Transcript of the above video: 

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing the TM30. For those who are unaware, that's address reporting associated with foreigners who are in Thailand have to basically file a TM30 in order to make Thai Immigration aware of their location of residence. I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from the Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: MPs slam reporting rule for foreign visitors. 

So this is actually an example out there, for those who are unaware this is an example of where the Thai Parliamentarians are actually having issues with the way that this system works. This is a good thing in certain ways. Now again, the trend never seems to be that things end up easier or less of a hassle for the actual immigrant, so bear that in mind. That said, I think overall, the fact that they are talking about this in this way is not a bad thing. 

Quoting directly, again article titled: MPs slam reporting rule for foreign visitors, Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, quoting directly: "The proposed amendments to some sections of the Hotel Act and Immigration Act, which passed their first reading in Parliament on Wednesday, aim to reduce duplicate reporting of foreigners' temporary stays in Thailand, but may not address existing loopholes as illegal operators are excluded from enforcement. Proposed by the Cabinet and a Bhumjaithai Party MP, the amendment aims to streamline the notification process for stakeholders required to report foreign guests residing temporarily in Thailand. The responsibility for reporting a foreigner's stay primarily falls on the householder, owners of a dwelling or hotel manager, who must notify authorities within 24 hours via electronic channels." - I wanted to point this out. It says, "Foreigners are no longer required to make duplicate notifications themselves." - I think that should read, "would no longer be required if this Bill passes", probably the better language. Quoting further: "Except in cases deemed necessary for national security or public safety." Quoting further: "However, opposition parties argued that the definitions of the three groups required to report foreign guests remain unclear, as they do not cover all types of accommodation in the market, particularly unregistered properties." 

I'm making another video contemporaneously with this one where I get into some of that detail at length. That said, quoting further: "The Parliamentary debate also raised concerns over the definitions of a householder and the owner of a dwelling." Yeah, we have discussed this in other videos going way back when I was talking about TM30, when we were first talking about this, I brought this up over time. This has always been a discrepancy where people say, "well I am renting this from this person and they won't assist me in my TM30", and then they basically come back and say, "well you're the householder, I'm the landlord, I own it but you are leasing from me so you are the householder, it's on you to go do that." There needs to be some clarification on that. I agree with the idea there needs to be clarification on that.

Hopefully in this new Bill, presumably becomes law, we will see that clarification. That said, quoting further: "In practice, many property owners no longer manage guest bookings themselves, outsourcing these responsibilities to management companies or intermediary platforms. Lawmakers have argued the amended regulations should clearly specify which party is responsible for reporting guest registrations to the Immigration Bureau." And in my opinion, they should put it on the foreigners and let me be clear as to why. If they put it on to the Thais as landlords or whatever, they just won't do it, and I mean what's going to be the penalty for that? I guess you could put a penalty in the law, but then you are going to pack off all your voters who want to be able to rent to people. And at the end of the day if it was clear that the foreigners had to do it, and it was just part of the overall process, it would probably be better. It's the fact that there is the confusion that creates all the consternation. To my mind, just put it on the foreigners because again, I think it will lead to even more problems by putting it on a Thai landlord or something. Again, differences between hotels and a landlord where it's just a guy that wants to lease his house or a condo or something for 10,000 baht a month, or 20,000 baht a month, get his money and move on, he doesn’t want the hassle. II have watched landlords over the years here. They just won't do it, and they in many cases they may not even rent a thing to a foreigner. They may just say, "I'm not going to rent it to a foreigner, if I have to go through all this hassle at Immigration." 

So I think it would be bad for the foreign community if it was squarely placed only on Thais to deal with this stuff because then they will just throw up their hands and not do it and they will just either not accommodate the foreigners, or they will accommodate them and then just not basically cooperate. I'm not saying everybody would, but I am saying that will probably become an issue. So if it was me, I would say look let's just clearly make address reporting the issue for the foreigners. Also, here's an idea. If while we're doing this Bill, maybe get rid of the 90-day reporting at the same time, in the same Bill. I think foreigners would be perfectly happy to report their address once a year, or just once and then it is just noted and if they no longer had to do 90-day reporting; that would be to my mind a good way to sort of balance all of this out. That being said, it remains to be seeing how all this plays out, so we will certainly be keeping folks updated on this channel as the situation evolves.