After circling the issue seemingly since being elected, the cabinet finally moved forward this week to end the 60-day visa-free programme for 93 nationalities, citing a need to stem crime and misconduct by foreigners. But if discussion of the decision’s necessity is now officially closed, attention must turn instead to results.
This writer’s concerns and scepticism about the backtracking on the visa-free policy have already been made clear. If the premise for halving the 60-day allowance is that longer stays are a significant contributor to heightened crime statistics, the government has essentially sworn that Thailand should see a fall in these numbers in the coming months.
Accordingly, the government must now assume the obligation to demonstrate that the cancellation produces a tangible reduction.
Though many factors are involved in directly counteracting criminal activity, the cabinet has now opened the door for visa duration to be directly correlated with the volume of illegal activity carried out by foreigners within Thai borders.
Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sihasak Phuangketkeow is among those who viewed the 60-day stay was “too long” and that reducing it would help authorities “more effectively monitor suspicious activity”.
Yet, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and others have also pointed out that average tourist stays in Thailand for only nine days, much shorter than even the 30-day policy.
If a significant portion of foreigners are already leaving in under 30 days, how much more effective can monitoring become by having that norm become the rule?
The logic would appear to be that shorter stays mean fewer opportunities for criminality, but the vast majority of arrivals under the 60-day programme never even came close to what would be considered a long stay.
If authorities insist that the longer visa-free period enabled criminal behaviour, then statistical evidence should eventually confirm this claim.
Arrests involving foreign nationals should decline. Illegal business operations should diminish. Overstay numbers should fall. Complaints from local communities should ease. Otherwise, the government will have imposed economic costs without delivering public safety benefits.
This matters because Thailand’s tourism economy is one of the country’s central economic engines. Every additional hurdle carries consequences, particularly in a competitive environment where neighbouring countries are aggressively courting long-stay visitors as well as a variety of other foreign arrivals.
The point bears repeating. Based on available information, most foreign-related crime in Thailand is not caused by ordinary tourists staying an extra 30 days on a visa exemption stamp.
Organised criminal networks do not disappear because an entry permission changes from 60 days to 30. Sophisticated operators exploit nominee structures, corrupt officials, weak enforcement and loopholes entirely unrelated to tourist visas.
If the government wishes to refute these assertions, then it must also explain recent headlines like the weapons hoard found in Pattaya, or the gang of police officers being investigated for kidnapping and extortion of a Chinese national.
This latest policy shift is not only a decision, it is the stating of a hypothesis that is in need of proof.
