Thailand To Limit Foreign Stake In Firms To 50 Per Cent

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

Investors have been arrested and convicted for illegally working for visiting the premises of the company they co-owned. While not common, it does happen and it is well documented. In Phuket government officials advise that an investor is breaking the law if he visits the business premise without a work permit. That is one province where small business investors have been arrested and convicted for visiting the business they co-owned.

That's just unbelievable and ridiculous. TIT.

From the Phuket Gazette:

"Because of the definition of "work" in Thai law, investors must obtain work permits, even if they do not work full-time or even part-time in the business they are invested in.

For example, when a bar owner visits Thailand to check his property, he must have a work permit because the act of visiting the business is considered work under Thai Immigration Law.

Before entering Thailand and applying for a work permit, an investor must get a Non-immigrant B visa, which is available from any Thai embassy or consulate."

Wednesday, February 7, 2001 Boonsri Tawaycheay, Phuket Provincial Employment Services Office

http://phuketgazette.net/issuesanswers/details.asp?id=139

Check Issues and Answers in the Phuket Gazette for more. I'll try to dig up the old articles up on the arrests and convictions later today.

The source articles are now deeply buried in Google. I will keep looking to see if I have a copy of the original link in my files. The items quoted below comes from another website that refers to the same information.

A recent case in Phuket involved a foreign bar owner who was arrested by police for sitting on the customer side of his bar talking to customers. The police decided that talking to customers was equivalent to trying to promote the business. He was arrested, fined 30,000 Baht and ordered out of the country. Having a Thai wife he has since returned to the country.

In another case a foreign gym owner was arrested and fined for hanging a mirror on the wall of his gym.

Following the tsunami in December 2004 many charities and foreigners tried to assist in the aftermath, the Thai authorities insisted that all these people MUST have work permits although they were working for no money and with the best of intentions.

http://www.orchidofsiam.com/orchidofsiam/T...nd_Work_Permits

Edited January 17, 2007 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[onethailand]

One may invest in a Thai business, but one may not work in Thailand without the proper permission.

Similarly, one may buy a condo in Thailand, but one may not live in Thailand without the proper permission.

As silly as it seems, that's the truth.

CMA - I never had to cede control of anything the whole time - and everyone involved at every stage was aware that I was signing the forms, the checks, and that I would hold 99.94% of the company. Even when we applied to the TAT for accreditation they were fully aware of the company's ToA status - and I did not yet have a work permit, only proof of application.

I'm not saying what you were told by the Ministry official was wrong. But I do believe he gave you the worst possible interpretation of the regulations.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

One may invest in a Thai business, but one may not work in Thailand without the proper permission.

Similarly, one may buy a condo in Thailand, but one may not live in Thailand without the proper permission.

As silly as it seems, that's the truth.

CMA - I never had to cede control of anything the whole time - and everyone involved at every stage was aware that I was signing the forms, the checks, and that I would hold 99.94% of the company. Even when we applied to the TAT for accreditation they were fully aware of the company's ToA status - and I did not yet have a work permit, only proof of application.

I'm not saying what you were told by the Ministry official was wrong. But I do believe he gave you the worst possible interpretation of the regulations.

99% of the time what you say is true. However, even the US Commercial Service changed its advice last year rather than risking the possibility Americans would fall victim to an over zealous officer or official. Before they stated business trips of up to 30 days could be made without a work permit. This is the current advice. The change occured when Thaksin was still in power and is not the result of the coup as did my situation. Business purposes includes registering a business.

Non-Immigrant 'B' Visas

If entering Thailand for business purposes, the Immigration Department requires a non-immigrant Business or 'B' visa. Application for this visa must be made outside of Thailand. The application should be accompanied by two passport-size photos, and a letter from a sponsoring company indicating the length and purpose of visit. The visa will be valid for 90 days for a single entry visa or 180 days for multiple entry, and may be sufficient for conducting business initially.

http://www.buyusa.gov/thailand/en/visa_workpermit.html

Edited January 17, 2007 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[onethailand]

99% of the time what you say is true. However, even the US Commercial Service changed its advice last year. Before they stated business trips of up to 30 days could be made without a work permit. This is the current advice. The change occured when Thaksin was still in power and is not the result of the coup. Business purposes includes registering a business.

To clarify, I did indeed have a non-immigrant 'B" already. You cannot apply for a work permit without this type of visa.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

99% of the time what you say is true. However, even the US Commercial Service changed its advice last year. Before they stated business trips of up to 30 days could be made without a work permit. This is the current advice. The change occured when Thaksin was still in power and is not the result of the coup. Business purposes includes registering a business.

To clarify, I did indeed have a non-immigrant 'B" already. You cannot apply for a work permit without this type of visa.

I too held a non-immigrant "B" and was the majority shareholder of an inactive TOA business. I did not yet have a work permit when my incident occured. None of the attorneys could get the MOL to change its position. The attitude was that the TOA does not apply to the MOL.

Edited January 17, 2007 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[Bruce1]

Okay, so suppose I buy shares in a company, so I'm a shareholder and therefore an investor. Say its a well-known company such as Tesco.

So I decide to have a holiday in Thailand and while I'm here I wander down the road for a stickybeak at where my money is being used. I go into the local Tesco, notice a picture has fallen on the floor or the sales clerk has dropped a docket or something, pick it up and put it back. Have I done work? Will I be arrested as a horrible criminal? Seriously?

No wonder foreign investors are jumpy.

[Mobi]

There was a case a while back whereby a farang was arrested for working, when he jammed with a local Thai band for no pay. It was asserted that he was 'working' becasue he used the band's instruments and amplifiers, and even though he did not pay any fee for this - or receive any payment for his performance, he was never the less deemed to be 'renting' the equipment, and therefor working.

If I owned a bar or restaurant, or was in any way involved in owning shares in a business here without holding a valid work permit I would be exteremely jittery about my future well being.

30 years ago you would never, ever see a farang involved in any way in a retail or service business because everyone knew that such activities were prohibited to foreigners. It seems that the authorities are slowly turning back that clock.

Edited January 17, 2007 by Mobi D'Ark

[Paul MBMG]

I wouldn't believe everything that you read in Business Post!

The feedback that we get is that most multinationals are as concerned as they would be over any legislative changes of this nature and obviously seeking the assurances that in general are being given by the authorities. The better advice that was taken initially, the less concerns investors need to have now. End of story.

You may well be correct on this, but Tesco, one of the largest retailers in the world didn't do it right - they set up a Thai company with nominees and are now very concerned about the future of their operations in Thailand (yesterday's business Post), and according to another recent article in the B.Post, most of the major multi nationals also went this route for their investments in Thailand, because having a Thai company made it much easier to do business, particularly with regards the ownership of land and the restrictions on trade for foreign companies.

I wonder if they all received cheap legal advice which is going to cause them to receive a "bite on their backsides"?

IMHO glib comments about the qualiity or otherwise of high priced lawyers contribute little to the understanding of the mess this incompetent bunch of Dad's Army have made of their foreign investment laws.

[Paul MBMG]

someone says that a competitor is expensive, I say that you get what you pay for (i.e. quality doesn't com cheap) and I'm advertising??

You have a very warped view of the world, Andrew.

I've posted so much on this topic because it's something that I know about and becaus ethere is so much mis-information and misunderstanding. It's my opinion that uninformed hysteria about this subject will only alienate the authorities and cause damage. To me that's important. I was at a meeting some years ago when the authorities warned what would happen if people continued to latently abuse the system. People did and they've had to act. Those doing it on the cheap have spoiled it for others - this isn't only about Temasek.

I suppose that's an advert too??

In some spheres of business I suppose that we would consider T&G as competitors, but I have to say that YGWYPF (you get what you pay for). It amazes me that people will invest millions of Baht into a company or property and then skimp on a few tens of thousands of Baht legal fees. Inevitably they end up with a cheaper but far poorer solution. I don't imagine that too many T&G clients (or our clients for that matter) are at all concerned about the terms of the new FBA. At the risk of repeating myself, set yourself up right in the first place and there's very little to have to worry about now. Do it on the cheap initially and you'd better jump now and jump fast or else something could just be coming along that's going to bite your backside.

Getting legal advice? Most local legal and accounting firms do not even know what the treaty is, or that it exists. So much for that route unless you can afford to retain Tilleke & Gibbins.

You are right on about Tilleke and Gibbins. Excellent firm but too expense for all but the most pressing problems.

For God's sake, business must be slack... You have ceaselessly advertised on this site with your worthless "posts" since New Year. Mods?? Can't you deal with this??

[John K]

Ok let me try it this way. Lets take Toyota only as a name. Toyota has facilities all over the world consisting of parts and assembly facilities. Just to use an easy number lets say Toyota has 100 facilities world wide and only one of them in Thailand. The corporate office that is not a factory is located in Japan. So under the new law would the Thais only have just over .5% of control as only 1% of Toyota is in Thailand? Meaning should any company want to keep control all they need do is open another facility outside of Thailand and place it under a corporate umbrella along with the Thailand facility.

I guess I am looking at this as a possible loophole in the new law. The other scenario is Thailand is taking over businesses world wide with this law if you want a facility in Thailand.

Thats still doesnt gove them overall control..

The 1% sub company Toyota Thailand now run by 51% Thais can still do as its 51% Thais tell them too.. Make skodas and stick on a Toyota badge.. Pay themselves the entire company bank accounts etc..

See why Toyota (global) would have a problem losing control of even a small part ??

John,

Let's just walk through this step by step

Toyota has a holding company in Japan. This is owned by all the shareholders who buy shares in Toyota on the Japanese stock exchange. This holding company sets up operations around the world. Its Thai operation is restricted to wning shares that confer up to 50% of the votes. The remaining shares in the Thai venture have to held by Thai entities or Thai people. This doesn't affect the ownership of the shares in the holding company which remain with the shreholders who bought them on the Japanese stock exchange. It doesn't affect the shareholdings in any other subsidiaries around the world. It onlt affects the Thai subsidiary.

However, what LivinLOS fails to point out is that

1) This only restricts Toyota's ability to perform the 5 key tasks that require shareholder votes (and Toyota can at leat retain negative control by requiring a vote of say 52% of the votes of the company to achieve these

2) It certainly doesn't enable them to 'make Skodas and stick on a Toyota badge' - Toyota Japan can prevent this.

3) It certainly doesn't enable them to 'pay themselves the entire company bank accounts etc'. Again, Japan can prevent this.

By all the mechanisms that I have previoulsy mentioned Toyota Japan can retain control/protection of their investment. Shareholder voting rights can cause inconvenience but not affect the day to day ability of the holding company to operate its business.

Is that any clearer?

Yes it does so simply as this question was based on finding and exposing a loophole, all a company needs to do is open another facility outside of Thailand, and cover both under a corporate umbrella and the new Thai law becomes impotent.

[Paul MBMG]

Well, there are structures that use a local holding company that can confer protections moe obvioulsy than an overseas holding company that still counts a foreign investor....

Ok let me try it this way. Lets take Toyota only as a name. Toyota has facilities all over the world consisting of parts and assembly facilities. Just to use an easy number lets say Toyota has 100 facilities world wide and only one of them in Thailand. The corporate office that is not a factory is located in Japan. So under the new law would the Thais only have just over .5% of control as only 1% of Toyota is in Thailand? Meaning should any company want to keep control all they need do is open another facility outside of Thailand and place it under a corporate umbrella along with the Thailand facility.

I guess I am looking at this as a possible loophole in the new law. The other scenario is Thailand is taking over businesses world wide with this law if you want a facility in Thailand.

Thats still doesnt gove them overall control..

The 1% sub company Toyota Thailand now run by 51% Thais can still do as its 51% Thais tell them too.. Make skodas and stick on a Toyota badge.. Pay themselves the entire company bank accounts etc..

See why Toyota (global) would have a problem losing control of even a small part ??

John,

Let's just walk through this step by step

Toyota has a holding company in Japan. This is owned by all the shareholders who buy shares in Toyota on the Japanese stock exchange. This holding company sets up operations around the world. Its Thai operation is restricted to wning shares that confer up to 50% of the votes. The remaining shares in the Thai venture have to held by Thai entities or Thai people. This doesn't affect the ownership of the shares in the holding company which remain with the shreholders who bought them on the Japanese stock exchange. It doesn't affect the shareholdings in any other subsidiaries around the world. It onlt affects the Thai subsidiary.

However, what LivinLOS fails to point out is that

1) This only restricts Toyota's ability to perform the 5 key tasks that require shareholder votes (and Toyota can at leat retain negative control by requiring a vote of say 52% of the votes of the company to achieve these

2) It certainly doesn't enable them to 'make Skodas and stick on a Toyota badge' - Toyota Japan can prevent this.

3) It certainly doesn't enable them to 'pay themselves the entire company bank accounts etc'. Again, Japan can prevent this.

By all the mechanisms that I have previoulsy mentioned Toyota Japan can retain control/protection of their investment. Shareholder voting rights can cause inconvenience but not affect the day to day ability of the holding company to operate its business.

Is that any clearer?

Yes it does so simply as this question was based on finding and exposing a loophole, all a company needs to do is open another facility outside of Thailand, and cover both under a corporate umbrella and the new Thai law becomes impotent.

[Mobi]

I wouldn't believe everything that you read in Business Post!

You mean I should believe you? :D

According the the government - Tesco used nominee shareholders.

According to Tescos they are extremely worried about their situation, especially as regards land ownership.

All this information gleaned from direct and extensive quotes from both the government and Tesco's senior mangement.

Maybe they should have taken their legal advice from our High Priced lawyer friend who seems to know it all.

Edited January 17, 2007 by Mobi D'Ark

[Paul MBMG]

I wouldn't believe everything that you read in Business Post!

You mean I should believe you? :D

According the the government - Tesco used nominee shareholders.

According to Tescos they are extremely worried about their situation, especially as regards land ownership.

All this information gleaned from direct and extensive quotes from both the government and Tesco's senior mangement.

Maybe they should have taken their legal advice from our High Priced lawyer friend who seems to know it all.

They took very good quality legal advice and are continuing to do so as they review the POTENTIAL changes in the draft.

Mobi, you know as well as I do that there is a lot of posturing going here as the various parties publicly jostle for position to protect themselves - to an extent, what you see is what the various sides want you to see. TL, I'm sure know what they;re doing.You certainly seem to know what you're doing. As for some of the ill-informed hysterical outpourings from left, right an centre the last few days.............

[pgrin]

For Thai people to hold shares without voting rights under existing law is not illegal, if the shares were acquired with their own money and the investment decision is reasonable in terms of risks and returns.

But the case where a foreigner buys shares via a Thai person while retaining ultimate control (voting rights) and economic benefits is already illegal under the existing law (Sections 35, 36, and 37). The company, the foreigner, and the Thai nominee are all subject to prosecution

Abhisit Vejjajiva is leader of the Democrat party

[pgrin]

For Thai people to hold shares without voting rights under existing law is not illegal, if the shares were acquired with their own money and the investment decision is reasonable in terms of risks and returns.

But the case where a foreigner buys shares via a Thai person while retaining ultimate control (voting rights) and economic benefits is already illegal under the existing law (Sections 35, 36, and 37). The company, the foreigner, and the Thai nominee are all subject to prosecution

Abhisit Vejjajiva is leader of the Democrat party

As for some of the ill-informed hysterical outpourings from left, right an centre the last few days.............

It has been my contention all along that the overwhelming majority of foreign nationals who own homes in Thailand via the Thai company route have violated Thai law and are subject to prosecution. This is neither ill-informed nor hysterical, it is simply fact. You can run a red light 99 times in a row without getting a ticket. It doesn't mean you haven't committed a crime, you just haven't been caught.

[Paul MBMG]

the customary practical application of the law becomes legal precedent in iteself - especially when condoned by ministerial and offical sanction

At all times in the 15 years that I've been in Thailand, givernments have made it clear that the loophole was available for reasonable exploitation BUt that once this ceased to be reasonable then a change in code would be introduced to prevent abuses. The only dubiety is that most official comment indicated that such change wouldn't be retroactive, which many observers took to mean would include grandfathering provisions - this isn't the case and certainly isn't the same thing as non-retroactive.

Current comments indicate that technically landownership will have to remain illegal but that there will continue to remain a number of ways to operate in practice.

Don't forget the various specific exemptions (long stay, investment basis, lease purchase etc) that do exist to encourage foreign and beneficial ownership

As for some of the ill-informed hysterical outpourings from left, right an centre the last few days.............

It has been my contention all along that the overwhelming majority of foreign nationals who own homes in Thailand via the Thai company route have violated Thai law and are subject to prosecution. This is neither ill-informed nor hysterical, it is simply fact. You can run a red light 99 times in a row without getting a ticket. It doesn't mean you haven't committed a crime, you just haven't been caught.

[Mobi]

I wouldn't believe everything that you read in Business Post!

You mean I should believe you? :D

According the the government - Tesco used nominee shareholders.

According to Tescos they are extremely worried about their situation, especially as regards land ownership.

All this information gleaned from direct and extensive quotes from both the government and Tesco's senior mangement.

Maybe they should have taken their legal advice from our High Priced lawyer friend who seems to know it all.

They took very good quality legal advice and are continuing to do so as they review the POTENTIAL changes in the draft.

Mobi, you know as well as I do that there is a lot of posturing going here as the various parties publicly jostle for position to protect themselves - to an extent, what you see is what the various sides want you to see. TL, I'm sure know what they;re doing.You certainly seem to know what you're doing. As for some of the ill-informed hysterical outpourings from left, right an centre the last few days.............

O.K It's all pretty academic - we are where we are and we'll see what happens over the next few weeks and months.

However I must bring you back to your earlier post:

Quote...I don't imagine that too many T&G clients (or our clients for that matter) are at all concerned about the terms of the new FBA. At the risk of repeating myself, set yourself up right in the first place and there's very little to have to worry about now. Do it on the cheap initially and you'd better jump now and jump fast or else something could just be coming along that's going to bite your backside.....unquote

Now, you have agreed that our friends at Tesco had very good advice - yet they now have a problem - and they acted illegally by having nominee shareholders.

Your statement to the effect that "get good expensive advice and no problems" and the facts, don't tally.

Might just as well have used Somchai & Somchai in Pattaya High Street and saved themselves a few bus loads of Baht.

[Old Man River]

At the risk of repeating myself, set yourself up right in the first place and there's very little to have to worry about now. Do it on the cheap initially and you'd better jump now and jump fast or else something could just be coming along that's going to bite your backside.

You may well be correct on this, but Tesco, one of the largest retailers in the world didn't do it right - they set up a Thai company with nominees and are now very concerned about the future of their operations in Thailand (yesterday's business Post), and according to another recent article in the B.Post, most of the major multi nationals also went this route for their investments in Thailand, because having a Thai company made it much easier to do business, particularly with regards the ownership of land and the restrictions on trade for foreign companies.

Mobi, I totally agree. Any insinuation that weak law firms were used by major MNC's is naive.

During the period when there was heavy FDI into Thailand, I knew of no major law firm that ever advised a client in writing to use one of the various ownership loopholes. Still, it was not out of the ordinary for these same major global law firms to paper loophole ownership structures. What couldn't be put in writing, was communicated verbally. Advising clients to use these loopholes did not come out of left field either. It was well known that these structures were being openly supported by previous governments. This is why the reaction by MNC's is now so negative. They feel cheated.

[Bruce1]

Question: Why were these loophole structures so openly tolerated by previous governments?

Answer: Because they knew investors wanted to control what happened to their money.

Question: What will happen now if investors are prevented from controlling their money?

Answer: Absolutely nothing ( not here, anyway).

Edited January 18, 2007 by Bruce1

[Paul MBMG]

I'm not sure that I've ever said that TL acted illegally ir used nominees - their dividend and share structures seem plausible and robust. However they mightn't satisfy the proposed changes (as you say we'll find out in the coming months.

As opposed to using Somchai, their existing structure appears to have been accepted within Thai law, means that they have protetced their investment this far and are in a position to make changs to ensure suitable protection going forwards.

As opposed to finding themselves now belonging to Somchai's messenger or having fallen foul of current laws......

They took very good quality legal advice and are continuing to do so as they review the POTENTIAL changes in the draft.

Mobi, you know as well as I do that there is a lot of posturing going here as the various parties publicly jostle for position to protect themselves - to an extent, what you see is what the various sides want you to see. TL, I'm sure know what they;re doing.You certainly seem to know what you're doing. As for some of the ill-informed hysterical outpourings from left, right an centre the last few days.............

O.K It's all pretty academic - we are where we are and we'll see what happens over the next few weeks and months.

However I must bring you back to your earlier post:

Quote...I don't imagine that too many T&G clients (or our clients for that matter) are at all concerned about the terms of the new FBA. At the risk of repeating myself, set yourself up right in the first place and there's very little to have to worry about now. Do it on the cheap initially and you'd better jump now and jump fast or else something could just be coming along that's going to bite your backside.....unquote

Now, you have agreed that our friends at Tesco had very good advice - yet they now have a problem - and they acted illegally by having nominee shareholders.

Your statement to the effect that "get good expensive advice and no problems" and the facts, don't tally.

Might just as well have used Somchai & Somchai in Pattaya High Street and saved themselves a few bus loads of Baht.

[Old Man River]

Question: What will happen now if investors are prevented from controlling their money?

Answer: Absolutely nothing ( not here, anyway).

This fully depends on which type of investor you are talking about. If you are referring to short term investors whose investments are highly liquid, you are right as the changes in the foreign business laws are academic to them. If you are referring to small foreign direct investment by people such, perhaps, as you and your friends, then mostly I would agree.

However, if your comment above refers to large, publicly traded MNC's, then your comment is wrong. As stated more than once elsewhere, the first thing these investors do is freeze all new investments into countries where laws change to where they can no longer have control. That is happening now. Then, they take a wait and see attitude, still expecting that a future government will have to change the laws so Thailand can once more effectively compete against neighboring countries for large, long term greenfield projects.

Hence, for existing investments it will be a wait and see position, but new projects will mostly go elsewhere. I was happy to see that Panasonic is breaking ranks from the other Japanese and will be doing a new project in Thailand. Unfortunately, such trust by large MNC's will be few and far between.

[ThaiGoon]

Hence, for existing investments it will be a wait and see position, but new projects will mostly go elsewhere. I was happy to see that Panasonic is breaking ranks from the other Japanese and will be doing a new project in Thailand. Unfortunately, such trust by large MNC's will be few and far between.

Breaking ranks from whom? Toyota, Honda and other Japanese car manufaturers are still all solid on their investment plans in Thailand, especially the ones for the "eco" cars. If the government greenlights the new tax laws for the eco cars, there will be huge investments from these Japanese companies.

Come on Old Man River, at least try to talk more about stuff that you really know.

[Old Man River]

Hence, for existing investments it will be a wait and see position, but new projects will mostly go elsewhere. I was happy to see that Panasonic is breaking ranks from the other Japanese and will be doing a new project in Thailand. Unfortunately, such trust by large MNC's will be few and far between.

Breaking ranks from whom? Toyota, Honda and other Japanese car manufaturers are still all solid on their investment plans in Thailand, especially the ones for the "eco" cars. If the government greenlights the new tax laws for the eco cars, there will be huge investments from these Japanese companies.

Come on Old Man River, at least try to talk more about stuff that you really know.

I had written a few days ago that my experience is limited as it relates to Japanese investors, and then soon after I read an article in The Nation that Japanese investors were putting new projects on hold in Thailand. The reason given for not moving forward on new projects related more to the fear of more bombings than changes in the foreign ownership laws. This is why the Panasonic decision was encouraging.

Since you have a good handle on Japanese investments, please let me know where you have read the above, which counters the article in The Nation.

[yoshiwara]

The big hitters have clout and can exercise this in their investment plans but it is not the same thing for SMEs particularly those small operators ahem who are making a living buying and selling properties or even the potential purchaser of one house. The biggest issue now is not so much the clarity re what is the law but that the govt has created a climate of uncertainty and unreliabilty re the stability of business legal status. One could say thus it has always been but now it is getting really sticky.

[ThaiGoon]

I had written a few days ago that my experience is limited as it relates to Japanese investors, and then soon after I read an article in The Nation that Japanese investors were putting new projects on hold in Thailand. The reason given for not moving forward on new projects related more to the fear of more bombings than changes in the foreign ownership laws. This is why the Panasonic decision was encouraging.

Since you have a good handle on Japanese investments, please let me know where you have read the above, which counters the article in The Nation.

It's from Prachachart Turakij, and it doesn't counter the article in The Nation. The article (which I also have read) clearly said that all the short term investment plans (up to 3 years from now) are all still going as planned, but the longer term ones (5 years or more) will be put on hold for now. So I guess it would have helped, had you read the whole article, not just the headline....ehh?

Here I found a link to a smilar story from The Nation:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...newsid=30024000

"their long-term investment plans in the country which are reviewed or newly expanded every five years."

Edited January 19, 2007 by ThaiGoon

[ThaiGoon]

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/01/13...s_30024013.html

"Banno (president of The Japanese Chamber of Commerce(JCC)) said that the uncertainties would not, however, impact short- to medium-term investments of about three years, which had been planned already."

Old Man River, I actually don't have that good of a handle on Japanese investments. But I do read stuff and tend to understand it.

[Old Man River]

I had written a few days ago that my experience is limited as it relates to Japanese investors, and then soon after I read an article in The Nation that Japanese investors were putting new projects on hold in Thailand. The reason given for not moving forward on new projects related more to the fear of more bombings than changes in the foreign ownership laws. This is why the Panasonic decision was encouraging.

Since you have a good handle on Japanese investments, please let me know where you have read the above, which counters the article in The Nation.

It's from Prachachart Turakij, and it doesn't counter the article in The Nation. The article (which I also have read) clearly said that all the short term investment plans (up to 3 years from now) are all still going as planned, but the longer term ones (5 years or more) will be put on hold for now. So I guess it would have helped, had you read the whole article, not just the headline....ehh?

Here I found a link to a smilar story from The Nation:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingne...newsid=30024000

"their long-term investment plans in the country which are reviewed or newly expanded every five years."

OK, I get it now. You don't have any real info on this subject. Admittedly, I did miss-read the article, but made it clear in my original postings that I am much more comfortable (from personal related experience) talking about the impact of the new ownership laws on western MNC's than I am about Asian investors' criteria.

Now, you can go and have the last word on this, as I really don't care. Take a free shot.

[opothai]

from what i can glean from the news and reading about the situation in thailand, i tend to agree with a financial expert in bangkok that was interviewed on bloomberg,

basically with all the uncertainty with investment issues, the bombings and the way the government change rules, laws and regulations on a whim,

thailand is not a place to gamble with,

until there is clarity investment will dry up somewhat.

and the question is when will stability and clarity come from the present regime ????

[Old Man River]

from what i can glean from the news and reading about the situation in thailand, i tend to agree with a financial expert in bangkok that was interviewed on bloomberg,

basically with all the uncertainty with investment issues, the bombings and the way the government change rules, laws and regulations on a whim,

thailand is not a place to gamble with,

until there is clarity investment will dry up somewhat.

and the question is when will stability and clarity come from the present regime ????

That is exactly what I am hearing. Given the coup, bombings, capital controls and new ownership laws, the perception on Thailand by most large, long term investors is to step back and wait and see. The current regime is not oblivious to this, and may well be one reason why the next general election may be held earlier than planned.

What bothers me about the up and down, in and out posture of many of the government officials is that, over the years, many of us have worked with these people and they weren't like this before. For example, on the financial side, M.R. Pridiyathorn and Dr. Tarisa have earned the respect of a great number of foreign business people. Then, all of a sudden, you don't know where they stand. Something just doesn't add up.

[Mid]

For example, on the financial side, M.R. Pridiyathorn and Dr. Tarisa have earned the respect of a great number of foreign business people. Then, all of a sudden, you don't know where they stand. Something just doesn't add up.

word .