11 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

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

So, letting foreigners buy houses that regular Thais don't or can't afford to buy will somehow open up a larger market for regular Thais. The only windfall I see will be for those who already have a house to sell and have an increased buyer's market that would increase the asking prices.

13 hours ago, save the frogs said:

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

One for the Red White and Blue Team ...

A U.S. citizen can own a company in Thailand outright (up to 100% ownership) through the U.S.–Thailand Treaty of Amity. [1]

Key Rules for a Treaty of Amity Company

• U.S. Ownership: At least 51% of the shares (and up to 100%) must be owned by U.S. citizens or U.S.-based companies.

• Management: The majority of the directors with signing authority must be U.S. or Thai nationals.

• Minimum Capital: Generally requires at least THB 2 million to THB 3 million in registered capital, depending on the specific business activity.

Very intelligent lady. I agree, her plans are right for Thailand.

Expect a U-turn the year after.

15 hours ago, save the frogs said:

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

Then Thailand will eventually become a SE Asian back water. I would have thought for inward investment it was a no brainer.

8 hours ago, bunnydrops said:

So, letting foreigners buy houses that regular Thais don't or can't afford to buy will somehow open up a larger market for regular Thais. The only windfall I see will be for those who already have a house to sell and have an increased buyer's market that would increase the asking prices.

For example in my condo block there are many thai name condos empty for 30 years these would sell quickly if foreign quota was available = thais finally able to sell and make money

21 hours ago, ikke1959 said:

This senator is right. The outdated laws to protect the Thai people are only causing all kind of possibilities for corruption, fraud and illegal activities. THailand should enter the 21st century and Thai people travel all over the world to work and are also possible to have a business and home in other countries without the same issues as here in Thailand. Investors are not stupid and if they invest in a business they in fact loose their money as they will have a minority share. That businesses were set up to own land for a house is also a result of lack of modernization. Thailand wants to get taxes and retirees from people but a piece of land is impossible to own for your own house. Put all foreigners in rental houses or condos is not attractive for many. So updating the laws and starting with 100% ownership of your own company is a good start

Nah, Thailand is just waiting out the eclipital pattern. Basically a shift away from globo-rulo-everyone to more overtly nation-supremo-tribe that's becoming more likely with each year.

It's been getting harder and harder to be a global citizen in Thailand for at least 15 years now, I don't see that changing.

23 hours 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.

I completely agree. Allowing foreigners and foreign companies to own land in Thailand is a recipe for disaster for Thais and by extention those who love Thailand. I understand where most of the posters are coming from, I too would love to own 5 rai upcountry to do with as I please. And yes, a few thousand or even 100 thousand retirees and small businesses owning a bit of land would not have that much effect, but imagine large Chinese corporations and billionaires buying up large areas of the south and pushing out Thai businesses and people. Imagine Russian oligarchs buying up large swaths of Bangkok. Imagine Chinese government entities mining the land for rare metals. Thailand is a small country and it wouldn't take long before what we love about Thailand would change.

I spent some time traveling through Lao and already it is easy to see how much of the land is being depleted of resources by large Chinese corporations and government entities. Large Chinese corporations run huge semis tearing up the roads hauling gold, ore, lumber and other resources straight back to China leaving nothing for the Lao people. Even in the US, a large country, there are problems with Middle Eastern countries and corporations owning large areas of the desert in Arizona and draining the water aquifers to grow alphalpha that is shipped back to the middle east. Local people there are having to drill deeper and deeper wells just to keep their households. I am sure some rich, well connected Thai's would love this change in the law. They would sell out Thailand and make a fortune leaving the average Thai citizen with nothing.

On 9/3/2026 at 6:58 AM, scubascuba3 said:

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

Yes and foreigners could put them in their own name......

Post breaking forum rules removed @JerryM rule 39a. Posts should be original, on-topic, and written in your own voice. This is a discussion forum—not an AI content dump—so keep contributions natural and personal. AI tools can be used for reference or to support facts, but your writing should reflect your own understanding and perspective.

5 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

For example in my condo block there are many thai name condos empty for 30 years these would sell quickly if foreign quota was available = thais finally able to sell and make money

People who are able to keep properties empty for years do not really need the money.

After the Senator finished reading her proposal, there was not a standing ovation.

And from all accounts the Commerce Department (CBD) is more interested in enforcing the existing Foreign Business laws, not overhauling them.

Edited yesterday at 02:42 AM1 day by JerryM

5 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

For example in my condo block there are many thai name condos empty for 30 years these would sell quickly if foreign quota was available = thais finally able to sell and make money

So, why are they not able to sell now to other Thais?

25 minutes ago, ronnie50 said:

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.

10 minutes ago, Yumthai said:

People who are able to keep properties empty for years do not really need the money.

There's no point them staying empty? someone could be renting or living there, refurbing condos creates jobs, what's your answer? do nothing probably

7 minutes ago, bunnydrops said:

So, why are they not able to sell now to other Thais?

Thais don't want them, want new or houses or rent. What's your answer? probably nothing

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

There's no point them staying empty? someone could be renting or living there, refurbing condos creates jobs, what's your answer? do nothing probably

That's a question for the wealthy thai owners. From what I can witness in Bangkok is they buy multiple units in condos letting them empty for years, not willing to deal with tenants nor resale them without profit.

12 hours ago, bunnydrops said:

So, letting foreigners buy houses that regular Thais don't or can't afford to buy will somehow open up a larger market for regular Thais. The only windfall I see will be for those who already have a house to sell and have an increased buyer's market that would increase the asking prices.

The reality is that you will always have percentages of the population that can only afford products at different price levels, and some who can't afford a product even at the lowest price level available. BMW sells cars in Thailand for over 2MB. A percentage of the population can afford to buy a BMW, a percentage can't. It doesn't mean the percentage of the population's car buyers who can't afford a BMW are priced out of buying a new car--they aren't. Instead of a BMW, they buy a cheaper new model that fits their budget. Or, they buy an even cheaper used model. If they can't even afford that, they buy a motorcycle. That's the reality.

It's the same for condos and houses. A builder builds a condo or a house and prices it at 10MB. Some Thais will be able to buy it, some won't. Same with foreigners. It doesn't mean Thais--or foreigners--are priced out of the housing market. As with buying a car, you buy what fits your budget--not unique to Thailand, by the way. If you can't afford to buy a property, you rent. I had to do that when I first started working in the US. The reality is that there are plenty of inexpensive houses or condos available for Thais to buy if they have the means to afford a property. That might mean a small condo rather than a house. I never owned a house in the US because I could never afford one where I lived. So, I bought what I could afford--a small condo. Reality.

Have developers built more expensive properties to cater to buyers' wants, both Thai and foreign? Yes. True for Pattaya, also true for Bangkok and other areas with high-income buyers, and not necessarily only foreigners. Builders are running a business and build what they can sell and what buyers are asking for. Reality.

There are new Bangkok housing developments priced at 20MB, 30MB, 40MB and higher. Most of these are geared to rich Thais, with perhaps a sprinking of foreigners married to Thais. Spouse and I own a getaway condo in a pricey Bangkok condo project. There is plenty of foreign quota still available, meaning that most of the condos in the sold-out project were bought by wealthy Thais, not foreigners. Should they be blamed for rising condo prices? No, and neither should foreigners. And, condos priced under 2MB are still readily available in Bangkok, for buyers who can afford to own--again, not all can. Reality.

Back to BMW. When I first moved to Pattaya in 2010, there wasn't a BMW dealership. It was more of a View Talay/Toyota town then. But, the town grew, more affluent people arrived, and, in 2015, a BMW dealership opened to cater to a town population that could now support a BMW dealership. BMW arriving did not mean other car models raised their prices, just as a 10MB house being built on the Darkside does not make a 2MB Jomtien condo suddenly cost more.

Along with their BMW, these wealthy folk wanted nicer housing, too. Developers responded, with pricier housing projects and condos more upscale than the pedestrian View Talays. For the not-so-rich, cheaper housing projects and the View Talays were--and are--still available. What was different was, as with the cars, more choice was added to the mix.

Has housing gotten more expensive in Thailand? Yes--true most everywhere. The first condo I bought in Reston, VA cost $60,000. If I wanted to buy it today it would cost $250,000--and not because a lot of wealthy Thais moved into Reston and drove up the price. Why the increase? In 1980, around when I bought, it cost $28 to $38 a square foot to build a condo in Reston. Today, it's $250 to $450. While not as extreme by any means, Thailand has not escaped rising prices over the years, including real estate. Still, Thailand has a higher percentage of home ownership than either the EU or the USA.

If there are no buyers for luxury homes, either Thai or foreign, some builders will pivot to building cheaper homes, which a percentage of the population still won't be able to afford--land isn't getting cheaper, labor isn't getting cheaper, and materials certainly aren't getting cheaper--I know, we just built a new house. Cheap condos and houses, already available now, will always be beyond the means of some. That's the reality, that's the way of the world.

Large scale foreign investors already only invest in Thailand of there is an economic upside. Having Thai partners comes with risks but also potential upsides such as cultural understanding, connections and networks. I think Thailands strengths are challenged by international competition and local education levels and lower wages in other ASEAN countries.

For the small business startup, using nominees is illegal and they're still funding 100%, complete ownership or not. Missing is the advantage of the networks and cultural knowledge. So the problem is finding a suitable and qualified Thai partner.

Edited yesterday at 09:05 AM1 day by robert2

2 hours ago, newnative said:

The reality is that you will always have percentages of the population that can only afford products at different price levels, and some who can't afford a product even at the lowest price level available. BMW sells cars in Thailand for over 2MB. A percentage of the population can afford to buy a BMW, a percentage can't. It doesn't mean the percentage of the population's car buyers who can't afford a BMW are priced out of buying a new car--they aren't. Instead of a BMW, they buy a cheaper new model that fits their budget. Or, they buy an even cheaper used model. If they can't even afford that, they buy a motorcycle. That's the reality.

It's the same for condos and houses. A builder builds a condo or a house and prices it at 10MB. Some Thais will be able to buy it, some won't. Same with foreigners. It doesn't mean Thais--or foreigners--are priced out of the housing market. As with buying a car, you buy what fits your budget--not unique to Thailand, by the way. If you can't afford to buy a property, you rent. I had to do that when I first started working in the US. The reality is that there are plenty of inexpensive houses or condos available for Thais to buy if they have the means to afford a property. That might mean a small condo rather than a house. I never owned a house in the US because I could never afford one where I lived. So, I bought what I could afford--a small condo. Reality.

Have developers built more expensive properties to cater to buyers' wants, both Thai and foreign? Yes. True for Pattaya, also true for Bangkok and other areas with high-income buyers, and not necessarily only foreigners. Builders are running a business and build what they can sell and what buyers are asking for. Reality.

There are new Bangkok housing developments priced at 20MB, 30MB, 40MB and higher. Most of these are geared to rich Thais, with perhaps a sprinking of foreigners married to Thais. Spouse and I own a getaway condo in a pricey Bangkok condo project. There is plenty of foreign quota still available, meaning that most of the condos in the sold-out project were bought by wealthy Thais, not foreigners. Should they be blamed for rising condo prices? No, and neither should foreigners. And, condos priced under 2MB are still readily available in Bangkok, for buyers who can afford to own--again, not all can. Reality.

Back to BMW. When I first moved to Pattaya in 2010, there wasn't a BMW dealership. It was more of a View Talay/Toyota town then. But, the town grew, more affluent people arrived, and, in 2015, a BMW dealership opened to cater to a town population that could now support a BMW dealership. BMW arriving did not mean other car models raised their prices, just as a 10MB house being built on the Darkside does not make a 2MB Jomtien condo suddenly cost more.

Along with their BMW, these wealthy folk wanted nicer housing, too. Developers responded, with pricier housing projects and condos more upscale than the pedestrian View Talays. For the not-so-rich, cheaper housing projects and the View Talays were--and are--still available. What was different was, as with the cars, more choice was added to the mix.

Has housing gotten more expensive in Thailand? Yes--true most everywhere. The first condo I bought in Reston, VA cost $60,000. If I wanted to buy it today it would cost $250,000--and not because a lot of wealthy Thais moved into Reston and drove up the price. Why the increase? In 1980, around when I bought, it cost $28 to $38 a square foot to build a condo in Reston. Today, it's $250 to $450. While not as extreme by any means, Thailand has not escaped rising prices over the years, including real estate. Still, Thailand has a higher percentage of home ownership than either the EU or the USA.

If there are no buyers for luxury homes, either Thai or foreign, some builders will pivot to building cheaper homes, which a percentage of the population still won't be able to afford--land isn't getting cheaper, labor isn't getting cheaper, and materials certainly aren't getting cheaper--I know, we just built a new house. Cheap condos and houses, already available now, will always be beyond the means of some. That's the reality, that's the way of the world.

Well, since I owned and ran a construction company for over 45 years, I do know a bit about how the housing market works, so I will not argue with what you have said. I also lived in a town that became popular with Californians. The average cost of housing doubled in less than 3 years after a write-up in Sunset magazine, due to an influx of well-to-do buyers (the same happened in the area around Sun Valley).

From what I have read, there is a very large number of empty condos in Thailand, far more than a foreigner coming to Thailand and wanting a home could even make a dent in. So who were these condos built for if "Thais don't want them"? Was the business model to charge enough so that the place can still make a profit half empty? If so, that half is already paying too much. And those that bought them made a bad decision. Why buy a used condo when there are so many new ones

AI Overview

Thailand has an estimated 1.64 million vacant or unoccupied residential housing units nationwide, with condominiums making up the substantial majority of this surplus. [1, 2]

Data from the Agency for Real Estate Affairs (AREA) and real estate market analysts highlight the key figures regarding empty and unsold condo stock:

• National Vacancy Estimates: Out of the 1.64 million empty homes across Thailand (defined as completed units with little to no electricity usage), condominiums represent roughly 58% of vacant stock in major urban centers. Nearly one in four new condo units (24.8%) stands empty due to over-speculation. [1, 2, 3]

• Bangkok Metropolitan Region: Greater Bangkok holds over 730,000 vacant housing units, where condominiums again comprise the largest share of unoccupied properties. [1, 2]

• Unsold Inventory Overhang: Separate data from Knight Frank Thailand estimates that Greater Bangkok alone faces an active backlog of around 350,000 unsold condominium units that developers are working to clear. [1, 2]

I still see opening it up to foreign investment as only a bailout for speculators, and it does nothing for the Thai general public.

5 hours ago, newnative said:

The first condo I bought in Reston, VA cost $60,000. If I wanted to buy it today it would cost $250,000--and not because a lot of wealthy Thais moved into Reston and drove up the price. Why the increase? In 1980, around when I bought, it cost $28 to $38 a square foot to build a condo in Reston. Today, it's $250 to $450. While not as extreme by any means, Thailand has not escaped rising prices over the years, including real estate. Still, Thailand has a higher percentage of home ownership than either the EU or the USA.

In the 1980's Reston was in the middle of nowhere. The area has grown significantly since the 1980s.

Never do this in a developing country. No chance - it would be wreckless and any government that implemented this would be out.

You have to remember despite your tourist haven, or central Bangkok the vast majority of the country are on 400 baht a day. You drive up prices of housing and you are risking the whole eco system of how Thailand works (namely very cheap labour).

If foreigners think this is a good idea because they can buy - BEHAVE. You will be no competition for the Chinese swamping up everything (hiding their money), and it will drive up prices.

Edited yesterday at 06:23 PM1 day by DonniePeverley

12 hours ago, bunnydrops said:

ThaisWell, since I owned and ran a construction company for over 45 years, I do know a bit about how the housing market works, so I will not argue with what you have said. I also lived in a town that became popular with Californians. The average cost of housing doubled in less than 3 years after a write-up in Sunset magazine, due to an influx of well-to-do buyers (the same happened in the area around Sun Valley).

From what I have read, there is a very large number of empty condos in Thailand, far more than a foreigner coming to Thailand and wanting a home could even make a dent in. So who were these condos built for if "Thais don't want them"? Was the business model to charge enough so that the place can still make a profit half empty? If so, that half is already paying too much. And those that bought them made a bad decision. Why buy a used condo when there are so many new ones

AI Overview

Thailand has an estimated 1.64 million vacant or unoccupied residential housing units nationwide, with condominiums making up the substantial majority of this surplus. [1, 2]

Data from the Agency for Real Estate Affairs (AREA) and real estate market analysts highlight the key figures regarding empty and unsold condo stock:

• National Vacancy Estimates: Out of the 1.64 million empty homes across Thailand (defined as completed units with little to no electricity usage), condominiums represent roughly 58% of vacant stock in major urban centers. Nearly one in four new condo units (24.8%) stands empty due to over-speculation. [1, 2, 3]

• Bangkok Metropolitan Region: Greater Bangkok holds over 730,000 vacant housing units, where condominiums again comprise the largest share of unoccupied properties. [

  , 2]

• Unsold Inventory Overhang: Separate data from Knight Frank Thailand estimates that Greater Bangkok alone faces an active backlog of around 350,000 unsold condominium units that developers are working to clear. [

  , 2]

I still see opening it up to foreign investment as only a bailout for speculators, and it does nothing for the Thai general public.

I'm not sure who you are quoting with your "Thais don't want them" comment regarding condominums. I certainly never said that. Over 76% of Bangkok condos are owned by Thais. Those condos were built primarily for Thais to buy them--that was the 'business model'. As I said in my previous post, my sold-out Bangkok condo has plenty of foreign quota still available, so it is probably right around that 76% average of Thai-owned.

When Lumpini and Sansiri first came to Pattaya and built their very successful, massive projects, Lumpini Park Beach and The Base, they were marketed specifically to Bangkokians as weekend getaways. Sansiri's initial sales office was in Bangkok and when the Pattaya sales office was opened for The Base the project was already mostly booked--by Bangkokians. Most of the condos were small--28 to 35 sqm--ideal for short, weekend getaways. Sansiri's brochure even had the tagline, 'It's the Weekend', and it was filled with images of yuppy Bangkokians frolicking in Pattaya, with not a single pic of a farang in the brochure.

So, Thais buy condos, some to live in, some to rent out as an investment, some to use as getaway places, and some for other reasons. When we bought our first Bangkok condo at Lumpini Makkasan we met a Thai lady who had bought a condo in the project specifically to use it during the week, as her young child was enrolled in one of the private schools in that immediate area. Their main home was in the Bangkok suburbs.

Your '1.64 million vacant or unoccupied housing units in Thailand' statistic has already been bandied about by another poster. The key words there are 'vacant' and 'unoccupied'. Neither necessarily mean actively on the market for sale. That figure is around 600,000 nationwide--quite a bit smaller, by over 1 million units.

And, since you were in the housing business, you will well-know that what is happening in one part of a country does not necessarily translate to other parts.

Your statement, 'Why buy a used condo when there are so many new ones', however, makes me question whether you really were in the housing business. You should readily know and understand the whittling down process I have described when a buyer inputs the first three basics of a property search: price of property, size of property, and area of property. Buyers buy both new and used condos because they are buying what fits their needs best. We have sold used condos to Thais. There may be a lot of new condos but, once again, the number drops to, in many cases, only a handful when the search process starts with the 3 basics.

Example. There are thousands of new and used condos in Bangkok. When we sold the too-small 24 sqm Lumpini-Makkasan studio condo, we went looking for a replacement. Our 3 basics were: Price: around 6MB or less. Size: 1 bedroom condo, no studios, at least 40 sqm. Area: Closer to Phetchaburi MRT station and Airport Rail Link. From the thousands of Bangkok new and used condos for sale, we initially narrowed down our search to 3 projects that were a short walk to the MRT station//ARL. We looked at condos for sale at the 3 projects and eliminated 2 of the projects. We decided the third project offered the most value for our money and we liked the unit layouts better. After eliminating condos in that project that were too small, too expensive, or had sitting tenants, we were left with maybe 10 choices. So, from thousands to less than a dozen, and we bought a used condo, not a new one.

The whittling down works both ways--for buyer and seller. At the end of August we sold a 3 bedroom/3 bath pool villa in the suburbs of Pattaya for 5.5MB--we had listed it at 5.9MB. Sold it to the first buyer to view it, a Thai--yes, Thais buy used houses. How could we manage to find a buyer when there are 600,000 active properties for sale in Thailand? Easy answer--there are not 600,000 3 bedroom/3 bath pool villas priced under 6MB for sale where we were selling ours. Turns out there were about a half-dozen or so on the market at that time.

As a builder, you should know, if you're building, say, suburban 4-bedroom ranch houses, your competition isn't the builder doing inner-city studio lofts. It's how many other suburban ranch houses are also going up--and, in your area, not across the country.

As for 'making a bad decision' in buying a condo here, not in our experience. We've bought and sold 20 or so, all at a profit, in Rayong, Bangkok, and Pattaya. Recently I checked a number of the projects where we had owned foreign quota seaview condos in Pattaya. The prices were all above what we had sold our similar size/floor condos for.

None of the above changes my previous post. Thais are not being priced out of the market by foreign buyers--in most places, including Bangkok, the majority of the buyers are Thai. Also, a foreigner buying a condo in Thailand pays on average 4.7 to 5.1 MB, whereas a Thai first-time condo buyer buys condos in the 2 to 3MB range--so, again, different price points, not really competing with each other.

The problem, once again, is not housing stock or buyer competition. The problem is too many Thais not earning enough money to purchase even the cheapest property. This problem is not unique to Thailand, by the way. It is also being seen in the US and Europe. Governments, of course, could be doing much more with programs to assist younger buyers with their first home purchase.

On 9/4/2026 at 8:36 PM, TedG said:

In the 1980's Reston was in the middle of nowhere. The area has grown significantly since the 1980s.

Actually, by the 1980s I don't think Reston was considered 'in the middle of nowhere'. The new town of Reston was started around 1965 by Robert Simon and, indeed, it was considered remote to DC in the 1960s and for a good part of the 1970s. By the 1980s, though, northern Virginia's relentless suburban sprawl had reached Reston and was moving beyond it to the next county--Loudoun--which would see it's population grow by 50% in the 80s and would later become the fastest growing county in the US from 2000 to 2010.

4 minutes ago, newnative said:

Actually, by the 1980s I don't think Reston was considered 'in the middle of nowhere'. The new town of Reston was started around 1965 by Robert Simon and, indeed, it was considered remote to DC in the 1960s and for a good part of the 1970s. By the 1980s, though, northern Virginia's relentless suburban sprawl had reached Reston and was moving beyond it to the next county--Loudoun--which would see it's population grow by 50% in the 80s and would later become the fastest growing county in the US from 2000 to 2010.

In the 1980's Reston was the middle of nowhere. Back in the day, Rt 7 and 28 were two-lane roads, and the Dulles Toll Road was born in 1984.

3 minutes ago, TedG said:

In the 1980's Reston was the middle of nowhere. Back in the day, Rt 7 and 28 were two-lane roads, and the Dulles Toll Road was born in 1984.

If Reston was in the middle of nowhere 'in the 1980s', why did we even need the Dulles Toll Road, in 1984--which is in 'the 1980s'? Obviously, the Toll Road was built to handle all the traffic that was now in that area and also going beyond Reston to all the new housing projects in Loudoun County. At that point, even those new projects, well beyond Reston, were likely not considered the middle of nowhere by then. And, can Reston really be in the middle of nowhere if the next county farther out from Reston is growing by 50% in the 1980s?

5 minutes ago, newnative said:

If Reston was in the middle of nowhere 'in the 1980s', why did we even need the Dulles Toll Road, in 1984--which is in 'the 1980s'? Obviously, the Toll Road was built to handle all the traffic that was now in that area and also going beyond Reston to all the new housing projects in Loudoun County. At that point, even those new projects, well beyond Reston, were likely not considered the middle of nowhere by then. And, can Reston really be in the middle of nowhere if the next county farther out from Reston is growing by 50% in the 1980s?

There was not much out there in the 80's. Dude, I've lived in VA since 1969; I don't need a history lesson from you.

20 minutes ago, TedG said:

There was not much out there in the 80's. Dude, I've lived in VA since 1969; I don't need a history lesson from you.

Well if you lived in that area you should know that a community college opened in 1974 and Fair Oaks Mall opened in 1980. Once you have those things in the general area, along with big box stores, a hospital, movie theaters, etc., I think you've left the middle of nowhere but suit yourself.

OK so the good Senator read her proposal in the SEP 1 meeting with PM Anutin in attendance. So what would netx?

She and cohorts must actually draft a bill amending the Foreign Business Act (FBA), B.E. 2542 (1999). Under Thai law, a Senate bill requires sponsorship by at least 20 senators.

Alternatively, the Cabinet (Executive Branch) or a minimum of 20 Members of Parliament (MPs) in the House of Representatives can draft and introduce the bill.

Then, as all legislative bills involving general commerce and foreign business must first be submitted to the House of Representatives not the Senate, the House after a first reading would vote on whether to accept the bill in principle.

Edited 41 minutes ago41 min by JerryM

6 minutes ago, JerryM said:

OK so the good Senator read her proposal in the SEP 1 meeting with PM Anutin in attendance. So what would netx?

She and cohorts must actually draft a bill amending the Foreign Business Act (FBA), B.E. 2542 (1999). Under Thai law, a Senate bill requires sponsorship by at least 20 senators.

Alternatively, the Cabinet (Executive Branch) or a minimum of 20 Members of Parliament (MPs) in the House of Representatives can draft and introduce the bill.

Then, as all legislative bills involving general commerce and foreign business must first be submitted to the House of Representatives not the Senate, the House after a first reading would vote on whether to accept the bill in principle.

Developers need to up the bribes to enable change

15 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Developers need to up the bribes to enable change

If that's all it would take, it already would've happened.

Edited 14 minutes ago14 min by JerryM