6 Months Per Year In Thailand?

[robsamui]

Hi.

Can anyone tell me when the new tourist visa regulations come into play? This is the one that says that a tourist can only stay in the Kingdom for 6 months in a 12 month period.

Cheers

Rob

[Indo-Siam]

I believe this is "urban myth" - I know of no such official policy. There are always factions at work trying to promote changes like this, but few changes actually come to pass. Changes in fees are generally announced well in advance, and they actually occur. Changes in enforcement policies are usually talked about, and then scrapped as the theoretical implementation date approaches - i.e.- "the midnight bar closing" scenario.

Good luck!

Indo-Siam

[Pi Sua]

Following French official sources, there is or maybe be it was only a proposal: there is incoherence between the foreign ministry affair and the immigration department.

The explanation which was given to us in February and April 1999 was:

Most of the restrictives measures concerning the aliens belongs the Fifty's when the authorities wanted to stop massive immigration from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ceylan and then as they didn't want these measures appeared as discriminatory reasons, they extended them to all the foreigners.

These measures have been reinforced in 1999 but it seems that they do not concern every nationalities. Especially this frightening condition (I hope it was just a proposal):

It was say that you could apply for a new visa only if you leave the Kingdom for at least two months.

That finally is the same as to be in Thailand no more than 6 months a year.

From my knowledge, no one apply this except Singapore. Does this law really exist ? I can't answer but as we say no smoke without fire.....

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Following French official sources, there is or maybe be it was only a proposal: there is incoherence between the foreign ministry affair and the immigration department.

The explanation which was given to us in February and April 1999 was:

Most of the restrictives measures concerning the aliens belongs the Fifty's when the authorities wanted to stop massive immigration from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ceylan and then as they didn't want these measures appeared as discriminatory reasons, they extended them to all the foreigners.

These measures have been reinforced in 1999 but it seems that they do not concern every nationalities. Especially this frightening condition (I hope it was just a proposal):

It was say that you could apply for a new visa only if you leave the Kingdom for at least two months.

That finally is the same as to be in Thailand no more than 6 months a year.

From my knowledge, no one apply this except Singapore. Does this law really exist ? I can't answer but as we say no smoke without fire.....

This time there is smoke and no fire. People with formal visa's are fine. The 30 day back to back permits on arrival are under threat. No such idea has been mentioned.

[Pi Sua]

Sure, in case, the 30 days walkers would definitly be under threat. Not only them because that would concern every one holding a tourist visa. Considering the double entry visa that you can apply for, that would let more them than 6 month a year in Thailand but still not a full year.

So, I hope it's only smoke but the official sources are this time not the French embassy but a high instance for the French living abroad and this section based in Thailand is specialised about the regulations in Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar.

Do you think that would be a pure invention? I know this instance give sometimes wrong information especially the new delegue but the ex one was someone carefull about what he was writing...a very clever old man...and I just check the letters he sent us before translating it on your website.

Once again, I hope it is just a smoke and it has never been mentionned but still it comes sometimes to my ears...so, I wonder where is it from.

[meadish_sweetball]

I saw it applied in Singapore -

"

- No sir. You must first leave the Kingdom for *three* months, and then you may reapply.

- So what do I do then?

- You will get thirty days on arrival. Goodbye, sir."

Are they technically and legally in their right?

Any speculations why it is applied there and nowhere else?

[ovenman]

It's been like that at the Thai Embassy in Singapore for a while. Technically, I suppose they can do whatever they please in regards denying the issuance of a visa but I myself have wondered why that particular embassy has such a policy. Is it on the orders of some higher-up in Bangkok or merely a policy they have instituted themselves?

Mere speculation on my part - due to the close proxinity of Singapore to Thailand coupled with the relatively low cost of getting there, could be the powers-that-be in that embassy don't want it to become overrun with visa seekers as say, Penang or Vientiane.

[Pi Sua]

Has anyone heard about Tuk Tuk man ?

In 1996, a Belgium guy had a plan to get to Belgium by Tuk Tuk from Thailand.

He did it. He was sponsorised by Singha beer and had to stop every day in a town or a city just for the counterpart and promote the Beer.

He was sponsorised by many important Thai companies and I'm not sure but I think Thai airway was also in the list.

He even had a recommandation letter from the Belgium embassy to be sure to get a 2 months visa.

Unfortunately he chose the wrong place....and.....although he provided all the documents and the whole details about the trip and the sponsors.....as he had been in Thailand for already few months....they refused to deliver a visa......find where...........in Singapore !

So, he came back to Thailand, got 30 days on arrival. His most important sponsor had to cut the schedule off because the speeches were planned for 2 months. They finally did it in one but had to run and had to cancell quite some meeting.

Amazing Singapore !

[dr_Pat_Pong]

I saw it applied in Singapore -

"

- No sir. You must first leave the Kingdom for *three* months, and then you may reapply.

- So what do I do then?

- You will get thirty days on arrival. Goodbye, sir."

Are they technically and legally in their right?

Any speculations why it is applied there and nowhere else?

Heads of Mission and heads of posts ( Ambassadors, Consuls-General, Consuls ) get a lot of leeway in determining or interpreting policy.