Government Considers Longer Leasehold Terms

[wilko]

Building is so poor in Thailand are these properties really such good value?

[SNGLIFE]

Foreigners should NEVER be allowed to own land. Just ask the Native Hawaiians what happens afterwards. Billions of dollars of prime property and none of it owned by Hawaiians. The same would happen to Thailand.

I do support longer lease terms and stronger lessee rights, though.

[wilko]

I think a little investigation might show that the desecration of Hawaii was more than a single issue problem.

[wilko]

Foreign ownership/occupation of land is not necessarily detrimental in itself, a lot depends on how the country in question manages it.....and Thai is SOOOO god at managing things....yes?

Edited May 17, 2008 by wilko

[Joensen]

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

[Joensen]

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

Well Freddie.

You may think that I don’t have the slightest knowledge of what I am talking about, that is up to you, but if you read all the bullshit about all this owing land and getting visa etc etc etc. Then it is clear that many o these people can not go home to there own country or maybe they can not afford it (then the land issue is not a point they should use time on discussing). For taking the visa first, if you are a good person and non criminal and not wanted by Interpol and tax office and so on at home, you should go home to your own country and make visa that is the easiest way. If you are married to a Thai and have children in Thailand and you are the bread winner it is so easy to get a visa, then you also need to have a income or money in the bank,(the Thai definitely also need to have money when they go abroad). After 3 years in the country you can apply for a resident permit if you can speak Thai, so people that stay in Thailand long time can just get resident in the country then the visa problem if over.

Then to the land issue:

It is not that easy to by and own land in Europe or other part of the world, in Malaysia you can by house and have it up to 10 years and sell it again and go home with all the money, why do people that stay in Thailand with big difficulties just go to Malaysia and by a house there, maybe here is a reason I don’t know I am just a person that don’t have a clue what I am talking about.

The fact is that all country have rules for who can by land, and usually foreigners only can by land in certain areas. Take for instance if the German could by what ever they want to in Sweeden and Denmark they would do so, I know what I am talking about the German and other European country tried to change the rules, but did not succeed, this is only one example I am sure there a many others.

There are a lot of things you can do by setting up a company and so on, to get a property, but my point is that you can not just as a private person by land where ever you want if you not are a citizens n the country.

AN OTHER THING IS THAT YOU/WE/THEY HEAR A LOT OF THINGS, BUT WHEN YOU SEE THE FACTS IT IS A VERY DIFFERENT STORY

[SNGLIFE]

I think a little investigation might show that the desecration of Hawaii was more than a single issue problem.

Not to hijack the thread, but it's more than a single issue problem insofar as that is not the only way the USA screwed Hawaiians. Here are just a couple of FACTS:

1. The USA has consistently rejected native Hawaiians' claim to be classified as Native Americans. If they were allowed to be classified as Native Americans, they would then be eligible for several exemptions and special treatment such as provisions in Federal law which allow Native Americans to benefit from land exemptions (including gaming).

2. Native Hawaiians currently "enjoy" a land exemption which allows them to live in designated land tax exempted areaa. However, should they ever sell or move from their designated property, they lose the exemption. So effectively, they can never sell and move from the area because then they would not be able to afford to live elsewhere on the island.

3. The former monarch of Hawaii was forced to abdicate LITERALLY at gunpoint by the wealthy plantation owners (can you say former Senator Bob Dole of the Dole pineapple family?), who by then were able to get themselves elected as Hawaii's Senators and then tried to rush Congress to formally admit Hawaii to the Union so that they could then be exempt from paying import duties on their products.

4. Prior to the arrival of foeigners, the Native Hawaiian population (pure-blood) was estimated at up to 800,000 in the late 19th century. Today, there are less than 10,000. Most of whom live in near-3rd world conditions and are blighted by the same social problems which affect other Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, Philippine Aborigines, and other peoples who first blindly welcomed foreigners who then promptly created laws which benefited the foreign land owners and disenfranchised the indigenous peoples who, of course did not fully understand or appreciate the long-term implications of selling their family land for a quick buck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hawaii

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Hawaiians

There is your research, my friend. There are better sites with a more Hawaiian perspective out there, but that should gt you started if you are interested in learning other widely known dirty secrets of Hawaii's abduction. Don't get me started on Thai history since farangs entered the picture...the social impact is really, really, not pretty. Just look at the media advertisements, "with White" hierarchical social values, and even the re-casting of certain people in several modern works of art to be more European-looking. I cannot post what I am talking about due to the Thai laws about what I cannot talk about, but you can see for yourself by just walking around and paying attention...

In short, it would be a VERY, VERY bad thing for Thais if foreigners were allowed to own land in Thailand. If places such as Hawaii, Australia, etc. are an example, then it would not be long before the entire coast was developed into multi-million dollar estates along with other prime areas which would push Thais back into backwater villages because they can no longer afford to live in their own country in those areas.

Edited May 17, 2008 by SNGLIFE

[wilko]

I think a little investigation might show that the desecration of Hawaii was more than a single issue problem.

Not to hijack the thread, but it's more than a single issue problem insofar as that is not the only way the USA screwed Hawaiians. Here are just a couple of FACTS:

1. The USA has consistently rejected native Hawaiians' claim to be classified as Native Americans. If they were allowed to be classified as Native Americans, they would then be eligible for several exemptions and special treatment such as provisions in Federal law which allow Native Americans to benefit from land exemptions (including gaming).

2. Native Hawaiians currently "enjoy" a land exemption which allows them to live in designated land tax exempted areaa. However, should they ever sell or move from their designated property, they lose the exemption. So effectively, they can never sell and move from the area because then they would not be able to afford to live elsewhere on the island.

3. The former monarch of Hawaii was forced to abdicate LITERALLY at gunpoint by the wealthy plantation owners (can you say former Senator Bob Dole of the Dole pineapple family?), who by then were able to get themselves elected as Hawaii's Senators and then tried to rush Congress to formally admit Hawaii to the Union so that they could then be exempt from paying import duties on their products.

4. Prior to the arrival of foeigners, the Native Hawaiian population (pure-blood) was estimated at up to 800,000 in the late 19th century. Today, there are less than 10,000. Most of whom live in near-3rd world conditions and are blighted by the same social problems which affect other Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, Philippine Aborigines, and other peoples who first blindly welcomed foreigners who then promptly created laws which benefited the foreign land owners and disenfranchised the indigenous peoples who, of course did not fully understand or appreciate the long-term implications of selling their family land for a quick buck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hawaii

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Hawaiians

There is your research, my friend. There are better sites with a more Hawaiian perspective out there, but that should gt you started if you are interested in learning other widely known dirty secrets of Hawaii's abduction. Don't get me started on Thai history since farangs entered the picture...the social impact is really, really, not pretty. Just look at the media advertisements, "with White" hierarchical social values, and even the re-casting of certain people in several modern works of art to be more European-looking. I cannot post what I am talking about due to the Thai laws about what I cannot talk about, but you can see for yourself by just walking around and paying attention...

In short, it would be a VERY, VERY bad thing for Thais if foreigners were allowed to own land in Thailand. If places such as Hawaii, Australia, etc. are an example, then it would not be long before the entire coast was developed into multi-million dollar estates along with other prime areas which would push Thais back into backwater villages because they can no longer afford to live in their own country in those areas.

QED! - your minimal research has revealed that it was a history of many issues including occupation and civil rights....if you want to write a phd on land ownership issues of Hawaii, please go ahead...in the mean time.........I do not want to get into historical discourses here or anywhere else more than is necessary, but as an historian I'm painfully aware that peoples' lack of ability to look at history in an analytical way makes it very difficult for them to grasp even the fundamentals of many of todays issues.....which ALL have a history...wiki and sound bites are OK for high school but not for serious consideration....otherwise you are making oversimplistic parallels between chalk and cheese.

(see "My dog has 4 legs syndrome" elsewhere on this site)

Edited May 18, 2008 by wilko

[monty]

You may think that I don’t have the slightest knowledge of what I am talking about, that is up to you, but if you read all the bullshit about all this owing land and getting visa etc etc etc. Then it is clear that many o these people can not go home to there own country or maybe they can not afford it (then the land issue is not a point they should use time on discussing). For taking the visa first, if you are a good person and non criminal and not wanted by Interpol and tax office and so on at home, you should go home to your own country and make visa that is the easiest way. If you are married to a Thai and have children in Thailand and you are the bread winner it is so easy to get a visa, then you also need to have a income or money in the bank,(the Thai definitely also need to have money when they go abroad). After 3 years in the country you can apply for a resident permit if you can speak Thai, so people that stay in Thailand long time can just get resident in the country then the visa problem if over.

Not quit as easy as you feel it is (or should be)!

Yes. you can indeed get a multiple entry non immigrant O visa in your home country if you are married to a Thai national. This however still requires that you leave the country every 90 days.

Yes, you can get a 1 year extension on this visa, but ONLY if the combined income of you and your wife is 40,000 Baht/month or higher.

Money in the bank is NOT accepted anymore. You can have millions of Thai Baht in a Thai bank account, but you'll still have to do visa runs every 90 days if you cannot prove a 40,000 Baht income on top of all the money you might already have!

The residency permit is quite a lot harder to get then you make out. Speaking Thai is only a small part of the requirements. The biggest requirement is actually that in those 3 years, you have been a tax paying person in Thailand, to a quite substantial amount. If you have had your 3 one year extensions based on marriage with a declared 40,000 Baht income earned outside of Thailand, then you can simply forget residency!

If you want to have any chance for residency, you should be here 3 consecutive years on a non immigrant B, extended to 1 year stays based on employment (work permit) in the Kingdom, while earning a very substantial salary an paying the personal income tax on that. I have not met anybody holding residency acquired in a different way

[david96]

It's great to see they're finally showing some signs of getting over their anti-foreigner paranoia and moving towards more real-world rules. However, I still wouldn't buy on a lease, I'd want freehold outright and in my name only before I'd buy in Thailand or anywhere else.

Canberra has 99-year leases on government-owned land so it can be done, but I still think its a second-rate choice.

Over time, its the land value which goes steadily up, while house values fluctuate depending on whether they're maintained and how old they are. After 100 years or so, what you're buying is a block of land with a house which needs to be knocked down and replaced.

As someone said, allowing in foreign buyers won't price poor Thais out of housing, because they're in different sections of the market/. Plus, a bit of property price inflation would be good for most Thais because it would increase the value of their houses and make them wealthier. I bought my house in Brisbane for $320,000 4 years ago and the bank now values it at $480,000, which is very nice. Property is a 10-year cycle, not a quick buck.

The Thais have got to stop thinking like they're a poor third world economy and start thinking like they're managing the 37th largest economy in the world. For instance, they should also deregulate the rice market to shift power away from millers to the farmers, who would be able to play off the millers against each other or even store their rice until the price was right to sell. Instead of being so paternalistic, they ought to move more power to the people to make decisions for themselves.

But what would I know, I'm just a farang.

Remember in Australia land can be freehold (or leasehold for a period of years dependant on the state where you live.)

Mining companies and foreign companies will lease land or property over a number of years

To lease a block of land to build a house to live in is not very wise as leases can be canceled and banks have no security on any loan. Freehold is the only way. Also to buy land for residential purposes in Australia one must have a temp or permanent resident visa not a tourist one. We also have the Foreign Investment Review Board that foreigners have to contend with. Excessive inflation in the housing market is not good as it prices out lower income buyers, 4 to 5% should be the norm. Would you invest in property in a country where you cannot be sure of permanent residency? eg Thailand.

Citizens of a country must always come first before foreigners "rights" are considered.

A lot of people claim they a wealthy in Australia but have difficulty paying their way and live on credit cards.

Edited May 19, 2008 by david96

[wilko]

It is my plan to lease land in Thailand and put a modern pre-fab tropical eco-house on it. If the lease goes pear-shape or whatever, I'll just take the house down and move on.

[backflip]

"Remember in Australia..."

Ahh, we live in Thailand, not Australia, but thanks for the info.

[wolf5370]

Ignoring for the moment the unlikeliness of the foreign land ownership laws actually changing in a positive (to the foreigner) way...

...I really can't buy either end of the arguement.

On one end we have the paranoid who think that the land will be bought up by the foreigners and foreign big business, pushing land prices beyond the reach of the common man, and forcing (by econimics) the poor Thai rice farmer to sell his land. This, of course, assumes the 'flood-gates' can only be either open or shut. It is possible that a Thai government wanting to do this (not saying one exists of couse) would wrap some conditions around it - i.e. no more than x Rai in a single parcel of land and must be the primary place of residence/business with annual property tax etc proportional to the requirement of the government to raise land ownership in certain areas.

On the other end we have those shouting that in the UK/Europe/etc Thais can buy what they want, landwise. The basic problem woth this is that it is an empty 'promise' in general. Most UK citizens could raise enough money to buy and acre of land in Thailand (though not in the UK). By contrast, very few Thais could reciprocate. So fully open flood-gates in Thailand would make the situation of areas that hardly any 'ordinay incomed' Thais could afford - e.g. Jomtien, many parts of BKK, etc. The so called 'normal salaried' Thais would be pushed north-east and far south as the 'good bits' become good business. - and not just be foreigners buying it up, but rich hais for future investments as the market looks more attractive with an unlimited market place.

I can really understand why the Thai authorities just leave the status quo - its much safer (especially for their political careers). The amount of us here are just too small a pressure group (and a powerless one at that) to give them any reason to change it.

I think the only way this will change (a bit) is if some rich Thai with enough political clout realises that he could make a mint if they allowed foreign ownership in certain limited areas. For example, imagine if we could buy a property in an urbanisation (also open for Thais of course) in strategic areas. Fully own, with the ability to sell or pass down. We would not be allowed to add to the included land plot (by buying next door etc) - but could rebuild within it if we wished. The land plots limited to one per foreigner - but must remain one plot (i.e. your farang wife buys next door, you can't join them together). This would allow for tightly controlled land ownership and would make the owner of the land wealthy as it would be a captive audience and as long as he kept the prices reasonable, then he could certainly sell for greater than its worth.

[wilko]

I believe that under BOI privileges foreigners CAN own property......

[ray08]

You may think that I don’t have the slightest knowledge of what I am talking about, that is up to you, but if you read all the bullshit about all this owing land and getting visa etc etc etc. Then it is clear that many o these people can not go home to there own country or maybe they can not afford it (then the land issue is not a point they should use time on discussing). For taking the visa first, if you are a good person and non criminal and not wanted by Interpol and tax office and so on at home, you should go home to your own country and make visa that is the easiest way. If you are married to a Thai and have children in Thailand and you are the bread winner it is so easy to get a visa, then you also need to have a income or money in the bank,(the Thai definitely also need to have money when they go abroad). After 3 years in the country you can apply for a resident permit if you can speak Thai, so people that stay in Thailand long time can just get resident in the country then the visa problem if over.

Not quit as easy as you feel it is (or should be)!

Yes. you can indeed get a multiple entry non immigrant O visa in your home country if you are married to a Thai national. This however still requires that you leave the country every 90 days.

Yes, you can get a 1 year extension on this visa, but ONLY if the combined income of you and your wife is 40,000 Baht/month or higher.

Money in the bank is NOT accepted anymore. You can have millions of Thai Baht in a Thai bank account, but you'll still have to do visa runs every 90 days if you cannot prove a 40,000 Baht income on top of all the money you might already have!

The residency permit is quite a lot harder to get then you make out. Speaking Thai is only a small part of the requirements. The biggest requirement is actually that in those 3 years, you have been a tax paying person in Thailand, to a quite substantial amount. If you have had your 3 one year extensions based on marriage with a declared 40,000 Baht income earned outside of Thailand, then you can simply forget residency!

If you want to have any chance for residency, you should be here 3 consecutive years on a non immigrant B, extended to 1 year stays based on employment (work permit) in the Kingdom, while earning a very substantial salary an paying the personal income tax on that. I have not met anybody holding residency acquired in a different way

Just a quick question, i will satisfy 2 of the above , good salary paying tax ,and going onto 3rd year consecitive visa , but i speak very very little Thai, i was under the opinion that Thai was required for citizen test ,not residence - is it correct that you need to speak Thai for residence ?

[monty]

Yes yo do need to have a fairly good grasp of spoken Thai.

Previously there were a bunch of multiple choice questions, mainly Thai related (how many provinces, which colors in the national flag, etc), written in Thai on boards, but read (in Thai) aloud by the interviewing officer. You had to point out the correct answers.

You were also asked a bunch of personal questions, like how long have you been in Thailand, in what line of work are you, do you have children, how many and how old etc. All done in Thai, but the interviewing officer usually guided you along if you were a bit struggling...

However, there are reports that the last batch of applicants were grilled pretty thoroughly in front of a panel, consisting of several uniformed officers from different divisions, along with a few civilian dressed persons. Again, entirely in the Thai language, and in a much less friendly/helpful way, more like a cross examination trying to make you saying mistakes...

If you go for citizenship, on top of the spoken Thai, you'll also have to master the basics of written Thai.

[ray08]

Yes yo do need to have a fairly good grasp of spoken Thai.

Previously there were a bunch of multiple choice questions, mainly Thai related (how many provinces, which colors in the national flag, etc), written in Thai on boards, but read (in Thai) aloud by the interviewing officer. You had to point out the correct answers.

You were also asked a bunch of personal questions, like how long have you been in Thailand, in what line of work are you, do you have children, how many and how old etc. All done in Thai, but the interviewing officer usually guided you along if you were a bit struggling...

However, there are reports that the last batch of applicants were grilled pretty thoroughly in front of a panel, consisting of several uniformed officers from different divisions, along with a few civilian dressed persons. Again, entirely in the Thai language, and in a much less friendly/helpful way, more like a cross examination trying to make you saying mistakes...

If you go for citizenship, on top of the spoken Thai, you'll also have to master the basics of written Thai.

thanks for that , i think i better start to practice again ,but those different tones just dont agree with me