Tv Debate On Land Ownership Heats Up

[stevehaigh]

ch7 tv has had an hour or so per night for the last week or so devoted but 'dodgy' land deals including illegal development on agricultural land owned buy the Queen in Hua Hin and whole farang villages in Pataya owned by pseudo farang companies.

i can only assume the idea is to whip up even more resentment in the general public against'greedy developers' (Thai and farang) which will ultimately result in the government doing something about it.

[stgrhe]

ch7 tv has had an hour or so per night for the last week or so devoted but 'dodgy' land deals including illegal development on agricultural land owned buy the Queen in Hua Hin and whole farang villages in Pataya owned by pseudo farang companies.

i can only assume the idea is to whip up even more resentment in the general public against'greedy developers' (Thai and farang) which will ultimately result in the government doing something about it.

The risk for back-fire can not be neglected as the average khun Somhhai wouldn't know the difference between dodgy developers and farangs that buy the houses whether the lands are leased, through the company route or through a Thai spouse.

Out of topic, I have read your book and found many tips useful.

[churchill]

I recently came across this suggestion for a solution .

"The Parliament extend the duration of leasehold from 30 to 99 years (non renewable).

Once the parliaments has modified the duration of the maximum lease period the government issue an amnesty bill that could for example invite any foreign investors that have purchased land for residential purpose through a company with Thai shareholders that may be deemed nominees to

- Notify the land department and sell the property within a 3 years period (1 year is not enough) from the date of the notification,

- Within the 3 years period the foreign investor would be given the opportunity to surrender the ownership of the land to the Thai Government. In exchange the foreign investor would be granted a 99 years non renewable lease on said land.

- The foreign investor would retain the ownership of the house or building constructed on the land for the duration of the lease but at the end of the 99 years period the property of the building would revert back to the government. During the 99 years duration the foreign investor could freely assign the lease and sale the house to another foreign investor but the lease would be assigned and the ownership of the house would be transferred to the third party foreign buyer only for the remaining duration of the lease.

At the end of the lease the Thai government would auction the property.

Of course this solution is not perfect but it has several advantages

- The legality is reestablished, the land is returned to a Thai owner (in fine the government)

- The foreign investors are offered two fair options which allow them to safeguards their investment (selling within 3 years or lease for 99 years)

- As to the government it would receive valuable land which he will be able to auction 99 years from now.

A delay of six months should be offered to foreign investors to contact the land department. Those who fails to do so could be punished.

I’m totally aware that there are still flaws in what i’m proposing above. But the point is that this issue has to be solved and that we have to start from somewhere."

from http://www.doingbusinessthailand.com/thail...nder-watch.html

Edited August 30, 2009 by churchill

[angiud]

Which book?

[SHYTALK]

Thailand is full of the "do as I say, not as I do "brigade.

Do you really think Taksin was the only guy "in power" at it?

[dsfbrit]

I recently came across this suggestion for a solution .

"The Parliament extend the duration of leasehold from 30 to 99 years (non renewable).

Once the parliaments has modified the duration of the maximum lease period the government issue an amnesty bill that could for example invite any foreign investors that have purchased land for residential purpose through a company with Thai shareholders that may be deemed nominees to

- Notify the land department and sell the property within a 3 years period (1 year is not enough) from the date of the notification,

- Within the 3 years period the foreign investor would be given the opportunity to surrender the ownership of the land to the Thai Government. In exchange the foreign investor would be granted a 99 years non renewable lease on said land.

- The foreign investor would retain the ownership of the house or building constructed on the land for the duration of the lease but at the end of the 99 years period the property of the building would revert back to the government. During the 99 years duration the foreign investor could freely assign the lease and sale the house to another foreign investor but the lease would be assigned and the ownership of the house would be transferred to the third party foreign buyer only for the remaining duration of the lease.

At the end of the lease the Thai government would auction the property.

Of course this solution is not perfect but it has several advantages

- The legality is reestablished, the land is returned to a Thai owner (in fine the government)

- The foreign investors are offered two fair options which allow them to safeguards their investment (selling within 3 years or lease for 99 years)

- As to the government it would receive valuable land which he will be able to auction 99 years from now.

A delay of six months should be offered to foreign investors to contact the land department. Those who fails to do so could be punished.

I’m totally aware that there are still flaws in what i’m proposing above. But the point is that this issue has to be solved and that we have to start from somewhere."

from http://www.doingbusinessthailand.com/thail...nder-watch.html

This looks like a well thought out plan, or at least the basis of a plan, by someone who wishes to solve the problem that farang cannot own land. I would not suggest that the Thai authorites are not capable of coming up with a similar plan - if they really wanted to. I would however suggest they have no interest whatsoever in doing anything that would weaken their ability to do with 'their' land what they want and when they want to. There are now even credible threads on TV that suggest the legality of the 30 year lease and Usufruct could be challenged if its in the name of a Thai spouse.

I 'own' land through the 'dodgy' company route. Wish I didn't, but I think its the best of a bad set of options. If I had my chance again I would not 'own' land in Thailand at all - maybe buy an apartment in my own name. In fact just rent here and buy a place to rent out in your own country is the safest bet.

The debates on Channel 7 are no doubt to benefit some 'worthy' cause - probably someone in power with a need to stir up nonsense against some farang or other for their own short benefit - as for the government then doing something about it - like what - that would require a coordinated Government. Thai governments I have seen over the past years would be more successful at herding cats.

Edited August 31, 2009 by dsfbrit

[johnnyk]

It seems reasonable and would give peace of mind to many falangs. Investment would be safeguarded as a lease with 60 or 70 years remaining would have value.

That said I don't see it happening.

The main benefit would be to falangs. Do Thais and their government consider that a priority?

The current situation serves them well by keeping falangs off-balance. They can hold the hammer behind the curtain just in case the electorate demands it or the falangs get uppity.

[quiksilva]

Its not the first time I have heard of this proposal, and it seems like a reasonable proposition, and if spun correctly it could help the governing political party.

This sort of proposal is being lobbied very hard at the moment but like Johnny, I don't see any imminent change on the near horizon.

[Electra]

Frankly, it's just another Thai move accommodating their innate insularity.

They are just so shortsighted and incoherent.

If they were that keen to attract foreign residents of worth they could easily adopt the Malaysian initiative and offer retirees or otherwise with demonstrable funds and income the opportunity to buy a property above a given price without encumbrance. But they won't and for the simple reason that they can't bear not to have their cake and it too.

[thaiwanderer]

Frankly, it's just another Thai move accommodating their innate insularity.

They are just so shortsighted and incoherent.

If they were that keen to attract foreign residents of worth they could easily adopt the Malaysian initiative and offer retirees or otherwise with demonstrable funds and income the opportunity to buy a property above a given price without encumbrance. But they won't and for the simple reason that they can't bear not to have their cake and it too.

And that's a criticism?

[johnnyk]

Any time I can have my cake and eat it too, I'm there! If you can, why the phuque not?

Some states have been looking at buying or long-leasing farmland in other countries because they have little land themselves or what land they have is poor or they have no rain.

Places like UAE etc want to lock in food supplies.

For the same reason Thailand, which is blessed for food production, wants to ensure its own supply (why not?). The Thai government knows full well that poorly-educated, debt-ridden rice farmers will sell their land in a minute if they think it can pay their debts or buy a new truck.

They won't think about security of supply etc. and before you know it good food-producing land has been traded for paper.

Edited September 3, 2009 by johnnyk