Impositions On Foreign Tourists

[samran]

And once again you ignore the true facts I and others have provided. It would be helpful if you would not misreperesent the situation, even if it's unintentional, because of your ignorance of the immigration regulations.

It is hard to debate someone who thinks the world owes them a living......

[beechguy]

And once again you ignore the true facts I and others have provided. It would be helpful if you would not misreperesent the situation, even if it's unintentional, because of your ignorance of the immigration regulations.

It is hard to debate someone who thinks the world owes them a living......

I'm not too concerned about JR, obviously he chooses to ignore the facts. But, I hope some of the information I have provided, might be useful for someone planning to come here.

[JR Texas]

And once again you ignore the true facts I and others have provided. It would be helpful if you would not misreperesent the situation, even if it's unintentional, because of your ignorance of the immigration regulations.

It is hard to debate someone who thinks the world owes them a living......

I'm not too concerned about JR, obviously he chooses to ignore the facts. But, I hope some of the information I have provided, might be useful for someone planning to come here.

It seems clear that the visa rules need to be changed in order to attract more tourists. I wonder what changes you think should occur to make them more tourists/expat friendly?

Oh......a warning.......there are a few posters who are stalking me (it is true, everywhere I post they show up and do the same routine) and making silly comments.

I have already added them to my ignore list so I no longer know what they are saying, but I can see that they are trying to disrupt this thread too.

Normally they ignore facts that they do not want to hear.......or they make personal attacks on me and say things that are totally false (e.g., JR Texas hates Thailand)........you can tell them to piss off or just ignore them.

[Birdman]

It seems clear that the visa rules need to be changed in order to attract more tourists. I wonder what changes you think should occur to make them more tourists/expat friendly?

You can't mix that. Thailand has a very liberal visa system for mainstream tourists already. Package tourists from Asia stay not longer than 1 week, from Europe the average stay is no longer than 2 weeks. Some stay 3-4 weeks.

All that is covered by visa on arrival.

But for some long stay expats that is a completely other issue. If they are under 50, not married, without work or don't study the visa issue can be difficult.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Birdman

[moe666]

Someone staying in Pattaya and making border runs is not a tourist. JR Texas doesn't seem to understand what a tourist is. Real tourist from the USA donot come to Thailand because of the long flight. The typical vacation in the states is not much longer than 7 days just enough time to go on a cruise were you are wrapped in a protective steel cocoon and only have to mingle with some local people on ocassion. Folks from the USA are not as a whole very adventurous and tend to do things closer to home. The only country our last president had visited before taking office was Mexico.

Made a trip to the Philippines last year stayed for two weeks they donot have a tourist orientated economy like Thailand. In Manila good luck finding a currency exchange that you feel safe going to. Boracay Island was great more geared to tourist and the beaches are very nice. But having said all that I will not be back.

Thailand with all of its warts wins hands down more and better infastructure.

JR Texas when are you moving to the Philippines since they have such wonderful visas Ibelieve it is only 21 days on arrival and I don't think you will be doing any border runs unless you fly.

[doggie888888]

the only way for the government and their agencies (like TAT) to take notice, is for the foreigners to vote with their feet and wallets, and go elsewhere. in another thread, a guy is leaving after 10 years here, with his own reasons: good luck to him. i am not at in that frame of mind yet, where I feel there is an imposition but when I do, it's good bye Thailand.

they can do the maths. say there are 20,000 foreign residents here. say they each spend THB 50k per year. we are worth (at least) 1bil baht to the economy, in very simple terms. i have excluded tourists (whether high or low quality) and the initial capital that a foreigner brings in to buy a house/car/sinsod....add that all up and we "foreigners" are worth a lot more to the local economy.

so why the apparent "unfriendly" policies? it's domestioc politics, I guess. Plus the fact we can't vote. But truly, even "foreigners" can exert some political muscle, especially given our impact in dollar terms, if only we foreigners can get off the bar stools or be daring enough to venture out of the comfort zone to form expat clubs with more vision than ladies-club-luncheon, charity-bazaars and sundowners. then again, we came here to enjoy life, so why bother...easier to leave with our mobile dollars when the going gets too tough and the scene turns somewhat more unwelcoming. even easier to just post our gripe on Thaivisa

[JR Texas]

Someone staying in Pattaya and making border runs is not a tourist. JR Texas doesn't seem to understand what a tourist is. Real tourist from the USA donot come to Thailand because of the long flight. The typical vacation in the states is not much longer than 7 days just enough time to go on a cruise were you are wrapped in a protective steel cocoon and only have to mingle with some local people on ocassion. Folks from the USA are not as a whole very adventurous and tend to do things closer to home. The only country our last president had visited before taking office was Mexico.

Made a trip to the Philippines last year stayed for two weeks they donot have a tourist orientated economy like Thailand. In Manila good luck finding a currency exchange that you feel safe going to. Boracay Island was great more geared to tourist and the beaches are very nice. But having said all that I will not be back.

Thailand with all of its warts wins hands down more and better infastructure.

JR Texas when are you moving to the Philippines since they have such wonderful visas Ibelieve it is only 21 days on arrival and I don't think you will be doing any border runs unless you fly.

I thought the question was clear. The OP talked about imposition on foreign tourists. I have suggested that perhaps the visa system is one imposition.

Agree or disagree........but assuming that it is, how would you change it to increase the number of tourists?

If you think it is not a problem ask yourself why visas are now free.

Maybe somebody in the govt. decided that the system does need a bit of a change. Maybe they decided the visa prices were too high.

So, you say it is great now.........but even the Thai government has admitted it is not and that is reflected in the current free tourist visa program (no doubt temporary).

They made that decision........not me. Now, are there other elements of the system that might be changed to encourage more tourists?

Let me give you one possible change to think about.

Some time ago I was in Macau. I was at the airport waiting to check in for my flight to Thailand. A well-dressed man (looked rich to me) was in front of me.

He gave his passport and ticket to the girl behind the counter.........she said something to him........he looked puzzled.......the he became a bit angry........the conversation went on.

I leaned in to try to find out what was going on. She told him that he could not get on the plane without a round trip ticket (and exit ticket).

He could not believe it........they kept arguing.......he got more angry.........finally she produced a paper for him to sign releasing the airlines from any liability in case Thai immigration officials did not let him in the country without an exit ticket.

Long story short: One thing they could do is remove from the books the requirement that a traveler purchase a round trip ticket before entering Thailand or obtaining a tourist visa.

Yes, it is only infrequently enforced.........but it is sometimes enforced. It serves no security purpose that I can see and it frustrates travelers that like to fly to Thailand and then decide when and where they want to go.

[moe666]

Thats a airline issue if they send him back the airline has to fly him back grattis. Most tourist are just fine with 30 days yes you get the few who can stay longer but I would say they are not going to break the back of Thai tourism. The majority of tourist come on a package deal of 14 days max. I don't think they are thinking visa run.

JR you are trying to get the Thais to make major changes for a minority of travelers to Thailand.

[james24]

Which government department do you think is responsible for the AGM fees? Do you not beleive that these fees are set by banks?

Also it is certainly not unique for cross border financial transactions to cost more than domestic ones.

Halifax makes no charge for transfer from my UK bank account to any other UK bank account but charges 9.95 GBP for a transfer to an overseas bank account. Do you also beleive that this is racist?

Edited June 13, 2009 by james24

[james24]

Sorry Id just like to add that everyone seems to be comparing Thai prices etc to the rest of the world. Compare it to what Thais pay and then compare it to what immigrant Thais pay back home in your country. Thailand I have now come to terms with is a complete con, as soon as my contract is up I am off and although the people seem nice enough why does it always feel that there is something we are not being told. I truly believe that within 5 years Thailand will be so expensive and dangerous for a tourist no one will bother, it just seems more and more to be developing into a non immigrant state. The fact there are so many families with half this half that blood in Thailand but yet they have no proper rights is quite unbelievable. Actually come to think of it Thais dont exactly have alot. The powers that be really are a bunch of selfish toss pots.

[JR Texas]

Thats a airline issue if they send him back the airline has to fly him back grattis. Most tourist are just fine with 30 days yes you get the few who can stay longer but I would say they are not going to break the back of Thai tourism. The majority of tourist come on a package deal of 14 days max. I don't think they are thinking visa run.

JR you are trying to get the Thais to make major changes for a minority of travelers to Thailand.

Yes, it is an issue that the airlines must deal with......but only because the rule exists.

I do not know exactly how many tourists this rule impacts. Probably nobody does.

I do know that removing the rule would make the system more friendly to tourists.

I think there are many tourists who do not like the fact that they are required (selectively applied) to purchase an exit ticket prior to getting a tourist visa.

I'm sure the airlines would be pleased if they no longer had to consider the rule......it is not fun having to deal with angry customers.

[kevkev1888]

the only way for the government and their agencies (like TAT) to take notice, is for the foreigners to vote with their feet and wallets, and go elsewhere. in another thread, a guy is leaving after 10 years here, with his own reasons: good luck to him. i am not at in that frame of mind yet, where I feel there is an imposition but when I do, it's good bye Thailand.

they can do the maths. say there are 20,000 foreign residents here. say they each spend THB 50k per year. we are worth (at least) 1bil baht to the economy, in very simple terms. i have excluded tourists (whether high or low quality) and the initial capital that a foreigner brings in to buy a house/car/sinsod....add that all up and we "foreigners" are worth a lot more to the local economy.

so why the apparent "unfriendly" policies? it's domestioc politics, I guess. Plus the fact we can't vote. But truly, even "foreigners" can exert some political muscle, especially given our impact in dollar terms, if only we foreigners can get off the bar stools or be daring enough to venture out of the comfort zone to form expat clubs with more vision than ladies-club-luncheon, charity-bazaars and sundowners. then again, we came here to enjoy life, so why bother...easier to leave with our mobile dollars when the going gets too tough and the scene turns somewhat more unwelcoming. even easier to just post our gripe on Thaivisa

More like 50,000 per month. I dont know any expats living on 4,000 a month!!!

[beechguy]

JR, for one reason or another, there are alot of things you seem not to be aware of, or choose to ignore. The incident you referenced in Macau, happens on a regular basis, and is NOT limited to visitors coming to Thailand, it's for numerous countries. It is an airline requirement, I mentioned that several posts before, well documented and easily verified, but you apparently can't be bothered by the facts.

Other facts you never fully mention. For a 30 day visit, many nationalties can enter Thailand free, as well as Singapore, Malaysia, and Phillippines(only 21 days) from information I found.

Other countries, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, and Viet Nam, charge a fee, starting at $20 upwards to about $50 dependent on nationality.

For a stay of 60 days, Thai visa 1,000 Baht, Cambodia add $20, Indonesia, $45, Laos add another entry of $50, PI $30, Singapore $20 if I read correctly.

Double and triple entry tourist visas for Thailand are easily available in one's home country before departing, double entries available in Laos, and possibly in Cambodia. For an improvement, I would like to see the 60 day tourist stay change to 90 days, at least that would reduce the number of bordr crossings for many.

Based on that information, I fail to see how that makes Thailand's immigration regulations for a tourist "insane", an excessive "imposition", or whatever term you choose to use. They aren't the most liberal, but certainly not seriously out of line with the surrounding countries, as you have tried to lead others to believe.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and to post it here, I don't have a problem with that. But, I, and apparently others, do have a problem with people who continually misreperesent the situation and the facts.

Edited June 13, 2009 by beechguy

[phetaroi]

If you think it is not a problem ask yourself why visas are now free.

Do you ever read a newspaper while you sit on your bar stool? The free visas were promoted for two reasons. First, the bad image given due to the closing of the airports during the demonstrations. Second, the world-wide economic downturn. Period.

[beechguy]

Thats a airline issue if they send him back the airline has to fly him back grattis. Most tourist are just fine with 30 days yes you get the few who can stay longer but I would say they are not going to break the back of Thai tourism. The majority of tourist come on a package deal of 14 days max. I don't think they are thinking visa run.

JR you are trying to get the Thais to make major changes for a minority of travelers to Thailand.

Yes, it is an issue that the airlines must deal with......but only because the rule exists.

I do not know exactly how many tourists this rule impacts. Probably nobody does.

I do know that removing the rule would make the system more friendly to tourists.

I think there are many tourists who do not like the fact that they are required (selectively applied) to purchase an exit ticket prior to getting a tourist visa.

I'm sure the airlines would be pleased if they no longer had to consider the rule......it is not fun having to deal with angry customers.

Again, you are unaware of the facts. This does not just affect tourists bound for Thailand. It is required by many airlines for people going to many destinations. So, it's not just some "insane" as you put it, Thai immigration policy.

Would it hurt to do a little research before posting?

Edited June 13, 2009 by beechguy

[JR Texas]

If you think it is not a problem ask yourself why visas are now free.

Do you ever read a newspaper while you sit on your bar stool? The free visas were promoted for two reasons. First, the bad image given due to the closing of the airports during the demonstrations. Second, the world-wide economic downturn. Period.

The papers that are controlled by the government? Those papers? I doubt they would state the entire truth with regard to why a decision was made to offer free visas.

It is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Yes, the airport closure played a role in reducing the number of tourists.......yes, the global economic downturn played a role......and in Pattaya certainly the evacuation of heads of states after a riot at their hotel made an impression on people.

The tendency of hotel owners to ignore the law of supply and demand is also a factor (hotel prices need to drop substantially).

The visa rules are also partly to blame for the downturn.

[phetaroi]

If you think it is not a problem ask yourself why visas are now free.

Do you ever read a newspaper while you sit on your bar stool? The free visas were promoted for two reasons. First, the bad image given due to the closing of the airports during the demonstrations. Second, the world-wide economic downturn. Period.

The papers that are controlled by the government? Those papers? I doubt they would state the entire truth with regard to why a decision was made to offer free visas.

Well, I would choose to believe them before I would believe a Texan full of hot air.

It is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Yes, the airport closure played a role in reducing the number of tourists.......yes, the global economic downturn played a role......and in Pattaya certainly the evacuation of heads of states after a riot at their hotel made an impression on people.

The tendency of hotel owners to ignore the law of supply and demand is also a factor (hotel prices need to drop substantially).

The visa rules are also partly to blame for the downturn.

I just moved here for retirement. Quite a few of my friends want to visit. There are only two things they cite as reasons they may not. The cost of the flight and the length of the flight. No one has mentioned visa rules.

[JR Texas]

If you think it is not a problem ask yourself why visas are now free.

Do you ever read a newspaper while you sit on your bar stool? The free visas were promoted for two reasons. First, the bad image given due to the closing of the airports during the demonstrations. Second, the world-wide economic downturn. Period.

The papers that are controlled by the government? Those papers? I doubt they would state the entire truth with regard to why a decision was made to offer free visas.

Well, I would choose to believe them before I would believe a Texan full of hot air.

It is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Yes, the airport closure played a role in reducing the number of tourists.......yes, the global economic downturn played a role......and in Pattaya certainly the evacuation of heads of states after a riot at their hotel made an impression on people.

The tendency of hotel owners to ignore the law of supply and demand is also a factor (hotel prices need to drop substantially).

The visa rules are also partly to blame for the downturn.

I just moved here for retirement. Quite a few of my friends want to visit. There are only two things they cite as reasons they may not. The cost of the flight and the length of the flight. No one has mentioned visa rules.

It is not an issue for all tourists.......never said it was.

But the govt. apparently thinks the cost of visas is an issue or they would not have reduced the tourist visa cost (temporarily) to zero.

If there was no relationship between the cost of visas and tourism, they would not have changed it. I hope people can see this. It is the governments logic. I for one agree with it.

As for the "hot air" comment, I am full of hot air, it is hot as hel_l in Thailand. You must be inside a cold room.

[MJo]

The papers that are controlled by the government? Those papers? I doubt they would state the entire truth with regard to why a decision was made to offer free visas.

It is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Yes, the airport closure played a role in reducing the number of tourists.......yes, the global economic downturn played a role......and in Pattaya certainly the evacuation of heads of states after a riot at their hotel made an impression on people.

The tendency of hotel owners to ignore the law of supply and demand is also a factor (hotel prices need to drop substantially).

The visa rules are also partly to blame for the downturn.

this is getting better all the time.

Conspiracy theories on how government have withhold information regarding free visas. "no it was not to promote tourism but for reasons of national security we can not tell you says deputy director general major Somchai" Hotel prices crashing in a country that has cheaper rooms that any other tourist destination. And claiming Thai visa rules are contributing global economy.

Pricesless, no need to watch x-files anymore

[wackysleet]

I suppose, in the end, they will be forced to change.......as one other poster on another thread pointed out (think Bonobo), other countries in the region are doing everything possible to take advantage of Thailand's mistakes........and they are becoming attractive alternatives.

I'm not sure the change will be as necessary as you might think. In the past, the tourism dollar did, to a large extent, prop up many businesses in Bangkok and other places in Thailand. Walk into any of the restaurants in the major shopping malls in Bangkok. Who are most of the clients? Not farang. Middle class Thais. Who are most of the shoppers at Central World and Paragon? Middle class Thais. It appears to me that Bangkok, at least, is fast becoming a modern, self-sustaining economy, far less reliant on farang tourism dollars.

You could same the same about any up market store such as Harrods and many more around the world but the reality is that the middle class come no where near the numbers of the working class who do not use these expensive places and alongside a lot of tourists keep the rest of the capitals business ticking over, Bangkok is not indicative of the rest of Thailand as you point out.

[britainmal]

The reality is that they do want foreigners to come to Thailand. They believe that all foreigners are rich and that Thailand is a cheapers' Paradise ,so they can get away with charging higher prices for certain things.

[wackysleet]

I'm not sure the change will be as necessary as you might think. In the past, the tourism dollar did, to a large extent, prop up many businesses in Bangkok and other places in Thailand. Walk into any of the restaurants in the major shopping malls in Bangkok. Who are most of the clients? Not farang. Middle class Thais. Who are most of the shoppers at Central World and Paragon? Middle class Thais. It appears to me that Bangkok, at least, is fast becoming a modern, self-sustaining economy, far less reliant on farang tourism dollars.

Those big stores and restaurants in the Malls were never conceived for working class people, sure they may on occassion venture in but not usually to buy just window shopping, the manual workers are more likely to eat at roadside stalls.

[phetaroi]

Those big stores and restaurants in the Malls were never conceived for working class people, sure they may on occassion venture in but not usually to buy just window shopping, the manual workers are more likely to eat at roadside stalls.

I guess it depends on how you define "working class people". I think you underestimate the growth of the Thai middle class. Right now it's estimated at 20 million -- fully one-third of the nation's population. Another author writes that in 1960 the Thai middle class consisted of only 178,000 people, while in 1986 it had grown by a factor 9 to 1.8 million...and that was 23 years ago...and it was after that -- 1987 to 1995 -- that saw the biggest growth in the Thai middle class. Another author writes that, "56.2% of the middle class working population [note the wording] in Bangkok are between 20 and 34." Now, take a walk and through Central World and the Emporium and Paragon and see who is shopping there (and I do mean shopping) and dining and going to the movies -- the Thai middle class, mostly under age 40.

Look at the decline in the number of Bangkok Thais who used to use buses, but who now use Sky Train, subway, and taxis. On my recent flight here from LAX, the vast majority in business class were...Thai...not Westerners. And, BTW, business class was full.

Tourists are not buying the furniture, stereo and wide screen televisions. Kinda hard to carry them back on the plane.

Frankly, I think you're either living in the not-too-distant past or upcountry. I enjoy both places...one is in my mind, the other in my heart. But those are not Bangkok or even major groups of people in Chiang Mai.

[wackysleet]

Those big stores and restaurants in the Malls were never conceived for working class people, sure they may on occassion venture in but not usually to buy just window shopping, the manual workers are more likely to eat at roadside stalls.

I guess it depends on how you define "working class people". I think you underestimate the growth of the Thai middle class. Right now it's estimated at 20 million -- fully one-third of the nation's population. Another author writes that in 1960 the Thai middle class consisted of only 178,000 people, while in 1986 it had grown by a factor 9 to 1.8 million...and that was 23 years ago...and it was after that -- 1987 to 1995 -- that saw the biggest growth in the Thai middle class. Another author writes that, "56.2% of the middle class working population [note the wording] in Bangkok are between 20 and 34." Now, take a walk and through Central World and the Emporium and Paragon and see who is shopping there (and I do mean shopping) and dining and going to the movies -- the Thai middle class, mostly under age 40.

Look at the decline in the number of Bangkok Thais who used to use buses, but who now use Sky Train, subway, and taxis. On my recent flight here from LAX, the vast majority in business class were...Thai...not Westerners. And, BTW, business class was full.

Tourists are not buying the furniture, stereo and wide screen televisions. Kinda hard to carry them back on the plane.

Frankly, I think you're either living in the not-too-distant past or upcountry. I enjoy both places...one is in my mind, the other in my heart. But those are not Bangkok or even major groups of people in Chiang Mai.

I agree that after 10yrs of living in BKK we moved up country 5yrs ago so obviously things are changing, hopefully for the better.

The point I was making is in the definition of working class, I was not referring to those one would deem " working middle class" but those manual workers that do not fit into the catagory and yes there are more people using the underground and the sky train, both by the way have to a small extent reduced congestion.

Advancement and increased wealth and opportunities are what people expect in a society and improvements in education can make those aspirations happen, it will not otherwise.

[marsteele]

For what I pay in Thailand compared to what I paid in Australia on my last visit in Jamuary in US$.

Haircut: Aust = $8.50; Bangkok = $8.50

Movie + snack + soda: Aust = $10; Bangkok = $6.50

Vaccination: no idea

Hotel (same standard eg. 4 star): In Sydney, Melbourne etc = $95; Bangkok = $100

Haircut: Aust = $8.50; Chiangmai = 60Baht (includes shave) = Aust $2.20

Bangkok is expensive compared to the north of Thailand in Chiangmai expect to pay 1/4 on most all things compared to bKK

[chiangdan]

For what I pay in Thailand compared to what I paid in Australia on my last visit in Jamuary in US$.

Haircut: Aust = $8.50; Bangkok = $8.50

Movie + snack + soda: Aust = $10; Bangkok = $6.50

Vaccination: no idea

Hotel (same standard eg. 4 star): In Sydney, Melbourne etc = $95; Bangkok = $100

Haircut: Aust = $8.50; Chiangmai = 60Baht (includes shave) = Aust $2.20

Bangkok is expensive compared to the north of Thailand in Chiangmai expect to pay 1/4 on most all things compared to bKK

Yes I agree in Chiangmai you do not have the ripoffs as you hear about in the south. Here in the north thailand is perfect at the moment a wonderful place. I did see last weekend a couple of americans in a department store (Robinsons) trying to barter this was shameful. People like this this (tourists) will spoil it for those of us that love the country. Will encourage the dual pricing here for farangs to accomadate for the bartering, leave that for the markets.

[phetaroi]

Yes I agree in Chiangmai you do not have the ripoffs as you hear about in the south. Here in the north thailand is perfect at the moment a wonderful place. I did see last weekend a couple of americans in a department store (Robinsons) trying to barter this was shameful. People like this this (tourists) will spoil it for those of us that love the country. Will encourage the dual pricing here for farangs to accomadate for the bartering, leave that for the markets.

Shameful? Perhaps they did not know that in a department store like that you don't barter. It's pretty confusing for those new to the country. Some malls you barter, some you don't. Some "stalls" you barter, some you don't.