ED visa about to require 5 days/week, 2 hours/day.

[Mudcrab]

Looks like the noose is slowly tightening on all the visa rorters be it ED, back to back visa runners etc.

Eventually only people with a genuine legal reason to visit/stay in Thailand will be able to do so.

Just like most other countries.

is this such a bad thing?

[eaglesflight]

I don't understand all the schadenfreude when announcements such as these are made about ED visa requirements. Would the majority of posters be so keen to voice their support if everybody on a multi-entry non-immigrant 'o' visa had to demonstrate income from overseas to support their 15-month stays in Thailand or those who extend such visas based on marriage with 400k in the bank had to do the same (or show that they actually spent that 400k on supporting themselves)?

I'm not actually staying here on an ED visa at the moment but I did in the past: I spent a leisurely year studying at my own pace and supporting myself with money from the UK. I've spent many years in Thailand on various different visas but I have never worked illegally in that time and I have never understood the attitude of other foreigners towards those of us who are not over 50 or married. The Thai authorities appear to be happy for me to be here, but some expats seem to resent the fact. Fortunately for me and those like me, it is the Thai authorities we have to deal with when organising visas and extensions of stay, and not our 'fellow' Westerners.

[someonelovesyou]

There's a few other changes too.

1. Must provide property rental contract for 3 month extensions. (not sure what's going to happen to foreigners living here without a property rented in their name)

2. Fill out a personal details form for 3 month extension. It asks basic details like address, phone. And also asks your estimated monthly spend in Thailand, contact details in Thailand for someone they can contact to verify your identity, and contact details of a person that financially supports you, if applicable. Also a bunch more personal questions but they said I didn't have to fill that out. I think its only "high risk" countries that do.

These are obviously in direct response to the Bangkok bombing.

Point 1 is stupid. When I was in Thailand for 11 months, I lived with my partner and the rental agreement was only in his name even though I usually paid the rent.

Foreigners here on Ed visas are here to learn something and this should be their main priority...not to shack up with the locals. Seems perfectly reasonable that legit foreign students would have some sort of housing accommodation in their own name.

1. What does having a house rented in your name have to do with shacking up with people? Mine is rented in my partners name and it caused an issue. Luckily I had to renew it this month anyway.

2. I don't think any particular Visa is more entitled/encouraged to shack up with the locals.

[someonelovesyou]

I don't understand all the schadenfreude when announcements such as these are made about ED visa requirements. Would the majority of posters be so keen to voice their support if everybody on a multi-entry non-immigrant 'o' visa had to demonstrate income from overseas to support their 15-month stays in Thailand or those who extend such visas based on marriage with 400k in the bank had to do the same (or show that they actually spent that 400k on supporting themselves)?

I'm not actually staying here on an ED visa at the moment but I did in the past: I spent a leisurely year studying at my own pace and supporting myself with money from the UK. I've spent many years in Thailand on various different visas but I have never worked illegally in that time and I have never understood the attitude of other foreigners towards those of us who are not over 50 or married. The Thai authorities appear to be happy for me to be here, but some expats seem to resent the fact. Fortunately for me and those like me, it is the Thai authorities we have to deal with when organising visas and extensions of stay, and not our 'fellow' Westerners.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[someonelovesyou]

Looks like the noose is slowly tightening on all the visa rorters be it ED, back to back visa runners etc.

Eventually only people with a genuine legal reason to visit/stay in Thailand will be able to do so.

Just like most other countries.

is this such a bad thing?

I dunno, if they did that and also got rid of the retirement visa, like most other countries, would that be a bad thing?

[oncearugge]

Looks like the noose is slowly tightening on all the visa rorters be it ED, back to back visa runners etc.

Eventually only people with a genuine legal reason to visit/stay in Thailand will be able to do so.

Just like most other countries.

is this such a bad thing?

I dunno, if they did that and also got rid of the retirement visa, like most other countries, would that be a bad thing?

It would be difficult to remove "the retirement visa" because no such "Visa" exists !

[eaglesflight]

Looks like the noose is slowly tightening on all the visa rorters be it ED, back to back visa runners etc.

Eventually only people with a genuine legal reason to visit/stay in Thailand will be able to do so.

Just like most other countries.

is this such a bad thing?

I dunno, if they did that and also got rid of the retirement visa, like most other countries, would that be a bad thing?

It would be difficult to remove "the retirement visa" because no such "Visa" exists !

Be nice if they could remove some of the miserable old sods extending their non-imm 'o' visas on the basis of retirement though

[Mudcrab]

Looks like the noose is slowly tightening on all the visa rorters be it ED, back to back visa runners etc.

Eventually only people with a genuine legal reason to visit/stay in Thailand will be able to do so.

Just like most other countries.

is this such a bad thing?

I dunno, if they did that and also got rid of the retirement visa, like most other countries, would that be a bad thing?

Wouldn't bother me...I'm married.

[Mudcrab]

I don't understand all the schadenfreude when announcements such as these are made about ED visa requirements. Would the majority of posters be so keen to voice their support if everybody on a multi-entry non-immigrant 'o' visa had to demonstrate income from overseas to support their 15-month stays in Thailand or those who extend such visas based on marriage with 400k in the bank had to do the same (or show that they actually spent that 400k on supporting themselves)?

I'm not actually staying here on an ED visa at the moment but I did in the past: I spent a leisurely year studying at my own pace and supporting myself with money from the UK. I've spent many years in Thailand on various different visas but I have never worked illegally in that time and I have never understood the attitude of other foreigners towards those of us who are not over 50 or married. The Thai authorities appear to be happy for me to be here, but some expats seem to resent the fact. Fortunately for me and those like me, it is the Thai authorities we have to deal with when organising visas and extensions of stay, and not our 'fellow' Westerners.

If i told my wife she had to live on only 400k baht a year - I don't think she would be too happy. Nor would I.

[SoiBiker]

Looks like the noose is slowly tightening on all the visa rorters be it ED, back to back visa runners etc.

Eventually only people with a genuine legal reason to visit/stay in Thailand will be able to do so.

Just like most other countries.

is this such a bad thing?

I dunno, if they did that and also got rid of the retirement visa, like most other countries, would that be a bad thing?

It would be difficult to remove "the retirement visa" because no such "Visa" exists !

Be nice if they could remove some of the miserable old sods extending their non-imm 'o' visas on the basis of retirement though

Careful. You'll provoke another ten pages on how big a contribution retirees make to Thailand.

[eaglesflight]

I don't understand all the schadenfreude when announcements such as these are made about ED visa requirements. Would the majority of posters be so keen to voice their support if everybody on a multi-entry non-immigrant 'o' visa had to demonstrate income from overseas to support their 15-month stays in Thailand or those who extend such visas based on marriage with 400k in the bank had to do the same (or show that they actually spent that 400k on supporting themselves)?

I'm not actually staying here on an ED visa at the moment but I did in the past: I spent a leisurely year studying at my own pace and supporting myself with money from the UK. I've spent many years in Thailand on various different visas but I have never worked illegally in that time and I have never understood the attitude of other foreigners towards those of us who are not over 50 or married. The Thai authorities appear to be happy for me to be here, but some expats seem to resent the fact. Fortunately for me and those like me, it is the Thai authorities we have to deal with when organising visas and extensions of stay, and not our 'fellow' Westerners.

If i told my wife she had to live on only 400k baht a year - I don't think she would be too happy. Nor would I.

Well, that was partly my point really. Just because somebody has 400k in the bank, doesn't mean they're not working here illegally, but no expats on here are crying out for immigration to start checking where their spending money is actually coming from.

[eaglesflight]

Careful. You'll provoke another ten pages on how big a contribution retirees make to Thailand.

I wonder if they apply the same logic to immigrants in their home countries? It's been shown that immigrants to the UK make a net positive contribution to the economy but that doesn't stop many folk complaining about how many of them there are (or rambling on incessantly about the ones who take advantage of the social security system).

[oncearugge]

I don't understand all the schadenfreude when announcements such as these are made about ED visa requirements. Would the majority of posters be so keen to voice their support if everybody on a multi-entry non-immigrant 'o' visa had to demonstrate income from overseas to support their 15-month stays in Thailand or those who extend such visas based on marriage with 400k in the bank had to do the same (or show that they actually spent that 400k on supporting themselves)?

I'm not actually staying here on an ED visa at the moment but I did in the past: I spent a leisurely year studying at my own pace and supporting myself with money from the UK. I've spent many years in Thailand on various different visas but I have never worked illegally in that time and I have never understood the attitude of other foreigners towards those of us who are not over 50 or married. The Thai authorities appear to be happy for me to be here, but some expats seem to resent the fact. Fortunately for me and those like me, it is the Thai authorities we have to deal with when organising visas and extensions of stay, and not our 'fellow' Westerners.

If i told my wife she had to live on only 400k baht a year - I don't think she would be too happy. Nor would I.

Well, that was partly my point really. Just because somebody has 400k in the bank, doesn't mean they're not working here illegally, but no expats on here are crying out for immigration to start checking where their spending money is actually coming from.

There are a number of recent posts which suggest Immigration are indeed seeking evidence of expenditure !

[eaglesflight]

I don't understand all the schadenfreude when announcements such as these are made about ED visa requirements. Would the majority of posters be so keen to voice their support if everybody on a multi-entry non-immigrant 'o' visa had to demonstrate income from overseas to support their 15-month stays in Thailand or those who extend such visas based on marriage with 400k in the bank had to do the same (or show that they actually spent that 400k on supporting themselves)?

I'm not actually staying here on an ED visa at the moment but I did in the past: I spent a leisurely year studying at my own pace and supporting myself with money from the UK. I've spent many years in Thailand on various different visas but I have never worked illegally in that time and I have never understood the attitude of other foreigners towards those of us who are not over 50 or married. The Thai authorities appear to be happy for me to be here, but some expats seem to resent the fact. Fortunately for me and those like me, it is the Thai authorities we have to deal with when organising visas and extensions of stay, and not our 'fellow' Westerners.

If i told my wife she had to live on only 400k baht a year - I don't think she would be too happy. Nor would I.

Well, that was partly my point really. Just because somebody has 400k in the bank, doesn't mean they're not working here illegally, but no expats on here are crying out for immigration to start checking where their spending money is actually coming from.

There are a number of recent posts which suggest Immigration are indeed seeking evidence of expenditure !

In all seriousness, if stopping people working illegally in Thailand is the main focus of the recent visa regulation changes, I would think this is the only relevant fact for them to be checking. Sure, somebody studying 4 hours a week is not a full-time student but there's no reason why ED visas shouldn't support stays by casual students as well as full-time ones, as long as they aren't doing anything wrong. Of course, it's up to the Thai authorities whether they allow this or not but I just can't understand other foreigners getting so bent out of shape about how many hours somebody is studying a week.

[oncearugge]

eaglesflight

Unfortunately Ed visas were widely abused by those who had no intention of ever learning Thai or attending classes.

Where I live the "crackdown" on "students" and bogus "visa mill" schools started , if memory serves well , at least 3 years ago.

Now the Ed visa "Time Share Touts" etc are long gone and a number of "schools" have closed.

[Mudcrab]

Careful. You'll provoke another ten pages on how big a contribution retirees make to Thailand.

I wonder if they apply the same logic to immigrants in their home countries? It's been shown that immigrants to the UK make a net positive contribution to the economy but that doesn't stop many folk complaining about how many of them there are (or rambling on incessantly about the ones who take advantage of the social security system).

It will be interesting to revisit the contribution of the current wave of immigrants in say 5 or 10 years in Europe.

[NickJ]

At the end of the day. They dont want anyone living here under loopholes. If it keeps on like this, in a few years the entire ex-pat landscape will be very diffrent.

[SoiBiker]

At the end of the day. They dont want anyone living here under loopholes. If it keeps on like this, in a few years the entire ex-pat landscape will be very diffrent.

For better or for worse, though?

[stephen tracy]

It's undeniable that people were abusing the Ed-visa but whose fault is that? The authorities' or the abusers'? Why should the people who are bona fide language learners pay the price? Anyone who has studied and/or taught languages at BA level knows that too many hours sitting in a classroom is not an effective way to acquire a language, rather it's an effective way to spout off grammatical rules but remain unable to use the language proficiently. Classes have there place and certainly speed up the learning process as well as provide guidance navigating your way through new grammatical systems and pronunciation, but the real acquisition of a language is done by oneself and having the opportunity to get out and actually use it. It's textbook 1/101

[SoiBiker]

It's undeniable that people were abusing the Ed-visa but whose fault is that? The authorities' or the abusers'? Why should the people who are bona fide language learners pay the price? Anyone who has studied and/or taught languages at BA level knows that too many hours sitting in a classroom is not an effective way to acquire a language, rather it's an effective way to spout off grammatical rules but remain unable to use the language proficiently. Classes have there place and certainly speed up the learning process as well as provide guidance navigating your way through new grammatical systems and pronunciation, but the real acquisition of a language is done by oneself and having the opportunity to get out and actually use it. It's textbook 1/101

And they have the other 22 hours per weekday and the whole weekend to do so. It's not like they're being chained to a desk from 9 to 5 every day, is it?

[jacksam]

So much nonsense. Why would anyone wish to study a dead end language such as Thai. Only reason would be possibly long term plan to work in los with main skill being able to speak thai and English. Even that's rubbish. You might get job in tour company. Or rather not. The folk pretending to wish to learn thai as a second language is rubbish. I'm happy for people to try and have extended (long) stays living in los. Seriously give us all a break. Ed visas were never about an burning love of the thai language. It was always a vehicle for the vast majority. The abuse of rules has sent the grim reaper. Happy days.

[NancyL]

Are these new 5-day a week, 2-hr/day rules specific to Chiang Mai or a new nationwide rule?

[SoiBiker]

So much nonsense. Why would anyone wish to study a dead end language such as Thai.

So they can talk to Thai people?

[jspill]

So much nonsense. Why would anyone wish to study a dead end language such as Thai. Only reason would be possibly long term plan to work in los with main skill being able to speak thai and English. Even that's rubbish. You might get job in tour company. Or rather not. The folk pretending to wish to learn thai as a second language is rubbish. I'm happy for people to try and have extended (long) stays living in los. Seriously give us all a break. Ed visas were never about an burning love of the thai language. It was always a vehicle for the vast majority. The abuse of rules has sent the grim reaper. Happy days.

That's the same flawed line of logic as thinking anyone who chooses to retire here is a dirty old man, anyone who marries here is doing so because they can't find a good partner back home, they never had a burning love of the Thai culture, it's just that they can't afford to retire anywhere other than upcountry in a developing nation halfway down the global corruption index, etc. etc.

[jacksam]

So much nonsense. Why would anyone wish to study a dead end language such as Thai.

So they can talk to Thai people?

I rest my case. You can learn to half converse with thai by a combination of private tuition and basically living in Thailand and communicating every day. But here is the deal breaker. Of all the fluent so called faring living hear , my tgh can't understand a thing they say. Get real. Except for select few, learning thai here with an ed visa is just a way to remain in los.

[OMGImInPattaya]

There's a few other changes too.

1. Must provide property rental contract for 3 month extensions. (not sure what's going to happen to foreigners living here without a property rented in their name)

2. Fill out a personal details form for 3 month extension. It asks basic details like address, phone. And also asks your estimated monthly spend in Thailand, contact details in Thailand for someone they can contact to verify your identity, and contact details of a person that financially supports you, if applicable. Also a bunch more personal questions but they said I didn't have to fill that out. I think its only "high risk" countries that do.

These are obviously in direct response to the Bangkok bombing.

Point 1 is stupid. When I was in Thailand for 11 months, I lived with my partner and the rental agreement was only in his name even though I usually paid the rent.

Foreigners here on Ed visas are here to learn something and this should be their main priority...not to shack up with the locals. Seems perfectly reasonable that legit foreign students would have some sort of housing accommodation in their own name.

1. What does having a house rented in your name have to do with shacking up with people? Mine is rented in my partners name and it caused an issue. Luckily I had to renew it this month anyway.

2. I don't think any particular Visa is more entitled/encouraged to shack up with the locals.

I would say non-imm O's extended on basis of marriage are most entitled to shacking up...then non-imm retirees...then tourist/30-day entries have shacking privileges in that order. Ed. visas have the least entitlement to shacking up with a local as they're here to concentrate on their studies and improve their minds and too much shacking would distract them from this goal.

[SoiBiker]

So much nonsense. Why would anyone wish to study a dead end language such as Thai.

So they can talk to Thai people?

I rest my case. You can learn to half converse with thai by a combination of private tuition and basically living in Thailand and communicating every day. But here is the deal breaker. Of all the fluent so called faring living hear , my tgh can't understand a thing they say. Get real. Except for select few, learning thai here with an ed visa is just a way to remain in los.

If you want to have a half a conversation in bargirl Thaiglish, sure. Some people would like to go beyond that, though - or are just interested enough in languages to make the extra effort.

[brewsterbudgen]

So much nonsense. Why would anyone wish to study a dead end language such as Thai.

So they can talk to Thai people?

I rest my case. You can learn to half converse with thai by a combination of private tuition and basically living in Thailand and communicating every day. But here is the deal breaker. Of all the fluent so called faring living hear , my tgh can't understand a thing they say. Get real. Except for select few, learning thai here with an ed visa is just a way to remain in los.

If you want to have a half a conversation in bargirl Thaiglish, sure. Some people would like to go beyond that, though - or are just interested enough in languages to make the extra effort.

There is always the option to study French, Spanish or German - or something useful.

[freedomnow]

I would say non-imm O's extended on basis of marriage are most entitled to shacking up...then non-imm retirees...then tourist/30-day entries have shacking privileges in that order. Ed. visas have the least entitlement to shacking up with a local as they're here to concentrate on their studies and improve their minds and too much shacking would distract them from this goal.

Honestly, just shut up, you sound like the quintessential 'this is how other people should live' type.. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS and stop telling people how to live outside their study hours.

[aneliane]

It's all a face act.

Anyone that has been to ED immigration lately knows ED visas are not about how much time you spend in school, but how good of an agent you have.