Transcript of the above video: 

In recent weeks thanks there has been some discussion about changes to the Visa Exemption scheme here in Thailand, so going from 60 days for most of the 93 countries that have visa-free entry with Thailand, going from 60 days back down to 30 days notwithstanding the fact that that policy has been in effect less than I think 18 months; probably more like about 12 or 14 months at this point, but it's looking like it's changing. The purpose of this video though is there seems to be a conflation - and I can't figure out if it's intentional or otherwise - with regard to the issues they are talking about in terms of the byproduct of immigration policy and what they are actually looking to change. So what they are actually looking to change, is making it no longer possible to enter Thailand Visa free for 60 days and going back to 30 days but they are saying what they are going after is like people working illegally and things, but the so-called problem is not being solved by the “policy solution” as I'll explain from their own words; citing their own words on this. 

Quoting directly from a recent article in the Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: Review seeks 'quality' tourists. Quoting directly: "The Government is reviewing its Visa-free entry scheme for foreign visitors, aiming to revise the policy to better target higher-quality tourism." That whole thing I've always thought was kind of a misnomer as a policy goal to begin with. This notion, it's led to a lot of this rich guy visas and stuff that hardly anybody uses and frankly, Thailand is better off getting a large number of middle-class visitors in my opinion; they will spend more money. I mean there are only so many meals a "rich person", a high-quality person can eat; there are only so many activities they can undertake. It's not like they all come to Thailand for 2 weeks and buy a Lamborghini and leave; that’s not how it works. So the goal of everything being around quality tourists, I don't know that I've ever bought that when you are comparing it with so-called budget tourism. Now if we are talking about criminality - which I get to in another video I made contemporaneously with this one, where I basically talk about how 'something has got to give' - Thai Policy Makers are probably getting tired of seeing the videos that we're all seeing about multiple busts for foreign prostitutes every week now, multiple busts now we're seeing of people going nuts and getting into fights with the Thais and stuff locally on the street. Something has got to give. 

But that said, going back to this, currently this issue where immigration generally is apparently coming before Parliament, but again the problem and the solution don't seem to be in alignment. Let me just get to it here or let me quote again: "The government is reviewing its Visa-free entry scheme for foreign visitors aiming to revise the policy to better target higher quality tourism, Tourism and Sports Minister Surasak Phancharoenworakul said. Quoting further: "However, data collected by the Government's Visa Policy Committee suggest the duration may exceed what is needed. About 90% of visitors stay between 1 and 30 days while fewer than 10% remain longer." Okay, so first off, they get into in their research with regard to the 30 versus 60 days, most people that come visa-free don't even use up 30 days, so they don't really need, only maybe 10% of the people currently using it need the extra 30 days. So there aren't any, hardly anybody even using it to begin with. This is also important because again the ostensible reason for going after this is is targeting nominee shareholder set ups and people working illegally, but from their own data, the people that are using this Visa, 90% of them don't even use it longer than 30 days. So what I'm saying is I don't think it's Visa Exempt people that are running into Thailand doing illegal stuff, specifically working illegally etc. In fact, it's probably others using other types of visas. 

Now let's get into this further. Quote: "As such there is a clear direction to review the 60 days and potentially reduce it to better align with real tourism patterns," Mr. Surasak said. Now as far as that goes, I couldn't agree with him more.  Yeah, it clearly actually looks like where 90% only need the 30 days and 10% you start wondering and the overall policy is "are you working here illegally?" okay that makes sense to me. It looks to me like they're going to reduce from 60 to 30 based on if nothing else, the predominance of the reasoning would seem to be based on the fact hardly anybody is using the extra 30 days. So from that standpoint, I understand. But then we get into where there's some disconnect here. Quoting further: "Those wishing to remain longer could apply for alternative visas such as the Destination Thailand Visa (DTV), which allows stays up to 180 days." Okay, so yes we understand there is the DTV out there, but as we've discussed in other videos, it's not work authorized for Thailand. The presumption is those people are not living here although they're bouncing in and out and again that was the presumption when it was created, but that isn't exactly how things are playing out.

Again, as I have discussed in other videos, this was initially the brainchild exclusively of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs without any consensus from internal immigration. And it was predicated initially off the notion they were going to create a Pan-ASEAN visa, when the other national immigration offices in the various countries of ASEAN basically rejected that. Then that Ministry of Foreign Affairs said well we will just create the DTV and then they left it super vague regarding things like work authorization, extension, border runs etc. So they left us all sort of just - especially people in Thailand who really aren't seeing the ramifications of this, but I think it's becoming increasingly clear what the ramifications are - as we are seeing people working illegally, as we're seeing more and more people getting into issues here because frankly they are going into a weird downward spiral because they have spent a bunch of time out here without any real purpose, and we're seeing the upshot of this. But the point I'm trying to make here is, they mentioned the DTV and then they go back to this. "The Minister said extended Visa-free stays have led to unintended issues, including some foreigners working illegally" - having been here only 30 days, they were working illegally? When 90% of them were doing time here for under 30 days? How does that make any sense? And meanwhile, we are saying that the Visa-free program people were working illegally, but then completely overlooking the people that are coming in with no particular reason to be here, but they're going to be here even longer? But that's not an issue with working illegally? The people that are only here for 30 days, they are the problem, is what I'm saying. Because that seems to be what the presumption is. Where is that presumption coming from? It's not based on the data. Their own data says that 90% of the people using visa-free don't even use it for 30 days. Quoting further: "Competing with local workers, or engaging in improper activities." The people that are only hear for 30 days? They're the problem with that? Not the people that are here for months on end, with no ostensible reason for being here other than taking a culinary class? And saying "oh because somebody had" - what is it at this point? "About $12,000, 12,500, 13,000 in a bank account and they are here studying cooking or Muay Thai, for presumptively 5 years, we think there's going to be no issue with them working illegally or the presumption seems to be, but the people that are only here for 30 days are the issue? What? Quoting further: "Tightening the policy, he said, would help ensure that only "genuine quality tourists" enter the country, in line with the Government's strategy to prioritize value over volume in tourism revenue." Okay. And I do see the argument with regard to the DTV if they are truly tourists, but that has been the issue with all of this the whole time. It's this Nomad thing; it was created in this very nebulous state by a highly politicized Administration that was looking to basically just drum up a bunch of numbers in terms of ostensible tourism very quickly, by basically offering the moon and the stars with respect to what your Visa would turn out to be, and then it turned out to be anything but. And again this is my big problem with this because it leads to the worst sort of unintended issue which is the blowback from all the foreigners who thought they were going to get one thing, and then got another and then they make all these frustrated videos on YouTube and it makes the system look even worse, when if we would have just had a streamlined system from the beginning that you either have a Visa that allows work authorization or it does not, and it allows for X amount of time or it does not - again none of this nebulous stuff - we would have a lot less bad outcomes coming from people who are not very happy with how this visa has worked out. 

And then meanwhile, Parliament is saying, "well we're going after people that are working illegally.” For 30 days?. Those aren't the people that are coming here working illegally, presumptively again aside from just pure illegal aliens, but folks that end up in Thailand in a nebulous state where they can't even quite determine what their work authorisation is, would seem far more likely over a long enough timeline - what is that from that movie Fight Club, "over a long enough timeline, eventually everybody dies essentially".  That's the thing. I mean over a long enough timeline with people that have a nebulous work authorization sort of situation, they are less of a risk than the people that are only here for 30 days? That doesn't seem to make any sense.

So I don't know what's going on in Parliament. Maybe they are just so attenuated from the immigration situation or from where the rubber hits the road with regard to policy on this that they are just not seeing it, but to my mind there should be scrutiny for the DTV, the LTR, all the Visas: the Business Visa, the O Visa, the Retirement, everything - it's time to really seriously re-look at everything and possibly pass streamlined legislation - not Omnibus legislation - streamlined legislation, specifically pertaining to Immigration so that we can show the world "hey, these are the rules; these are the specific visas; this is the framework. This is the framework under which people can come into Thailand and live and work and be an alien legally and peacefully here in Thailand." Not this sort of patchwork scheme where every different Visa has different requirements and therefore different scrutiny, leads to all sorts of frustration, and on top of it it's not a streamlined well-regulated immigration system where everybody knows where everybody's at and their status is clear - whether or not they are work authorized, whether or not they're retired here, whatever - whatever their status is, we know where they are at. That's the purpose of an Immigration Act. That is why we had one in '79 because it dealt with the system that theretofore was becoming far too lax based on the fact that you could be stamped in as a Resident up to that point. And then they started imposing work authorization and things.

Again, I'm not saying I'm for, against or anything associated with any of these visas, but we are at the point now where we are creating visas that are so nebulous, nobody really knows what the parameters of them are. And then meanwhile, there are genuine issues with foreigners invading certain of the restricted occupations in Thailand, certain types of business activity that is restricted to Thai nationals, there are problems with that. I don't think those problems stem from people coming in on a 60-day stamp, 90% of whom are using only 30 days of it. To my mind, it's the nebulous nature of all of these visas and not having a streamlined, well-articulated Immigration Act where you just point to what the category is and what the criteria are associated with both obtaining and maintaining it along with lawful status associated with it here in the Kingdom of Thailand.