Online TM.30 for occupiers - Not owners

[schlemmi]

On 8/16/2019 at 11:05 AM, spambot said:

For nationality the options are not that clear - Since I'm from UK - The choices could be Britain, England, Great Britain, United Kingdom - Can not seem to find any of these after translation - Anyone got the answer?

 

None of them.

Bermudas

Bolivia

Brasil

Barbados

Brunei

Buthan

Mugobowet

Botswana

Caroline

Kuratshauan

Africa ylang (middle Africa)

Canadian

Coconut islands

Switzerland

Chile

 

 

 

[schlemmi]

On 8/16/2019 at 12:49 PM, Peterw42 said:

Thats a TM28 for a new arrival and permanent address, thats about the only time an immigration office requires a TM28. I have never heard of it being enforced for short stays like TM30 is.

Maybe its a Hua Hin local rule.

There is no HuaHin local rule about the immigration act and any subsequent law. The immigration law is the same all over thailand. 

The officers know that!!!

Only two choices.

1.) IO is braindeath.

2.) IO tries to open a new money source.

I apologise to all immigration offices to write this very clear. If we have some IOs here around, May be as members please clarify.

 

 

Edited August 17, 2019 by schlemmi
Typo, added text

[schlemmi]

On 8/16/2019 at 1:24 PM, jackdd said:

You do a TM28 at a police station, not at immigration police, that's written on the form itself and in the law.

The person who you talked to just told you what is written in the law (but most foreigners are exempt from this anyway, for example people on tourist or business visas and some others), the person didn't tell you that this law is currently not enforced, so currently nothing to worry about.

This is partialy correct.

 

The truth is, as long as no one can show that the 40 years old police rule, defining all these forms, is no longer to use or has  partially changed this 40 years old rule is part of the actual law.

 

This rule defines a set of forms, but without any TM## numbering.

 

1.) The form that is actually tm30. According article 38 immigration act.

 

2.) The form for the 90 day report. Actually tm47. According article 37(5) immigration act.

 

2.) Two different forms to use by the foreigner to report:

A) if he not live at the place he reporter at the time when he entered Thailand by using the tm6 (departure/arival card). This form is addressed to the Immigration officer. This is according article 37(2) immigration act.

 

B) another second form to report to the local police office in the case he moved his place of residence. This is according article 37(3)(4) immigration act.

 

Actually, the tm28 is used for both cases and is addressed to the Immigration officer and is not defined by the police rule.

 

I never found anything written that there was a legitimate transfer of those both forms to be the actual tm28. Additionally I never found a legitimate transfer of the duty from the local police ( case B) to the Immigration organisation.

 

Furthermore the duty to report in the (case B) article 37(3)(4) has some exceptions e.g. tourism, business and a few more.

[jackdd]

8 minutes ago, schlemmi said:

Actually, the tm28 is used for both cases and is addressed to the Immigration officer and is not defined by the police rule.

This is not correct (but actually i thought the same until just a few weeks ago, when i discovered form TM27)

Section 37 (3) and (4) use TM28, addressed to the local police station

Section 37 (2) uses TM27, addressed to the immigration office, here an example: https://www.immigration.go.th/download/1542264289117.pdf

 

In this document from 40 years ago we can see forms TM27, TM28 and TM47, but it looks like back then they didn't have these "TM" numbers yet: http://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/2522/A/096/1.PDF

 

 

Edited August 17, 2019 by jackdd

[schlemmi]

On 8/16/2019 at 2:39 PM, jackdd said:

What i wrote is still true, even if your friends did it there.

Immigration police might accept it, but actually it's supposed to be done at your local police station, just look at the law:

For the TM28 it says:

 

 

For the TM30 which has to be done with immigration police:

 

 

Hi jacked,

what you wrote is ok, but I feel to remember I had seen the words " to the Immigration officer" on the actual tm28 forms, or isn't it?

[jackdd]

17 minutes ago, schlemmi said:

Hi jacked,

what you wrote is ok, but I feel to remember I had seen the words " to the Immigration officer" on the actual tm28 forms, or isn't it?

Yes, it is, as other people mentioned before, but this is not in accordance with the law, so imho this is just wrong.

 

I guess, some years ago, it went about like this:

Somebody decided that after copying the documents from 1979 a million times it just looked crap, so somebody got the order to make a new version of all these documents (TM27, TM28, TM30, TM47).

Three of these documents are addressed "To immigration office", only TM28 is addressed "To local police station". The person who created these new version of the documents just made a mistake and wrongfully used "To immigration office" on the TM28 as well, because that's what he also used for the three other documents.

The law is not enforced, nobody cares about it, so maybe nobody ever noticed this mistake, or if they did notice it, they just didn't care to correct it. So this wrong version of the TM28 was just shared across the immigration offices.

 

That it happened like this is way more likely than that there was an update to the immigration act itself plus a new ministerial order (this would be the only way to change this in accordance with the law), which everybody including the Council of State missed.

Edited August 17, 2019 by jackdd

[schlemmi]

39 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Yes, it is, as other people mentioned before, but this is not in accordance with the law, so imho this is just wrong.

 

I guess, some years ago, it went about like this:

Somebody decided that after copying the documents from 1979 a million times it just looked crap, so somebody got the order to make a new version of all these documents (TM27, TM28, TM30, TM47).

Three of these documents are addressed "To immigration office", only TM28 is addressed "To local police station". The person who created these new version of the documents just made a mistake and wrongfully used "To immigration office" on the TM28 as well, because that's what he also used for the three other documents.

The law is not enforced, nobody cares about it, so maybe nobody ever noticed this mistake, or if they did notice it, they just didn't care to correct it. So this wrong version of the TM28 was just shared across the immigration offices.

 

That it happened like this is way more likely than that there was an update to the immigration act itself plus a new ministerial order (this would be the only way to change this in accordance with the law), which everybody including the Council of State missed.

Thanks to find the tm27. Indeed that is the missing form and is in accordance with the law.

 

You wrote the wrong text in the tm28 is just a failure by produce the new templates. It could be, but also on some posters of the immigration and other material published, I have seen the original text in Thai without any failures but the officer is shown as a cosmic picture is sitting at an immigration desk and not at the local police. I Not want to insist the immigration to bend the law, but if some experience with the Thai authorities that leads me to a more pessimistic point of view.

 

[schlemmi]

On 8/16/2019 at 3:14 PM, MikeN said:

And if you look at the actual form, (http://www.immigrationbangkok.com/files/visa_forms/tm28.pdf) it says no such thing....  the TM28 starts "To the Immigration officer" and ends as being signed at "xxxxx" Immigration office.

The original template developed 40 years ago says "to the local police" or something equal. They changed it. Maybe accidentally while making new (computer developed) templates (as jackdd suggest already) or with the goal to get all the power to the Immigration, or for other reasons. However this tm28 with the wrong wording is not according the law, as far as we know.

 

A second important point is, if you want to report to the local police by using this form, they would most likely not accept it because it is addressed to the Immigration. That means they hinder you to act according the written law. 

Edited August 17, 2019 by schlemmi
Additional text

[schlemmi]

7 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

Those were the first forms done as an example I would guess. I think you might find later orders that allows immigration to change the forms without a new order being needed.

What you will find on the immigration websites are the latest versions and are certainly official and legal forms.

 

That is completely wrong.

 

The police rule from 40 years ago are not written as an idea as it could look like.

 

This rule was written as reaction of the content of article 37, 38 of the immigration act. 

 

The immigration act orders the "director General of the police" to develop the how to the reports have to be done. This includes the forms as well.

 

If there are new rules they have to be published. As far and deep I take a look to the government gazette I found nothing. As far as I discussed with an immigration officer in the position of the vice boss of a not small immigration near Bangkok in the ranck of a police lieutenant colonel I know there is nothing else than this 40 years old police rule. 

[schlemmi]

6 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

As I wrote before I am certain if you were able to find it that there are newer ministerial orders that allows immigration to modify the forms as needed. 

Dredging up old orders in the royal gazette online can be misleading since there are probably many that that have not been scanned and posted online yet.

I am sure there are also orders that refined the authority and responsibilities of immigration and the police.

You have to remember that the immigration act is very old and things have changed greatly since it was written. 

 

To make up new forms with changed content, to change police rules, to change ministerial laws etc.. it needs a sufficient legal power to do it. Who and how this power can be used is written in the law. And the Thai law uses a quite straight forward process to make the law. The only what you need to do is to read it from Top to Down beginning at the concerning act (signed by HM. The King of thailand) than the Ministerial law developed by the Ministry assigned to take care about the content of the act and so far until you reached the bottom.  All this stuff is published in the government gazette. 

 

That means, to change actual law to become new law, there has a to be a document starts with the wording:

Due to the power given in article ## of the xXxX act .... or something comparable. Otherwise there is no legitimation for it.

[ubonjoe]

8 minutes ago, schlemmi said:

To make up new forms with changed content, to change police rules, to change ministerial laws etc.. it needs a sufficient legal power to do it. Who and how this power can be used is written in the law. And the Thai law uses a quite straight forward process to make the law. The only what you need to do is to read it from Top to Down beginning at the concerning act (signed by HM. The King of thailand) than the Ministerial law developed by the Ministry assigned to take care about the content of the act and so far until you reached the bottom. 

If you read my post you quoted where I wrote there may be newer ministerial orders that may changed that allows the police/immigration to change the forms. Those orders may not show up when searching for particular forms on the royal gazette site.

I also wrote that there may be many ministerial order that not been scanned and posted on online in the royal gazette.

It appears the TM28 form was revised to add the content of the TM27 to the TM28 form.

When immigration made changes to several forms in January of 2017 it was authorized by a cabinet resolution.

See: https://www.immigration.go.th/read?content_id=58a54349ce597737a867ff49

All this discussion about the TM28 forms is really not all that relevant to the current discussion about TM30 forms.

 

[schlemmi]

1 hour ago, schlemmi said:

As I wrote before I am certain if you were able to find it that there are newer ministerial orders that allows immigration to modify the forms as needed. 

1.) I read all the the concerning orders. I  found none.

2.) There is no texnode in the immigration act that permits the Ministry to release such a order. ( concerning article 37 and 38)

 

1 hour ago, schlemmi said:

Dredging up old orders in the royal gazette online can be misleading since there are probably many that that have not been scanned and posted online yet.

I strongly beleave the online gazette is quite complete. I have contact to officials too. They have no better informations too.

1 hour ago, schlemmi said:

I am sure there are also orders that refined the authority and responsibilities of immigration and the police.

If like this then it has to be based on the immigration law or higher lows. Like Royal decree, or art 44 of the constitution. This would be in the Gazette for sure. 

1 hour ago, schlemmi said:

You have to remember that the immigration act is very old and things have changed greatly since it was written. 

But not the law system of thailand. There is not a best before date glued to this part of the law.

Edited August 17, 2019 by schlemmi
Typo

[schlemmi]

1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

When immigration made changes to several forms in January of 2017 it was authorized by a cabinet resolution.

See: https://www.immigration.go.th/read?content_id=58a54349ce597737a867ff49

All this discussion about the TM28 forms is really not all that relevant to the current discussion about TM30 forms.

 

The data behind this tells:

1.) The date where the forms 1-14 have to be used according to the Ministerial law "xxxxxxx" and the cabinet meeting on 17-01-2017.

 

Nothing more. The forms are developed due to ministerial law. You can find it in the online gazette and there is a straight pathway from the immigration act to the Ministry of interior as caretaker of the immigration act with the duty to develop a set of law and forms. 

 

A similar straight pathway is for the article 37 and 38 too. This path is:

 

Immigration act art. 37, 38 ==> police rule by director General. #End of path.

 

There is no ministry of interior involved. But could be overruled by royal decree, prime minister using 44 of the constitution.

 

If there would be some newer overruling stuff, then why the immigration does not publish it in the same way like the changes concerning tm1-tm14?

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2019 by schlemmi
Additional text

[Maestro]

On 8/16/2019 at 10:56 AM, jackdd said:

...I didn't find any ministerial order ever updating this form, so the version found in this PDF is the legally correct version...

 

The fact that I cannot find a ministerial order replacing or modifying an earlier ministerial order does not necessarily mean that such newer ministerial order does not exist.

[Maestro]

13 hours ago, jackdd said:

Here the ministerial orders concerning Section 37 put together by the Council of State: http://www.krisdika.go.th/librarian/get?sysid=318871&ext=htm

 

What makes you believe that the document to which the link you have given leads is a ministerial order?

[Maestro]

13 hours ago, fondue zoo said:

So if you live in a residence that is rented by your Thai partner from a Thai owner, the person responsible for the TM30 form would be your Thai partner?

 

 

To what post are you referring with the above?

[4675636b596f75]

On 8/16/2019 at 9:00 AM, ubonjoe said:

Occupier is poor wording for it. Possessor has the same meaning and the two are one in the same.

You can register as a possessor.

 

I think you could also register as the house master.  I rent my condo, but for the term of our agreement, this is my condo.  I choose who can walk through the front door.  The holder of the Chinote cannot just walk in without making prior arrangements with me and only for emergency reasons.

 

I am the master.

Edited August 17, 2019 by 4675636b596f75

[jackdd]

8 hours ago, Maestro said:

 

What makes you believe that the document to which the link you have given leads is a ministerial order?

Ok, after checking it again: The order by the police director.

 

8 hours ago, Maestro said:

The fact that I cannot find a ministerial order replacing or modifying an earlier ministerial order does not necessarily mean that such newer ministerial order does not exist.

Of course not, but as explained before, the law says you have to inform your local police station.

If they wanted to change this, first they would have to change the immigration act, and then the police director would have to issue a new order to update the form.

We didn't find any such update, and when looking at the documents on the website of the Council of State, which keep getting updated by them if something new should be released, they also didn't see such an update.

So the chance that such an update exists is close to zero and most likely the TM28 which we currently find on the immigration websites is not correct.

If they had changed the form on purpose they would also have removed the "Your local police station..." line in the middle of it.

Edited August 18, 2019 by jackdd

[ubonjoe]

38 minutes ago, jackdd said:

If they wanted to change this, first they would have to change the immigration act, and then the police director would have to issue a new order to update the form.

You seem to be forgetting that the Immigration Bureau is under the Royal Thai Police.

For all intents and purposes they are one in the same as far as what is written on the TM28 form and others.

The immigration act has not been changed since it was issued 40 years ago. No sure why it has never been at least amended to bring it up to date. It almost seems like it has a do not touch sign on put on it by the bureaucrats in Bangkok.

There are probably dozens of ministerial orders that have been issued under it and some have even been done as a work around for what the immigration act states.

It would be interesting to see what the Royal Thai Police Act B.E. 2547 states and the earlier ones it replaced. I am certain it defines what the Immigration Bureau can do since it is mentioned when police orders are issued.

 

[JohnnyBKK]

On 8/16/2019 at 8:26 AM, ubonjoe said:

There is no option for occupiers but there is one for possessor which is the term used in the immigration act 

From the online registration site.

Thailand elite staff just told me by email that possessor is not for tenants... who are the possessors if not the tenants ??

[dcnx]

If only Germany would create a reciprocal law that applied to all Thais visiting there. The TM30 would vanish within a day.

[JohnnyBKK]

1 minute ago, dcnx said:

If only Germany would create a reciprocal law that applied to all Thais visiting there. The TM30 would vanish within a day.

If they did that then we would need many many more things to come to visit Thailand, it would be very difficult to come here. For thais to visit EU they require tons of paperwork, that's why they don't need to do TM30's there.

[schlemmi]

On 8/18/2019 at 12:22 AM, Maestro said:

 

What makes you believe that the document to which the link you have given leads is a ministerial order?

I would please all posters, 

esspecially  in such essentially legal things belonging the the use of the actual law of the country where we live all together, to comment in a straight foreward way to get the highest benefit for all.

 

Want say:

 

1.) Explain what is to discuss

2.) What is your oppinion

3.) Maybe give a conclusion

 

 

In this particular toppic it could be:

 

Hi jackdd,

(1) that is not a ministerial order, its a police rule.

 

(3) Could be you put a wrong link ????

 

Additionally i want to ask all of the posters are joining the tm30 related threads:

 

Who  can read the thai law written in thai, fluent, and understand immediatily what is written without any use of a computerbased translationtool, and can explain the content right away in thai in in his own language?

 

From time to time, i have the feeling, it is  a discussion like blind persons discussing about colour.

Edited August 18, 2019 by schlemmi
minor change.

[schlemmi]

On 8/18/2019 at 12:10 AM, Maestro said:

 

The fact that I cannot find a ministerial order replacing or modifying an earlier ministerial order does not necessarily mean that such newer ministerial order does not exist.

Ask by writing a letter to the officials. Writing a letter and follow up until it gets a result.

 

Not asking by talking with incompetent IOs.

 

 

[schlemmi]

On 8/18/2019 at 12:41 AM, 4675636b596f75 said:

I think you could also register as the house master.  I rent my condo, but for the term of our agreement, this is my condo.  I choose who can walk through the front door.  The holder of the Chinote cannot just walk in without making prior arrangements with me and only for emergency reasons.

 

I am the master.

If there is a housemaster according to the housebook, this housemaster decides who passes the frontdor. In both ways, in or out.

[Maestro]

9 minutes ago, schlemmi said:

If there is a housemaster according to the housebook, this housemaster decides who passes the frontdor. In both ways, in or out.

 

When I have a lease on an apartment or other type of residence, it is I who decide whom I invite into this residence.

[Maestro]

Removed a troll post (incorrect information and mostly incomprehensible and also in violation of forum rule 1)

 

 

Edited August 18, 2019 by Maestro
Added link to forum rules