What Is Wrong With Thialand

[tijnebijn]

The Thais are a very proud nation most notabely from the fact that historically they have never been invaded or conquered, and while they welcome visitors you have to bear this in mind and (quite rightly) conclude that the native ruling families of this nation do not want to give away so much as one rice paddy of land to anyone who aint Thai.. t'would be seen as a modern day invasion, major loss of face and a big no no to the average, educated perma-smiling Thai citizen..

Apart from mutual historical invasions by neighbors throughout Southeast Asia, perhaps you have failed to notice that the economy of Thailand is dominated by Thai-Chinese who now constitute the major ruling families apart from the few old Sakdina families whose power and infuence have been in decline or been diffused by marriage into the Sino-Thai elite.

conquered by thaksin and likes,oh yes.So true.Ever seen any political heavyweight to be not thai-chinese?

Apart from leekpai and likes??They are so out of power a long time ago ,if they ever were in ,that time.

[ollyrosee]

because they want to keep it all for themselves and exclude you thats why .

nationalism !

[papaya9]

The problem is the majority of them are really just peasants with wealth who desperately cling to whatever sign of wealth and western value they can as to display themselves as high society westerners, while separating themselves from the "common" Thai masses. They will do anything to keep this status because its the only thing that has "real" meaning in their lives.

Edited February 3, 2007 by papaya9

[Heng]

China is not doing too badly with an even more regulated system!

...and is your economic argument why China is moving toward free-market, non-governmental ownership of businesses and real-estate...

Actually the Chinese law on foreign ownership (with its built in exception to overseas Chinese: Taiwanese, HK, ABC's, and yes Thais too, etc.) might be something that could work in Thailand. Yes, foreigners can "own" land in Thailand but only on a lease basis. One may acquire land as long as it reverts back to a local within a generation or three (ala HK and Macau).

[Smilodon]

Why would a developing nation with a comparitevely weak economy want to let all its prime real estate be taken by foreign investors - hiking up house prices almost everywhere? Thailand does pretty well out of the tourist industr - no need to let ouside investors actually buy the country!

Oh, God, for a microcosm of that, if you are in America, try visiting the island of Maui. The normal working people cram together seven to a house, while Oprah Winfrey, Clint Eastwood, and their financial/social strata (rich scum) escalate the price of real estate to fifteen times what it is anywhere else in the USA. YOU CAN GET LAND CHEAPER IN BEVERLY HILLS.

Average home lot price: $700,000. Yes, that's dollars, not baht. In baht, today, that is 24,500,000. That is for the ground. The dirt. Then, there is a house to build on top of that.

So, to answer why Thailand doesn't want to sell its land to anyone with a buck: it is because it is nice to actually be able to afford to live in your own country. Tropical places sprout real estate investors like a corpses sprout maggots. Thank God Thailand has shut the door on that.

Real estate "investors" just jack the prices of land up way above the heads of everyone who actually lives in an area, I have found. It would be disastrous if Thailand opened themselves up to that, in my opinion, having seen the results here in "free" Maui.

Edited February 3, 2007 by Smilodon

[Smilodon]

Actually the Chinese law on foreign ownership (with its built in exception to overseas Chinese: Taiwanese, HK, ABC's, and yes Thais too, etc.) might be something that could work in Thailand. Yes, foreigners can "own" land in Thailand but only on a lease basis. One may acquire land as long as it reverts back to a local within a generation or three (ala HK and Macau).

I don't agree that that would be a good idea, because the rich parasites would still run real estate prices through the stratosphere, by snapping it all up and re-renting it for idiotic sums. People with lots of money have, historically, used it to accrete even more wealth unto themselves, (preferably?) at the expense of anyone else having a chance of getting anywhere.

[Heng]

Actually the Chinese law on foreign ownership (with its built in exception to overseas Chinese: Taiwanese, HK, ABC's, and yes Thais too, etc.) might be something that could work in Thailand. Yes, foreigners can "own" land in Thailand but only on a lease basis. One may acquire land as long as it reverts back to a local within a generation or three (ala HK and Macau).

I don't agree that that would be a good idea, because the rich parasites would still run real estate prices through the stratosphere, by snapping it all up and re-renting it for idiotic sums. People with lots of money have, historically, used it to accrete even more wealth unto themselves, (preferably?) at the expense of anyone else having a chance of getting anywhere.

Trickle down. And everyone has a chance to "get somewhere." It's just that in some cases, their goals should be set at more realistic and attainable levels.

[HenryB]

Hello all. I have been reading alot of postings on business and home ownership in LOS. I have been to many other countries and as a tourist I am treated very good and if I want to invest in realistate in various countries they are more than willing to assist me in doing so. The US, Canada, Europe, Australia and other countries seem to be doing very well. They incourage direct investment and to buy a home in theses countries there attitude is if u have the money u can buy what u want. There economies are good and tourism is excelent.

My question is why in thailand do they discourage and put laws in to place to insure foreign investement is stoped at the door. Just buying a house and spending my retirement there the government should be happy I want to spend my money there. The other countries are more than willing to let me spend my money in there countries, Why does thailand not want this what am I not undestanding. To me a country is like a business if someone wants to spend money in my business I am happy and going to make money.

What is wrong with thailand?

The Land Of Smiles it may be.. but beware, the smiles are only skin deep...! As a visitor to this country (and lets all be honest) that means every farang 'living' here regardless of his type of visa will always be seen as a threat to the very heart of the national Thai psyche...

The Thais are a very proud nation most notabely from the fact that historically they have never been invaded or conquered, and while they welcome visitors you have to bear this in mind and (quite rightly) conclude that the native ruling families of this nation do not want to give away so much as one rice paddy of land to anyone who aint Thai.. t'would be seen as a modern day invasion, major loss of face and a big no no to the average, educated perma-smiling Thai citizen..

Truth hurts i know, but that is the way it is... I say 'hurts' only to those who don't realise how smart the Thais actually are for doing this... I'm quite happy to pretend to live here. Are you ?

Incidently, i drove by the Democracy Monument in BKK last week.. do you think it should be covered up now ?

How about World War Ii with the Japanese?

[Heng]

How about World War Ii with the Japanese?

I'd say most locals are in denial on that one. Kind of like the way some Americans say... we won the war in Vietnam, err... we lost that one at home... um, we won even though we let the enemy take over 100% of the contested land area, but how about that well coordinated withdrawal (not a retreat mind you).

[toptuan]

Kind of like the way some Americans say... we won the war in Vietnam, err...

In the 30 years since the "American War" (as they call it in Vietnam), I haven't met a single American who would claim that. Groundless assumption. My 50 Vietnamese immigrant students in the USA would frequently joke with us: "Remember, teachers, we're the only country that ever whipped your butts!" Our American teaching staff response: Grin and bear it.

Virtually every American admits it was a mistake from day one--trying to win a guerilla/civil war on an enemy's home turf, using traditional western military tactics. That's why the American public is starting to turn nasty toward the current administration's Iraqi policies. The parallels are just too glaring.

Edited February 4, 2007 by toptuan

[phibunmike]

... The US, Canada, Europe, Australia and other countries seem to be doing very well. ...

The countries you mention are all "western" (curious way to describe Oz, isn't it?). Try comparing Thailand to some other South East Asian countries, you will find the liberal policies of the west are not a worldwide standard. For example, take a look at foreign land ownership rules in Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Burma. My guess is that Vietnam and Laos are similar.

Cheers,

Mike

edit> typo

Edited February 4, 2007 by phibunmike

[keenok]

Why would a developing nation with a comparitevely weak economy want to let all its prime real estate be taken by foreign investors - hiking up house prices almost everywhere? Thailand does pretty well out of the tourist industr - no need to let ouside investors actually buy the country!

Oh, God, for a microcosm of that, if you are in America, try visiting the island of Maui. The normal working people cram together seven to a house, while Oprah Winfrey, Clint Eastwood, and their financial/social strata (rich scum) escalate the price of real estate to fifteen times what it is anywhere else in the USA. YOU CAN GET LAND CHEAPER IN BEVERLY HILLS.

Average home lot price: $700,000. Yes, that's dollars, not baht. In baht, today, that is 24,500,000. That is for the ground. The dirt. Then, there is a house to build on top of that.

So, to answer why Thailand doesn't want to sell its land to anyone with a buck: it is because it is nice to actually be able to afford to live in your own country. Tropical places sprout real estate investors like a corpses sprout maggots. Thank God Thailand has shut the door on that.

Real estate "investors" just jack the prices of land up way above the heads of everyone who actually lives in an area, I have found. It would be disastrous if Thailand opened themselves up to that, in my opinion, having seen the results here in "free" Maui.

i could not agree more. the thais are doing the right thing by their CITIZENS. i have a spanish friend who can not afford to buy a home in his home province. he rents from a german at a very expensive rate(compared to his wage)because the prices are being pushed up by holidaymakers. a similar thing is happening in many rural parts of the uk. rich city folk buying holiday homes are destroying local communities.not only are the locals priced out of their own villages ,but the local businesses are now closing down as they have no regular customers(the rich arriving in their 4 wheel drives for a long weekend once a month )they are turning these villages into ghost towns.allowing foreigners to own land here would open the floodgates and what would be the result for local working class thais??

[Smilodon]

Virtually every American admits it was a mistake from day one--trying to win a guerilla/civil war on an enemy's home turf, using traditional western military tactics. That's why the American public is starting to turn nasty toward the current administration's Iraqi policies. The parallels are just too glaring.

I have to agree. Going into a country where the people will bow down to whoever murders/rapes/dismembers the most of their sons and daughters instead of rising up and cooperating to get rid of them is a hopeless gesture. It's like trying to go into a neighborhood beset by a serial rapist where the residents are more scared of retribution than they are determined to get rid of him, even though they know who he is and where he lies. This is where the USA was different from other countries. Instead of putting up with the British oppressors, they threw them off, though it was costly. "Give me liberty or give me death" was coined by an American. And few other countries could be credited with having the same attitude, to this day. Most people, including many modern-day Americans, would do anything you told them to if you just killed a few of them. Like cattle afraid of the prod, so they won't break away form the herd but instead get loaded on trucks to the slaughterhouse.

Taking it for granted that people love freedom and liberty more than their own safety or life is not a safe assumption to make. Not all people are what Americans used to be, including Americans. When a people are more prone to bow down to an oppressive governemnt than rise up and overthrow it, you have to let them be. Eventually, as in Cambodia, so many will be murdered that the oppressors will not have many people left to oppress, then hopefully the people of the country will see that perhaps life without liberty isn't as attractive as risking life to gain it. Or not.

I'm glad that Vietnam is doing much better than North Korea, at least. I hope they continue to develop in all ways as a country. It's when a country "wins" a war with the USA and then turns into a poverty-stricken hole such as N.K. that it feels much worse to have "lost."

If the people you try to liberate cling to whatever it is that got them into the position they are in in the first place, it is hard to help them stay free even after whoever their dictator-du-jour was is dead. How far would Germany have gotten if they would have clung to Nazism after losing WWII?

Considering how vastly better S. Korea is doing than N. Korea, I wonder if anyone in China thinks it is a great thing that they helped N. Korea turn into the wasteland it is today. Or, if they purport to think so, if they have moved their families to live there.

Living near Vancouver B.C. during the great Hong Kong money exodus of the nineties, I could see first hand how little enthusiasm or optimism there was for the upcoming re-absorption of HK by mainland China. So great was the population of people coming in from Hong Kong that they built a huge, new shopping mall in nearby Richmond. Where none of the people who worked in it would speak anything but Cantonese. This is not an indication that there is either a small population of people form HK, nor that they had no money.

[ThaiGoon]

This is the classic post of someone having some personal issue, in this case owning property, and thinking that their issue is some how keeping Thailand from raising to the levels of more developed countries. This is narcissism at it greatest heights.

TH

Very well said krab. Nice and concise.

[h90]

Hello all. I have been reading alot of postings on business and home ownership in LOS. I have been to many other countries and as a tourist I am treated very good and if I want to invest in realistate in various countries they are more than willing to assist me in doing so. The US, Canada, Europe, Australia and other countries seem to be doing very well. They incourage direct investment and to buy a home in theses countries there attitude is if u have the money u can buy what u want. There economies are good and tourism is excelent.

My question is why in thailand do they discourage and put laws in to place to insure foreign investement is stoped at the door. Just buying a house and spending my retirement there the government should be happy I want to spend my money there. The other countries are more than willing to let me spend my money in there countries, Why does thailand not want this what am I not undestanding. To me a country is like a business if someone wants to spend money in my business I am happy and going to make money.

What is wrong with thailand?

Because in poor countries rich foreigner could buy half the country, while it is less risk in Europe that poor foreigner will buy Germany so the rules can be more relaxed.

Exactly the other side with immigration.

[ThaiGoon]

I have engaged in sucessful international business in five Asian countries---

What were the five asian countries?

Singapore, Japan, South Korea, China (mainland), and The Philippines.

Sadly, even the last two countries are much more forward-thinking and progressive than Thailand in their management skills (influenced by foreign investment and activity.) They're not stuck on "The Chinese Way" or "The Filipino Way." There's a more open spirit of cooperation and willingness to try it a different way.

Yeah, the Filipinos are doing remarkably well there. They are definitely "in the economic stratosphere compared to Thailand" when their GDP per capita is only about 40% of that of Thailand's.

And I have to quote thaihome again, "This is the classic post of someone having some personal issue, in this case owning property, and thinking that their issue is some how keeping Thailand from raising to the levels of more developed countries. This is narcissism at it greatest heights."

[Heng]

Kind of like the way some Americans say... we won the war in Vietnam, err...

In the 30 years since the "American War" (as they call it in Vietnam), I haven't met a single American who would claim that. Groundless assumption. My 50 Vietnamese immigrant students in the USA would frequently joke with us: "Remember, teachers, we're the only country that ever whipped your butts!" Our American teaching staff response: Grin and bear it.

Virtually every American admits it was a mistake from day one--trying to win a guerilla/civil war on an enemy's home turf, using traditional western military tactics. That's why the American public is starting to turn nasty toward the current administration's Iraqi policies. The parallels are just too glaring.

It's yours that is a groundless assumption (more like denial that there are folks in denial). Mine was a reference to "some," while yours was a completely implausible "virtually every..." One doesn't even have to dig deep into the American -or any other- population to find folks in denial. Just as there are folks who believe we are losing the war in Iraq, there are folks that believe we just haven't found the right solution... and that's in the military ranks in public statements on CNN.

[jumnien]

It's not just Thais that don't want foreigners buying up large tracts of Thai land and moving here in droves. It's us farangs that would rather not have the place fill up with any more of us than is absolutely necessary. I've lived in farang countries and they aren't the worst places in the world. But I didn't move here to Thailand to surround myself with caucasian folks who can't afford to or don't want to live in there home countries anymore. I moved here because I love Thailand - especially its nationalistic flair!

[jimbabe]

ask the american indian about selling land to white men. It started off slow and small; Manhatten Island; and later when indian balked at selling more whity just pushed them off.

[toptuan]

It's yours that is a groundless assumption (more like denial that there are folks in denial). Mine was a reference to "some," while yours was a completely implausible "virtually every..." One doesn't even have to dig deep into the American -or any other- population to find folks in denial. Just as there are folks who believe we are losing the war in Iraq, there are folks that believe we just haven't found the right solution... and that's in the military ranks in public statements on CNN.

I'm not denying your denial about people not being in denial. (did I get that right?)

I submit to you that those who are in denial about the Vietnam war can hardly be found (even among the military), and that those who are in denial about the success of the current administration's Iraqi policies are quickly becoming a very desparate albeit vocal minority. Most Americans are beginning to believe "the handwriting's on the wall" and it doesn't look good for the current course of action.

[Heng]

It's yours that is a groundless assumption (more like denial that there are folks in denial). Mine was a reference to "some," while yours was a completely implausible "virtually every..." One doesn't even have to dig deep into the American -or any other- population to find folks in denial. Just as there are folks who believe we are losing the war in Iraq, there are folks that believe we just haven't found the right solution... and that's in the military ranks in public statements on CNN.

I'm not denying your denial about people not being in denial. (did I get that right?)

I submit to you that those who are in denial about the Vietnam war can hardly be found (even among the military), and that those who are in denial about the success of the current administration's Iraqi policies are quickly becoming a very desparate albeit vocal minority. Most Americans are beginning to believe "the handwriting's on the wall" and it doesn't look good for the current course of action.

It's all relative, and I think we can leave it at that. Those that can 'hardly be found' and a vocal minority on a national scale can sometimes add up to a lot of folks. And my point was that whatever the nation, there are almost always folks that will stick to a set belief no matter what the facts are. If it's not "our nation has never lost a war" then it's "our rules are better than your rules, our culture is better than your culture, our ghettos are better than your ghettos," and so forth.

[Johpa]

Trickle down. And everyone has a chance to "get somewhere." It's just that in some cases, their goals should be set at more realistic and attainable levels.

<deleted>?!? You still believe in Ronald Regan's voodoo economics that wealth will trickle down? Plumbers know what flows inevitably downhill and it ain't money, which has a very strong tendency to percolate upwards.

Given the pathetic state of public education in the vast rural areas of Thailand combined with local issues such as the lack of affordable credit, everyone may have a chance, but not everyone has an equal chance, and many have little chance.

[dumspero]

The OP doesn't just smack of narcissism, it's also rife with this myth that we in the West know more than everyone else on the planet about everything just because we put spaceships on the moon, have the fanciest weapons, etc. We from the West have no right to try and set a global definition for "success." Many of us find Thailand so great precisely because it's not like the West. Who are we to tell Thais what's right for them, let alone what to do to get there?

Even by the narrow Western stanard, IMO, the Thais are doing great for themselves. Certainly much better than the PI--even though just decades ago the two countries were much closer in wealth. And certainly the PI has more natural resources and a population that speaks better English than in Thailand (some might consider that attractive to foreign business). So Thailand has done something right.

More specifically, land alienation restrictions tend to involve the difficult weighing of various considerations. Nobody, IMO, can say for certain whether the positives outweigh the negatives given any specific application to any particular jurisdiction at any given time, except perhaps in history. But then it's too late. That's why many of us involved in this issue believe its' better to err on the side of going too slow in easing such laws.

Smilodon- great point about North Korea. Never though about that--what does China think about its impact on North Korea?

Cheers.

[Heng]

Trickle down. And everyone has a chance to "get somewhere." It's just that in some cases, their goals should be set at more realistic and attainable levels.

<deleted>?!? You still believe in Ronald Regan's voodoo economics that wealth will trickle down? Plumbers know what flows inevitably downhill and it ain't money, which has a very strong tendency to percolate upwards.

Given the pathetic state of public education in the vast rural areas of Thailand combined with local issues such as the lack of affordable credit, everyone may have a chance, but not everyone has an equal chance, and many have little chance.

Ronald Reagan? The actor?

I'm talking about basic physics. Although I'd love to find some way to keep wealth from trickling down (and instead somehow perpetually compound in my own closed economic orbit), it's simply impossible. Some way some how, the wrench turner on the BMW assembly line, the cashier at Tops Marketplace, the flight attendant serving champagne, the Issanite farmer harvesting rice.... they all get compensated. And, believe it or not, they do have the ability to decide what they want to do with their income. Some make better use of it than others.

Edited February 5, 2007 by Heng

[Pakboong]

Wealthy Thais do not want a Farang and his peasant girfriend to become their neighbors.

[papaya9]

Wealthy Thais do not want a Farang and his peasant girfriend to become their neighbors.

You are kee-rect!

[Jet Gorgon]

Wealthy Thais do not want a Farang and his peasant girfriend to become their neighbors.

You are kee-rect!

Who would want to live beside snobs? Unless you built a wall and moat around your property.

[qwertz]

Wealthy Thais do not want a Farang and his peasant girfriend to become their neighbors.

What's this about wealthy Thais? And where did they get their wealth from? The most common statement I get from them is "Thai people very poor you know".