New Visa Restrictions

Starting tomorrow (Feb 1) Penang will only issue visas to those in possession of an international ticket with departure from thailand to another international destination (not malayasia or vietnam or the like). It is most likely that all other embassies will follow the Penang restrictions. This is aimed at preventing long term stays within thailand. Reported by ThaiVisa.Com

an O type visa, which should eliminate this problem.

Reported by ThaiVisa.ComWhat Thaivisa said was "From a usually reliable source". It is not fact until proven otherwise

Cut & Paste

"Stricter rules on Tourist visas issued in Penang from February 1, 2008

BANGKOK: -- The Royal Thai Consulate in Penang is expected to impose stricter rules regarding the issuing of Tourist Visas.

Thaivisa.com have been advised that the Royal Thai Consulate-General in Penang as from TOMORROW, February 1 2008, will only issue Tourist Visas to those in possession of an air ticket departing from Thailand to an international destination not local in the same region. (i.e. not Vietnam, Malaysia or similar.)

It is believed that the reason for the tightening of the rules is to reduce the number of foreigners using tourist visas to stay long term in Thailand, and not for tourism purposes for which this visa is intended, therefore abusing the system.

Our source is from a reliable person, who normally provides us with accurate information, and we have no reason to doubt the accuracy of this information.

The new ticket rule is not officially confirmed as yet.

--thaivisa.com 2008-01-31"

=============================

Penang has a history of making special rules which are not applied elsewhere. I would be very surprised if this spreads to other consulates.

There is, of course, absolutely no logical reason for them to do this. They can see from your passport and their computer records if you are using this visa for long time stays in Thailand and can warn people doing this that it will not be allowed.

It would be very helpful if they offer a Visa for people to stay longtime in Thailand other than for investment, retirement or working.

[bedbugy1-old]

about time too
a tourist visits and then goes
not to stay indefinate
you want to stay full time get the right visa
get rid of the riff -raft scroungers
well done penang

bedbugy1 writes: get rid of the riff -raft scroungers

what are riff raft (sic) scroungers ?

On another note, I do like wowpow's suggestion of a new longer stay visa category

"I'm currently in Penang and at 5.41 PM a fax arrived to the visa agents, stating that from tomorrow Feb. 1, everyone applying for a touristvisa should have an ongoin airticket out of Thailand and the region, to their home country. STAY AWAY if you cant produce this!" Zua on www.thaivisa.com (http://www.thaivisa.com)
31st Jan 2008

[allieb]

Simple

Just buy a ticket out of Thailand to your home country before leaving to Panang and cash it in when you get back.

[catawampuscat]

Your idea should work allieb at least the first time, but they will catch on eventually and tighten again. :cat:

buy a return ticket say from London to BKK so you can return to London say 10-12 months later. That way one would have a return international ticket.

[Sen Yai]

On another note, I do like wowpow's suggestion of a new longer stay visa category


It would be very helpful if they offer a Visa for people to stay longtime in Thailand other than for investment, retirement or working.

YardenUK might 'like' it and wowpow might find it 'useful' but why would the Thai authorities (or any other nation) want to facilitate longer stays for the unemployed, of working age, without the ability to make any economic contribution to the country?

YardenUK might 'like' it and wowpow might find it 'useful' but why would the Thai authorities (or any other nation) want to facilitate longer stays for the unemployed, of working age, without the ability to make any economic contribution to the country[/i]?

I "retired" here in my mid-thirties, when I stopped working as I considered that I had sufficient to live here comfortably; my "economic contribution" for 15 years has been considerably more than that required of me by the Thai authorities now that I am 50. Might I ask why you think "the Thai authorities (or any other nation)" would not "want to facilitate longer stays" for those fortunate enough to be in my position?

Buying a ticket that would have a departure date 10 or 12 months away would go against the 90 day rules which they seem to want to enforce. They surely would move to block such attempts. Not sure what branch of the gov't is in charge of making these rules but maybe when the new cabinet gets in they will once again move to attract foeigners instead of harrassing them.

[Sen Yai]

Might I ask why you think "the Thai authorities (or any other nation)" would not "want to facilitate longer stays" for those fortunate enough to be in my position?

Well, of course you can ask, but don't expect me to answer your question when you have not answered mine!

But Ok, I doubt that there are many people in your position (assuming you are totally law-abiding citizen and are genuinely not generating any taxable income that might interest the Thai Inland Revenue) so the effort of weeding out folk like you, from the large number of potential cheats and fraudsters that might like to stay a while in LoS, is probably a burden.

There are Work Visas available for anyone wishing to undertake any form of 'employment' including un-paid voluntary work, and there are Retirement Visa's for the elderly who meet all the stipulated requirements.

To provide long-stay visas and even 'attract' people of genuinely independent (non-taxable) means who have no intention of investing their wealth in Thailand in any way, and can be trusted not to lift a finger in the name of work (even as 'bar-owner' or 'Internet entrepreneur') seems quite unattractive to me, looking from the perspective of the Thai immigration authorities. The efforts required to regulate and enforce visa requirements upon such people would be unlikely to be out-weighed by any benefits you might bring the Thai economy (or any other National interest) by your free-spending life of leisure.

I won't insult you by suggesting you simply piss you wealth up a wall each night, but when answering my original question (why would they) which you are now obligated to do following this lengthy response to your question, please would you also explain what your contribution to Thai society really is?

Might I ask why you think "the Thai authorities (or any other nation)" would not "want to facilitate longer stays" for those fortunate enough to be in my position?Who cares what he or you or any other foreigner thinks. You don't vote and you have no way of influencing Thai government policy, which in this respect, as in so many others, is built around chauvinism. Don't forget that the name of the predecessor party to the current government (Thai Rak Thai), though often translated as "Thais for Thais", equally means "Thailand for the Thais"

YardenUK might 'like' it and wowpow might find it 'useful' but why would the Thai authorities (or any other nation) want to facilitate longer stays for the unemployed, of working age, without the ability to make any economic contribution to the country?[/quote]

Maybe I am wrong but your tone just seemed very negative to those who you deem to be unemployed - what of those with (legal) private incomes or savings for example, but who do not wish to become resident in Thailand but who may want to spend a long time there in one go?

But, employment/unemployment wasn't the issue - it was merely saying that a longer term visa as suggested by wowpow was an intersting idea and one I supported. It is very well documented that tourism generates positive economic benefits - both to government revenues and in addition the local economy.
Direct contributions are generated by taxes on incomes from those employed in the tourism sector (and tourist businesses), and things like the direct departure tax which is included in tickets now but does go directly to the Thai exchequer. Also, every tourist spends his/her money and indirectly contributes to the host economy through taxes on goods bought and services supplied (VAT for example and the govt. taxes charged by hotels)

It goes without saying that tourism does bring enormous economic benefits to the local economy also as tourists have to spend their money on everything from the bag of fruit bought from the street seller, through to the meals in very modest side-soi eateries, through to the very tips given to the boys.

No matter how long a tourist stays for he/she tends not to come with an empty wallet - if every tourist left Thailand tomorrow, the Thai economy would be in dire straits.

Maybe I am wrong but your tone just seemed very negative to those who you deem to be unemployed - what of those with (legal) private incomes or savings for example, but who do not wish to become resident in Thailand but who may want to spend a long time there in one go?

To say that it is negative for anyone to make such a claim in my opinion Yarden, is an understatement. I would be more blunt and say it would be more a case of total ignorance on their part. Why is that so many of these pompous arseholes that have raised the 800,000 Baht necessary in which to apply for a retirement visa, look down so much on those that haven't? What is so fucking special about having done this? After all, it is such a paltry amount, a little over 12,000 pounds or just over 25,000 dollars, that it hardly puts them in the Bill gates league does it? http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/slol.gif

I wonder how many of those pretentious pricks that are always so scornful of those without retirement visas, would be so vociferous on the subject and would still be holding retirement visas, if the qualification for them was to have 800,000 dollars in the bank as opposed to 800,000 Baht. My money would be on, that there would not be too fucking many. I wonder what others think as far as that goes. http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/cool_shades.gif Perhaps something I could ask in my first ever poll, now I have actually learned how to create one that is. http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/biglaugh.gif

For the record, I have a retirement visa myself, but have never made it my business to cast aspersions on those that haven't, or make it my business to either ask, or wonder why, as some pretentious pricks here seem to. As in the case of Gone Fishing, some people are financially able to retire in Thailand, whilst at the same time being too young in order to attain a retirement visa. I am sure that there are others with equally legitimate reasons, the same as GF had, for wishing to prolong their stay.

If those that claim that only those here legitimately on retirement visas, are the only ones that are whiter than white as far as their past goes, and by them having this visa, it is an indication that they have always been law abiding citizens in their own countries, than I suggest you go and tell your fairy tales somewhere else as well as telling them to those that will believe them.

For those of you that genuinely believe this to be true, I have only this to say to you: Give me a fucking break P e r l e a s e. Let me immediately make it clear, that I am well aware that there are many ex-pats on retirement visas, that have been law abiding citizens in their own countries prior to settling in Thailand, probably the same amount of those that haven't. http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/whistle.gif

At the end of the day, we are all living in a country that is not our own and it is fuck all business of anybody what visa's anyone either has, or should have, other than those of the Thai authorities. So, my advice to the pretentious pricks I spoke of above, is to butt the fuck out and mind your own fucking business for a change, instead of worrying about the business of others; which some of you seem so fond of doing, it has become almost like a full time occupation for you.


It is very well documented that tourism generates positive economic benefits - both to government revenues and in addition the local economy.

Once again Yarden, I couldn't agree with you more in saying, of course it bloody well does. Anyone unable to see what is such an obvious fact, is quite frankly either a total moron, or a complete fucking idiot. No doubt there will be some that will qualify for both of these categories. http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/tongue.gif


Direct contributions are generated by taxes on incomes from those employed in the tourism sector (and tourist businesses), and things like the direct departure tax which is included in tickets now but does go directly to the Thai exchequer. Also, every tourist spends his/her money and indirectly contributes to the host economy through taxes on goods bought and services supplied (VAT for example and the govt. taxes charged by hotels)

It goes without saying that tourism does bring enormous economic benefits to the local economy also as tourists have to spend their money on everything from the bag of fruit bought from the street seller, through to the meals in very modest side-soi eateries, through to the very tips given to the boys.

No matter how long a tourist stays for he/she tends not to come with an empty wallet.

Well you will get no argument from me on anything that you have said above Yarden, as I believe you are 100 per cent accurate in everything you have said. However, the hard thing which you now have to do, is to convince all of the pretentious pricks such as those I have spoke of above, who believe for some strange reason or another, that they are more special than others here in Thailand and what you have said, just couldn't possibly be true..

No doubt these same people also believe their own shit doesn't stink as well. What do you think, a strong possibility or
not? http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/shrugs.gif


Choc Dee Yarden and thanks for your post. It made a lot more sense than any of those that you can bet will follow my post, in which they will not only show indignation at what I have had the audacity to say about them, despite it being the truth, http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/biggrinangel.gif but will also no doubt, find argument with the sound logic of all you have said too. http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/rolleyes.gif






George. http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/Peace.gif

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/sleeping.gif

[Sen Yai]

YardenUK, I may have dwelled upon the unemployed, but you seem to have written mostly about tourists, and I was really just responding to wowpowтАЩs comment about visas for anyone тАЬother than for investment, retirement or workingтАЭ. I have nothing against the jobless тАУ I was technically one once myself, since Maggie Thatcher allowed school kids to sign on to the dole during their summer holidays!

However, you have focused upon тАШtouristsтАЩ - who have their own class of visa. Each time I enter Thailand I am permitted to stay for 30 days and I think this is true for most Europeans, Americans and many other nationalities. ASEAN tourists are allowed to stay for at least 14 days without a visa. I enter Thailand maybe 6 or 8 times a year and pay the airport taxes every time. (The Immigration Authorities love me!) But for most tourists, a visit to Thailand is either a once-in-a-life-time trip or, for the committed, a once-a-year pilgrimage. It is of course recognised that тАЬtourism generates positive economic benefits - both to government revenues and in addition the local economyтАЭ and most tourists will save up a lot of spending money for their trip I order to тАШlive it upтАЩ for the short duration of their visit, staying in hotels and dining out most nights. This, combined with the direct taxes you mention, all makes for a healthy tourist industry to be promoted, as you suggest.

But the point of the discussion here is the issue of visas to those who wish to stay for a тАШlonger termтАЩ in Thailand and whether the Thai Authorities should take steps to facilitate (and even encourage) their wishes, and I think that this moves them beyond the normal tourist visa category. You said тАЬNo matter how long a tourist stays for, he/she tends not to come with an empty wallet - if every tourist left Thailand tomorrow, the Thai economy would be in dire straitsтАЭ and I disagree with the underlying meaning of both parts of this statement. Intending long-term visitors may come with a full wallet, but it is unlikely that (with the likes of GoneFishing excepted) they will allow their Baht to flow from their wallets as freely as those that come for 3, 13 or 30 days. And, if every tourist left tomorrow, far from resulting in тАЬdire straitsтАЭ, there will always be many more plane-loads of newbies, with bulging wallets, arriving the very next day.

So, I come back again to my original question (which remains unanswered) тАЬWhy would the Thai AuthoritiesтАж.wish to facilitate longer staysтАж.тАЭ I still think that that there is no motivation for the Thais (or anyone else) to encourage foreigners (not yet retired, without jobs, or the intention to invest etc, etcтАж) to stay in the country for extended periods of time despite the convenience to those who may wish to do so (or can afford to do so) but cannot provide any real reason for their desire and, seemingly, do not provide any benefit to Thai society.

To answer your question тАЬwhat of those with (legal) private incomes or savings for example, but who do not wish to become resident in Thailand but who may want to spend a long time there in one go?тАЭ The Thai Authorities seem to be saying: тАЬTough tittiesтАЭ, and I would be inclined to agree with them!

To answer your question тАЬwhat of those with (legal) private incomes or savings for example, but who do not wish to become resident in Thailand but who may want to spend a long time there in one go?тАЭ The Thai Authorities seem to be saying: тАЬTough tittiesтАЭ, and I would be inclined to agree with them!The answer is that it's too hard, administratively, to discriminate between such a small minority and the White Trash of Asia who are by far the majority - and unwelcome

Sen Yai,

"I won't insult you by suggesting you simply piss you wealth up a wall each night, but when answering my original question (why would they) which you are now obligated to do following this lengthy response to your question, please would you also explain what your contribution to Thai society really is?"

As I have made it clear elsewhere that I average a couple of visits to bars a year ( and as I drive I do not drink), thanks for not making the obvious suggestion!

Q1. Why would they ...? for exactly the same reasons as they do for those of verifiable means who just happen to be older - no more and no less.

Q2. My contribution to Thai society ...? I had not realised this was a requirement for a visa here or in most other countries. If it were there would be precious few people able to leave their native land. Athough I have a formal, legal relationship with a Thai recognised in my own country it is not recognised here, so my contribution, ultimately, is the same as most other tourists and retirees - my personal financial expenditure.

I would disagree that "the Thai Authorities seem to be saying: "Tough titties""; what they have been saying to me, which I have found irritating rather than off-putting, is simply "Get older"!!

Homintern,

"Who cares what he or you or any other foreigner thinks"

I am sure you don't care, but for once I actually agree with all your posts on this particular thread!

George,

"b****y, f*****g idiot, pretentious p***ks, s**t, f*****g, f**k, butt the f**k out, mind your own f*****g business"

I hope my mother (or yours) does not read this forum!! An alternative response could be that of Sean Connery in "Finding Forrester", namely "That's not exactly a soup question"!!

[jinks]

Rude, ill-tempered, abusive? MOVED To the Global forum....

Be Rude there please.

[Sen Yai]

GoneFishing, thanks for your response and donтАЩt worry, IтАЩm not going to prolong this discussion much further, or turn it into some point scoring bitch-fight (IтАЩve no interest in that), but I do want to respond to the points you made once moreтАжтАж.

You clearly feel that you (and anyone else in your position) should be treated the same as any elderly retiree. But as I tried to point out in my first post in this thread (and Homintern has expressed the same view) there are so many people floating around Asia (White Trash) intent on abusing the hospitality of their chosen guest nation by working without paying taxes, or engaging in more serious illegal activity, it is clearly a burden on the Authorities to sort the few good guys in your unusual position, from the bad.

As for the need to make a contribution to society, I really think there is. You said тАЬIf it were, there would be precious few people able to leave their native landтАЭ and I think you are right тАУ there are precious few allowed to leaveтАжтАжтАжтАжwho think they have no need to contribute in any significant way to their chosen host nation! All those (younger) expats around are allowed to stay in their chosen foreign countries because they are working, generating business in some way and paying taxes, and their residential status is controlled by a Work Permit of some kind.

The difference between those of working age and retirees is that it is generally assumed that the latter are just about burnt out (having contributed to society all their working lives) and will be content to sit in the sun without engaging in illegal activities, just as they would be allowed to do at home. So the Thais (and many other SE Asian nations) will happily grant them residence and welcome the $$$тАЩs trickling from their pension funds in the form of тАЬpersonal financial expenditureтАЭ (aka pissing up a wall!)

So it all comes down to whether the Thai Authorities think is worth lowering the age limit to issue тАШretirement type visasтАЩ to 35 years of age (or even younger, perhaps?) or if the risks (and associated costs) are too great to outweigh the negligible benefits, when compared to the plane-fulls of tourists who spend the same or more, and leave within 30 days only to be replaced by fresh ones!

At the moment it seems the Authorities think it is not worth it and are telling you: тАЬGet olderтАжтАЭ but IтАЩm still sure that they are also saying тАЬтАж.in the meantime, tough tittiesтАЭ.

But, тАЬChok Dee! "

IтАЩm not going to prolong this discussion much further

Oh good!

The difference between those of working age and retirees is that it is generally assumed that the latter are just about burnt out

I think the assumption is simply that retirees have more money - nothing more.

... having contributed to society all their working lives

This assumes that those who work all "contribute to society", while those who do not work do not. We will simply have to agree to disagree over this.

... and will be content to sit in the sun without engaging in illegal activities, just as they would be allowed to do at home

Clearly an incorrect assumption - just as an example, I think you will find that the vast majority of farang bar owners / managers without work permits are over the "retiree" age of fifty (and, though not relevant, those with work permits are even older!).

... but IтАЩm still sure that they are also saying тАЬтАж.in the meantime, tough tittiesтАЭ.

Or more probably " ...in the meantime, keep spending your money!"

Chok Dee to you too!

[Brad the Impala]

Anything that results in fewer birdshit farang with no respect for the country, should be encouraged. Did I say that before? Probably and i probably will again!

Patong is polluted by such people and Pattaya dominated by them. Contribution to Thai society/economy? Less contribution than human faeces to fertiliser.