Thailand is biting off the hand that feeds it

[Butterfly]

Yes, I realise that I have simplified things here, but I think I have illustrated that Thailand is simply pulling itself in line with what there rest of the world does things, by the book, clearly, transparently and with an eye to the country’s development.

I think you are perfectly correct. It is true that Thailand is trying to catch up with the rest of the world, which means more westernization of Thailand. This alone is not good news for me. I always thought of Thailand as an exception from the rest of the world, where people could escape to a small paradise and alternative lifestyle. Now that paradise will soon be gone and Thailand will just be another parking lot for those western shoppers who just love to live in shopping malls.

[francois]

you are all D*** right!

they simply try to catch up, but at the same time they renounce to a lot of millions of baths to be on the scale ...

if so many tourists and retirees and even small investors go away, then what is it worth for?

Thailand will become some kind of country we know too much about already  

so in fact a lot of us have bette to leave ... sadly!

the beautiful and quiet country we all met years gone by is gone for good, and might I had, not for the best as it looks now  ???

might be that cambodgia is more welcoming and we can still find an asian life-style overthere?

it might deserve to have a closer look  ::

[Axel]

I would not take the whole issue to move somewhere else.

Sure, Thailand seems to adjust, which is fine. For individuals

I am convinced there are always means to stay and stay within the law. All the discussions started with Thailand clamping down on illegals, which will happen all the time.

But from there I would not jump to any other conclusions.

Cambodia? I just been there, far behind Thailand, although the landscape, climate, people, everyting is fine and I been in the province, not in Phnom Phen.

Still see you around here for a couple of more years.

[dalmatian]

So many posts and threads about the visa rules, so many but just thought I would add this letter from a Thai citizen in the Bangkok Post a few days back......

IS THIS WHAT WE WANT FOR OURSELVES

********************************

I understand that the immigration office wants to limit the number of poor foreigners in Thailand. This is a good idea.

Perhaps then we would not have any cheap English teachers who ask only 100 baht an hour for teaching Thais an essential skill. This would reduce the number of low-cost guesthouses and remove the Euro-, Japo- and Ameri-trash from our streets. No more beer-swilling foreigners on Khao San road. No punters to roam Patpong, Nana Plaza and Soi Cowboy. No buyers of cheap Thai goods.

We would have only the occasional and infrequent rich foreigner who spends three days in the Land of the Smiles buying expensive suits, cameras and tours of the "temples and palaces". This should be adequate compensation for the thousands of foreigners who will not return to our country.

Perhaps we have forgotten Buddha's golden rule: "Do not do unto others what you would not have done unto yourself". Perhaps Europe and America should limit the number of Thais travelling to their countries to those who earn over $500000 a year. Perhaps we would understand their reasoning........Or would we?

**********************************************

Just a note on comments made about bringing Immigration laws into line with say Europe/Australia. I know the rules in UK are mainly aimed at ensuring that the National Health schemes and National Benefits schemes are not eroded by handing out money to those seeking a free ride and that would apply to any nationality. I feel that most foreigners who come to Thailand want to live in a country that they love (for whatever reason) but they will be the ones to fund their existence here, it would not be based on hand-outs. Most nations have visa rules that allow anybody wishing to come in and spend their money, they just need proof of it, that is why Europe does have some of the most stringent rules.

Personally I think what Thailand is trying to achieve is noble and on the right lines but must be based on keeping out undesirables and those wishing to work illegally. I think worrying the heck out of those who fund their own existence, follow Thai laws and want to live in peace is a little bit much. All things should be relative and take into account individual circumstances. I think it is the single statements made at the highest levels that are interpreted to the letter by the lower echelons that are of concern, there is no flexibility for personal situations. The 40/50/60 year old guys who are married to a Thai with a child and can provide very well for their family should not have to be worried that these rules could lead to the break up of that union because they just do not have that extra Baht 200000 in the bank. That is the bit that I find sad.

[marty]

Samran

Thanks for your comments, and permit me to clarify several things:

- I don’t have any axe to grind with Thai governmental regulations. It is their country and they have every right to govern and regulate it as they see fit.

- I consider myself fortunate that the Thai government has granted me the privilege of retiring here, and that I have the means to qualify for a retirement visa.

- I am not forced to live here. I have property and income in my home country, I just prefer to spend my few remaining years here, in common with thousands of other retirees who wish to do likewise.

- My reason for contributing to this subject is not to denigrate any person or governmental body, but to highlight certain aspects of the visa regulations which, for various reasons, adversely impact certain individuals who have a desire to live and/or work here – in the hope that they can also be accommodated under current or future visa regulations.  

Regarding your replies to the various points:

1) "Thailand has an extensive list of occupations prohibited to aliens".

Agree with your comments as it relates to aliens employed by a company, whether here or overseas. Many countries will  not grant a work permit if it considers that a national can do the job. But I don’t know of any country that prohibits aliens, not working for a company, from “engaging in work”, whether paid or unpaid, unless a work permit is first granted. The Alien Occupation Act  is quite explicit that a work permit will not be issued for the 39 occupations prohibited to aliens.

In effect, this law prevents me from renovating, repairing, or making additions/improvements to a property that I own or rent, even though I may be quite capable of doing the work myself – unless I first obtain a work permit.

A pastime (hobby) is also an occupation, so I assume that the law also prevents me from doing any wood carving or sculpting?

2) The Thai govt. "severely restricts ownership of property by resident aliens".

I am aware of the “3x30-year” leasing and “company-owned” purchasing alternatives of acquiring property on a long-term basis in Thailand. However, these alternatives have never been tested in law and could be invalidated by the government at any time.

It is not the Thai public who are very scared of foreigners owning land here. It appears the majority of land in Thailand is owned either by the government or a minority of the population. In fact, many Thai nationals also do not have freehold rights to the land that they have lived on and worked for generations. Land ownership is a symbol of power and Thailand does not want to relinquish that power. I have no quarrel with that. Thailand does not want foreigners owning their country and eventually becoming subservient to foreign interests. I was merely trying to point out that most countries generally have few restrictions on allowing foreigners to purchase property on a freehold basis. But bringing in 30 million Baht to purchase 1 Rai is a bit steep, in those cases where the value of the land is, say, only 1 million Baht, don’t you agree?

3) “Foreigners working for Thai companies are given Work Permits by being euphemistically classified as “consultants”. “

I am conversant with the DTA’s (Double Taxation Agreements) that Thailand has concluded with many countries, as well as the Treaty of Amity and Economic Relations Between the Kingdom of Thailand and the United States of America, but not the FTA’s that you mention. Best wishes on fruition of the Thai/Australian FTA and recognition of your qualifications. Presumably that will also result in exemption of your occupation currently denied under the Aliens Occupation Act, and automatic issue of a work permit to practice it here?

4) "If a person not under 50 and married to a Thai is spending 50-60K Baht a month and not working then what is the difference (financially to Thailand) between them and someone on a 2-week package tour to Phuket?”

The question that danbo raised here relates to persons who qualify for a retiree visa based on age but fall slightly short of the income requirements (spending 50-60K Baht a month). What has changed since 2001 when the TAT were willing to welcome retirees who “spend more than Bt50,000 per person per month”, in contrast to the 65,000 Baht hurdle set by another government department?

I fully agree with dalmation’s view, as expressed below:

“I think worrying the heck out of those who fund their own existence, follow Thai laws and want to live in peace is a little bit much. All things should be relative and take into account individual circumstances. I think it is the single statements made at the highest levels that are interpreted to the letter by the lower echelons that are of concern, there is no flexibility for personal situations.”

There is also real concern amongst retirees that the continued strengthening of the Baht against the US Dollar and other currencies could result in those, whose monthly pensions are remitted to Thailand, and who previously qualified for visas, suddenly finding themselves disqualified for another visa extension; resulting in extreme hardship for those who have retired here in the expectation that they would be able to stay permanently, and consequently committed all their resources to that end. Empathetic consideration of retirees in such a situation, but who provide proof of still being able to fund their existence here, would dispel the fears under which they currently live. It would cost the government nothing, and prove that they do indeed have a heart.

5) “Have you tried getting a work permit while working at a normal Thai school?"

I agree with you that Thailand doesn't need foreigners coming here and working illegally, but that is not what ericploy is. He wants to help but was denied a work permit because the school was not registered with the Ministry of Education. I don’t see the connection. Thailand needs teachers of English and every contribution to that end is useful, whether the school is authorized or not.  

And, I imagine, that even authorized schools will have difficulty in paying teachers of English the minimum salary levels that have now been prescribed, based not on the qualifications of the teacher, but on their nationality. Apart from the international schools, which most Thai children cannot afford to attend, I don’t think there are many other schools who are willing to pay, or can afford to pay, 60,000 Baht a month to American or Canadian teachers. From other postings on this site, I gather that even the universities pay nothing near that amount.