Your Thoughts On This Thailand'S Pr And Naturalisation Policies.

[tombkk]

What I can imagine is that the make a seperate law for ASEAN nationals and at the same time state that the Foreign Business Act does not apply to them any more. That would be the easiest to both comply with ASEAN agreements and not touch the existing regulations for non-ASEAN nationals.

I think international treaties take precedence in this area of the FBA. The US-Thai Treaty of Amity and Economic Relations allows exemption from much of the FBA for American owned businesses, even though it is not mentioned in the FBA or ministerial regulations. The Australian-Thai FTA also allows Australians some very limited exemptions to Annex 3 of the FBA. In this day and age, there might be problems coming up with an acceptable definition of what is an ASEAN business. If most of the large listed Singapore companies didn't qualify because of non-ASEAN shareholders, the Singaporeans would not be happy, given that they allow anyone to own a business in their country. It would be much better to delete nearly everything from Annex 3. That would make Thailand the last ASEAN country, apart from Burma, to free up the services sector and is something that should have been done by 2006 under the GATS treaty anyway.

I agree that international treaties take precedence. Indeed, this is what I was saying. The case of the Singaporean company owned by non-ASEAN nationals is a detail for the lawyers to discuss, and I am sure this is mentioned somewhere in the treaty. This is an interesting point, and it may be valuable for me to look into this deeper. Thanks for bringing it up.

If the FBA issues are settled vis a vis AEC, Thailand will still need to exempt ASEAN nationals from the list of restricted occupations listed in the 1979 Royal Decree pursuant to the Working of Aliens Act which could be done in the new Royal Decree that is 10 months overdue already. That was my original point.

Apparently, I didn't get your original point the first time. For some reason, I thought your original point was that if they have to open the country for ASEAN nationals, they should look at the regulations for all foreigners. Sorry about my confusion.

Now that you have clarified this, I agree it will be interesting to see how Thai government deals with this issue.

[jayboy]

I may be in the minority here, but I think Thailand is remarkably generous with foreigners -- who can basically come and stay for life with relatively little problems. A visa run every few months, and that's it.

I'm also living proof that an ordinary guy can get PR, then citizenship, if you really want it.

People talk about Thai people becoming naturalized in the US, EU, etc., as if it is easy. It's not easy -- it still takes years and years.

And of course, the hurdles a normal Thai faces trying to visit those places as a simple tourist are light years away from how just about any nationality can stroll into Thailand with nothing but a tourist visa and a knapsack, and stay pretty much forever.

I agree entirely.

I have also felt for a long time that the implications of this generous policy weren't fully thought through at the time, and only recently have we seen signs of official unease.In other words the presence in Thailand of a very large expatriate population on short term visas wasn't necessarily a policy objective.I think the type of expatriate the Thais expected was very much the type that under current rules would be eligible to apply for PR, not necessarily a high flyer but a very solid professional and well educated person.Without going into details let us admit that the bulk of the expatriate population is very far from this template.I think therefore that the future trend will be for the Thai authorities to be much stricter in terms of permitting expatriates to remain here permanently on short term visas.If one stops to think about it the whole visa run process is an anachronism, though in some ways a delightfully Thai style arrangement that serves a real purpose.Nevertheless one does feel that many exploit this generous system.The stricter enforcement I anticipate is also because Thailand has become a great deal more prosperous and the advantages of having a large not particularly well off expatriate population may seem hard for the Thais to grasp these days.( Do well positioned Thais really these days feel comfortable with a place like Pattaya dominated by the very worst kind of expatriate and long term "tourist"?)The one category that might still make sense is the retirement market but I would imagine at the planning level the Thais might well want to commission a rigorous study to discover whether this is a real asset to the country or not.

[Arkady]

I agree entirely.

I have also felt for a long time that the implications of this generous policy weren't fully thought through at the time, and only recently have we seen signs of official unease.In other words the presence in Thailand of a very large expatriate population on short term visas wasn't necessarily a policy objective.I think the type of expatriate the Thais expected was very much the type that under current rules would be eligible to apply for PR, not necessarily a high flyer but a very solid professional and well educated person.Without going into details let us admit that the bulk of the expatriate population is very far from this template.I think therefore that the future trend will be for the Thai authorities to be much stricter in terms of permitting expatriates to remain here permanently on short term visas.If one stops to think about it the whole visa run process is an anachronism, though in some ways a delightfully Thai style arrangement that serves a real purpose.Nevertheless one does feel that many exploit this generous system.The stricter enforcement I anticipate is also because Thailand has become a great deal more prosperous and the advantages of having a large not particularly well off expatriate population may seem hard for the Thais to grasp these days.( Do well positioned Thais really these days feel comfortable with a place like Pattaya dominated by the very worst kind of expatriate and long term "tourist"?)The one category that might still make sense is the retirement market but I would imagine at the planning level the Thais might well want to commission a rigorous study to discover whether this is a real asset to the country or not.

I think you are right, although it has to be said that the authorities are themselves responsible for allowing the very worst type of expatriate to settle in Pattaya and Phuket by failing to eradicate the foreign mafias and the senior police officers who collaborate with them in those resorts and at the national level. Perhaps a Brazilian style crackdown on the foreign mafias and their "men in brown" protectors is in order - LOL.

I am not quite sure what is the history of the visa extensions for over 50s based on retirement and the extensions based on marriage to Thai citizens or when they started. The over 50s extension has certainly been in place for over 20 years, as I remember a friend without getting one around 1990. Assuming the likelihood that it started sometime in the 80s, Thailand's tourist arrivals were still under 5 million a year by the end of the 80s, including the Malaysian dirty week-enders crossing at Sungai Kolok, and there were only about a dozen Thai restaurants in London. Mass market European tourism to Thailand didn't take off until the late 90s and Britain's lower end potential overseas retirees only considered the Spanish Costas, Canaries or maybe Portugal which were still relatively cheap in those ever depreciating pesata and escudo days, while those who considered themselves slightly upper crust opted for bijou little villas in Cyprus or Malta with their more colonial feel. Fast forward to 2010 and the European retirement destinations have priced themselves out of the market, while Thailand has become a year round mass market tourist destination and retirement home for Europeans, many of whom have married Thai wives. No one could have predicted this, least of all the Interior Ministry and Immigration officials who drafted the regulations for the extensions based on retirement and marriage. Even if they could have predicted it, it wouldn't have bothered them much because these are regulations for temporary leave to stay based on national police orders that can be amended or cancelled at the drop of a hat without changing any laws through Parliament, like the visa based on investment of 3 million baht that came and went and the visas for labourers from neighbouring countries that are amended every year.

Probably the government will take the line of least resistance and allow things to continue as they are for many years, including temporary retirement and marriage visas requiring only modest funds and the foreign mafias in Pattaya and Phuket. However, if the system is ever reformed in our lifetimes, it may be a case of be careful what you wish for. A deeply thought out reform, prioritizing what is best for the country by going for quality, might well eliminate retirement extensions and raise the financial bar significantly on marriage extensions, while introducing a Malaysian style system with 10 year or even permanent retirement visas based on the ability to show substantial income, assets and/or investment in Thailand and, of course, a clean criminal record.

Edited December 6, 2010 by Arkady

[Time Traveller]

I have also felt for a long time that the implications of this generous policy weren't fully thought through at the time, and only recently have we seen signs of official unease.In other words the presence in Thailand of a very large expatriate population on short term visas wasn't necessarily a policy objective.I think the type of expatriate the Thais expected was very much the type that under current rules would be eligible to apply for PR, not necessarily a high flyer but a very solid professional and well educated person.Without going into details let us admit that the bulk of the expatriate population is very far from this template.I think therefore that the future trend will be for the Thai authorities to be much stricter in terms of permitting expatriates to remain here permanently on short term visas.If one stops to think about it the whole visa run process is an anachronism, though in some ways a delightfully Thai style arrangement that serves a real purpose.Nevertheless one does feel that many exploit this generous system.The stricter enforcement I anticipate is also because Thailand has become a great deal more prosperous and the advantages of having a large not particularly well off expatriate population may seem hard for the Thais to grasp these days.( Do well positioned Thais really these days feel comfortable with a place like Pattaya dominated by the very worst kind of expatriate and long term "tourist"?)The one category that might still make sense is the retirement market but I would imagine at the planning level the Thais might well want to commission a rigorous study to discover whether this is a real asset to the country or not.

Jayboy, are you joking or do you really think like this?...This post topic is meant to provide positive ideas for PR / Citizenship policy. But your view seems a elist, like saying

"I'm a good foreigner and they are bad foreigners and even thought they didn't break any laws, they don't belong here, but I do"....

In anycase, there will not be any significant or radical change in immigration laws for a very very long time. Radical changes just don't happen, expecially not for immigration, and especially considering that if it was not for foreigners in Thailand, the country would implode. Perhaps here are a few foreigners involved in crime, and that happens in everywhere, but the number is very small among the total number.

[Richard4849]

Implode? Hardly. I hear this a lot from foreigners, claiming it's us that keeps Thailand's economy going -- and using the statement to justify all kinds if boorish behavior, when it is simply not true.

[Time Traveller]

Implode? Hardly. I hear this a lot from foreigners, claiming it's us that keeps Thailand's economy going -- and using the statement to justify all kinds if boorish behavior, when it is simply not true.

If you hear it a lot then it could be true since every major industry in this country relies on large amounts of foreign input. For example,

- Automotive and it’s supply chain (ownership & technology/expertise is largely Japanese owned, but also American and some other countries. Many foreign skilled workers also),

- Electronics (the entire industry is almost all foreign owned expertise, and foreign capital with a significant component of unskilled foreign labor),

- Tourism (most income comes from int'l tourists - so why would anyone care if they stay here long term as it benefits the economy), and

- even labor intensive industries such as Agricultural, Fishing, and Textile industries also employ an estimated 1 to 2 million foreign workers.

My point was only to state that the economy of this country is heavily reliant on foreigners for capital, technology, skilled and unskilled labor. Obviously Asean expats won't have a problem after 2014, but any change in visa policies that are more restrictive or elitist ideas to exclude anyone that doesn’t have high education and rich, just will not work in this country. In fact the Federation of Thai Industries has recently raised this issue to the government that Thailand needs hundreds of thousands of extra foreign workers both skilled and unskilled to meet demand from various industries. Foreign investors and workers ARE the key to the success of the Thai economy. They need stability in regulations and policy to maintain investments and for this reason any policy, if it does ever change, will likely become more relaxed. Anyway this is getting away from the topic of PR/nationality

For PR there already is a good well documented procedure in place – the only problem is it’s just not functioning at the moment. Also, there is probably no incentive for any radical policy change by the government (apart from the those already planned), but any if change does occur it will tend to be less restrictive for the reason I just explained.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Time Traveller

[Richard4849]

Thailand is no more reliant on foreigners than any other place. It's a global economy, no exports without foreign buyers, no imports without foreign producers.

China would implode without foreigners, as would the US, Japan, etc.

When people make statements like "Thailand would implode without us", they are usually talking about themselves and other people like them -- and they are usually not the kind of people who contribute much more than beer and fried rice money to the Thai economy.

[Arkady]

Implode? Hardly. I hear this a lot from foreigners, claiming it's us that keeps Thailand's economy going -- and using the statement to justify all kinds if boorish behavior, when it is simply not true.

If you hear it a lot then it could be true since every major industry in this country relies on large amounts of foreign input. For example,

- Automotive and it’s supply chain (ownership & technology/expertise is largely Japanese owned, but also American and some other countries. Many foreign skilled workers also),

- Electronics (the entire industry is almost all foreign owned expertise, and foreign capital with a significant component of unskilled foreign labor),

- Tourism (most income comes from int'l tourists - so why would anyone care if they stay here long term as it benefits the economy), and

- even labor intensive industries such as Agricultural, Fishing, and Textile industries also employ an estimated 1 to 2 million foreign workers.

My point was only to state that the economy of this country is heavily reliant on foreigners for capital, technology, skilled and unskilled labor. Obviously Asean expats won't have a problem after 2014, but any change in visa policies that are more restrictive or elitist ideas to exclude anyone that doesn’t have high education and rich, just will not work in this country. In fact the Federation of Thai Industries has recently raised this issue to the government that Thailand needs hundreds of thousands of extra foreign workers both skilled and unskilled to meet demand from various industries. Foreign investors and workers ARE the key to the success of the Thai economy. They need stability in regulations and policy to maintain investments and for this reason any policy, if it does ever change, will likely become more relaxed. Anyway this is getting away from the topic of PR/nationality

For PR there already is a good well documented procedure in place – the only problem is it’s just not functioning at the moment. Also, there is probably no incentive for any radical policy change by the government (apart from the those already planned), but any if change does occur it will tend to be less restrictive for the reason I just explained.

I think Richard was referring to the less wealthy foreign OAPs who complain that the financial requirements for retirement or marriage visa are too high and anti-social elements like mafia. However, Thailand is definitely part of the globalised economy, despite lip service paid to sufficiency, and, yes, a multitude of key elements of the Thai economy depend on foreign capital, expertise, customers and now foreign unskilled labour as well. Economic growth is growth of the work force times productively gains. Thailand's demographics now mean that growth of the indigenous work force is fairly stagnant and the productivity gains have for years been a product of foreign capital and expertise. Personally I think Thailand has been playing a dangerous game in recent years, watching China, Vietnam and other neighbouring countries radically reform their foreign investment and land ownership laws while digging in its heals with a determination to leave the protectionist laws of the blinkered military dictators of the 70s set in stone. This leaves the country relying only its charm to attract foreign investment and expertise and its competitiveness risks falling far behind.

The whole system needs to be revamped to show good will to foreign investors and shake out all the cobwebs from the 70s, including the FBA the overlapping roles of Immigration and Labour Ministry in issuing non-imm visas and work permits, the superfluous 90 day reporting rule. The issue of the millions of unskilled foreign workers is one that I don't even begin to have an answer to but they and their children in Thailand should certainly be treated with dignity as an important element in the economy that is here to stay. PR and citizenship for executives is only the tip of the iceberg for foreign investors, as the numbers involved are relatively small, but they cause emotional responses out of proportion to the numbers, as long term workers want to feel secure and those interested are often senior skilled people. Most of the heavy lifting work needs to be done on the FBA, the Land Code (introduce longer leases for every one and limited land ownership for PRs), and on the introduction of a combined work permit and visa. PR and citizenship are already in reasonably good shape. Just making the application processes faster and more transparent and introducing a smart PR ID card in place of the clumsy old books would work wonders without a lot of legislative work. Ultimately Thailand should consider introducing a judicial process to PR and citizenship, as in the US and other developed countries, to get rid of the legal mindset that everything is ultimately up the discretion of the minister, which is what causes all the delays. However, that would require a great deal of work.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Arkady

[Arkady]

Malaysia has just announced the introduction of a new type of 10 year employment pass. Like the shorter term employment passes the 10 year one is a combined visa and work permit. Apart from the 10 year time span the main difference is that the holders will be able to move from company to company without any conditions, whereas shorter term passes are specific to the original company and there are also supposed to be conditions about how long an expat can do the job before a Malaysian is trained to do it instead. The 10 year employment pass will be issued to recognised experts in various fields and former Malaysian citizens who renounced their citizenship to acquire another citizenship. I believe the same people should be able to apply for PR as well but this provides them with another option while they are waiting to qualify for PR.

There are also several classes of PR available in Malaysia, including those for high net worth individuals, spouses of Malaysian citizens, experts, professionals and a points system which is a bit similar to Thailand's points system for citizenship. Some of these categories have a mandated time line for approval after submission of the completed application form, e.g. 24 hours for experts and one month for professionals. They process around 3,000 PR applications a year and PRs get a red ID card. Also, of course they have the Malaysia My Second Home programme that allows reasonably well off retirees to get a 10 year renewal retirement visa and own a plot of residential land.

Before anyone suggests that I move to Malaysia, I am not planning to do that. However, Zoowatch and any government officials seriously thinking of revamping the systems for PR and work permits in Thailand should definitely go and study the systems in Malaysia and Singapore, as they are the most advanced in the region and clearly make those countries more competitive in attracting the people they want to live and work there.

Edited December 11, 2010 by Arkady

[tombkk]

Thanks for this update, Arkady. It is always good to compare.

[jayboy]

As a postscript to Arkady's excellent post, I suppose one consideration is that the kind of high value foreigner Thailand wants and needs (eg skilled MNC manager) is not necessarily interested in PR.From my experience these kind of people see a Thailand posting as a say 5 year interlude before returning to the mainstream in Tokyo, London, New York etc.For these people the Thai work permit/visa system is extremely efficient and trouble free.Indeed with a capable secretary/competent lawyer (which most would have) the annual renewal process would be no more hassle than signing the usual mountain of documents.So PR while of interest to some of these wouldn't really interest most of them.Therefore the kind of pressure that would make the government sit up and take notice isn't really there.

[samran]

I may be in the minority here, but I think Thailand is remarkably generous with foreigners -- who can basically come and stay for life with relatively little problems. A visa run every few months, and that's it.

I'm also living proof that an ordinary guy can get PR, then citizenship, if you really want it.

People talk about Thai people becoming naturalized in the US, EU, etc., as if it is easy. It's not easy -- it still takes years and years.

And of course, the hurdles a normal Thai faces trying to visit those places as a simple tourist are light years away from how just about any nationality can stroll into Thailand with nothing but a tourist visa and a knapsack, and stay pretty much forever.

I agree entirely.

I have also felt for a long time that the implications of this generous policy weren't fully thought through at the time, and only recently have we seen signs of official unease.In other words the presence in Thailand of a very large expatriate population on short term visas wasn't necessarily a policy objective.I think the type of expatriate the Thais expected was very much the type that under current rules would be eligible to apply for PR, not necessarily a high flyer but a very solid professional and well educated person.Without going into details let us admit that the bulk of the expatriate population is very far from this template.I think therefore that the future trend will be for the Thai authorities to be much stricter in terms of permitting expatriates to remain here permanently on short term visas.If one stops to think about it the whole visa run process is an anachronism, though in some ways a delightfully Thai style arrangement that serves a real purpose.Nevertheless one does feel that many exploit this generous system.The stricter enforcement I anticipate is also because Thailand has become a great deal more prosperous and the advantages of having a large not particularly well off expatriate population may seem hard for the Thais to grasp these days.( Do well positioned Thais really these days feel comfortable with a place like Pattaya dominated by the very worst kind of expatriate and long term "tourist"?)The one category that might still make sense is the retirement market but I would imagine at the planning level the Thais might well want to commission a rigorous study to discover whether this is a real asset to the country or not.

oh dear. I find myself completely agreeing with Jayboy.

Quelle horreur....

[Arkady]

I agree entirely.

I have also felt for a long time that the implications of this generous policy weren't fully thought through at the time, and only recently have we seen signs of official unease.In other words the presence in Thailand of a very large expatriate population on short term visas wasn't necessarily a policy objective.I think the type of expatriate the Thais expected was very much the type that under current rules would be eligible to apply for PR, not necessarily a high flyer but a very solid professional and well educated person.Without going into details let us admit that the bulk of the expatriate population is very far from this template.I think therefore that the future trend will be for the Thai authorities to be much stricter in terms of permitting expatriates to remain here permanently on short term visas.If one stops to think about it the whole visa run process is an anachronism, though in some ways a delightfully Thai style arrangement that serves a real purpose.Nevertheless one does feel that many exploit this generous system.The stricter enforcement I anticipate is also because Thailand has become a great deal more prosperous and the advantages of having a large not particularly well off expatriate population may seem hard for the Thais to grasp these days.( Do well positioned Thais really these days feel comfortable with a place like Pattaya dominated by the very worst kind of expatriate and long term "tourist"?)The one category that might still make sense is the retirement market but I would imagine at the planning level the Thais might well want to commission a rigorous study to discover whether this is a real asset to the country or not.

oh dear. I find myself completely agreeing with Jayboy.

Quelle horreur....

Here's what a Thailand My Second Home scheme might look like, based on the Malaysian retirement visa.

Duration: 5 or 10 years renewable.

Age: 40 plus

Assets in Thailand: B5 million for a single, B7.5 million for a couple. (Ownership of condo qualifies)

OR

Certified offshore income of B100,000 per month for a single, B150,000 for a couple. (Those aged 40-49 need to satisfy both financial criteria)

Ability to buy land: No.

Importation of household goods: tax free but not car.

Medical insurance: required.

Security bond: B200,000 for a single, B300,000 for a couple.

Ability to work: No.

Ablity to bring foreign maid: No.

That would justify scrapping completely the annual extensions based on retirement which is a type of visa not offered by most countries, allowing them to say they have replaced it with something much more beneficial to the retirees and in line with other ASEAN countries. Financial requirements for those married to Thais could be made 50% of the above. This would enable the phasing out of the easy annual extensions based on marriage to a Thai citizen by showing only B400k. Most of the foreigners with Thai spouses the authorities would want to attract either qualify for a retirement visa or a work permit and the latter group of expat execs now qualify to apply for Thai citizenship after 3 years. For those who are genuinely supported by their Thai spouse, it makes more sense to require the Thai spouse to have assets and income than the foreign dependent, as in the case of foreign women who apply to adopt their husband's Thai citizenship. On close examination it would be hard for the authorities to justify a policy that creates a large population of foreigners who have no job and hardly any assets or retirement income simply on the grounds that they are married to Thais who are in the same impecunious situation. Other ASEAN countries are very tough on this aspect, just like Western countries. For example many Singaporeans apply for years trying to get permits for their foreign wives to join them in Singapore.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Arkady

[tombkk]

Here's what a Thailand My Second Home scheme might look like, based on the Malaysian retirement visa.

{...}

Ability to buy land: No.

{...}

Importation of household goods: tax free but not car.

{...}

Ablity to bring foreign maid: No.

You have made a great suggestion, and I hope you have the ear of people in power. The items above are the only ones I disagree with, i.e.

1.) I think we should have the right to buy land (the discussion of 1 rai for own use is probably 10 years old),

2.) Many people want to bring in their car if they move here (actually it's allowed if the Ministry of Commerce - Foreign Trade Department issues an import permit, so no change of law required),

3.) Some people want to bring in their maid and why not (I understand it's quite normal in Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong).

[Time Traveller]

Regarding what Arkady and some other people are referring to here, while their suggestions may or may not be good, there are also many problems that I see in these ideas.

- Firstly, Thailand already does have an unspoken policy that tolerates large numbers of foreigners with little assets and no skills. These people end up working in low paid occupations that Thai’s don’t want to do. Malaysia is much the same in this area. Can you explain how it really matters if these foreigners from neighboring countries are or are not married to Thais?

So, assuming that the previous posts are mainly referring to mostly non-Asean (semi-)retiree /tourists.

- Then I would add that Thailand is hardly being overrun by foreign residents. France – a country with similar size and population – receives more than 4 times as many foreign visitors as Thailand each year. So too does Spain. I don’t really think they are wanting less tourists. Or for that matter saying they only want “rich” foreigners. Sure there are probably people that need to be deported, that happens everywhere, but it doesn't mean a whole immigration policy should be based around this.

- Also I suspect that the resident foreigners on the long term retirement visas are the least likely to overstay, but if these people are a concern then you need only make everyone pay a security bond of 50k to cover a one way air ticket if anyone is found to be “destitute” with no assets. But then how is this going to work if some destitute person has no id papers and refuse to provide the country of their citizenship for fear of being deported? (e.g. Sri Lankan, Afghani, African) Do you propose that all foreigners take fingerprint / eye scan on arrival to identify them in case of fake or missing id documents? Also some “long stay residents” arrive pretending to be short stay tourists then overstay, do you expect that every tourist must put up a security deposit also? This would destroy Thailand’s tourist industry.

- Several posters have mentioned that they would like Thailand to get rid of “undesirables”, Jayboy refers to "...Pattaya dominated by the very worst kind of expatriate and long term "tourist"?,...". I'm not sure what he means by this except that it is probably racism and just meaning he wants to get rid of people he doesn't like <insert nationality>. Perhaps you are alluding to there being some foreign criminals resident in Pataya or other places. But your ideas still do nothing to eliminate these criminals, since criminals also have money and usually lots of it. Most would easily have enough assets to meet any new high income/asset criteria that immigration could possibly set. So higher income/assets criteria is not likely to filter out “undesirables” like many would believe , it would only reduce the overall number foreign retirees/residents.

- Also regarding the idea about 40yrs+ retirement visa (do people really retire at 40 with just 5 million Baht in assets?) looks like a good idea. However, this is just the same as the current system (change 40 to 50) where people who renew ext. of stay each year since they have to show enough assets/income for one year of expenses anyway. And I’m not sure that the Malaysian My Second Home scheme attracts that many retirees anyway. Do you have an approx. number ? In fact it seems a lot like the Thailand elite visa that was unveiled a number of years ago – missing the 1 million target by a factor of 500 times !!!

- Furthermore, the reason why other countries make it difficult for residency is simply because there is a likelihood that these people will end up being a drain on the very generous welfare benefits. I hardly think Thailand need worry about foreign retirees lining up to claim their 500 baht per month pension! Also the general cost of living is considerably high in those other countries when compared with Thailand, hence need for higher finances. e.g Singapore / Western countries.

Judging the Thailand’s immigration strategy based on observation of one town, is probably more evidence of the lack of law enforcement there rather than a statement of the typical foreign visitor/resident. Obviously some people on this forum would like to drastically cut the number of long stay foreign retirees. But is this really what Thailand wants to do? Thailand's problem is not the laws, it's the enforcement. Simply playing musical chairs with the numbers is not going weed out the undesirables as you wish

Edited December 13, 2010 by Time Traveller

[Time Traveller]

Just to answer briefly. I think the current system for PR (if it was functioning) is fine. Same for Naturalization. Except I would suggest, changing PR to a 5yr wait and processing of applications to be no more than 6 months. Also allow people with PR to work without work permit would make life a lot easier. Naturalization, should be after 10yrs. One more point I would like to add is that I feel that more emphasis should be placed on assets. Often people don't bother paying themselves high salaries for tax reasons, since they own businesses. A better indicator is to look at their Thai based assets than any salary.

[Jingthing]

I find these arguments to scare off the retirees here elitist, offensive, and totally unnecessary, both for the expat retirees and for Thailand. I am in the system now and find the required levels quite reasonable and logical.

Let's break this down --

For over 50's, the Philippines has an even more liberal program and a much more stable one without the need for annual extensions.

People can "retire" in Cambodia without any financial qualification at all, just by visiting a travel agent and paying an annual fee, who handles the new visa application. (Not technically a retirement visa.)

Vietnam -- no retirement visa, their loss

Burma -- a closed country

Laos -- no retirement visa, their loss

Singapore -- a tiny global financial center, unique in the world, to compare to Thailand, absurd. People generally go there to work, not retire.

Malaysia -- their massive increase in financial requirements defies logic. To suggest Thailand follow suit also defies logic. According the program's website, only 12,000 people have joined the program, it is not clear whether that is in the history of the program (probably) or those currently living there on it.

The levels suggested for future Thailand retirement (100K baht monthly) are absurd.

Let's consider the AVERAGE monthly retirement social security pension of an American --

$1,164

34,972.38 BAHT

and now the highest possible, VERY RARE

$2,346.

70,485.57 THB

Both well under the proposed new limits of the obnoxious elitist diatribes here.

Let's hope any Thai immigration officers reading those absurd proposals has an ounce of common sense.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Jingthing

[jazzbo]

The only time I have heard a good explanation for obtaining Thai citizenship is when Bill Heiniecke said that being an American citizen would hinder his company's expansion into the middle east -- WormFarmer's mentioning that with PR he is not constrained to pay himself (or pay taxes on) an expat salary just to obtain a work permit for his business also makes sense ... but these to me are the exceptions.

[tombkk]

I find these arguments to scare off the retirees here elitist, offensive, and totally unnecessary, both for the expat retirees and for Thailand. I am in the system now and find the required levels quite reasonable and logical.

{...}

Let's hope any Thai immigration officers reading those absurd proposals has an ounce of common sense.

I didn't see how anybody would want to scare away retirees.

The minimum income or money in the bank is being discussed, fine. But so are many other issues.

[Jingthing]

I find these arguments to scare off the retirees here elitist, offensive, and totally unnecessary, both for the expat retirees and for Thailand. I am in the system now and find the required levels quite reasonable and logical.

{...}

Let's hope any Thai immigration officers reading those absurd proposals has an ounce of common sense.

I didn't see how anybody would want to scare away retirees.

The minimum income or money in the bank is being discussed, fine. But so are many other issues.

Balderdash. I was responding to a specific suggestion for raising required retirement income levels that are way out of line with reality of the vast majority of retirees who would consider retiring in Thailand. That indeed would scare off retirees. It sounds like you are trying to put lipstick on a pig, while I am calling a spade a spade. I don't know why Malaysia decided to change their levels to be more like Australia than the Philippines, but that certainly without any doubt has resulted in fewer retiree applications, and it is clear that THAILAND is much more like the Philippines than first world Australia. Expat retirees at the CURRENT LEVELS are a win win for both the expats and Thailand. Don't fix what ain't broke.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Jingthing

[jayboy]

- Several posters have mentioned that they would like Thailand to get rid of “undesirables”, Jayboy refers to "...Pattaya dominated by the very worst kind of expatriate and long term "tourist"?,...". I'm not sure what he means by this except that it is probably racism and just meaning he wants to get rid of people he doesn't like <insert nationality>. Perhaps you are alluding to there being some foreign criminals resident in Pataya or other places. But your ideas still do nothing to eliminate these criminals, since criminals also have money and usually lots of it. Most would easily have enough assets to meet any new high income/asset criteria that immigration could possibly set. So higher income/assets criteria is not likely to filter out “undesirables” like many would believe , it would only reduce the overall number foreign retirees/residents.

I don't see how I can be accused of racism.Nothing I have said even touches on ethnicity.What I personally feel is neither here nor there.

My earlier post is I think clear but to summarise.Thailand has changed significantly over the last thirty years and is no longer a poor country.There is no obvious economic argument for a large (and mainly downmarket) expatriate population, particularly of modest wealth or skills (if they work).Thais are tolerant people and rules change very slowly.However there is some evidence that at the policy level there is concern that Thailand is hosting many thousand of expatriates semi permanently who are on short term visas, and defying the spirit if not the letter of the law.Few other countries would tolerate this, particularly the visa run process.In brief Thailand needs fewer expatriates and those who are here should meet specific criteria.Legitimate businessmen are already looked after very efficiently.Retirees are also in a clear category, although the wealth criteria should probably be raised substantially.The key challenge for the Thais is the vast mass in between.Whatever one's views one can sympathise with the Thais wish to have along hard look at these people, particularly since the regulations governing them have grown like Topsy over many years.

[Jingthing]

Retirees are also in a clear category, although the wealth criteria should probably be raised substantially.

Why? Do you realize many retirees own their homes in Thailand? That means they pay no housing costs. Many who are renting or not renting are doing quite well on spends well under 800K baht per year. To repeat, this is elitist. The current retirees at the current levels are no burden at all on the Thai society. Rather they are a benefit. There is hardly any safety net for Thais much less retired foreigners. We pay our own way at these current levels and there is no problem with that.

Note that in the Mexico retirement visa program, those who own a home in Mexico qualify at one half the required level as those who don't (and even the upper level is under 800K baht per year income). If the financial rules are raised, at least an adjustment for those who own condos here should be strongly considered.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Jingthing

[jayboy]

Retirees are also in a clear category, although the wealth criteria should probably be raised substantially.

Why? Do you realize many retirees own their homes in Thailand? That means they pay no housing costs. Many who are renting or not renting are doing quite well on spends well under 800K baht per year. To repeat, this is elitist. The current retirees at the current levels are no burden at all on the Thai society. Rather they are a benefit. There is hardly any safety net for Thais much less retired foreigners. We pay our own way at these current levels and there is no problem with that.

Note that in the Mexico retirement visa program, those who own a home in Mexico qualify at one half the required level as those who don't (and even the upper level is under 800K baht per year income). If the financial rules are raised, at least an adjustment for those who own condos here should be strongly considered.

But the whole point of most countries retirement programmes is that it should be elitist, in other words to attract wealthy, educated and reputable retirees.

Those who just get by probably shouldn't be here at all.

How do retirees own their own homes by the way?

[tgeezer]

Retirees are also in a clear category, although the wealth criteria should probably be raised substantially.

Why? Do you realize many retirees own their homes in Thailand? That means they pay no housing costs. Many who are renting or not renting are doing quite well on spends well under 800K baht per year. To repeat, this is elitist. The current retirees at the current levels are no burden at all on the Thai society. Rather they are a benefit. There is hardly any safety net for Thais much less retired foreigners. We pay our own way at these current levels and there is no problem with that.

Note that in the Mexico retirement visa program, those who own a home in Mexico qualify at one half the required level as those who don't (and even the upper level is under 800K baht per year income). If the financial rules are raised, at least an adjustment for those who own condos here should be strongly considered.

I agree with you. When the topic first appeared I was going to comment on finance being in the forefront of establishing policy.

I come here for five months a year, I paid for the house I stay in, owned by the person to whom I gave it, I play golf twice a week which is the biggest expense. I am an old age pensioner so seldom go out after dark, in which repect I don't differ from my Thai golfing friends. My average outgoings works out at 30000 per month over the last five years since I retired. That is about what I spend in the UK when I am there. I could cut that by 12000 plus simply by cutting out golf.

I keep 800000 in the bank for renewal purposes but practically, half that would suffice if I were here year round.

I feel that a policy based on money very odd.

[Jingthing]

Retirees are also in a clear category, although the wealth criteria should probably be raised substantially.

Why? Do you realize many retirees own their homes in Thailand? That means they pay no housing costs. Many who are renting or not renting are doing quite well on spends well under 800K baht per year. To repeat, this is elitist. The current retirees at the current levels are no burden at all on the Thai society. Rather they are a benefit. There is hardly any safety net for Thais much less retired foreigners. We pay our own way at these current levels and there is no problem with that.

Note that in the Mexico retirement visa program, those who own a home in Mexico qualify at one half the required level as those who don't (and even the upper level is under 800K baht per year income). If the financial rules are raised, at least an adjustment for those who own condos here should be strongly considered.

But the whole point of most countries retirement programmes is that it should be elitist, in other words to attract wealthy, educated and reputable retirees.

Those who just get by probably shouldn't be here at all.

How do retirees own their own homes by the way?

You are 100 percent wrong. Where did you get such a daft idea? That is not the point of most retirement visa programs globally. I know this because I have made a study of these programs globally. Most are not by any stretch of the imagination for elite retirees only. Instead most are open to very middle class type people from richer countries, and why not? More wealthy than a poor person in the country and contributing something to the local economy? Yes. Most first world countries have no such retirement programs. An exception is Australia, where indeed the requirements are for the elite only. That makes sense for a first world country. It makes no sense for the vast majority of countries offering retirement visa programs like Thailand.

One feature of the Thai program which is more unusual is the option of qualifying on a bank account only. Philippines offers a show the money program as well (similar level to Thailand for over 50's, one time for five years), as does Equador (perhaps the best deal in the world now for retirees) in offering an easy path to citizenship with an one time investment as low as 25,000 USD (including houses and condos which you can own freely). Panama, not particularly a cheap country, the last time I checked offered an attractive retirement program with special benefits for those with a pension income of a mere 1000 dollars per month. That's 30,000 baht per month compared to Thailand's ALREADY HIGH ENOUGH 65,000 baht per month. Now does Thailand's retirement program sound all that liberal?

How do we own homes? Condos legally. Some expats of course use other schemes rather than direct condo ownership, but condos are 100 percent legit, and very popular among retirees.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Jingthing

[jayboy]

You are 100 percent wrong. Where did you get such a daft idea? That is not the point of most retirement visa programs globally. I know this because I have made a study of these programs globally. Most are not by any stretch of the imagination for elite retirees only. More wealthy than a poor person in the country and contributing something to the local economy? Yes. Most first world countries have no such retirement programs. An exception is Australia, where indeed the requirements are for the elite only. That makes sense for a first world country. It makes no sense for the vast majority of countries offering retirement visa programs like Thailand.

You can call it daft.Many influential Thais would disagree.You are kidding yourself if you think there is undiluted pleasure in having a horde of penny pinching foreigners permanently resident on short term visas, to say nothing of the criminals and sex tourists that blight the country's reputation and abuse its culture of hospitality.

Thailand is not remotely a third world dump like Ecuador or even the Philippines.It is becoming a prosperous country and the trajectory is upwards and at a quickening pace.

I'm not suggesting existing retirees should be sent packing (though the Thais may decide otherwise), but the current system is obviously anachronistic for reasons already explained in detail.

The signs are already in the air - restrictions on visa runners, tighter implementation of visa regulations, slow down in PR processing.

[Jingthing]

Not as different as you think.

A quick google got me this --

Average annual income

Ecuador, $7500

Thailand, $8500

Mexico $14,200 (retirement visa requirement MUCH LESS than current Thailand)

Argentina $14,200 DEFINITELY NOT A THIRD WORLD DUMP,

retirement visa requires income of a mere 21,000 baht per month vs. Thailand's 65,000

Retirement visas aren't short term visas either.

Lots of Ecuador expats would not consider it a third world dump either.

http://theexpatjournals.com/2008/04/07/top-20-reasons-i-like-cuenca/

Edited December 14, 2010 by Jingthing

[Chalky]

Echoing others here, it is very gratifying to be able to offer our suggestions here so thank you for this opportunity.

To borrow/plaigairise (with thanks and apologies to) from others, my suggestions are:

First and foremost, visa regulations should be immigration laws and suitably internationally enshrined as such, regardless of country of origin. The current caveat whereby individual immigration officers are able to apply their own interpretation of issued directives, often contrary to same, must be abolished.

PR and citizenship should be about positive immigration, not about raising income. A points system based on many things such as (in no order of preference but could be loaded appropriately): education, long term commitment to the country (relationship, business, employment etc), wealth/investment, level of expertise/trades could be introduced.

Age and financial requirements may need more exceptions with particular reference to (other) national monthly pension rates (such as USA/UK/Oz etc) at around 40-45k THB and reviewed in line with same annually.

With my particular circumstance of expatriate former Service personnel who settle here before their 50th birthday, perhaps their (our) government pensions should have to be paid into a Thai bank account and interest is guaranteed on same (although presently up to Thai banks). Note: Specific to UK, perhaps the UK government could be approached to agree a reciprocal tax agreement between the two countries to encourage pensioners to move to/stay in Thailand permanently and receive annual increases in respect to their pensions without the need to spend several months in both countries (therfore spending more of their income here).

Help to make it easier for mixed families living here by ensuring that marriage, parentage and visa regulations are all in sync with each other..

A "think tank" with farang members, or at least participants, and Thai thinkers could be established, perhaps from long established Chambers of Commerce, NGOs and established charities/foundations.

The basic requirements of Thai proficiency for all long term immigrants/Permanent Residents (PR) is a very reasonable one.

Citizenship/PR should be 5 years.

PRs be issued with a suitable identity card.

The denouncement of parent citizenship is a complete non-starter as far as I am concerned. You are quite rightly proud of being Thai, we should have the right to retain ours. Our children (by birth or adoption) should have the permanent enshrined right of holding either nationality or both.

Permanent removal of dual pricing policies based on race at all institutions.

Interest available on bank accounts for all, otherwise why the need to show any finances in a Thai bank?

Access to mortgages should go hand in hand with entitlement to land assets, i.e. fully available to non Thais with PR.

No requirement for re-entry permit if granted PR or 90 day reporting by e-mail.

Lifting/serious amendment to Working Aliens Employment ban list.

Work Permits not related to citizenship or PR.

Comparisons to other counties. Thailand has a great advantage in that it can (sic) chosse to look at whomever it wants to globally (or "next door" in two countries"!) and "cherry pick" accordingly - comparisons (and amendments) can come later.

Again, similar to many others here, I would like to respectfully let you and other Thais know that not all foriegners living in Thailand by choice, are here for just the booze, women, sex, or such things.

Certainly, the vast majority of my friends and I have Thai families that we love and (continue to) make personal sacrifices for to support them here. We did and do this happily, out of of love and respect for our families in the full knowledge and acceptrance of Thai laws, culture and customs.

All we ask is the right to live quietly, peacefully and equally with our loved ones here in Thailand.

Please, the next time that you talk to your friends, just let them know what our Thai extended families already know and have accepted us for for many years - that there are many foriegners who only want to live here in as full and fair manner as is legally and democratically possible in the land that we now choose to call home.

:jap:

Edited December 14, 2010 by Chalky

[apetley]

You are 100 percent wrong. Where did you get such a daft idea? That is not the point of most retirement visa programs globally. I know this because I have made a study of these programs globally. Most are not by any stretch of the imagination for elite retirees only. More wealthy than a poor person in the country and contributing something to the local economy? Yes. Most first world countries have no such retirement programs. An exception is Australia, where indeed the requirements are for the elite only. That makes sense for a first world country. It makes no sense for the vast majority of countries offering retirement visa programs like Thailand.

You can call it daft.Many influential Thais would disagree.You are kidding yourself if you think there is undiluted pleasure in having a horde of penny pinching foreigners permanently resident on short term visas, to say nothing of the criminals and sex tourists that blight the country's reputation and abuse its culture of hospitality.

Thailand is not remotely a third world dump like Ecuador or even the Philippines.It is becoming a prosperous country and the trajectory is upwards and at a quickening pace.

I'm not suggesting existing retirees should be sent packing (though the Thais may decide otherwise), but the current system is obviously anachronistic for reasons already explained in detail.

The signs are already in the air - restrictions on visa runners, tighter implementation of visa regulations, slow down in PR processing.

If Thailand wants to rid itself of criminals and sexpats it has to do nothing other than enforce present rules and regulations. That they do not speaks volumes of how big a "problem" it really is.

Edited December 14, 2010 by apetley

[samran]

again I find myself agreeing with Jayboy.

Scary!