant visa.

 

Tourists can use an international drivers permit for up to 6 months. Anyone staying longer than 6 months should have the appropriate visa (not a tourist visa) and must apply for a Thai licence.

 

I know some DLT's do issue them to TR holders, but they are not supposed to.

 

From the DLT website - https://www.dlt.go.th/en/two-year-license/

PASSPORT WITH NON-IMMIGRANT VISA (ORIGINAL AND PHOTO COPY)

[elviajero]

27 minutes ago, jackdd said:

48 minutes ago, elviajero said:

IMO they have created a new class of visa under Section 17. And because of the investment element they can use 34.7 and 35.6 to issue the 5 year stay permits. 

By using section 17 they don't need to conform to the immigration act, so they don't need to "use" anything. They just write it's valid for 5 years and it gives one year permits and then that's what it does.

I was confusing myself. They only need to use 34.15 and 35.3 to give a 1 year stay permit.

 

That is not necessarily the case. It says "may consider exemption". It's an option within S.17, and TE members are clearly not exempt from the immigration act. Such an exemption would be used for cases where it was necessary for a person/s to be exempt from the immigration act.

 

Section 17 : In certain special cases , the Minister , by the Cabinet approval , may permit any alien or any group of aliens to stay in the Kingdom under certain conditions , or may conditions , or may consider exemption from being conformity with this Act.

 

IMO they have used S.17 to create the visa class -- "Privilege Entry" -- and follow the immigration act thereafter.

Edited July 31, 2019 by elviajero

[jackdd]

41 minutes ago, elviajero said:

So you've visited them all have you? My local office wouldn't issue one until I had a non-immigrant visa. 

Of course i didn't, i just never saw a thread here where people said that it's impossible for them to get a driving license on a tourist visa in their province. In which province were you not able to get one?

 

41 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Tourists can use an international drivers permit for up to 6 months. Anyone staying longer than 6 months should have the appropriate visa (not a tourist visa) and must apply for a Thai licence.

This is not correct, tourists as well as people on non immigrant visas etc. are considered to be in the country temporarily. They can use an IDP (if it's one issued under the 1949) for as long as it's valid (max one year).

Only Thais and permanent residents can't use an IDP.

I once gathered all laws and regulations concerning this here:

 

 

41 minutes ago, elviajero said:

From the DLT website - https://www.dlt.go.th/en/two-year-license/

PASSPORT WITH NON-IMMIGRANT VISA (ORIGINAL AND PHOTO COPY)

In the english version of the website they mixed up the content of the pages. What you posted is actually for renewing a driving license and getting a 5 year version after having the 2 year version.

The requirements to get a two year license are here: https://www.dlt.go.th/en/renew-license/

As you can see, it just says passport with visa.

On the page which you posted they clearly write non-immigrant visa, so we can conclude that any visa will suffice to obtain a two year license.

 

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

Of course i didn't, i just never saw a thread here where people said that it's impossible for them to get a driving license on a tourist visa in their province. In which province were you not able to get one?

There have been reports on TVF and elsewhere over the years. But most ‘tourists’ aren't Applying for DL’s whilst holidaying in Thailand.

 

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

This is not correct, tourists as well as people on non immigrant visas etc. are considered to be in the country temporarily. They can use an IDP (if it's one issued under the 1949) for as long as it's valid (max one year).

Only Thais and permanent residents can't use an IDP.

I know. However, the rules in Thailand are that you cannot use a IDP for longer than 6 months per visit. As a tourist can only stay 90 days per visit they can in effect use an IDP for every visit. Although good luck arguing that fact with a cop in the side of the road.

 

However. Non-immigrant visa holders must get a Thai DL after 6 months.

 

2 hours ago, jackdd said:

As you can see, it just says passport with visa.

On the page which you posted they clearly write non-immigrant visa, so we can conclude that any visa will suffice to obtain a two year license.

It may just say “visa” but it should be a non-immigrant visa.

 

Why do you need a non-immigrant visa to renew a two year licence, but not to get the initial licence?

[jackdd]

7 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Why do you need a non-immigrant visa to renew a two year licence, but not to get the initial licence?

The page to which you posted the link is about: FROM TWO-YEAR (DRIVING LICENCE) TO FIVE-YEARS DRIVING LICENCE

Only with a non-immigrant visa it's possible to get a 5 years license. Somebody who has a tourist visa can only get 2 year driving licenses.

Edited July 31, 2019 by jackdd

[elviajero]

5 hours ago, jackdd said:

The page to which you posted the link is about: FROM TWO-YEAR (DRIVING LICENCE) TO FIVE-YEARS DRIVING LICENCE

Only with a non-immigrant visa it's possible to get a 5 years license. Somebody who has a tourist visa can only get 2 year driving licenses.

Why do you need a Non-immigrant visa for a 5 year DL, but not -- in your opinion -- for a 2 year DL?

 

In the past it was almost impossible to get a DL unless you had a WP. These days it's relaxed to Non-immigrant visa holders with proof of residence. There is no reason for the DLT to issue a DL to a tourist, who can't stay longer than 90 days.

 

The Motor Vehicle Act.

Title 3: Driver’s License

Section 42

If the driver is an alien who doesn’t have an immigrant visa, he may drive a motor vehicle with a driver’s license specified in the Section 42-2. In such a case, he must carry documents specified by the treaty between the Thai government and the government which issued such driver’s license, and show them to competent officers upon request.

 

S.42 is differentiating between non-immigrants and others (tourists). It is by implication saying that as you can't get a DL because you don't have a non-immigrant visa you can use an acceptable DL form you home country or one with a IDP.

 

Somewhere in Thai law/regulation it says that you can only use a IDP for 6 months, which doesn't affect tourists, but means non-immigrant visa holders staying longer than 6 months need to get a Thai DL. This subject has been discussed to death over the years and just because some DLT's issue DL's to tourists does not mean the law has changed, or they all do. Laws and rules are broken everywhere as you well know.

 

 

[ukrules]

I had a one year driving license, when I went to renew it they gave me a 5 year license as I had the 5 year visa.

 

I wasn't expecting that but I didn't argue.

[jackdd]

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

Why do you need a Non-immigrant visa for a 5 year DL, but not -- in your opinion -- for a 2 year DL?

I don't know, i didn't make these rules, i just explain to you how they are.

 

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

There is no reason for the DLT to issue a DL to a tourist, who can't stay longer than 90 days.

One reason would be that people from some countries (for example Germany), can't get an IDP which is valid in Thailand. So a Thai license is the only way for them to drive legally in Thailand.

 

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

S.42 is differentiating between non-immigrants and others (tourists).

It says "immigrant visa", not "non-immigrant visa", you have to read more carefully. By immigrant visa they mean people with permanent residency status, this becomes clear if you read the original Thai version. Read my topic which i posted before, i explained all of this already there.

 

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

Somewhere in Thai law/regulation it says that you can only use a IDP for 6 months

No, it doesn't.

 

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

just because some DLT's issue DL's to tourists does not mean the law has changed, or they all do

I asked you two times already, until now you couldn't tell me one DLT which doesn't issue driving licenses to people with tourist visa. So currently it looks like they all do issue them to tourists.

Edited August 1, 2019 by jackdd

[jacko45k]

17 minutes ago, jackdd said:

One reason would be that people from some countries (for example Germany), can't get an IDP which is valid in Thailand. So a Thai license is the only way for them to drive legally in Thailand.

An IDP is simply a translation of the National Licence, into multiple languages. How is it not valid in Thailand? 

[jackdd]

6 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

An IDP is simply a translation of the National Licence, into multiple languages. How is it not valid in Thailand? 

IDPs are based on treaties, but Thailand and Germany never signed/ratified a common treaty.

Thailand only signed and ratified  the 1949 treaty, and Germany the 1968 treaty.

So in Germany people can only get an IDP based on the 1968 treaty, but this is not valid in Thailand, because Thailand never ratified the 1968 treaty.

See here for further details:

 

Edited August 1, 2019 by jackdd

[elviajero]

8 hours ago, jackdd said:

13 hours ago, elviajero said:

Why do you need a Non-immigrant visa for a 5 year DL, but not -- in your opinion -- for a 2 year DL?

I don't know, i didn't make these rules, i just explain to you how they are.

You are explaining how you want them to be. Tourists do not need a Thai driving licence.

 

8 hours ago, jackdd said:

13 hours ago, elviajero said:

There is no reason for the DLT to issue a DL to a tourist, who can't stay longer than 90 days.

One reason would be that people from some countries (for example Germany), can't get an IDP which is valid in Thailand. So a Thai license is the only way for them to drive legally in Thailand.

If there is no treaty between two countries, and you don't have a IDP, you can't drive in Thailand, whilst on holiday.

 

8 hours ago, jackdd said:

13 hours ago, elviajero said:

S.42 is differentiating between non-immigrants and others (tourists).

It says "immigrant visa", not "non-immigrant visa", you have to read more carefully. By immigrant visa they mean people with permanent residency status, this becomes clear if you read the original Thai version. Read my topic which i posted before, i explained all of this already there.

They are referring to Non-Immigrant visa holders. Not those with a residence permit.

 

Your explanation is wrong. If you look at any half credible source of information on Thai DL's they all state that a Non-Immigrant visa is required. That has always been the case and I haven't seen anything formal to suggest that has changed. If it has then show me something not written 40 years ago to back it up.

 

8 hours ago, jackdd said:

14 hours ago, elviajero said:

Somewhere in Thai law/regulation it says that you can only use a IDP for 6 months

No, it doesn't.

It does, I've seen it. But I don't have the time to find it.

 

8 hours ago, jackdd said:

14 hours ago, elviajero said:

just because some DLT's issue DL's to tourists does not mean the law has changed, or they all do

I asked you two times already, until now you couldn't tell me one DLT which doesn't issue driving licenses to people with tourist visa. So currently it looks like they all do issue them to tourists.

And I told you that my local office don't, or at least didn't the last time I asked.

 

Bottom line. If the law has changed then great, prove it; don't quote old laws that we know for an absolute fact - regardless of your interpretation - were based on someone with a "non-immigrant" visa, and proof or residence and/or a WP. It seems that because some DLT's are issuing DL's to tourists you are assuming it's law and selectively quoting and translating to back up your opinion.

 

I drove and rode with my UK licence only for years and was pulled over many times. Once was I shaken down for a few baht because I didn't have a Thai licence, and once I was told by the officer that I needed a Thai licence because I'd been in the country so long. I did get a IDP one year, but it was a waste of money. They only time I showed it the officer didn't have a clue what it was.

 

 

[jackdd]

21 minutes ago, elviajero said:

They are referring to Non-Immigrant visa holders. Not those with a residence permit.

 

Your explanation is wrong. If you look at any half credible source of information on Thai DL's they all state that a Non-Immigrant visa is required. That has always been the case and I haven't seen anything formal to suggest that has changed. If it has then show me something not written 40 years ago to back it up.

Doesn't matter that it's written 40 years ago, the law is still valid and is the most credible source that exists. It says people who were allowed to stay in the kingdom temporarily can use an IDP, you just have to read it: https://www.baanjomyut.com/library/law/02/146.html

It's not my fault that somebody didn't translate it properly and many people copied this translation.

 

And a more current source is simply the DLT website which you posted yourself:

To get a two year license they write a passport + visa are required.

To get a five year license they write a passport + non-immigrant visa are required.

If a non-immigrant visa were required to get the two year license they would have written non-immigrant, just like they did for the five year license, wouldn't they? ????

 

21 minutes ago, elviajero said:

It does, I've seen it. But I don't have the time to find it.

The law doesn't allow for any ministerial exceptions, so if it would exist it would be either in the law or in the treaty, you have links to both of them. I couldn't find anything like this in these documents, it looks like you could neither, so we can conclude that such a limitation doesn't exist.

 

21 minutes ago, elviajero said:

And I told you that my local office don't, or at least didn't the last time I asked.

You still didn't tell me which one it is.

So currently we know of one imaginary office which allegedly doesn't issue driving licenses to tourists, yes?

Edited August 1, 2019 by jackdd

[jacko45k]

14 hours ago, elviajero said:

I did get a IDP one year, but it was a waste of money. They only time I showed it the officer didn't have a clue what it was.

In recent times the police, certainly in Pattaya, are requiring to see one from driving tourists. Nice little earner.