11 minutes ago, SiSePuede419 said:

Thailand pays foreigners to live here.

They should send a massage girl to rub your temples if you open a business.

44 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

greater supply may drop the prices, no point condos and houses being unsold. Would be a windfall for Thais

A windfall for those Thais already in the market but future generations will be the victims of foreign house and property ownership changes. There are 3-4 billion potential foreign property investors within 4 hours flying time from Thailand. This will push prices into Earth's outer orbit.

100% ownership of legitimate businesses I support but land and housing is a recipe for disaster for the average Thai.

2 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

Makes sense in tourist areas where condo foreign quota fills up quick, if they don't do something foreign investment will continue to plumet

2 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

Makes sense in tourist areas where condo foreign quota fills up quick, if they don't do something foreign investment will continue to plumet

And there will be nowhere left to funnel drug money

Sure she will soon be investigated for X

crime and made to quietly fade into the background.

Large Corporations often make it a prerequisite that before building they want (BOI Promotion and 100% Ownership) or Thailand can kick rocks.

I definitely understand the small Foreign owned businesses possibly having a competitive advantage with available capital. Additionally understand that Thailand wants some type of protectionism to prevent Thai unemployment rising.

That said even though as a US citizen you can own 100% following the certification process, having structure entity from start as majority US owned and Embassy (US Commercial Service certification) etc but that limits many other Foreign Investment as they would also prefer legitimate 100% ownership, full control in unrestricted business fields.

24 minutes ago, wmorris61 said:

A windfall for those Thais already in the market but future generations will be the victims of foreign house and property ownership changes. There are 3-4 billion potential foreign property investors within 4 hours flying time from Thailand. This will push prices into Earth's outer orbit.

100% ownership of legitimate businesses I support but land and housing is a recipe for disaster for the average Thai.

It's only an issue in tourist areas for condos, no one's rushing to buy in Isaan, Bangkok no issue either

Is it April 1 already?

2 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

It would be a windfall to thais who can finally sell their condos and houses

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

greater supply may drop the prices, no point condos and houses being unsold. Would be a windfall for Thais

Allowing 100% ownership of companies doesn’t mean the company can own property and it’s likely to still be illegal.

It wouldn’t affect the property market at all.

There are some Americans who have set up companies under the Treaty of Amity, they already own 100% of their companies but they are still not allowed to own property in that company. Some have and they will definitely be on the current investigation list and likely to be dealt with much more harshly.

I believe the proposal has come about because of this...

Thailand is actively undergoing the formal accession process to become a member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), targeting full membership by 2028. The country's bid acts as a core driver for sweeping structural, legal, and economic reforms aimed at lifting Thailand into a high-income nation by 2037.

But....

Thailand’s stiff restrictions on small foreign investors a significant problem for its OECD aspirations

Thailand chases OECD membership by 2028 while Anutin’s government targets foreign landholding, smaller firms and restricted jobs. The bloc warns Bangkok’s tangled laws, loopholes and sweeping investment barriers threaten confidence and its entry bid.

That's the envelope making factories shut down and out of business

4 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

A Thai senator has proposed allowing foreign investors to own 100% of businesses they fully fund, arguing that the change could tackle nominee companies, grey capital and corruption. Senator Prathum Wongsawat raised the idea during a Senate meeting on September 1.

Prathum also suggested that Thailand could introduce investment thresholds allowing overseas investors to qualify for residency or even Thai citizenship.

Ownership rules and nominee risk

Prathum told the Senate that Thailand benefits from foreign investment, but questioned rules which generally limit foreign ownership to 49%, requiring Thai shareholders to hold the remaining 51%.

She said earlier efforts to address nominee businesses and grey foreign capital had failed to deal with the underlying causes. According to Prathum, loopholes in Thai law create opportunities for wrongdoing involving foreign investors and Thai officials seeking illicit benefits.

She argued that some businesses use nominee arrangements despite being funded entirely by foreign investors. In such cases, she said, an investor providing all the capital is unlikely to willingly hand over control of the company.

Prathum said the restrictions can push some foreigners towards Thai nominees or other attempts to bypass the law, including the use of false Thai identities and addresses, so they can operate businesses in Thailand.

Advertisement

She argued that these practices can contribute to grey capital, tax avoidance and opportunities for officials to seek illicit payments.

Drawing on her own investment experience in Russia, Prathum said foreign investors there could own shares in line with the full amount they had invested.

Her proposed reform would make ownership correspond to the proportion of capital invested. Under that model, a foreigner supplying 100% of a company's funding could hold 100% of its shares.

Residency and citizenship linked to investment

Prathum said legalising full foreign ownership where an investor provides all the capital could turn what she described as "grey capital" into "white capital" from the outset.

She further proposed clear investment thresholds under which foreign investors could qualify for residency or Thai citizenship.

She argued that transparent requirements for investment, residency and citizenship would close loopholes and reduce corruption and extortion, because investors operating legally would be less exposed to demands for illicit payments.

Advertisement

Join the discussion?

3 September 2026

View full article

Amazing.. A Thai Senator with good sense---wish there were more like this, with the same thoughts and ideas.

Keeping individuals (less corruption) out of the game and controlled corruption under supervision 😂🤣 That would be a hell of a plan.

3 hours ago, jacko45k said:

There has been no shift in policy, just some Senator wanting to get a name for herself

3 hours ago, jacko45k said:

There has been no shift in policy, just some Senator wanting to get a name for herself

Name for herself plus friends from Russia who are desperate to get money out of the country bue to Purin seezing their assets to fund his war machine thats rapidly running out of funds.Why wlse would she mention her Russia buisness in this statement.

Agree with the business ownership ...

... "foreign investors to own 100% of businesses they fully fund" ...

But not applied to RE for ownership or business (resell or leasing) property. As that has already priced Thais out of some markets. Keep the present ownership of condos only.

Finally discovered the revolutionary concept that someone investing 100% of the capital might actually be allowed to own 100% of the company. Truly groundbreaking stuff.

That makes too much sense for Thailand. No chance

4 hours ago, save the frogs said:

I believe (could be wrong) that foreigners are allowed to own 100% business in Vietnam ... not that it leads to residency though.

So if it's true in Vietnam, it can be done in Thailand too?

Never say never again.

If that is the basis from which you believe that this might happen, I would suggest that you are likely to be disappointed.

I think there need to be a few more reasons than the one that Vietnam allows 100% foreign ownership.

1 hour ago, LennyW said:

I believe the proposal has come about because of this...

Thailand is actively undergoing the formal accession process to become a member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), targeting full membership by 2028. The country's bid acts as a core driver for sweeping structural, legal, and economic reforms aimed at lifting Thailand into a high-income nation by 2037.

But....

Thailand’s stiff restrictions on small foreign investors a significant problem for its OECD aspirations

Thailand chases OECD membership by 2028 while Anutin’s government targets foreign landholding, smaller firms and restricted jobs. The bloc warns Bangkok’s tangled laws, loopholes and sweeping investment barriers threaten confidence and its entry bid.

Well this makes a lot more sense for a basis for discussion.

Personally I think the aspiration to join the OECD will gradually drift off into the sunset without being achieved, because it would require too many changes to Thailand attitude to the rest of the world, an attitude that commences right within the education system that teaches very little about the outside world.

But I have no rational basis for saying that other than that is what seems to happen to many aspirational objectives that Thailand lurches toward, without ever really understanding the fundamental changes required to get there.

I hope I’m wrong in my somewhat cynical view, but status quo seems to be a likely option not least because it’s the easiest thing to achieve.

To propose such a thing, it shows they are scared of Vietnam.

...Oh-Oh... (?)

...Question The Timing... (?)

...Let's Hope That Thailand Doesn't Become Another...Argentina... (?)

5 hours ago, save the frogs said:

You don't think it's ever gonna happen?

not in our life time... the crooks will not agree with it, they will loose access to the red/brown envelops, lawyers will not be making more money with their "fake" companies, there is a "big" business operating in the back of the law firms, they will vote against anything that will target their crooked money making

5 hours ago, save the frogs said:

This is a monumental shift in policy.

Would there be a minimum investment for residency? Oh yeah, the article mentions "threshold" ,but to be determined I guess.

It's a suggestion from one politician — wait and see if more, or rather a majority, follows the idea.

6 hours ago, jacko45k said:

There has been no shift in policy, just some Senator wanting to get a name for herself

The challenge would be that you would see, for instance, all the language schools run by foreign people. Many Thai-operated shops would no longer exist because more people from outside the country would start owning them.

A safer way might be to flip the percentage and allow a foreign owner to have 60 %, but again have to have Thai partners.

Using the tourist areas as an example how many bars would be foreign owned and Thais would be out int he cold.

6 hours ago, JerryM said:

Other than that, no problem.

Laws decades old!

No longer practical nor useful in today's global economies.

Change is needed.

7 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Laws decades old!

No longer practical nor useful in today's global economies.

Change is needed.

I made no comment on the content of the proposal. It was just that -- a non-binding proposal -- and there was no vote taken during the meeting. And given the logistical action required to amend organic acts, it is difficult even with wide support.

Edited 13 hours ago13 hr by JerryM

We're all seeing it through the lens of an expat wanting to own a bar and a villa.

The reality is that Thailand would be inundated with Russkie Oligarchs, Israeli mobsters and worse, looking to hide ill gotten gains.

Not to mention, the worst scourge of all: Private Equity. The "You'll own nothing and be happy" people. They'd snap up half of Thailand in a year or so.

And we may be allowed to buy a villa. But we won't be able to afford to buy a villa. Neither will Thai people.

Finally, someone talking some sense. Now, all the stakeholders, big and small, need to get behind it and lobby for it. And, there are a ton of them--from large and small developers to big box retailers to land owners to electricians to plumbers to furniture makers and sellers to real estate agents to manufacturers of appliances, electronics, paint, tile, cement, piping, and everything else that goes into building a house.

They all have a stake in the housing industry prospering, which benefits all of Thailand. United, they can be a very strong force. They need to get organized and speak up loudly as one voice for their businesses.

8 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Not sure what you are referring to.

To spell it out: they have no fear, no inferiority complex, and are good engineers, as those battles have demonstrated.

6 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

It's only an issue in tourist areas for condos, no one's rushing to buy in Isaan, Bangkok no issue either

The greatest mass of unsold condos is in Bangkok!

The housing crisis issue will become a financial disaster in coming years as housing units for sale now are estimated to be 7x the number of buyers looking.

The unfettered building of cheap, nasty condos has resulted in a glut of vacant units. The situation is exacerbated by the government's fervored crackdown on nominee companies, the idiot law regarding 51% Thai ownership, and by the fact that Thais traditionally are connected to the land and are generally not interested in buying condos.

Many buildings never get full occupancy and the owners base profit margins on the 49% plus. Also, as these buildings are hastily thrown up attempting quick profits, low building quality, means deterioration of the product in a shorter time. Prices will plumet, a bargain may be had, but good luck trying to sell later.

Developers (the Elite?) will be hurting and may put pressure on government to amend the strict conditions.

Various crackdowns by government with a tightening of visa rules, banks refusing service unless investors meet strict criteria and of course the tax man in for a grab at retirement funds, means many foreigners are now loath to commit to Thailand. Laughingly, Thailand espouses catering to the very rich as long term residents while putting up barriers against the huge investment potential of the masses in the middle. No wonder countries like Vietnam and Malaysia are now attracting more expats.

The Senator is stating some obvious solutions if they want to make a start on halting the financial decline on what was once an Asian powerhouse. I doubt the old guard will listen.

Edited 10 hours ago10 hr by Old Croc

10 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

Makes sense in tourist areas where condo foreign quota fills up quick, if they don't do something foreign investment will continue to plumet

And because Thais can't afford them, the price is inflated for foreigners to make up for the units that don't sell due to the 49% cap.

11 hours ago, jacko45k said:

There has been no shift in policy, just some Senator wanting to get a name for herself

That's a prejudice of Thais to be selfish and egomaniacs.

It's a catching idea however, and I hope she can convince the majority.