Thailand 'plans' To Ease Restrictions On Foreign Investment

[george]

Thailand 'plans' to ease restrictions on foreign investment

Chaiya plans early easing of foreign investment restrictions

BANGKOK: -- Foreign businessmen should soon find it easier to invest in Thailand, as the Commerce Ministry is planning amendment of the protected sectors listed in Annexes I, II and III of the Foreign Business Act (FBA).

Commerce Minister Chaiya Sasomsap last week said he would soon ask the Cabinet to approve the setting up of a committee to consider amendment of the FBA, as a way to increase confidence among foreign investors amid the continuing political uncertainty.

The ministry plans to revise the business types listed in Annexes I to III - the list of protected businesses under the Act - by removing some businesses in which Thailand is deemed ready to compete with foreign investors.

"The ministry will also hold discussions with other agencies to ensure that, this time, amendment will create fair conditions for both Thai and foreign businessmen," said Chaiya.

However, the ministry will still reserve some business sectors for Thais if it finds there are still major concerns over low competitiveness in particular industries.

The amendments should make the Act more concise and flexible for foreign investors, enabling them to keep up the momentum of foreign investment in Thailand, Chaiya said.

The minister said there would, however, be no change in the definition of "foreign investors", who can hold no more than 50 per cent of the shares in firms in business listed in Annexes I to III unless they receive permission to do so from the FBA subcommittee.

The ministry will not introduce the concepts of "controlling voting rights" or "management control" for foreign shareholders, as such a move would destroy investor sentiment.

Last year, the National Legislative Assembly voted to tighten the scope of foreign business operations by expanding the definition of "management" and "voting rights" from simply the control by foreign shareholders of a company, as in the original Foreign Business Act of 1999. The final version of the definition was not, however, made public after the end of the assembly's term early this year.

Businesses listed in Annex III are expected to become more flexible towards foreign investment under the latest proposed changes. These include rice milling, fisheries, forestry, accountancy services, service businesses, legal services, agriculture, engineering, leasing, advertising agencies and retail and wholesale.

Chaiya said the panel that would consider amendment of the Act was expected to complete its task by the end of the year, to ensure that the new conditions can take effect next year - and that foreign direct investment will be stimulated as a result.

-- The Nation 2008-08-25

[NanaFoods]

Good move in light of the economy.

But.... what's to stop them from changing their minds if/when the economy recovers?

Something I am sure investors will consider given the past...

[niller74]

Good move in light of the economy.

But.... what's to stop them from changing their minds if/when the economy recovers?

Something I am sure investors will consider given the past...

Exactly...

It takes a lot more than 3 fancy paragraphs to convince a potential foreign investor that they should invest in Thailand instead of Malaysia, Philippines or even China.

This is one of many desperate attempts to soften the impact of the global economy crisis that has yet to hit South East Asia with full impact.

[Dakhar]

Good move in light of the economy.

But.... what's to stop them from changing their minds if/when the economy recovers?

Something I am sure investors will consider given the past...

Surely they would make some iron clad rullings that would never be subject to change, much like the constitution.

[wensiensheng]

Err, remind me again how many constitutions Kingdom of Thailand has had in the last 25 years?

[OlRedEyes]

Good move in light of the economy.

But.... what's to stop them from changing their minds if/when the economy recovers?

Something I am sure investors will consider given the past...

Surely they would make some iron clad rullings that would never be subject to change, much like the constitution.

Good one.

[Artisi]

Good move in light of the economy.

But.... what's to stop them from changing their minds if/when the economy recovers?

Something I am sure investors will consider given the past...

Surely they would make some iron clad rullings that would never be subject to change, much like the constitution.

That would be wishful thinking in the extreme, considering the politicians would NEVER think of changing the constitution - not ever - well maybe jusy a little change to suit our agenda and keep the trough filled to over-flowing.

[cloudhopper]

Thailand 'plans' to ease restrictions on foreign investment

Commerce Minister Chaiya Sasomsap last week said he would soon ask the Cabinet to approve the setting up of a committee to consider amendment of the FBA,

Another example of a puff piece announcing an intention to do something as a real accomplishment. At least he deserves credit for admitting it's broken but the odds are slim IMO that incompetent nationalist cronies will ever be able to implement effective reforms.

[thaibkk]

economy goes better or new government = bye bye invester visa

people with a bit of brain & common sense can see this is just a temp solution for the thai economy and when it gets better, they also get rid of the investers

why they don't make doing business for foreign the same as for locals

as most western countries do not make a difference in nationality if thais want to start up a business in a foreign country

in my home country, any person can start a business with as little as about 10k euro funds

no need for 4 local people to hire, needed or not ...

why don't they start with that ?

[deerpig]

Hey, it's not... bad news.

Perhaps a wee bit of cautious optimism is warranted.

After the last couple of years, anything that isn't a step backwards is ok in my book.

[chrislarsson]

economy goes better or new government = bye bye invester visa

people with a bit of brain & common sense can see this is just a temp solution for the thai economy and when it gets better, they also get rid of the investers

why they don't make doing business for foreign the same as for locals

as most western countries do not make a difference in nationality if thais want to start up a business in a foreign country

in my home country, any person can start a business with as little as about 10k euro funds

no need for 4 local people to hire, needed or not ...

why don't they start with that ?

There is a large difference between developed and developing countries.

European countries are allowing anyone to invest or start a business because it will benefit their economies. There is no risk that these investment will hurt the local industry, as their economies are already advanced.

But Europe (and America) is protecting themselves everywhere it will hurt them, and are not less nationalistic than Thailand. For instance, developing countries can sell oranges to Europe without any problems. But can they sell processed oranges like jam and juice? No, import quotas are set to make it impossible to export it and still make a profit. Hence the European food processing companies are protected.

It should also be remembered that the current international trade system is heavily tilted in favor of developed countries. It is estimated that for every dollar given in foreign aid, the developing world is loosing 3 dollars due to European and American subsidies in agriculture.

Following advice from organizations such as IMF has already done so much damage to a lot of countries.Thailand is still a relatively poor country and should look after their self-interest and their own people.

[poldebol]

Thailand 'plans' to ease restrictions on foreign investment

Chaiya plans early easing of foreign investment restrictions

BANGKOK: -- Foreign businessmen should soon find it easier to invest in Thailand, as the Commerce Ministry is planning amendment of the protected sectors listed in Annexes I, II and III of the Foreign Business Act (FBA).

Commerce Minister Chaiya Sasomsap last week said he would soon ask the Cabinet to approve the setting up of a committee to consider amendment of the FBA, as a way to increase confidence among foreign investors amid the continuing political uncertainty.

The ministry plans to revise the business types listed in Annexes I to III - the list of protected businesses under the Act - by removing some businesses in which Thailand is deemed ready to compete with foreign investors.

"The ministry will also hold discussions with other agencies to ensure that, this time, amendment will create fair conditions for both Thai and foreign businessmen," said Chaiya.

However, the ministry will still reserve some business sectors for Thais if it finds there are still major concerns over low competitiveness in particular industries.

The amendments should make the Act more concise and flexible for foreign investors, enabling them to keep up the momentum of foreign investment in Thailand, Chaiya said.

The minister said there would, however, be no change in the definition of "foreign investors", who can hold no more than 50 per cent of the shares in firms in business listed in Annexes I to III unless they receive permission to do so from the FBA subcommittee.

The ministry will not introduce the concepts of "controlling voting rights" or "management control" for foreign shareholders, as such a move would destroy investor sentiment.

Last year, the National Legislative Assembly voted to tighten the scope of foreign business operations by expanding the definition of "management" and "voting rights" from simply the control by foreign shareholders of a company, as in the original Foreign Business Act of 1999. The final version of the definition was not, however, made public after the end of the assembly's term early this year.

Businesses listed in Annex III are expected to become more flexible towards foreign investment under the latest proposed changes. These include rice milling, fisheries, forestry, accountancy services, service businesses, legal services, agriculture, engineering, leasing, advertising agencies and retail and wholesale.

Chaiya said the panel that would consider amendment of the Act was expected to complete its task by the end of the year, to ensure that the new conditions can take effect next year - and that foreign direct investment will be stimulated as a result.

-- The Nation 2008-08-25

A clear case of "hubbism".

Since I come regularly to Thailand, there have been plans for Thailand to become

the hub of international tourism

the hub of international airfreight

the hub of international health care

the hub of South East Asian education

the hub of South East Asian finance

Happy hubbing!

[skorchio]

Good move in light of the economy.

But.... what's to stop them from changing their minds if/when the economy recovers?

Something I am sure investors will consider given the past...

Surely they would make some iron clad rullings that would never be subject to change, much like the constitution.

but there is a shortage of cigarette packs for writing them on.........

[animatic]

Good move in light of the economy.

But.... what's to stop them from changing their minds if/when the economy recovers?

Something I am sure investors will consider given the past...

Surely they would make some iron clad rullings that would never be subject to change, much like the constitution.

Good one.

ROTFLOL

So dry, so drole, so apropo!!!

[animatic]

Thailand 'plans' to ease restrictions on foreign investment

Commerce Minister Chaiya Sasomsap last week said he would soon ask the Cabinet to approve the setting up of a committee to consider amendment of the FBA,

Another example of a puff piece announcing an intention to do something as a real accomplishment. At least he deserves credit for admitting it's broken but the odds are slim IMO that incompetent nationalist cronies will ever be able to implement effective reforms.

Ditto

[Mobi]

The ministry will not introduce the concepts of "controlling voting rights" or "management control" for foreign shareholders, as such a move would destroy investor sentiment.

That's going to really reassure potential foreign investors and those that are already here. Such a major concession indeed!

(And one that can easily be revoked again with a flick of an anti-foreigner eye).

The foreign business community must feel very relieved. They still cannot hold more 50%, but don't worry, they can still get round the law by "controlling voting rights" and "management control", and the government promises they won't take any action against them.

He must be really naive if he believes that this announcement is going to inspire investor confidence, be the basis of fresh investment, and persuade the boards of major corporations to start pumping millions of dollars into Thailand.

[Naam]

even though nothing tangible, it is a subtle positive message.

[anon467367354]

"The ministry will also hold discussions with other agencies to ensure that, this time, amendment will create fair conditions for both Thai and foreign businessmen," said Chaiya.

This time they will ensure fair conditions through some amendment? Is "fair conditions" relatively fairly conditional varbage? (I thought that would rhyme better with garbage) He's a relative, but he's not. This ones an oriental, but not the right kind, the farang are all the same, but this one has money......

However, the ministry will still reserve some business sectors for Thais if it finds there are still major concerns over low competitiveness in particular industries.

So if the Thais don't want to do it, we'll save a percentage of the inaction for them just in case?

The amendments should make the Act more concise and flexible for foreign investors, enabling them to keep up the momentum of foreign investment in Thailand, Chaiya said.

Are we losing momentum here? The momentum of investments going to other countries? Shoot the foot because it hasn't been shot?

The minister said there would, however, be no change in the definition of "foreign investors", who can hold no more than 50 per cent of the shares in firms in business listed in Annexes I to III unless they receive permission to do so from the FBA subcommittee.

so if it floats, it must be made of wood, and therefore, a duck! How much is this "permission" gonna cost?

[jitagon]

economy goes better or new government = bye bye invester visa

people with a bit of brain & common sense can see this is just a temp solution for the thai economy and when it gets better, they also get rid of the investers

why they don't make doing business for foreign the same as for locals

as most western countries do not make a difference in nationality if thais want to start up a business in a foreign country

in my home country, any person can start a business with as little as about 10k euro funds

no need for 4 local people to hire, needed or not ...

why don't they start with that ?

There is a large difference between developed and developing countries.

European countries are allowing anyone to invest or start a business because it will benefit their economies. There is no risk that these investment will hurt the local industry, as their economies are already advanced.

But Europe (and America) is protecting themselves everywhere it will hurt them, and are not less nationalistic than Thailand. For instance, developing countries can sell oranges to Europe without any problems. But can they sell processed oranges like jam and juice? No, import quotas are set to make it impossible to export it and still make a profit. Hence the European food processing companies are protected.

It should also be remembered that the current international trade system is heavily tilted in favor of developed countries. It is estimated that for every dollar given in foreign aid, the developing world is loosing 3 dollars due to European and American subsidies in agriculture.

Following advice from organizations such as IMF has already done so much damage to a lot of countries.Thailand is still a relatively poor country and should look after their self-interest and their own people.

A relatively poor country with the richest monarch in the world. It's ockay, I know you won't post this.

[Bruce1]

I assume he's floating the idea hoping no-one will object, since that will strengthen his hand if it ever gets to cabinet,. where paranoia is likely to reign.

Re 'hubbism', don't forget 'International hub of halal food', 'International hub of palm oil production' and "International hub of fashion design'. Oh. and the airport is an international hub too.

[LPCustom69]

That will never happen, as TIT, and everything is subject to change to whatever suits those in control.

Good move in light of the economy.

But.... what's to stop them from changing their minds if/when the economy recovers?

Something I am sure investors will consider given the past...

Surely they would make some iron clad rullings that would never be subject to change, much like the constitution.

[davejonesbkk]

I assume he's floating the idea hoping no-one will object, since that will strengthen his hand if it ever gets to cabinet,. where paranoia is likely to reign.

Re 'hubbism', don't forget 'International hub of halal food', 'International hub of palm oil production' and "International hub of fashion design'. Oh. and the airport is an international hub too.

Yeah and I've also been told a few times that apparently Bangkok is a 'hub' of technology for SE Asia. Though I dont see how IT malls full of pirate videogames and printers make this a hub of technology....

[LPCustom69]

I believe that there were also plans to make it a hub of fashion. Current plans also envision a hub of the film industry, and music.

There is nothing wrong with being positive, and setting goals. Perhaps they should concentrate on becoming the hub of something?

Thailand 'plans' to ease restrictions on foreign investment

Chaiya plans early easing of foreign investment restrictions

BANGKOK: -- Foreign businessmen should soon find it easier to invest in Thailand, as the Commerce Ministry is planning amendment of the protected sectors listed in Annexes I, II and III of the Foreign Business Act (FBA).

Commerce Minister Chaiya Sasomsap last week said he would soon ask the Cabinet to approve the setting up of a committee to consider amendment of the FBA, as a way to increase confidence among foreign investors amid the continuing political uncertainty.

The ministry plans to revise the business types listed in Annexes I to III - the list of protected businesses under the Act - by removing some businesses in which Thailand is deemed ready to compete with foreign investors.

"The ministry will also hold discussions with other agencies to ensure that, this time, amendment will create fair conditions for both Thai and foreign businessmen," said Chaiya.

However, the ministry will still reserve some business sectors for Thais if it finds there are still major concerns over low competitiveness in particular industries.

The amendments should make the Act more concise and flexible for foreign investors, enabling them to keep up the momentum of foreign investment in Thailand, Chaiya said.

The minister said there would, however, be no change in the definition of "foreign investors", who can hold no more than 50 per cent of the shares in firms in business listed in Annexes I to III unless they receive permission to do so from the FBA subcommittee.

The ministry will not introduce the concepts of "controlling voting rights" or "management control" for foreign shareholders, as such a move would destroy investor sentiment.

Last year, the National Legislative Assembly voted to tighten the scope of foreign business operations by expanding the definition of "management" and "voting rights" from simply the control by foreign shareholders of a company, as in the original Foreign Business Act of 1999. The final version of the definition was not, however, made public after the end of the assembly's term early this year.

Businesses listed in Annex III are expected to become more flexible towards foreign investment under the latest proposed changes. These include rice milling, fisheries, forestry, accountancy services, service businesses, legal services, agriculture, engineering, leasing, advertising agencies and retail and wholesale.

Chaiya said the panel that would consider amendment of the Act was expected to complete its task by the end of the year, to ensure that the new conditions can take effect next year - and that foreign direct investment will be stimulated as a result.

-- The Nation 2008-08-25

A clear case of "hubbism".

Since I come regularly to Thailand, there have been plans for Thailand to become

the hub of international tourism

the hub of international airfreight

the hub of international health care

the hub of South East Asian education

the hub of South East Asian finance

Happy hubbing!

[poldebol]

economy goes better or new government = bye bye invester visa

people with a bit of brain & common sense can see this is just a temp solution for the thai economy and when it gets better, they also get rid of the investers

why they don't make doing business for foreign the same as for locals

as most western countries do not make a difference in nationality if thais want to start up a business in a foreign country

in my home country, any person can start a business with as little as about 10k euro funds

no need for 4 local people to hire, needed or not ...

why don't they start with that ?

There is a large difference between developed and developing countries.

European countries are allowing anyone to invest or start a business because it will benefit their economies. There is no risk that these investment will hurt the local industry, as their economies are already advanced.

But Europe (and America) is protecting themselves everywhere it will hurt them, and are not less nationalistic than Thailand. For instance, developing countries can sell oranges to Europe without any problems. But can they sell processed oranges like jam and juice? No, import quotas are set to make it impossible to export it and still make a profit. Hence the European food processing companies are protected.

It should also be remembered that the current international trade system is heavily tilted in favor of developed countries. It is estimated that for every dollar given in foreign aid, the developing world is loosing 3 dollars due to European and American subsidies in agriculture.

Following advice from organizations such as IMF has already done so much damage to a lot of countries.Thailand is still a relatively poor country and should look after their self-interest and their own people.

The terms developed and undeveloped countries are no longer valid. They suggest that Thailand (and other so called developing countries) wil develop into something that looks like a "developed" country. There are at least as many elements showing the evolution of "developed" countries towards the model of "undeveloped" countries as the other way round. Thailand cs. have become very rich countries with many poor people, which is not the same as rich countries with a small number of poor people.

If I start a business in Thailand, sharing my expertise with Thai people, how do I hurt the Thai economy? I might hurt the Thai people who have lots of money and little expertise and who are not forced to stand on the tip of their toes to invest in innovation because labour is too cheap here. The cost of one building worker in EU is around 33.000 Eur (aprox 1,5 million THB) yearly. In Thailand, let us say 70.000 THB? Who is hurting the economy here? The people who write off an appartment building in 4 years with a nett income of 5 million THB yearly? Or the farang who tries to introduce some quality in a small-scale building project? The result of this configuration being of course that a decent bathroom floor or a well calculated staircase are the exception and not the rule in Thailand. The different type of countries do not protect their own country, they protect the position of the people with economic power.That is not a smal difference in shade.

You are however correct in saying that countries like the EU and the US have more profit from aid than the receiving countries. Combine that with the fact that the annual amount of money sent back to the families by migrant workers in the EU and US surpasses any amount of aid, and, in most cases, is used more sufficiently. (I do not dare t calculate how much individual farangs bring into LOS every year) At the moment there is only one solution to the aid question: stop it. Is it not crazy that Europe gives aid to e.g. India in the form of educational projects whereas India refuses to solve the problem of their 300 million starving citizens, in order to keep the salaries low? Europe is training workers for free to work in the Indian steel factories that can compete with European steel mills because the Indian workers are paid about 10% of his European fellow worker! The question stands why aid goes on and who profits from it, here and there. Certainly not the taxpayer in the EU, nor your average Thai or Indian.

Import quota have been largely lifted since 2001, especially on steel and textile products. Again, who has taken advantage? The rich, here and there. The fairy tale spoke of the advantages for the "poor" workers in the "poor" countries. Result? A car with less safety features than in Europe and produced in a poor country, costs more in that "poor" country than in the European export market. Who is being protected here? The workers in the car plants have not seen much progress.

Let me conclude: the rich here and there, are fending for themselves. International capital gets more and more concentrated. Real power is in the hands of a decreasing number of people. There are no more developing and developed countries. A new economic model arises: a few rich, who have nothing anymore in common with normal people and see all their priviliges as their natural rights and, on the other hand, a large mass of workers and people with no income. Most of them get a smaller portion of the national income. The rich have their privileges everywhere. Thaksin can buy property in England. I can not own one rai here. I just have to keep 800.000 in the bank at 0,75 and shut up. But one thing is sure: since I live in Thailand, I do not have have any feelings of guilt about development anymore. That at least is a very positive result.

[stoneman]

Thailand 'plans' to ease restrictions on foreign investment

Chaiya plans early easing of foreign investment restrictions

There is nothing new here...This is the same story that they have been putting out since Toxin was in charge... Thailand seems to have a idea that "Saying something is So" ..."Makes it So"..... I would be willing to bet that we never hear another word about the exact changes they HAVE made...Next news report will be another announcement that they are considering changes...

Stoneman

[Miami Bob]

The goal of this being to raise investor confidence in Thailand and increase the flow of capital into Thailand... correct? Would that not tend to strengthen the Baht against our home currencies? I believe most ex-pats here are living on incomes from their home countries so we should be happy that this proposal is probably just more talk and will never actually happen.

[cloudhopper]

Excellent thesis poldebol!

[thaigene2]

They won't be around long enough to see this through. When the others guys get back into power - the old-family establishment group backing the PAD - a group less friendly to foreign investment - it will probably get more restrictive. I wouldn't be sold by this rhetoric either.

Thailand needs a complete overhaul to international business standards, but that is contrary to the established commercial and military establishment families' interests here. In other words, it simply isn't going to happen any time soon.

[baanthale]

economy goes better or new government = bye bye invester visa

people with a bit of brain & common sense can see this is just a temp solution for the thai economy and when it gets better, they also get rid of the investers

why they don't make doing business for foreign the same as for locals

as most western countries do not make a difference in nationality if thais want to start up a business in a foreign country

in my home country, any person can start a business with as little as about 10k euro funds

no need for 4 local people to hire, needed or not ...

why don't they start with that ?

There is a large difference between developed and developing countries.

European countries are allowing anyone to invest or start a business because it will benefit their economies. There is no risk that these investment will hurt the local industry, as their economies are already advanced.

But Europe (and America) is protecting themselves everywhere it will hurt them, and are not less nationalistic than Thailand. For instance, developing countries can sell oranges to Europe without any problems. But can they sell processed oranges like jam and juice? No, import quotas are set to make it impossible to export it and still make a profit. Hence the European food processing companies are protected.

It should also be remembered that the current international trade system is heavily tilted in favor of developed countries. It is estimated that for every dollar given in foreign aid, the developing world is loosing 3 dollars due to European and American subsidies in agriculture.

Following advice from organizations such as IMF has already done so much damage to a lot of countries.Thailand is still a relatively poor country and should look after their self-interest and their own people.

The terms developed and undeveloped countries are no longer valid. They suggest that Thailand (and other so called developing countries) wil develop into something that looks like a "developed" country. There are at least as many elements showing the evolution of "developed" countries towards the model of "undeveloped" countries as the other way round. Thailand cs. have become very rich countries with many poor people, which is not the same as rich countries with a small number of poor people.

If I start a business in Thailand, sharing my expertise with Thai people, how do I hurt the Thai economy? I might hurt the Thai people who have lots of money and little expertise and who are not forced to stand on the tip of their toes to invest in innovation because labour is too cheap here. The cost of one building worker in EU is around 33.000 Eur (aprox 1,5 million THB) yearly. In Thailand, let us say 70.000 THB? Who is hurting the economy here? The people who write off an appartment building in 4 years with a nett income of 5 million THB yearly? Or the farang who tries to introduce some quality in a small-scale building project? The result of this configuration being of course that a decent bathroom floor or a well calculated staircase are the exception and not the rule in Thailand. The different type of countries do not protect their own country, they protect the position of the people with economic power.That is not a smal difference in shade.

You are however correct in saying that countries like the EU and the US have more profit from aid than the receiving countries. Combine that with the fact that the annual amount of money sent back to the families by migrant workers in the EU and US surpasses any amount of aid, and, in most cases, is used more sufficiently. (I do not dare t calculate how much individual farangs bring into LOS every year) At the moment there is only one solution to the aid question: stop it. Is it not crazy that Europe gives aid to e.g. India in the form of educational projects whereas India refuses to solve the problem of their 300 million starving citizens, in order to keep the salaries low? Europe is training workers for free to work in the Indian steel factories that can compete with European steel mills because the Indian workers are paid about 10% of his European fellow worker! The question stands why aid goes on and who profits from it, here and there. Certainly not the taxpayer in the EU, nor your average Thai or Indian.

Import quota have been largely lifted since 2001, especially on steel and textile products. Again, who has taken advantage? The rich, here and there. The fairy tale spoke of the advantages for the "poor" workers in the "poor" countries. Result? A car with less safety features than in Europe and produced in a poor country, costs more in that "poor" country than in the European export market. Who is being protected here? The workers in the car plants have not seen much progress.

Let me conclude: the rich here and there, are fending for themselves. International capital gets more and more concentrated. Real power is in the hands of a decreasing number of people. There are no more developing and developed countries. A new economic model arises: a few rich, who have nothing anymore in common with normal people and see all their priviliges as their natural rights and, on the other hand, a large mass of workers and people with no income. Most of them get a smaller portion of the national income. The rich have their privileges everywhere. Thaksin can buy property in England. I can not own one rai here. I just have to keep 800.000 in the bank at 0,75 and shut up. But one thing is sure: since I live in Thailand, I do not have have any feelings of guilt about development anymore. That at least is a very positive result.

That was one of the very best posts I've read at Thaivisa!

[Felt 35]

The terms developed and undeveloped countries are no longer valid. They suggest that Thailand (and other so called developing countries) wil develop into something that looks like a "developed" country. There are at least as many elements showing the evolution of "developed" countries towards the model of "undeveloped" countries as the other way round. Thailand cs. have become very rich countries with many poor people, which is not the same as rich countries with a small number of poor people.

If I start a business in Thailand, sharing my expertise with Thai people, how do I hurt the Thai economy? I might hurt the Thai people who have lots of money and little expertise and who are not forced to stand on the tip of their toes to invest in innovation because labour is too cheap here. The cost of one building worker in EU is around 33.000 Eur (aprox 1,5 million THB) yearly. In Thailand, let us say 70.000 THB? Who is hurting the economy here? The people who write off an appartment building in 4 years with a nett income of 5 million THB yearly? Or the farang who tries to introduce some quality in a small-scale building project? The result of this configuration being of course that a decent bathroom floor or a well calculated staircase are the exception and not the rule in Thailand. The different type of countries do not protect their own country, they protect the position of the people with economic power.That is not a smal difference in shade.

You are however correct in saying that countries like the EU and the US have more profit from aid than the receiving countries. Combine that with the fact that the annual amount of money sent back to the families by migrant workers in the EU and US surpasses any amount of aid, and, in most cases, is used more sufficiently. (I do not dare t calculate how much individual farangs bring into LOS every year) At the moment there is only one solution to the aid question: stop it. Is it not crazy that Europe gives aid to e.g. India in the form of educational projects whereas India refuses to solve the problem of their 300 million starving citizens, in order to keep the salaries low? Europe is training workers for free to work in the Indian steel factories that can compete with European steel mills because the Indian workers are paid about 10% of his European fellow worker! The question stands why aid goes on and who profits from it, here and there. Certainly not the taxpayer in the EU, nor your average Thai or Indian.

Import quota have been largely lifted since 2001, especially on steel and textile products. Again, who has taken advantage? The rich, here and there. The fairy tale spoke of the advantages for the "poor" workers in the "poor" countries. Result? A car with less safety features than in Europe and produced in a poor country, costs more in that "poor" country than in the European export market. Who is being protected here? The workers in the car plants have not seen much progress.

Let me conclude: the rich here and there, are fending for themselves. International capital gets more and more concentrated. Real power is in the hands of a decreasing number of people. There are no more developing and developed countries. A new economic model arises: a few rich, who have nothing anymore in common with normal people and see all their priviliges as their natural rights and, on the other hand, a large mass of workers and people with no income. Most of them get a smaller portion of the national income. The rich have their privileges everywhere. Thaksin can buy property in England. I can not own one rai here. I just have to keep 800.000 in the bank at 0,75 and shut up. But one thing is sure: since I live in Thailand, I do not have have any feelings of guilt about development anymore. That at least is a very positive result.

Very well said.