Foreign Business Act Stopped

[tim77]

I wonder what will happen to the money taken (30% of investment over $20K) by the Bank of Thailand???

anybody knowledgeable about this? we have a fair amount stuck there for another 9 months with no interest...

oz

This is wreaking havok with my business also. Every time a payment is sent to my customer they freeze 30% and it has affected his cash flow which has affected my cash flow. he manages to get it released after a couple of months every time but it is getting ridiculous to have the money held until you can prove it is for purchase of export products every single payment.

The article mentions that it is okay to limit equity, voters rights and members of the board since there are other ways to control the company. My guess is that after every other way becomes known then these "elite" will pass amendments to close those also.

It seems clear that foreigners will be unable to control a business in Thailand. Paraphrasing what one of the NLA said yesterday, they dont want Thais to be employees in their own country. This seems clear enough.

I suspect that as a part of their increasingly inward-looking approach, what is happening is that the ruling elite is creating the circs for a massive business fire sale, following which they will be able to pick up some bargains.

We should all remember that Thailand has a rich history of manipulating the national economy for the benefit of the few at the top. It happened last year with the stock market and that idiot Pridyathorn; a lot of his mates are rumoured to have had advance knowledge and made a killing. I believe we are looking down the barrel of a huge purge of foreign business. Call me paranoid but this is increasingly unsettling.

Interestingly, the Democrats appear to be the ones with reason insofar as the FBA is concerned. Time will tell...

Rich

Rich . . . I agree with you. The great gift of the Romans - the "Rule of Law" - is under serious threat in Thailand. Manipulation is a dangerous game.

Last year and this year the Rule of Law for Visas (short stay, retirement, investment) were changed and re-interpreted, and so rapidly that even the Imagration Department had no clear idea what the change was.

The long established Rule of Law dealing with land ownership by Companies with either 50% Thai shareholding, or the 60%+ tacitly permitted by the Land Department is clearly under threat.

Now the long existing Rule of Law dealing with the definition of Thai or non-Thai for companies may be rewritten, and may well be applied retrospectively. If such a change occurs certain foreign shareholders may well loose fundamental rights. If the Nation's news article was correct in claiming that the NLA amendment would restrict the ability of foreign shareholders to (1) appoint or remove the company's directors, or (2) decide the strategy and major actions of a company, then a foreign shareholder might loose the fundamental right to control (even by blocking control) dividends, or he may loose the power to approve or to disapprove (again, by blocking control) of the sale of the major assets of a company.

Once the respect for Rule of Law is abandoned (in the Thai case, by the retroactive effect of law changes). . . . it is very difficult to conduct any business. No legal entity can be regarded as fully stable. The enforceability of contracts with Thai (or non-Thai) Companies may be questioned.

I know a few members of the Thai elite. Most of the one that I know have first class minds and are keenly aware of the dangers. Hopefully these fine people and logic will prevail.

Edited August 12, 2007 by tim77

[chinthee]

I wonder what will happen to the money taken (30% of investment over $20K) by the Bank of Thailand???

anybody knowledgeable about this? we have a fair amount stuck there for another 9 months with no interest...

oz

This is wreaking havok with my business also. Every time a payment is sent to my customer they freeze 30% and it has affected his cash flow which has affected my cash flow. he manages to get it released after a couple of months every time but it is getting ridiculous to have the money held until you can prove it is for purchase of export products every single payment.

The article mentions that it is okay to limit equity, voters rights and members of the board since there are other ways to control the company. My guess is that after every other way becomes known then these "elite" will pass amendments to close those also.

It seems clear that foreigners will be unable to control a business in Thailand. Paraphrasing what one of the NLA said yesterday, they dont want Thais to be employees in their own country. This seems clear enough.

I suspect that as a part of their increasingly inward-looking approach, what is happening is that the ruling elite is creating the circs for a massive business fire sale, following which they will be able to pick up some bargains.

We should all remember that Thailand has a rich history of manipulating the national economy for the benefit of the few at the top. It happened last year with the stock market and that idiot Pridyathorn; a lot of his mates are rumoured to have had advance knowledge and made a killing. I believe we are looking down the barrel of a huge purge of foreign business. Call me paranoid but this is increasingly unsettling.

Interestingly, the Democrats appear to be the ones with reason insofar as the FBA is concerned. Time will tell...

Rich

Rich . . . I agree with you. The great gift of the Romans - the "Rule of Law" - is under serious threat in Thailand. Manipulation is a dangerous game.

Last year and this year the Rule of Law for Visas (short stay, retirement, investment) were changed and re-interpreted, and so rapidly that even the Imagration Department had no clear idea what the change was.

The long established Rule of Law dealing with land ownership by Companies with either 50% Thai shareholding, or the 60%+ tacitly permitted by the Land Department is clearly under threat.

Now the long existing Rule of Law dealing with the definition of Thai or non-Thai for companies may be rewritten, and may well be applied retrospectively. If such a change occurs certain foreign shareholders may well loose fundamental rights. If the Nation's news article was correct in claiming that the NLA amendment would restrict the ability of foreign shareholders to (a) appoint or remove the company's directors, or ( decide the strategy and major actions of a company then a foreign shareholder might loose the fundamental right to control (even by blocking control) dividends, or he may loose the power to approve or to disapprove (again, by blocking control) of the sale of the major assets of a company.

Once the respect for Rule of Law is abandoned (in the Thai case, by the retroactive effect of law changes). . . . it is very difficult to conduct any business. No legal entity can be regarded as fully stable. The enforceability of contracts with Thai (or non-Thai) Companies may be questioned.

I know many members of the Thai elite. Most of the one that I know have first class minds and are keenly aware of the dangers. Hopefully these fine people and logic will prevail.

You're right of course. And, this is the reason the interim gov't needs to stop their interim clowns from passing any more important legislation! They plain and simply don't understand the larger implications for their own country.

[thaigene2]

I was talking to some well educated, thoughtful students in Bangkok a few days ago. They are awre that what they see/experience for themselves is a far cry from what they are told but are too frightened to try and do something about it. I felt really sorry for them.

Sorry to go off topic here, but has anyone else noticed a sharp increase in looking over the shoulders and whispering when discussing political matters, or is it just me?

Absolutely. You're not alone. It's everywhere. I'd say the hi-so gossip rises to nearly 40 year-olds - so not just students at all. I too am quite surprised by this - though the people these Thai friends are quite solid with me - still it sends a shiver down my spine. Because they foresee what "may" be coming..And are actually opposed to the right-wing swing (remeber not just kids - mainstream hi-so's) - even though their families will benefit - to me, this is earth-shattering news for Thailand (to me, but what do I really know? Not much probably). I guess we'll see what happens in the next year or two.

[chinthee]

Wow, I just looked at the OP's posting date 3 days ago and now 13,000 views of this topic.

I'd say that speaks volumes about the relative importance of Thailand doing the right thing in this case, wouldn't you, given that many of these hits probably came in through googling by analysts and other investors.

[tijnebijn]

Wow, I just looked at the OP's posting date 3 days ago and now 13,000 views of this topic.

I'd say that speaks volumes about the relative importance of Thailand doing the right thing in this case, wouldn't you, given that many of these hits probably came in through googling by analysts and other investors.

It does speak volumes !

[thaigene2]

Wow, I just looked at the OP's posting date 3 days ago and now 13,000 views of this topic.

I'd say that speaks volumes about the relative importance of Thailand doing the right thing in this case, wouldn't you, given that many of these hits probably came in through googling by analysts and other investors.

Yes, well don't assume it's just 'investors' reading your posts. You think 'others' who like to track these things aren't following your comments too? Food for thought...don't mean to get too paranoid..but you're not operating in splendid isolation here. If anyone important wants to learn who you are, they will know it by now..that goes for both of us I'm sure. (for what it's worth though, we probably don't really matter as we have no influence on things). If all these posts were written in Thai on Pantip.com or some other Thai language site...we'd be under surveillance. I doubt it matters "much" in English - none of the mass-cirlulation Thai papers ever run the type of middle-of-the-road logic the two English dailies do - what does that tell you? Propaganda in a sense?

Edited August 12, 2007 by thaigene2

[chinthee]

Wow, I just looked at the OP's posting date 3 days ago and now 13,000 views of this topic.

I'd say that speaks volumes about the relative importance of Thailand doing the right thing in this case, wouldn't you, given that many of these hits probably came in through googling by analysts and other investors.

Yes, well don't assume it's just 'investors' reading your posts. You think 'others' who like to track these things aren't following your comments too? Food for thought...don't mean to get too paranoid..but you're not operating in splendid isolation here. If anyone important wants to learn who you are, they will know it by now..that goes for both of us I'm sure. (for what it's worth though, we probably don't really matter as we have no influence on things).

Ok, then. Understood. Should I get my coat and bags?

[chinthee]

Wow, I just looked at the OP's posting date 3 days ago and now 13,000 views of this topic.

I'd say that speaks volumes about the relative importance of Thailand doing the right thing in this case, wouldn't you, given that many of these hits probably came in through googling by analysts and other investors.

Yes, well don't assume it's just 'investors' reading your posts. You think 'others' who like to track these things aren't following your comments too? Food for thought...don't mean to get too paranoid..but you're not operating in splendid isolation here. If anyone important wants to learn who you are, they will know it by now..that goes for both of us I'm sure. (for what it's worth though, we probably don't really matter as we have no influence on things). If all these posts were written in Thai on Pantip.com or some other Thai language site...we'd be under surveillance. I doubt it matters "much" in English - none of the mass-cirlulation Thai papers ever run the type of middle-of-the-road logic the two English dailies do - what does that tell you? Propaganda in a sense?

Of course you're right. We matter little. And that is the reason we are allowed to rant on this forum.

[thaigene2]

Of course you're right. We matter little. And that is the reason we are allowed to rant on this forum.

Yep..but remember so what if it doesn't matter much. Remember, 'labor' is cheap here and that includes the salary of the guy tracking your IP! A bargain!

he, he..

[thaigene2]

Oh and to the guy(s) Girl(s) who 'may be' tracking our IPs...Do you believe in what you are doing? Will your families benefit by going after foreigners? Or will it just be the rich/influential families who despise both poor Thais AND foreigners who will profit from your information?

Are the farangs really a threat? What do you really think? No I guess it's always wise (maybe 'safest') to do what the poo-yai says.

[Solosiam]

Oh and to the guy(s) Girl(s) who 'may be' tracking our IPs...Do you believe in what you are doing? Will your families benefit by going after foreigners? Or will it just be the rich/influential families who despise both poor Thais AND foreigners who will profit from your information?

Are the farangs really a threat? What do you really think? No I guess it's always wise (maybe 'safest') to do what the poo-yai says.

Oh Dear

[thaigene2]

Oh and to the guy(s) Girl(s) who 'may be' tracking our IPs...Do you believe in what you are doing? Will your families benefit by going after foreigners? Or will it just be the rich/influential families who despise both poor Thais AND foreigners who will profit from your information?

Are the farangs really a threat? What do you really think? No I guess it's always wise (maybe 'safest') to do what the poo-yai says.

Oh Dear

Now then, should I be wearing my Tinhat?

[chownah]

Yeah well, I'm not a foreign business analyst...I'm a rice farmer...I sure hope they don't make it illegal for foreigners to grow rice!!!

[TAWP]

Martin>> Would you like to list the countries that has a prosperous economy and that are under strict isolatory regulations against foreign invenstments?

[highdiver]

just for the record let us not forget that Thailand is a capital importing country just like those great "prosperous economies"

used to be. not to long ago.

what is it about those "prosperous economies" that have forgoten so quickly what they used to do when they were in the same state.

or only those "prosperous economies" are allowd to restrict... but when Thailand does it.

USA

In contrast to its strong support for foreign-investment liberalization today, when it was a capital-importing country, the USA had all kinds of provisions to ensure that foreigners invested in the country but did not control its economy. For example, the US federal government placed restrictions on foreigners’ownership in agricultural land,mining and logging. It discriminated foreign firms in banking and insurance, while prohibiting foreign investment in coastal shipping. It demanded that all directors of national banks had to be American citizens,while depriving foreign shareholders of voting rights in the case of federally-chartered banks.

It also prohibited the employment of foreign workers, thus implicitly disadvantaging foreign investors that wanted to import skilled labour from their home countries.

At the state level, there were even more restrictions. In adition to restrictions on land ownership, many states taxed foreign companies more heavily and some even refused them legal protection. The legislation of many states in the financial sector was even more discriminatory. Some states imposed more strict capital base requirements on foreign financial institutions, and some even totally banned entry into certain financial industries (e.g., NewYork state laws banning foreign bank entry).

The federal government condoned such laws and refused to take action against state governments even when there were pressures from foreign investors and governments to do so.

Europe

Advanced European countriesThe UK, France and Germany did not have to control foreign investment until the Second World War, as they were capital-exporting countries before that.

However,when they were faced with the challenge of an upsurge in American investment after the Second World War, they used a number of formal and informal mechanisms to ensure that their national interests were not hurt.

Formal mechanisms included foreign exchange control and regulations against foreign investment in sensitive sectorsl ike defence or cultural industries.

At the informal level,they used mechanisms like the SOEs, restrictions on takeover, and “undertakings” and “voluntary restrictions”by TNCs in order to restrict foreign investment and impose performance requirements.

until Finland’s accession to the EU in 1993 — Finland basically blocking any significant foreign investment.

Asia

while welcoming and subsidizing FDI in labour-intensive manufacturing sectors, Korea and Taiwan in the 1960s and the 1970s strictly restricted FDI in other industries. Also, over time,with changes in their economic structure and externalconditions, their policy stances changed. For example,Korea had a relatively open policy towards FDI in the car industry, but when it decided in the mid-1970s to develop its own car industry, it started putting heavy restrictionson FDI in the industry.

[Bruce1]

I hope they do conduct a proper review of the three lists of what sectors are protected, because it seems a bit excessive.

For instance, I believe hairdressing is a protected industry. Can anyone tell me why that might be so? Is Thai hairdressing a cultural speciality? I thought they just copied Vogue.

Also, I can see some logic (although I disagree with it) in some controls over foreign investment in certain industries, such as defence and communications.

However, I still can't see why you would stop resident foreigners from buying a residence. After all, why not simply require a foreigner to produce proof of residence, such as a work visa, if the fear is to prevent foreign speculation by non-residents.

The argument that keeping housing cheap is good for poor Thais ignores the fact that keeping housing cheap makes it an unattractive investment, so Thais who do buy their homes don't make the sort of steady capital gains from rising house prices which people in countries such as Australia do. So holding down house prices in Thailand keeps Thai home-owners poor.

The ratio between prices for houses and cars is very different here, with cars relatively expensive and houses relatively cheap. For instance, for the price of 3-4 Honda Civics you can get a very nice house here, but in Australia you would need to spend the cost of about 10-15 Civics for a comparable house. New cars are bad investment and lose around half their value in 3-4 years, but houses should rise in value, making them better investments. However, the Thai system favours people who put their money into the bad investment of cars rather than the good investment of houses. This illustrates the way the housing purchase restrictions distorts the financial situation.

I'm also surprised at the way financial services such as banks are protected here, when actually I think a good dose of competition would be good for them, and particularly good for customers. For example, why do foreigners have to have an income of 50,000 baht to get a Tesco Visa card, but Thais don't face that limit. Why wouldn't you base the decision about whether to grant a credit card on financial history, not income? I could easily qualify if I counted my income outside Thailand and brought money in, but I choose not to do so. Does that make me a worse credit risk than some motorcycle taxi rider who makes 15-20,000 baht a month? Of course not. So the way they operate is illogical, at least in that case.

Edited August 13, 2007 by Bruce1

[RaiBerg]

Sorry, pls forgive if I missed the message: does anyone know how foreign shareholders

with "permanent resident visa" are classified? Do they fall under the restrictions as well?

[A_Traveller]

Sorry, pls forgive if I missed the message: does anyone know how foreign shareholders

with "permanent resident visa" are classified? Do they fall under the restrictions as well?

Yes, it is based on nationality, not on residence.

Regards

[RaiBerg]

Yes, it is based on nationality, not on residence.

Thanks "A_Traveler" for prompt answer.... this forum is great - the "missing link"

between honest questions and "mai ru"

[nick2k]

just for the record let us not forget that Thailand is a capital importing country just like those great "prosperous economies"

used to be. not to long ago.

what is it about those "prosperous economies" that have forgoten so quickly what they used to do when they were in the same state.

or only those "prosperous economies" are allowd to restrict... but when Thailand does it.

USA

In contrast to its strong support for foreign-investment liberalization today, when it was a capital-importing country, the USA had all kinds of provisions to ensure that foreigners invested in the country but did not control its economy. For example, the US federal government placed restrictions on foreigners’ownership in agricultural land,mining and logging. It discriminated foreign firms in banking and insurance, while prohibiting foreign investment in coastal shipping. It demanded that all directors of national banks had to be American citizens,while depriving foreign shareholders of voting rights in the case of federally-chartered banks.

It also prohibited the employment of foreign workers, thus implicitly disadvantaging foreign investors that wanted to import skilled labour from their home countries.

At the state level, there were even more restrictions. In adition to restrictions on land ownership, many states taxed foreign companies more heavily and some even refused them legal protection. The legislation of many states in the financial sector was even more discriminatory. Some states imposed more strict capital base requirements on foreign financial institutions, and some even totally banned entry into certain financial industries (e.g., NewYork state laws banning foreign bank entry).

The federal government condoned such laws and refused to take action against state governments even when there were pressures from foreign investors and governments to do so.

Europe

Advanced European countriesThe UK, France and Germany did not have to control foreign investment until the Second World War, as they were capital-exporting countries before that.

However,when they were faced with the challenge of an upsurge in American investment after the Second World War, they used a number of formal and informal mechanisms to ensure that their national interests were not hurt.

Formal mechanisms included foreign exchange control and regulations against foreign investment in sensitive sectorsl ike defence or cultural industries.

At the informal level,they used mechanisms like the SOEs, restrictions on takeover, and “undertakings” and “voluntary restrictions”by TNCs in order to restrict foreign investment and impose performance requirements.

until Finland’s accession to the EU in 1993 — Finland basically blocking any significant foreign investment.

Asia

while welcoming and subsidizing FDI in labour-intensive manufacturing sectors, Korea and Taiwan in the 1960s and the 1970s strictly restricted FDI in other industries. Also, over time,with changes in their economic structure and externalconditions, their policy stances changed. For example,Korea had a relatively open policy towards FDI in the car industry, but when it decided in the mid-1970s to develop its own car industry, it started putting heavy restrictionson FDI in the industry.

I don't recall a time when america had changed their laws so that they could confiscate foreign properties like thailand seems to be intending to do. could you please show me some examples of that policy if it in fact ever existed?

the only countries that I can recall in recent history who changed their policies so that they could confiscate foreign properties all seem to be those that were not democratic. please correct me if I am wrong.

[Bruce1]

LOS is not currently a democratic country.

[Bruce1]

LOS is not currently democratic.

Also a moot point if America is truly democratic. If it was Al Gore would be President.

[Arkady]

"...I agree with others above that the Chinese-Thai oligarchs are so much in control now..."

Agreed.

But the limitations to just how extensive and strong that 'control' are cannot be discussed here, as any discussion of limiting factors would soon bring the moderators down on us.

And, for once, I won't recommend any books that discuss such matters, as I don't admit to owning any.

However, there is one aspect of 'now' that can be discussed (though many can't).

And that is whether the majority of the scions of the present Chinese-Thai oligarchs want to be as 'controlling' as their parents have been.

Obviously, being just an Isaan rice-farmer (though, like most who are now greatgrandparents, my wife and I get the back-bending parts done for us), I am not sufficiently closely in touch with those parts of Thai society that would enable me to make any quantitative judgement.

However, when I did a stint of teaching in a Bangkok 'posh international school' (very 'posh', but minimally 'international', and not that much of a 'school'), I got the impression that quite a few of the next generation of those oligarchic families want to be more Thai and less Chinese than their parents would wish.

I also got the impression that some of the oligarchs who send their scions (particularly their daughters) off to secondary schools in the West do so, at least partly, to make them less likely to 'go native'. But secondary effects happen.

We live in interesting times.

Eventually the acorn ends up falling not far from the oak. After going through their brush with Western ideas and liberalism they come back and work in the family business and most will not do things very different from their fathers, unless changes are forced on them from the market place. That's where a liberal foreign investment law would come in handy.

[Arkady]

just for the record let us not forget that Thailand is a capital importing country just like those great "prosperous economies"

used to be. not to long ago.

what is it about those "prosperous economies" that have forgoten so quickly what they used to do when they were in the same state.

or only those "prosperous economies" are allowd to restrict... but when Thailand does it.

USA

In contrast to its strong support for foreign-investment liberalization today, when it was a capital-importing country, the USA had all kinds of provisions to ensure that foreigners invested in the country but did not control its economy. For example, the US federal government placed restrictions on foreigners’ownership in agricultural land,mining and logging. It discriminated foreign firms in banking and insurance, while prohibiting foreign investment in coastal shipping. It demanded that all directors of national banks had to be American citizens,while depriving foreign shareholders of voting rights in the case of federally-chartered banks.

It also prohibited the employment of foreign workers, thus implicitly disadvantaging foreign investors that wanted to import skilled labour from their home countries.

At the state level, there were even more restrictions. In adition to restrictions on land ownership, many states taxed foreign companies more heavily and some even refused them legal protection. The legislation of many states in the financial sector was even more discriminatory. Some states imposed more strict capital base requirements on foreign financial institutions, and some even totally banned entry into certain financial industries (e.g., NewYork state laws banning foreign bank entry).

The federal government condoned such laws and refused to take action against state governments even when there were pressures from foreign investors and governments to do so.

Europe

Advanced European countriesThe UK, France and Germany did not have to control foreign investment until the Second World War, as they were capital-exporting countries before that.

However,when they were faced with the challenge of an upsurge in American investment after the Second World War, they used a number of formal and informal mechanisms to ensure that their national interests were not hurt.

Formal mechanisms included foreign exchange control and regulations against foreign investment in sensitive sectorsl ike defence or cultural industries.

At the informal level,they used mechanisms like the SOEs, restrictions on takeover, and “undertakings” and “voluntary restrictions”by TNCs in order to restrict foreign investment and impose performance requirements.

until Finland’s accession to the EU in 1993 — Finland basically blocking any significant foreign investment.

Asia

while welcoming and subsidizing FDI in labour-intensive manufacturing sectors, Korea and Taiwan in the 1960s and the 1970s strictly restricted FDI in other industries. Also, over time,with changes in their economic structure and externalconditions, their policy stances changed. For example,Korea had a relatively open policy towards FDI in the car industry, but when it decided in the mid-1970s to develop its own car industry, it started putting heavy restrictionson FDI in the industry.

This may be all true, even though in the case of the US and Europe you are mainly talking about things that happened quite some time ago before the age of globalisation and the end of the cold war. Anyway it is all irrelevant today. Thailand now has to compete in a globalised world and FBA even without the amendments makes Thailand very uncompetitive with the rest of Asia. If the Thai elite doesn't wake up to this fact they will end up with backs against the wall like the Communist Party leadership in China and Vietnam. Those elites know that in order to keep their stranglehold on power they have to keep GDP growth going at not less than 8% or the ensuing unemployment will cause general uprisings and a call for the change of the system. Thailand now has a dangerous mix of very slow economic growth/ a dearth of investment and a growing awareness of the masses awakened by Thaksin that they have political power and but are systematically denied opportunities for better jobs, housing, education, healthcare etc. The Chinese business community has benefitted from the nationality laws that prior to 1973 allowed them to become Thai citizens without being born to Thai parents and now tries to batten down the hatches and stop any one else from coming in. They need to understand that what benefits the greater Thai public will also benefit them, rather than instinctively pushing for protectionism to keep wages down and still be able to sell low quality products and services to Thai people without competition.

[Supaporn]

Where did you quote (cut and paste) this from? Quite evident the difference in language and typing skill from other posts so doubt Mr. Highdiver wrote it. Would like to read more.

just for the record let us not forget that Thailand is a capital importing country just like those great "prosperous economies"

used to be. not to long ago.

what is it about those "prosperous economies" that have forgoten so quickly what they used to do when they were in the same state.

or only those "prosperous economies" are allowd to restrict... but when Thailand does it.

USA

In contrast to its strong support for foreign-investment liberalization today, when it was a capital-importing country, the USA had all kinds of provisions to ensure that foreigners invested in the country but did not control its economy. For example, the US federal government placed restrictions on foreigners'ownership in agricultural land,mining and logging. It discriminated foreign firms in banking and insurance, while prohibiting foreign investment in coastal shipping. It demanded that all directors of national banks had to be American citizens,while depriving foreign shareholders of voting rights in the case of federally-chartered banks.

It also prohibited the employment of foreign workers, thus implicitly disadvantaging foreign investors that wanted to import skilled labour from their home countries.

At the state level, there were even more restrictions. In adition to restrictions on land ownership, many states taxed foreign companies more heavily and some even refused them legal protection. The legislation of many states in the financial sector was even more discriminatory. Some states imposed more strict capital base requirements on foreign financial institutions, and some even totally banned entry into certain financial industries (e.g., NewYork state laws banning foreign bank entry).

The federal government condoned such laws and refused to take action against state governments even when there were pressures from foreign investors and governments to do so.

Europe

Advanced European countriesThe UK, France and Germany did not have to control foreign investment until the Second World War, as they were capital-exporting countries before that.

However,when they were faced with the challenge of an upsurge in American investment after the Second World War, they used a number of formal and informal mechanisms to ensure that their national interests were not hurt.

Formal mechanisms included foreign exchange control and regulations against foreign investment in sensitive sectorsl ike defence or cultural industries.

At the informal level,they used mechanisms like the SOEs, restrictions on takeover, and "undertakings" and "voluntary restrictions"by TNCs in order to restrict foreign investment and impose performance requirements.

until Finland's accession to the EU in 1993 — Finland basically blocking any significant foreign investment.

Asia

while welcoming and subsidizing FDI in labour-intensive manufacturing sectors, Korea and Taiwan in the 1960s and the 1970s strictly restricted FDI in other industries. Also, over time,with changes in their economic structure and externalconditions, their policy stances changed. For example,Korea had a relatively open policy towards FDI in the car industry, but when it decided in the mid-1970s to develop its own car industry, it started putting heavy restrictionson FDI in the industry.

[Mid]

Where did you quote (cut and paste) this from? Quite evident the difference in language and typing skill from other posts so doubt Mr. Highdiver wrote it. Would like to read more.

'diver got it here

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/briefing_papers/No06.pdf

[highdiver]

posted on another thread by Buffcoat but oh so relevant

The one thing I find strange is the small number of posters who appear on this forum who clearly feel that since they wish to live in Thailand they should be able to do so on their own terms and it is outrageous that the Thai authorities have the temerity to introduce any restrictions on a farang's right to do whatever he ###### well wants.

When I am in Thailand I know I am a guest in someone else's 'house' and I fit in with their rules.

When I finally retire to Thailand with my Thai wife I know that I will have to comply with the rules to be allowed to stay.

To me that appears perfectly reasonable and fair.

To me a lot of these questions come down to one simple test of your attitude to Thailand and it's people.........do you respect them or do you feel that because you are farang you are inherently superior?

[highdiver]

When I finally retire to Thailand with my Thai wife I know that I will have to comply with the rules to be allowed to stay

You are assuming they will still allow you to retire here or that the country will still be a desirable place to retire.

You must be quite close to retirement age already to be making such plans, no?

To me a lot of these questions come down to one simple test of your attitude to Thailand and it's people.........do you respect them or do you feel that because you are farang you are inherently superior?

So anyone that has the "temerity" to criticise Thailand is a racist?

no anyone can critisize.

its when you critisize the thai people as ignorant, greedy, inferior, and that you know better what is good for them merely because you feel that you are superior to them that you become a racist.

[Arkady]

When I finally retire to Thailand with my Thai wife I know that I will have to comply with the rules to be allowed to stay

You are assuming they will still allow you to retire here or that the country will still be a desirable place to retire.

You must be quite close to retirement age already to be making such plans, no?

To me a lot of these questions come down to one simple test of your attitude to Thailand and it's people.........do you respect them or do you feel that because you are farang you are inherently superior?

So anyone that has the "temerity" to criticise Thailand is a racist?

no anyone can critisize.

its when you critisize the thai people as ignorant, greedy, inferior, and that you know better what is good for them merely because you feel that you are superior to them that you become a racist.

It is those who strive to keep ordinary Thai people ignorant and inferior that are the problem i.e. the people who want to protect their own status at the top of the social pile and help protect their wealthy friends' inefficient businesses from foreign competition. Working and middle class Thais are more than happy to get better quality goods and services at lower prices and have the chance of a well paid job with proper training, rather than working for a tokay who treats staff like dirt but is also of distinctly foreign origin.

[otton]

The one thing I find strange is the small number of posters who appear on this forum who clearly feel that since they wish to live in Thailand they should be able to do so on their own terms and it is outrageous that the Thai authorities have the temerity to introduce any restrictions on a farang's right to do whatever he ###### well wants.

No, there is a growing and not so small number of posters who are coming to realize how deeply wrong and unfair is the huge disparity between the way Thais are being treated in their homecountries and the way they are being treated in Thailand...

When I finally retire to Thailand with my Thai wife I know that I will have to comply with the rules to be allowed to stay.

Going by your own reasoning displayed here and even better in other threads (where you have clearly stated that even having a Thai wife shouldn't entitle you to anything): who says you have any right at all to be allowed to retire in Thailand?

So, it's not "WHEN you finally retire to Thailand" but "IF you finally retire to Thailand"...