Government Considers Longer Leasehold Terms

[cloudhopper]

- 30 year leases are currently no more protective to the lessee than a standard one year residential lease.

Could you explain just why that is please?

[Arkady]

- 30 year leases are currently no more protective to the lessee than a standard one year residential lease.

Could you explain just why that is please?

As I see, it a lease of 1 year or 30 years is an agreement between a lessor and a lessee with no rights of reassignment by the lessee without express permission of the lessee and is not directly binding on anyone other the original lessor and the lessee. If the lessee is a natural person and he dies before the end of the lease, the lease terminates. If the lessor dies or sells the land before the end of the lease, the lease is not automatically binding on the new owner who did not enter into the original agreement. Many have argued otherwise but they are usually property developers and lawyers who want to separate farang buyers from their cash. Anyway what hope have you or your heirs in a Thai court against a well connected Thai land owner? Long leases in the UK and other developed countries are binding on all future parties and allow reassignment automatically. There is also a legal process in the UK for lessees of long leases close to expiry to apply for renewal on reasonable terms. 90 or 99 years is not the maximum lease term in term in the UK as many Thais seems to believe. There are many 999 year leases.

If 90 year leases ever see the light of day, I will be curious to see how many foreigners will be able to exercise the clauses in their lease agreements that say they can convert their 30 year leases with promises of two more 30 year leases to 90 year leases, as soon as the law allows with no additional cost. Land owners are bound to renege en masse and get away with it.

[turbog3]

p.s can someone tell me where I go to get my free health insurance and child care as suggested by the new member??

You're welcome to relocate to, for instance, Sweden, where you get "free" (as in <paid-in-most-part for by taxes>) child care (as in kindergarten).

As for where you could get free health insurance, uhm, I have no idea? Maybe you could have a talk with your employer about your benefits-package? What I mentioned was free health care which is also the case in Sweden (while we in Sweden do pay a small fee for every visit to the doctor's and we do pay for our (subsidized) medicals, there is no need for us to worry about insurance or money or balancing our accounts before a trip to the doctor's office or the hospital). If I'm not mistaken I believe that, at least basic medial care is free for Thai nationals as well, while foreigners seeking medical care in Thailand would have to rely on insurance for cover or pay at the cashiers desk.

As an added bonus, relocating to Sweden is fairly easy and straight-forward.

1. Marry a Swedish citizen.

2. Apply for a combined Swedish Residence Permit/Work Permit at the Swedish embassy in your country.

3. Wait approximately 6 months (can depend on the current situation) for a decision from the Swedish Migrations Board.

4. The descision will be positive (since you have fulfilled the one condition required; being married to a Swedish citizen) - unless you have provided false or incomplete information in your application.

5. Visit the Swedish embassy to get your visa stamped in your passport.

6. Book a flight!

(7. Stay in Sweden for at least 2 years and your formerly temporary Residence and Work Permit will be made in to a permanent Residence Permit. Stay as long as you like!)

(8. Live in Sweden for at least 5 years, and you will have the opportunity to become a Swedish citizen, if you so desire. The citizenship doesn't really add any significant bonus, apart from the passport and that the Swedish embassy can help you if you have problems while abroad. As a Visa-holder and resident of Sweden you already benefit from all the Swedish social welfare-programs, such as tax-payed child-care, free medical care, free schools, you can vote in the general elections and so on.)

(Compare the above 8-step process with the process of first trying to live in Thailand on a permanent(!) basis without having to exit and enter the kingdom on a regular basis and then to try to become a Thai citizen...)

My point, if it didn't get through, was that a government provides certain basic functions for it's citizens. In Sweden, for instance, we get free schools and I believe the same goes for Thailand. When it comes to tourists, however, the basic functions provided by the government is reduced to basic infrastructure, such as roads, electricity, international airport and such. The rest of the functions demanded by tourists, such as accommodations, car-rentals, amusement parks and what ever else you can think of, is provided on an as-needed basis by, for the most part, private investors. A tourist does not and can not demand free medical care or free education for their children while mommy and daddy spends the days in the pool-bar...

Hence, a tourist only spends money while visiting the country, while a resident also demands certain basic functions to be provided, functions that in part or in full will have to be financed by the government.

Oh, and just because I posted for the first time doesn't make me a "new member". Besides, would being a "new member" mean something special? Like "shut up and don't post stupid posts because you're new and we're old"? I hope not...

[calmichael]

I have a 30 year lease on my property. leased from my ex-wife. what good is a 90 year lease to me, unless I can 'will' it to a person of my choice. I'm 64. I would have to live a very long time to complete my lease.

My father is 94 and still going strong. He drives, he shops, he plays a mean game of pool, and has about 14 trophies from the past 3 years - I can't come close to beating him But I sure wouldn't want to be that age and on the street.

[astral]

Chances are it will all be for nought anyways. A lot of hot air and hollow promises which will slowly dissipate until the very subject is forgotten by all but a few that thought their shot at the jackpot was at hand.

Probably right there.

Time will tell.

[ade100]

Other countries have same law/regulations with owing land rules, in Europe you can not just by what ever you want...

Are you sure about that? I know a huge amount of real estate in London was bought by nationals of the Gulf States and mases of land in the south of France is now owned by Russians.

[Dap]

99 (auspicious) year leases would be optimum, but the xenophbic mind set is likely to hold sway. Hopefully, the greed factor will out. Cheers mates

[OdeTheBear]

Foreigners, Farangs or any non Thai shall not be able to by land in Thailand, and that is probably how it will be in the future or maybe for eternity.

Other countries have same law/regulations with owing land rules, in Europe you can not just by what ever you want and in USA they also have restrictions, shipping company can not own the land there own terminal is built on and so on this is very basic. What happen in Singapore is insane, Singapore will be a Country like Luxembourg or Monaco etc, with property/house prices only for the stinking rich people.

Land in Thailand is a piece of Thailand and a foreigner can not just own a piece of Thailand that is very clear for me, only the Thais can own Thailand.

I don’t know how many billionaires there are in China and India but there should be some, and if they can by land in Thailand they will do it, and it will be an invasion that will chock people.

The way the Thais control the ownership of land in Thailand is fine, and serious company do good business even if they don’t own the land, the foreign company have good condition in Thailand.

All that discussion about how stupid the rules are in Thailand only show that the people do not know the rules in other countries and maybe not even there own country( rules for foreigners), and by the way Thailand is a very liberal country to foreigners of all nationalities.

"Very liberal"? Well it could be worse I suppose. However, I get envious to my friend who is married to a philipina, each time they go to Philippines he gets automatically one year stamp in his passport (when travelling with his wife) without any visa applications or explanations. Saying that the land ownership rules are similar to Thailand in there too.

In Europe the land ownership is nothing like you think it is, foreigners can own land no problems. However, to become a resident is more difficult than in Thailand so in balance it evens things out.

And, by the way, (off topic now I know) if anyone complains how authorities treat forlangs in Thailand imagine how they treat non-europeans in Europe. I once tried to get a Schengen visa for my wife, she had UK residency, husband, home, everything but after a day's visit to London she was given a two day visa only...

[wineaux]

p.s can someone tell me where I go to get my free health insurance and child care as suggested by the new member??

You're welcome to relocate to, for instance, Sweden, where you get "free" (as in <paid-in-most-part for by taxes>) child care (as in kindergarten).

As for where you could get free health insurance, uhm, I have no idea? Maybe you could have a talk with your employer about your benefits-package? What I mentioned was free health care which is also the case in Sweden (while we in Sweden do pay a small fee for every visit to the doctor's and we do pay for our (subsidized) medicals, there is no need for us to worry about insurance or money or balancing our accounts before a trip to the doctor's office or the hospital). If I'm not mistaken I believe that, at least basic medial care is free for Thai nationals as well, while foreigners seeking medical care in Thailand would have to rely on insurance for cover or pay at the cashiers desk.

As an added bonus, relocating to Sweden is fairly easy and straight-forward.

1. Marry a Swedish citizen.

2. Apply for a combined Swedish Residence Permit/Work Permit at the Swedish embassy in your country.

3. Wait approximately 6 months (can depend on the current situation) for a decision from the Swedish Migrations Board.

4. The descision will be positive (since you have fulfilled the one condition required; being married to a Swedish citizen) - unless you have provided false or incomplete information in your application.

5. Visit the Swedish embassy to get your visa stamped in your passport.

6. Book a flight!

(7. Stay in Sweden for at least 2 years and your formerly temporary Residence and Work Permit will be made in to a permanent Residence Permit. Stay as long as you like!)

(8. Live in Sweden for at least 5 years, and you will have the opportunity to become a Swedish citizen, if you so desire. The citizenship doesn't really add any significant bonus, apart from the passport and that the Swedish embassy can help you if you have problems while abroad. As a Visa-holder and resident of Sweden you already benefit from all the Swedish social welfare-programs, such as tax-payed child-care, free medical care, free schools, you can vote in the general elections and so on.)

(Compare the above 8-step process with the process of first trying to live in Thailand on a permanent(!) basis without having to exit and enter the kingdom on a regular basis and then to try to become a Thai citizen...)

My point, if it didn't get through, was that a government provides certain basic functions for it's citizens. In Sweden, for instance, we get free schools and I believe the same goes for Thailand. When it comes to tourists, however, the basic functions provided by the government is reduced to basic infrastructure, such as roads, electricity, international airport and such. The rest of the functions demanded by tourists, such as accommodations, car-rentals, amusement parks and what ever else you can think of, is provided on an as-needed basis by, for the most part, private investors. A tourist does not and can not demand free medical care or free education for their children while mommy and daddy spends the days in the pool-bar...

Hence, a tourist only spends money while visiting the country, while a resident also demands certain basic functions to be provided, functions that in part or in full will have to be financed by the government.

Oh, and just because I posted for the first time doesn't make me a "new member". Besides, would being a "new member" mean something special? Like "shut up and don't post stupid posts because you're new and we're old"? I hope not...

You state;

"There's a reason Thailand welcomes tourists to spend all their money on vacation, a foreigner visiting as a tourist spends a whole lot more money per day than a foreigner living in the country as a resident and doesn't require the Thai government to spend a whole lot of money on them.

Tourists have to take care of themselves - education, child-care, health care and everything else has to be payed for by the foreigners home-country."

Wrong.

Long stay foreigners have to pay for their own health care, child care, education etc as well.

"If I'm not mistaken I believe that, at least basic medial care is free for Thai nationals as well, while foreigners seeking medical care in Thailand would have to rely on insurance for cover or pay at the cashiers desk."

You are mistaken.

Health care is not free for Thai nationals.

"My point, if it didn't get through, was that a government provides certain basic functions for it's citizens. In Sweden, for instance, we get free schools and I believe the same goes for Thailand."

Wrong. They have to pay.

"A tourist does not and can not demand free medical care or free education for their children while mommy and daddy spends the days in the pool-bar..." Nor can a long stay foreigner or Thai person.

"Oh, and just because I posted for the first time doesn't make me a "new member". Besides, would being a "new member" mean something special? Like "shut up and don't post stupid posts because you're new and we're old"? I hope not... "

No say what you like I'm sure you will.

[Chris Lawrence]

The biggest draw back of owning land in a foreign country is just that.

Lease's can be traded, nut also keep in mind the quality of construction; a house in Brisbane Oz may have a shelf life of 75-100 years with fair maintenance, some houses in Thailand may have a lot shorter shelf life. So a 90 year lease with poor maintenance may at 50 yrs only have land value.

When you go to sell or need to sell usually it is the wrong time in a foreign country. The market goes down.

This op sounds more like a knee jerk reaction on how can we do better.

Some of the posts above talk about the rice farmers in country areas; a quick sale may be good only in the short term, but have a lasting impact on future income.

Longer leases for some sounds great, but I won't hold my breath on this one.

[johnnyk]

Vietnam's tail lights are in view. Cambodia will be next to pass by. If I were investing in this region now, it wouldn't be here.

Cambodia is 50 years behind, a true third-world country.

Invest there yes, money can be made, but right now its not too

much more than a tourism and sewing machine economy.

[johnnyk]

Its all a trial balloon folks. Float it up and see what people say.... oh, and what falangs say doesn't count.

That said, a 99-year lease would work. It would allow them to claim they are not selling land but get the same money as if they had sold it. Classic Thai solution - have your rice and eat it, too.

[BAZZAT]

FOREIGN PROPERTY OWNERSHIP

Government considers longer leasehold terms

BANGKOK: -- The government is considering allowing greater foreign ownership in property firms and extending leasehold periods beyond 30 years to stimulate the business, according to Finance Minister Surapong Suebwonglee.

The amendment would stimulate market segments that have been hit by sluggish demand, he said yesterday.

''This has been discussed quite seriously over the past two to three months. We need to think about the percentage of shareholding and leasing access compared with the number of years. The crisis that we have had in the past two years led us to think and look at a new paradigm,'' he said at an investor forum held by Euromoney.

Dr Surapong said the government would consider new rules on leasing more on par with the region. The government has also abandoned a controversial proposed change to the Foreign Business Act, which tightened the [more ...]

--Bangkok Post 2008-05-15

[BAZZAT]

I agree once you are dead and there are no European-Thai connextions she will be straight down the bank and in go's the title deed and out comes the cash hay presto one more property on the Banks portfolio.

I have a 30 year lease on my property. leased from my ex-wife. what good is a 90 year lease to me, unless I can 'will' it to a person of my choice. I'm 64. I would have to live a very long time to complete my lease.

[scyriacus]

God knows why they have this aversion to letting foreigners buying a place to live, they let the Chinese and Indian Thais eventually have the right to own land; poor Thais who cannot buy are priced out by RICH Thais not by the few westerners who might like to buy a house.

Relaxing the laws to create a free market would bring in a lot of investment, Thailand is not that cheap when compared to other countries and this image of barbarian house buyers at the gate who are just chomping at the bit to buy up all the precious Thai land is really getting a bit much.

I am not GOD, but i know, if i came into your house and buy just one sqarefoot of your livingroom, you would be upset. you don't expect guests in your house to have demands and rights. if you want to have the same rights (and duties) as thais, it's pretty easy: just give up your previous citizenship and become a thai (like your chinese and indians did!). but i guess you dare not to change! what you deign to call a 'free market' is the dream of every capitalist and speculator. why in god's name you aren't content with being able to live here, why do you want to buy parts of thai-land? you could rent and/or lease, just not sell land. did you know, that average thai people are not as business minded and no match for those clever 'barbarian' farangs.....it sure is protectionism, but desperatelly needed here (like you want to protect your children against evil wrongdoers). you pay the price for all those who slender our reputation every day. just look at our almighty western banks and their self compelled 'sub-prime-crisis'...would you educate your child to 'invest' his pocket money there??? so just relax yourself (instead of others) and enjoy the many advantages to live in the land of smiles.....

[BAZZAT]

The present Thai government wants to look at the over inflated Thai Baht 1st the last few years its lost all stability making Europeans very nervious to invest in property or Business for all Thaksins faults at least there was positive stability.

FOREIGN PROPERTY OWNERSHIP

Government considers longer leasehold terms

BANGKOK: -- The government is considering allowing greater foreign ownership in property firms and extending leasehold periods beyond 30 years to stimulate the business, according to Finance Minister Surapong Suebwonglee.

The amendment would stimulate market segments that have been hit by sluggish demand, he said yesterday.

''This has been discussed quite seriously over the past two to three months. We need to think about the percentage of shareholding and leasing access compared with the number of years. The crisis that we have had in the past two years led us to think and look at a new paradigm,'' he said at an investor forum held by Euromoney.

Dr Surapong said the government would consider new rules on leasing more on par with the region. The government has also abandoned a controversial proposed change to the Foreign Business Act, which tightened the [more ...]

--Bangkok Post 2008-05-15

[scyriacus]

Referring to all Thais as "Somchais" might not be racist (but it certainly feels that way)

"germans are krauts, french are frogs, americans are rambos (formerly john doe), we all are farangs", so what? who is the darned racist? would you please try to tell the thai people that i am no falang!...........

[scyriacus]

Which ex-PM, now turned football-club-owner and NOT(!?) a politician any more, stands accused in a shady land-deal in Bangkok? (Hint: his name starts with a "T" - and ends with "haksin"...)

sorry, but your are not precise enough with these thai names! in thai his name should be pronounced "TAX-SIN". clear enough? btw: his sirname is "shinaVAT"

Edited May 15, 2008 by scyriacus

[roygsd]

Foreigners, Farangs or any non Thai shall not be able to by land in Thailand, and that is probably how it will be in the future or maybe for eternity.

Other countries have same law/regulations with owing land rules, in Europe you can not just by what ever you want and in USA they also have restrictions, shipping company can not own the land there own terminal is built on and so on this is very basic. What happen in Singapore is insane, Singapore will be a Country like Luxembourg or Monaco etc, with property/house prices only for the stinking rich people.

Land in Thailand is a piece of Thailand and a foreigner can not just own a piece of Thailand that is very clear for me, only the Thais can own Thailand.

I don’t know how many billionaires there are in China and India but there should be some, and if they can by land in Thailand they will do it, and it will be an invasion that will chock people.

The way the Thais control the ownership of land in Thailand is fine, and serious company do good business even if they don’t own the land, the foreign company have good condition in Thailand.

All that discussion about how stupid the rules are in Thailand only show that the people do not know the rules in other countries and maybe not even there own country( rules for foreigners), and by the way Thailand is a very liberal country to foreigners of all nationalities.

"Very liberal"? Well it could be worse I suppose. However, I get envious to my friend who is married to a philipina, each time they go to Philippines he gets automatically one year stamp in his passport (when travelling with his wife) without any visa applications or explanations. Saying that the land ownership rules are similar to Thailand in there too.

In Europe the land ownership is nothing like you think it is, foreigners can own land no problems. However, to become a resident is more difficult than in Thailand so in balance it evens things out.

And, by the way, (off topic now I know) if anyone complains how authorities treat forlangs in Thailand imagine how they treat non-europeans in Europe. I once tried to get a Schengen visa for my wife, she had UK residency, husband, home, everything but after a day's visit to London she was given a two day visa only...

Only two days?????

Dont know where you went for that schengen visa but just over 3 years ago my wife got a Schengen visa for six month's left on her Insurance cover and was assured but for the fact her insurance elapsed so soon the visa could have been for longer.

Since then she has obtained several 90 day schengen visa's from different embassies in the uk without any trouble, as she had never held a passport much less travelled outside of Thailand before getting the six month schengen visa in Bangkok

to complement her uk spouse visa.

I am fed up with reading about the waiting times etc and other barriers put by some EU embassies in london, i.e. no charge for visa but processing fee for their appointed agents, short visa periods, having to make appointements every time you want to renew the schengen visa, very unfair in my view.

My wife has recently extended her thai passport in london until march 2010, she now wants another schegen visa and I have decided to try to get a schengen visa to run from next week until march 2010 in line with her passport when the THai biometric passport becomes compulsory.

Feel confident but just have to wait and see...................

Roygsd

[haltes]

I am not GOD, but i know, if i came into your house and buy just one sqarefoot of your livingroom, you would be upset. you don't expect guests in your house to have demands and rights. if you want to have the same rights (and duties) as thais, it's pretty easy: just give up your previous citizenship and become a thai (like your chinese and indians did!). but i guess you dare not to change! what you deign to call a 'free market' is the dream of every capitalist and speculator. why in god's name you aren't content with being able to live here, why do you want to buy parts of thai-land? you could rent and/or lease, just not sell land. did you know, that average thai people are not as business minded and no match for those clever 'barbarian' farangs.....it sure is protectionism, but desperatelly needed here (like you want to protect your children against evil wrongdoers). you pay the price for all those who slender our reputation every day. just look at our almighty western banks and their self compelled 'sub-prime-crisis'...would you educate your child to 'invest' his pocket money there??? so just relax yourself (instead of others) and enjoy the many advantages to live in the land of smiles.....

Some of us are not guests here, we work here, pay taxes here, have families/wives/children here. In short we consider ourselves to be residents here, not guests. In spite of the fact that it is very difficult to legally be recognised as having any rights here at all but not for Thais who go to live in our countries, it's again only the very rich (Thais) who mostly benefit from this and have dual citizenship etc.

It's a basic human right to provide for your family and part of that requires you to have a place to live. We can't take bits of "thai-land" (sic) away with us can we? Is Finland reserved only for the Fins; Scotland for the Scots?

Protectionism stifles growth. How much investment is NOT coming into the country because of these rules? I would guess it's a lot. Money that would be good for the economy and good for the people here; especially good for small builders and not those who have the capabilities and financing to build huge condos all over the place and then sell them at what are quite expensive prices

The sub prime situation might be a problem now and some banks/institutions may go to the wall but most will survive, make a loss and carry on but hopefullly will not be as greedy next time. But in any case, any money there is a lot safer than any investment made here which can be capriciously taken away at some future point or even modified retrospectively!

[prism]

- 30 year leases are currently no more protective to the lessee than a standard one year residential lease.

Could you explain just why that is please?

As I see, it a lease of 1 year or 30 years is an agreement between a lessor and a lessee with no rights of reassignment by the lessee without express permission of the lessee and is not directly binding on anyone other the original lessor and the lessee. If the lessee is a natural person and he dies before the end of the lease, the lease terminates. If the lessor dies or sells the land before the end of the lease, the lease is not automatically binding on the new owner who did not enter into the original agreement. Many have argued otherwise but they are usually property developers and lawyers who want to separate farang buyers from their cash. Anyway what hope have you or your heirs in a Thai court against a well connected Thai land owner? Long leases in the UK and other developed countries are binding on all future parties and allow reassignment automatically. There is also a legal process in the UK for lessees of long leases close to expiry to apply for renewal on reasonable terms. 90 or 99 years is not the maximum lease term in term in the UK as many Thais seems to believe. There are many 999 year leases.

If 90 year leases ever see the light of day, I will be curious to see how many foreigners will be able to exercise the clauses in their lease agreements that say they can convert their 30 year leases with promises of two more 30 year leases to 90 year leases, as soon as the law allows with no additional cost. Land owners are bound to renege en masse and get away with it.

Wrong.

Any lease of over 3 years must be registered at the local land office and then it's listed on the land's chanote. This gives the lessee rights that the contract will still be binding even if the land changes hands. The problem is when the original 30 years expires. The renewal clause is not registered and the owner(s) of the land can fight a renewal.

90 years would be great as long as the lease is transferable. I believe the 30 year lease is not.

[wilko]

Other countries have same law/regulations with owing land rules, in Europe you can not just by what ever you want...

Are you sure about that? I know a huge amount of real estate in London was bought by nationals of the Gulf States and mases of land in the south of France is now owned by Russians.

Interesting...the one thing I notice about land "owned by........(enter your favorite bete noir here)" is that despite all the hullabaloo they never seem to manage to take it home with them so it remains in tjhe country where it was purchased and is subject to the normal laws and restrictions, taxes etc...so I really don't see a problem

[racefan]

- 30 year leases are currently no more protective to the lessee than a standard one year residential lease.

Could you explain just why that is please?

As I see, it a lease of 1 year or 30 years is an agreement between a lessor and a lessee with no rights of reassignment by the lessee without express permission of the lessee and is not directly binding on anyone other the original lessor and the lessee. If the lessee is a natural person and he dies before the end of the lease, the lease terminates. If the lessor dies or sells the land before the end of the lease, the lease is not automatically binding on the new owner who did not enter into the original agreement. Many have argued otherwise but they are usually property developers and lawyers who want to separate farang buyers from their cash. Anyway what hope have you or your heirs in a Thai court against a well connected Thai land owner? Long leases in the UK and other developed countries are binding on all future parties and allow reassignment automatically. There is also a legal process in the UK for lessees of long leases close to expiry to apply for renewal on reasonable terms. 90 or 99 years is not the maximum lease term in term in the UK as many Thais seems to believe. There are many 999 year leases.

If 90 year leases ever see the light of day, I will be curious to see how many foreigners will be able to exercise the clauses in their lease agreements that say they can convert their 30 year leases with promises of two more 30 year leases to 90 year leases, as soon as the law allows with no additional cost. Land owners are bound to renege en masse and get away with it.

Wrong.

Any lease of over 3 years must be registered at the local land office and then it's listed on the land's chanote. This gives the lessee rights that the contract will still be binding even if the land changes hands. The problem is when the original 30 years expires. The renewal clause is not registered and the owner(s) of the land can fight a renewal.

90 years would be great as long as the lease is transferable. I believe the 30 year lease is not.

Totally agree, but to make it worthwile it would require amendment to the law that currently states that the lease cannot be passed by a Will and automatically ends on the death of the lessee.

[quiksilva]

It'll be good to get longer lease terms but I will not believe it until its announced in the Royal Gazette.

In addition to what has has been stated above by racefan, what is needed is not only longer lease terms but more security of tenure. Legislation is needed that protects tenancies by addressing renewals. In other words an equivalent piece of legislation to the commercial Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 in the UK.

This would be good not only just for both local and foreign tenants, but also for banks and financial institutions who currently will not lend against leasehold property in Thailand, (unless the landlord is the CPB and the bank is SCB).

[BL4u]

The chance they will change the Civil and Commercial Code Title IV 'Hire of Immovable Property' is less than zero - This will be far to complicated. If they change something there will be a separate regulation and this is how it more or less would look like:

An alien bringing in money not less than x000 million into the Kingdom as specified in the Ministerial Regulation for investment in immovable property for residential purposes not exceeding 0,5 Rai shall be allowed to hire of such immivable property for a duration exceeding thirthy years but not exceeding fifty years.

PROVIDED THAT THE FOLLOWING RULES MUST BE SATISFIED

1. The immovable property shall be a in residential housing Project under The Land Development Act B.E. 2543 (A.D. 2000);

2. The alien shall maintaining the investment not less that five years;

3. The housing project shall be located in Bangkok Metropolis, Pattaya City , or Tessaban (Municipality), or in the area specified as residential zone according to the law on Town and Country Planning and shall not be located in a military safety zone according to the law on Military Safety Zone;

4. The alien shall utilize such propertry for a residential purpose of his/herself and the family in a way that is not contrary to the local custom or good living of the local community;

5. A person granted permission shall utilize such land for residential purpose within two years as from the date of the lease registration;

6. The contract of hire shall be made in writing and registered by the competent official;

7. The letter and the hirer may make an agreement to renew the contract but it shall not exceed fifty years from the day the agreement is made;

8. The letter shall have possession in such immovable property;

9. The right and duties of hire are devolvable upon the heir and the hirer can sublet or transfer his right of hire to a third person unless otherwise provided by the contract of hire;

ETC.

Any longer leashold terms shall be under conditions that benefit the official Thai real estate business!!! Never a change of the Civil and Commercial Code.

[Freddie_fly]

Foreigners, Farangs or any non Thai shall not be able to by land in Thailand, and that is probably how it will be in the future or maybe for eternity.

Other countries have same law/regulations with owing land rules, in Europe you can not just by what ever you want and in USA they also have restrictions, shipping company can not own the land there own terminal is built on and so on this is very basic. What happen in Singapore is insane, Singapore will be a Country like Luxembourg or Monaco etc, with property/house prices only for the stinking rich people.

Land in Thailand is a piece of Thailand and a foreigner can not just own a piece of Thailand that is very clear for me, only the Thais can own Thailand.

I don’t know how many billionaires there are in China and India but there should be some, and if they can by land in Thailand they will do it, and it will be an invasion that will chock people.

The way the Thais control the ownership of land in Thailand is fine, and serious company do good business even if they don’t own the land, the foreign company have good condition in Thailand.

All that discussion about how stupid the rules are in Thailand only show that the people do not know the rules in other countries and maybe not even there own country( rules for foreigners), and by the way Thailand is a very liberal country to foreigners of all nationalities.

I really don't know where to start with this post. At first I just thought the poster didn't have a clue, then I read it again a couple of times and realized that not only does he not understand property laws in Europe/USA, he also doesn't understand the laws in Thailand.

Pretty much all European countries allow Anyone to buy land, whether they are resident/citizen or tourist. For example UK... not only can a Thai on a tourist visa buy land and property they can even buy a football team. While obtaining residence in Europe/USA etc may seem a little harder, it is certainly no harder than obtaining it in Thailand.

90% of Thais have absolutely no voice in controlling the land in Thailand. In the main, the land is controlled by the very wealthy, and any change in this will not affect most thai's only those wealthy enough to buy/encroach as they do now.

Billionaires in China and India do not really wish to buy land in Thailand, (except maybe a large dwelling in Krabi next to David Beckham's house). They tend to look for better deals in Europe/USA, they are not billionaires because they are stupid !!.

If the way that Thai's control their land right now is so good, show me an Isaarn farmer who can buy a condo in Jomtien, or a shophouse in Bangkok.

I have lived here for 28 years (on and off), and, have watched this beautiful country go steadily downhill (I am talking about people and attitudes as well as its economic potential in relation to its neighbors). I attribute a lot of that to seeing the same families running this country as a personal cash cow regardless of the "political party" they belong to. Look at the names in the PPP, then look back to the governments of Choonhaven,Chavilat,banharn....see any similarities??.

The ruling elite here are laughing at the people who wake up at dawn to till rice fields and then cannot even sell at a reasonable price.

To paraphrase another poster, so what if a few thousand Europeans buy one or two hundred talang-wa to build a modest house, the land doesn't suddenly fly overseas, it is and will always be Thailand.

regards

Freddie

[thaigene2]

God knows why they have this aversion to letting foreigners buying a place to live, they let the Chinese and Indian Thais eventually have the right to own land; poor Thais who cannot buy are priced out by RICH Thais not by the few westerners who might like to buy a house.

Relaxing the laws to create a free market would bring in a lot of investment, Thailand is not that cheap when compared to other countries and this image of barbarian house buyers at the gate who are just chomping at the bit to buy up all the precious Thai land is really getting a bit much.

Yes the Chinese came in bought up everything, then got into politics and are closing the loopholes they exploited. Clever really.

[thaigene2]

Just keep renting. Let them worry for a while. They're beginning to do cross-ministerial agreements now..maybe the visa guys and the property guys will finally sort the mess out together as they should/need to. But that probably won't happen til the grandkids of the Pooyais who guaranteed the loans at the bank start to worry..or can't make the payments/find renters for the big-prices they hoped to get start screaming a bit.

Patience is a virtue.

[strabel23]

Awww... well I trust market forces to take care of the attitude. It's very simple: Protectionism is bad for business. Once Vietnam zooms by Thailand on the passing lane, things will change rather quickly.

The "attitude" of protectionism goes back so far that attempts to relax the provision will be a tough one. The USA & Canada have none of this systemic prohibition, even China has worked out a reasonably comfortable means of accommodating Western companies.

Thailand can't get out of their 19th century mentality and that isn't about to change. I think Vietnam has already whizzed by and doubt that Thailand even noticed.

Progress isn't all that it's cracked up to be, it's part of the charm, be careful what you wish for, it may be the worst thing for the people.

I don't like the policy of not allowing foreigners to buy a house and land either. BUT, as a Canadian also, after returning to Vancouver recently I was amazed at how high the real estate prices have gone up in the last 5 years and that I am now a minority in my own country. Without wanting to sound like I'm prejudiced I have noted that the East Indian population has grown so much now that in some parts of Vancouver area they out number everyone else. I don't agree with the Government here that to support the need for growth we need to bring more immigrants in. It's starting to look like a third world country now in that the density is becoming more crowded all the time and a house now comes with very little real estate. 2 steps out your front door and you're on the street. Progress usually only benefits a select few and that would be the businessman and not so much the wage earner.

Thailand should allow foreign ownership of land but with some method of control so that the ownership of a house does not become only within the grasps of the wealthy as it has here in Canada.

[thaigene2]

Awww... well I trust market forces to take care of the attitude. It's very simple: Protectionism is bad for business. Once Vietnam zooms by Thailand on the passing lane, things will change rather quickly.

The "attitude" of protectionism goes back so far that attempts to relax the provision will be a tough one. The USA & Canada have none of this systemic prohibition, even China has worked out a reasonably comfortable means of accommodating Western companies.

Thailand can't get out of their 19th century mentality and that isn't about to change. I think Vietnam has already whizzed by and doubt that Thailand even noticed.

Progress isn't all that it's cracked up to be, it's part of the charm, be careful what you wish for, it may be the worst thing for the people.

I don't like the policy of not allowing foreigners to buy a house and land either. BUT, as a Canadian also, after returning to Vancouver recently I was amazed at how high the real estate prices have gone up in the last 5 years and that I am now a minority in my own country. Without wanting to sound like I'm prejudiced I have noted that the East Indian population has grown so much now that in some parts of Vancouver area they out number everyone else. I don't agree with the Government here that to support the need for growth we need to bring more immigrants in. It's starting to look like a third world country now in that the density is becoming more crowded all the time and a house now comes with very little real estate. 2 steps out your front door and you're on the street. Progress usually only benefits a select few and that would be the businessman and not so much the wage earner.

Thailand should allow foreign ownership of land but with some method of control so that the ownership of a house does not become only within the grasps of the wealthy as it has here in Canada.

I somehow doubt it's the East Indians driving up prices in Vancouver - they're more likely living in the working class areas and driving dump trucks (or logging trucks?). Isn't Vancouver the city that keeps getting ranked the most desireable place to live? I've been there - a beautiful harbor area and a big park right on the water. Big new condo developments with harbor views - many sold but empty. I heard it was East Asian Chinese that snapped them all up, then let them sit empty..probably for their kids to live in when they come over and fill up the classrooms in your universities a few years from now.

A two-bed condo there seems to be around $ 700,000 for 100 square metres. The same size here in BKK is around half that price. Then again 'beauty' - and stability - and fame - come at a price I reckon.

The thing that bugs me about that is the double standard..The Canadians and other governments allow people from other countries, including Thais, to come and buy their land, but we can't buy any here. Maybe you are right (in a different way) - Canada should only allow property sales to nationals of countries with reciprocal agreements..

Edited May 17, 2008 by thaigene2