Thai immigration on alert for foreigners staying under false pretences

[stoner]

2 hours ago, Boomer6969 said:

You gotta be joking, they rent rooms for 1000 Bahts a night and eat street food for 300 Bahts a day. Thailand doesn't need them there are millions of  locals who spend that much for any of the  innumerable official Thai holidays.

sure those locals spend that. however tourist dollars are brought into the country and left here. thats money added to the economy from outside not within. 

 

huge difference. 

[nigelforbes]

6 minutes ago, stoner said:

sure those locals spend that. however tourist dollars are brought into the country and left here. thats money added to the economy from outside not within. 

 

huge difference. 

The Thai economy is reliant on VAT as its main source of tax revenue, 720 billion at last count. That far exceeds any other category of taxation, ergo, the government wants tourist to spend money and buy stuff. The amount spent by backpackers and the like don't meet the necessary criteria, the country NEEDS (not just wants) people who spend more.

[ozimoron]

Every dollar spent by a foreigner who earned that money outside Thailand is an export for the country.

[nigelforbes]

An interesting breakdown of expenditure by different nationalities visiting Thailand, rated in Baht per day. 

 

https://www.thaiwebsites.com/tourism-income-Thailand.asp

[Boomer6969]

9 minutes ago, nigelforbes said:

An interesting breakdown of expenditure by different nationalities visiting Thailand, rated in Baht per day. 

 

https://www.thaiwebsites.com/tourism-income-Thailand.asp

Doesn't say much. And their last comment on the tourists staying in 2 or 3 stars hotels is amusing as they seem unaware that they amalgamate the begpackers with people who stay in better resorts.

[nigelforbes]

1 minute ago, Boomer6969 said:

Doesn't say much. And their last comment on the tourists staying in 2 or 3 stars hotels is amusing as they seem unaware that they amalgamate the begpackers with people who stay in better resorts.

The point is that there's an average spend per day by each nationality and these figures are well known by TAT et al. If tourists, be they backpackers or others, don't spend at that average rate, or worse, they spend at a much lower rate, they are far from desirable in economic terms, which is what this is all about.

[aldriglikvid]

3 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

I think a lot of people do, some just like to pretend to only want the elusive "high-quality tourist" to gain face. 

 

In reality, the gap-year thrill seeker's and crusty backpacker's money is as green as anyone else's.

 

They're renting apartments, they're buying food every day, paying those women to have sex with them, etc..  They're like a welfare stimulus cheque.

 

If they didn't want young people "going travelling" for a year in Thailand, they could stop it very easily.

Exactly, tourism is a highly cash generative export (of services). Imagine all the people you see at the immigration queue at the airport. Now image +30-100k thb signs over each and everyone's head; and then multiply with the tens of millions arriving per year. The absolute nonsense by Boomers, who received their retirement non-im status, <deleted>ting on younger tourists holds no grasp in reality. It's just pure low-testo bitterness. 

[nigelforbes]

20 minutes ago, aldriglikvid said:

Exactly, tourism is a highly cash generative export (of services). Imagine all the people you see at the immigration queue at the airport. Now image +30-100k thb signs over each and everyone's head; and then multiply with the tens of millions arriving per year. The absolute nonsense by Boomers, who received their retirement non-im status, <deleted>ting on younger tourists holds no grasp in reality. It's just pure low-testo bitterness. 

Firstly, tourism is indeed an export although not of services. In the case of tourism it  is the holiday experience that is exported and is simply an export in its own right. Goods and Services represent a different part of the exports bucket. 

 

Different nationalities do indeed have signs over their heads, each one representing their spending worth. Do you really believe that any country like Thailand really just wants tourists from anywhere, of any age and wealth bracket? Of course they will take them if they come because they represent quick and easy wins,. Do they want them and do they target everyone, of course not. The Chinese tourist is a good example. There are plenty of high value high spending Chinese tourist who stay in 5 stars and spends lots of money, they are the target of various TAT campaigns. Unfortunately, they also have to accept the tour groups who spend little and who are frequently the subject of campaigns against zero dollar tours.  

 

 

[BangkokReady]

26 minutes ago, nigelforbes said:

If tourists, be they backpackers or others, don't spend at that average rate, or worse, they spend at a much lower rate, they are far from desirable in economic terms, which is what this is all about.

But we're talking about additional income, rather than a choice, why would people not want the additional income on top of what comes from the higher spending tourists?

 

It's fine to say "We would rather have tourists that come and spend 100k in two weeks, than travellers who spend 30k a month", but why would anyone say they don't want that additional income on top of the "high value tourists"? 

 

Travellers don't prevent holiday makers from accessing 5-star hotels while paying 2-star rates.  They're staying in different places buying different things.  Their income makes a difference to the businesses in those areas and to the wider economy of Thailand.

[nigelforbes]

3 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

But we're talking about additional income, rather than a choice, why would people not want the additional income on top of what comes from the higher spending tourists?

 

It's fine to say "We would rather have tourists that come and spend 100k in two weeks, than travellers who spend 30k a month", but why would anyone say they don't want that additional income on top of the "high value tourists"? 

 

Travellers don't prevent holiday makers from accessing 5-star hotels while paying 2-star rates.  They're staying in different places buying different things.  Their income makes a difference to the businesses in those areas and to the wider economy of Thailand.

Some of it is image and a desire to escape the low spending reputation that Thailand has had in the past. Pattaya is a good example, when Thaksin (?) was busy creating zones for bars in Bangkok and elsewhere, Pattaya, the one place that had a seriously bad image, escaped any zoning controls. The reason for that was that the Pattaya City Council had a development plan to lift the city up and make it a more upmarket destination. Twenty years on, the reputation and the reality of Pattaya is very different from what it was pre 2000. Terminal 21, Cent Fest., Bali Hi plus many more upmarket hotels along with the closure of bar beer complexes has turned Pattaya into a much more upmarket tourist destination than it ever was before. So, will Pattaya still accept budget hotel staying mongers, yes. Do they really want them, no, even if they are free extra revenue. The higher the average or median tourist spend per day becomes, the more likely it is that will attract additional above average spenders. The lower that average spend becomes, the worse the perception of the destination becomes.

 

 

[connda]

On 12/23/2022 at 8:20 AM, webfact said:

Region 5 immigration

That's Chiang Mai and some surrounding Northern province.

Guess I'll just wait with the eight dogs for the knock on the door.

"We know you stay in Thailand not real.  You have fake marriage.  You fake marriage with Thai woman for 15 years.  You just pretend to be married.  You stay with 'false pretense!' (although I doubt they'll be able to say that phrase.)"
Hi, would you like to come in for a cup of coffee?  Don't worry about the snarling dogs.  They don't bite.

[Jingthing]

Hope that their next target isn't people staying under true pretenses but having a bad attitude. 

[connda]

On 12/23/2022 at 2:20 PM, Kwasaki said:

What's new,  my one year marriage extension was about 8 papers and copies, now 40 or so now. 

Plus 20 minutes of signing the paperwork while stretching the cramps out of your hand every 5 minutes.

[NanLaew]

On 12/23/2022 at 9:26 AM, proton said:

Does false pretences include extensions obtained by corruption from a province holders do not live in I wonder? or will they continue to turn a blind eye.

Still moaning about agents and their clients I see.

 

On 12/23/2022 at 7:02 PM, Mac Mickmanus said:

Unless you fit onto category of visas offered , work, family or retied then you aren't welcome to stay long term 

For everyone else, there are agents. Ask @proton

[Kwasaki]

2 minutes ago, connda said:

Plus 20 minutes of signing the paperwork while stretching the cramps out of your hand every 5 minutes.

I thought it was funny saying can i get a rubber stamp made up with my signature, my wife told me after they were not amused. ????????????

[NanLaew]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Hope that their next target isn't people staying under true pretenses but having a bad attitude. 

LOL. Way too many of those and not enough staff.

[BangkokReady]

8 minutes ago, nigelforbes said:

Do they really want them, no, even if they are free extra revenue. The higher the average or median tourist spend per day becomes, the more likely it is that will attract additional above average spenders. The lower that average spend becomes, the worse the perception of the destination becomes.

I think we're moving away from the original topic which was something like people who stay in Thailand for a year, but don't spend masses of money.  They don't necessarily have to be boozing mongers, although they might do some of that.  I was thinking it was more like backpackers or "gap-year" type travellers who have saved up some money/work a little online, that stay in Thailand for a significant period of time and don't spend like a high-value tourist, but rather a 20-30k a month "getting by" type of person.  They could be living in the provinces, in a Bangkok suburb, or a tourist town.  But they aren't necessarily brining down the tone of the area that they are in.

 

Once you move over to wanting to change a tourist town from being about cheap prostitutes and booze, to high value tourism, I think the goal posts of the discussion have shifted too much.  IMO.

 

I don't think a foreigner who stays in Thailand for a year, by various visa means, living off savings, in a small apartment, perhaps with a Thai girlfriend, is going to drive high-value tourists away.

[BangkokReady]

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Hope that their next target isn't people staying under true pretenses but having a bad attitude. 

Cripes.  Will the last one out please turn the light off!!!

[connda]

4 hours ago, Boomer6969 said:

You gotta be joking, they rent rooms for 1000 Bahts a night and eat street food for 300 Bahts a day. Thailand doesn't need them there are millions of  locals who spend that much for any of the  innumerable official Thai holidays.

"Only the "well-heeled rich" should be allowed to stay.  Kick these Cheap Charlies out!"  Hubris.

The 1300 THB / day pays the daily wages of 4 Thai nationals.  Take a university course in Economics instead of promoting status consciousness.

[stoner]

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Hope that their next target isn't people staying under true pretenses but having a bad attitude. 

who gets to be the decider ? 

[proton]

8 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Still moaning about agents and their clients I see.

 

For everyone else, there are agents. Ask @proton

Commenting on corruption is moaning now is it, sounds like somebody has a dodgy extension ????

[nigelforbes]

2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

I think we're moving away from the original topic which was something like people who stay in Thailand for a year, but don't spend masses of money.  They don't necessarily have to be boozing mongers, although they might do some of that.  I was thinking it was more like backpackers or "gap-year" type travellers who have saved up some money/work a little online, that stay in Thailand for a significant period of time and don't spend like a high-value tourist, but rather a 20-30k a month "getting by" type of person.  They could be living in the provinces, in a Bangkok suburb, or a tourist town.  But they aren't necessarily brining down the tone of the area that they are in.

 

Once you move over to wanting to change a tourist town from being about cheap prostitutes and booze, to high value tourism, I think the goal posts of the discussion have shifted too much.  IMO.

 

I don't think a foreigner who stays in Thailand for a year, by various visa means, living off savings, in a small apartment, perhaps with a Thai girlfriend, is going to drive high-value tourists away.

But the concept and the principle remain the same, higher value spenders and a better reputation which attracts other bigger spenders. Again, this is not to say that the sort of people you outlined would be rejected at airport Immigration. But the direction is clear and they have come right out and said what it is, the ratio of wealthy travelers to backpacker travelers needs to be changed. If you were in Thailand during the 1990's you would understand the contrast with what exists today, that change is happening but it is not happening very quickly.

[NoDisplayName]

Quote

Thai immigration on alert for foreigners staying under false pretences

 

But of course!  You can't support an army of dodgy visa agents and "cousins" that can fix paperwork problems with foreigners meeting the visa eligibility requirements.

[Pmbkk]

6 hours ago, sqwakvfr said:

ED Visa’s are an easy fix:  Randomly check if the “student” has actually learned anything.  For the Self Defense Visa a brief demonstration in front of an IO could work. The easiest thing would be determining if a “student” under a Thai Language Ed Visa has actually learned anything.  

 

I'm not too sure about that......:

 

Prince Harry with the best tutelage money can buy throughout his life ( incl' ex MPs, and failed PM candidates - Eton) amassed a D in Geography ( when I was at school a fail ).

 

A "B" in Art as that is graded on the person's perception.

 

You simply can't teach idiots...... ( and language for older people is one of the hardest )

 

Edited December 25, 2022 by Pmbkk

[aldriglikvid]

The notion that Thailand only wants triple AAA tourists is unachievable at the moment, and TAT knows it (hence no material policy to expel "the backpackers"). the Disneylands, the Universal Parks, the world class medical services, the Casino's are located in Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong and Macau; not Thailand. 

Furthermore, I would argue that luxury travel probably never will work in Thailand as the population is simply too large: there isn't much employment in a $35 000 LVMH bag purchase; but a lot of employment in 4 students splashing $4000 each in 14 days of traveling. If they can find another sector to employ 11-15% of GDP, sure (but we're not there, not even close). As we can see from the stats that I provide below, Thailand is very far off from "not needing international tourism" as @nigelforbesargued earlier. Adjacent countries are increasing the distance compared to Thailand. 

 

Thailand was very successful (relatively speaking) becoming an auto and auto part manufacturer for the ICE car industry (especially Japanese brands). I doubt they will be able to repeat that in this current and next EV cycle. 

 

Finally, @nigelforbes, you were trying to correct me when I said that Tourism services was a great export; that tourism is a bucket of its own and has nothing to do with export of services. I used the word services because that's how the The National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC) categorize it itself. 

 

 

 

[tomacht8]

6 hours ago, Boomer6969 said:

You gotta be joking, they rent rooms for 1000 Bahts a night and eat street food for 300 Bahts a day. Thailand doesn't need them there are millions of  locals who spend that much for any of the  innumerable official Thai holidays.

Short-term thinking. The backpack tourist of today can also be the 5 star hotel customer of tomorrow. I came as a backpacker for the first time 30 years ago. Over the entire period I've easily spent over 50 Million Thai Baht here; Predominantly for Homes, Cars, Motorcycles, Fridges, TVs, Land, Condos, Domestic Flights, Taxis, Health Insurance, Electricity, Taxes, Hotels, Food, Drinks, Parties and Girls. 

 

Strategically, it makes sense for Thailand to build a base of loyal, repeat customers which will continue to show growth in spending opportunities throughout there customer lifecycle.

Edited December 25, 2022 by tomacht8

[richard_smith237]

6 hours ago, Boomer6969 said:

You gotta be joking, they rent rooms for 1000 Bahts a night and eat street food for 300 Bahts a day. Thailand doesn't need them there are millions of  locals who spend that much for any of the  innumerable official Thai holidays.

Todays backpackers are tomorrows boomers complaining about tomorrow’s backpackers !!!!  
 

… hopefully they’ll have a better understanding of economics than todays boomers !!!! 

[Boomer6969]

14 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Todays backpackers are tomorrows boomers complaining about tomorrow’s backpackers !!!!  
 

… hopefully they’ll have a better understanding of economics than todays boomers !!!! 

We certainly don't reduce a country's economy to its tourism. We don't have the need to see ourselves as the most important part of the picture. You know, it is unfortunate that we can't have any proper figures as the spending of this group will remain mostly underground but my guess would be that they contribute way less than 1% to the Thai economy. So much for [not] understanding economics..

[nigelforbes]

59 minutes ago, aldriglikvid said:

The notion that Thailand only wants triple AAA tourists is unachievable at the moment, and TAT knows it (hence no material policy to expel "the backpackers"). the Disneylands, the Universal Parks, the world class medical services, the Casino's are located in Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong and Macau; not Thailand. 

Furthermore, I would argue that luxury travel probably never will work in Thailand as the population is simply too large: there isn't much employment in a $35 000 LVMH bag purchase; but a lot of employment in 4 students splashing $4000 each in 14 days of traveling. If they can find another sector to employ 11-15% of GDP, sure (but we're not there, not even close). As we can see from the stats that I provide below, Thailand is very far off from "not needing international tourism" as @nigelforbesargued earlier. Adjacent countries are increasing the distance compared to Thailand. 

 

Thailand was very successful (relatively speaking) becoming an auto and auto part manufacturer for the ICE car industry (especially Japanese brands). I doubt they will be able to repeat that in this current and next EV cycle. 

 

Finally, @nigelforbes, you were trying to correct me when I said that Tourism services was a great export; that tourism is a bucket of its own and has nothing to do with export of services. I used the word services because that's how the The National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC) categorize it itself. 

 

 

 

Your choice of export figures for 2022 do not reflect the true exports ranking amongst AEAN members pre-covid. I agree that Thailand has been slow to ramp up exports post covid, perhaps this is a reflection of the steps they took to protect their population during the pandemic, versus those taken by other countries. Linked below is the ASEAN statistical year book 2020 showing exports by ASEAN member state for the ten years prior to covid. As can be seen on page 71, table 5.1, Thailand exports have been consistently in the top three exporting countries. Exports since the pandemic remain lower than regional peers because Thailand's second largest trading partner, China, remains closed. As a consequence, the country comparison of exports you posted is massively distorted and does not reflect anything close to a normal trading environment.  

 

I wrote earlier that, "if other exports would have held up to the same level as before, the 11% of GDP that is international tourism wouldn't have been that greatly missed", I DID NOT "argue" or even imply that Thailand doesn't need International tourism, as you stated when you partially quoted me! My statement holds true and the ASEAN export statistics confirm that is true, pre-covid. Exactly what the picture may look like going forward, in say a years time when things become more normalized, I would not like to guess.

 

https://www.aseanstats.org/publication/asyb_2020/

 

With regard to the composition of GDP, :

 

Thai GDP comprises "exports" and it comprises "goods and services". "The Services Sector" comprises a variety of sub-headings from motorbike repair to tourism related activities, both domestic and international in nature. Thai GDP does not however contain a heading called, "Export of Goods and Services" (that also contains tourism) although data under such a heading can easily be formulated. 

 

I attach a link to The World Bank's Metadata Glossary which defines various terms. It refers to Tourism as comprising Goods and Services but, "their share in exports is calculated as a ratio to Exports of Goods and Services". From a purely structural point of view in economics terms, Exports comprise Goods and Services whereas Tourism is sufficiently important to where it occupies its own separate classification. Within that heading a a further sub-division of International and Domestic.

 

https://databank.worldbank.org/metadataglossary/world-development-indicators/series/ST.INT.RCPT.XP.ZS

 

Lastly, you wrote, "The notion that Thailand only wants triple AAA tourists is unachievable at the moment, and TAT knows it (hence no material policy to expel "the backpackers"). I agree completely and have never suggested otherwise.

 

 

[NanLaew]

23 hours ago, proton said:

23 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Still moaning about agents and their clients I see.

 

For everyone else, there are agents. Ask @proton

Commenting on corruption is moaning now is it, sounds like somebody has a dodgy extension

And it sounds like someone's still moaning.