After reading the two 'big' stories of the last few weeks, ie: alcohol advertising/age for consumption and the immigration changes I am confused as to why it is possible for the "Government", albeit unelected, to "send back for consideration" the proposed changes in the alcohol rules, yet something as fundemental as immigration policy, ie: phasing out of investment visa, amount of time "the foreigner" can spend in Thailand can be dealt with by a few "senior" police officers/immigration chiefs who "have a chat about it". Surely something as important as immigration policy should be the realm of government rather than people who may or may not be used to the company of "influential and unusually rich" people.

This could be viewed as a sensitive topic but the straight forward and I think politicallly correct answer is that the gov't allows different officials to make decisions at different levels when there is overall agreement as to the general acceptability of the types of decisions being made. If decisions are being made that are not considered acceptable then a discussion will be held and if acceptability can not be obtained by the discussion the the problem will move up the ladder to a higher authority.

Specifically concerning immigration rules and specifically in light of the recent changes in the application of the laws: The goal here is to allow people who have sufficient savings and incomes from outside Thailand to live in Thailand...but to not allow people to come to Thailand and live here using monthly entry stamps and tourist visas since a large number of these people are working here illegally...a practice which hopefully will end with the new policies. It is difficult to write a requirement which can be applied to all financially self sufficient people because circumstances are so variable....so....the Thai system allows the immigration authorities alot of flexibility in evaluating individuals as to their ability to support themselves without working illegally in Thailand. This is good because it allows some reasonableness in making the determination....but it is also not good because it leaves room for abuses.

As to the alcohol rules: Seems like some were going overboard....setting 25 years as the drinking age would obviously reduce tourism and also mean that even a couple of years out of university some could not drink........this seemed unreasonable so it got sent up the ladder to higher authorities.

Who are these higher authorities....its the Sonthi et al. All action by the interim gov't must be approved by them.....its in the interim constitution or whatever it is called.

I could be wrong about any or all of this but I'm reasonbly sure that what I have posted is correct.

Chownah

Thanks for your input chownah. It just seems to me that something as important as immigration should be dealt with something like this: Immigration/ police discuss problems and possible solutions, they report to the government minister for foreign affairs and then he, if he considers the ideas of merit, asks parliament to debate them. After debate the report is passed back to immigration/police for their further input. Finally the paper is passed back to parliament and is voted on and the new legislation is brought into force. Here it seems that a few 'senior' guys just sat around a table, possibly with a bottle or two, and came up with 'the new rules'. All in all 'a bit of a dogs dinner'.

It seems that there is a lot of "new" people in the government determined to make their mark, only a little inexperienced and naive regarding policy. (I'm trying to be polite here....)

I'll give them a bit more time before judging I think, but the alcohol fiasco doesn't exactly set my spirits soaring. (pun unintended )

As to the alcohol rules: Seems like some were going overboard....setting 25 years as the drinking age would obviously reduce tourism and also mean that even a couple of years out of university some could not drink........this seemed unreasonable so it got sent up the ladder to higher authorities.

Boosting the drinking age up to 12 years old, would probably make sense before going all the way up to 25

...something as fundemental as immigration policy, ie: phasing out of investment visa, amount of time "the foreigner" can spend in Thailand can be dealt with by a few "senior" police officers/immigration chiefs who "have a chat about it".

Parliament approved the Immigration Act in 1979.

The Immigration Act authorises the Minster of Interior to issue Ministerial Regulations regarding certain aspects, the Director General of the Police Department to issue orders regarding certain other aspects, and specific officers appointed by the Minister to carry out certain functions in conformity with the Act.

This is a procedure that you will find also in most other democratic countries.

Read the Immigration Act and you will see more clearly. The immigration website which has an English translation of the law is down at the moment and I attach it as a PDF file (123 kB)

--------------

Maestro

Immigration_Act.pdf

Thanks for the link Maestro.

Law on Immigration

Section 5 : The Minister of Interior shall be in charge and have control for the

executive of this Act and shall have power to appoint competent officials , and

Issue Minister Regulations ; to fix fees and other expense not exceeding rates

annexed to this Act and to fix other activities for the execution of this Act. Such

Ministerial Regulations shall become effective after having been published in the

government Gazette

I take your point that the minister is able to appoint "competent officials" to make amendments to the law, but I do not remember anyone suggesting that these changes were published in the Gazette, if they were surely there would not be the, continuing, disagreement as to what the new rules 'really' are.

imho thr thais have got it right

only the people who that can sustain themselves are welcome

in that i can see rich europeans and americans retiring to a place where rules are rules and you have to adhere to them. instead of having to give into the minority all the time

a niche market

Okay, I am probably going to be assasinated for this, and I wasn't gonna say nothing, but...

It is in fact the Admin team of Thaivisa.com, that is to say, George and Dr. Patpong, who run Thailand.

They set all policy based upon the conversations and discussions held on thaivisa.com and thereafter implement it using force against civil servants.

Often they can be found calling in policy from their mobiles as they languish in large jacuzzi's with cold beers and outrageously beautiful women.

They also have batman style watches where they can log in at any time.

These are waterproof in order that the Jacuzzi's do not ruin them.

It was nice knowing you all. And for what it's worth, before they send out a hitman to kill me, i want to say I think they do a good job.

Bye bye...

Kayo.

in that i can see rich europeans and americans retiring to a place where rules are rules and you have to adhere to them.

Where would this be? Thailand? Rules? Adhere to?

<snipped for brevity>

You could be closer to the truth than you know there Kayo...

<also snipped for brevity>

My personal opinion is very closely aligned with yours Chownah.

However... as we are still (unfortunately) under martial law and subject to the Thai authorities scrutiny and possible censure... I don't think it's appropriate to contribute any more opinions on this subject.

In accordance with the current (temporary) Forum Rules, I reluctantly close this thread... as political discussion or criticism of the current government and it's policies/decisions are not allowed.

Thanks for your understanding.

/Closed.