Lobby Group Foreigners In Thailand

[Erwin1011]

This is a reaction to the thread on "Thaksin happy to tackle expat's problems.

At this point the posting has 2668 views, 63 replies over 5 pages.

I'm just trying to explore the willingness of the members to DO something, rather than whining about it.

The full question is:

Are you willing to participate, suscribe to a special interest group of foreign individuals, currently residing in Thailand or looking forward to reside here in the future. It will lobby with the officials in Thailand to adjust the current legal situation of foreign individuals not being allowed to own a limited amount of property in the country.

[SEAtramp]

Whilst I shall agree with something should be done regarding land ownership in Thailand. I cannot help but feel this will almost be a futile attempt to sway anything that farangs request in Thailand.

Given that the present goverment is headed by Thaskin, a man who named his party Thai Rak Thai. You are certainly taking the mountain to Mohammed.

[penelope]

sorry.not interested.i already own land (by proxy), and everything is kosha , given the proposition, i see no benefit for my personal situation.

[MHM]

If everyone took Penelope's attitude and only acted if it was of benefit for their personal situation the world really would be a sorry place...

[buadhai]

I lived in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, a US territory, for 26 years. Oddly, this is the only US territory where land ownership is restricted to "locals". I hated the fact that I couldn't own land there. It caused huge problems, including the same sorts of scams you see here. Plus, it severely limited economic development.

Many efforts were made by US citizen residents, including myself, to change the law so that we could own land too. After all, shouldn't a US citizen be able to own land anywhere the US flag flies?

But, all our efforts were for naught. The locals feared land alienation. The US courts upheld the land laws.

I don't think you'd make any more progress here than we did there.

It's all about power. No one wants to give it up once they have it.

[lampard10]

I would think anyone voting no is not a true lover of Thailand and it's people and are only here to see what they can get out of it. Goodbye no voters. We don't want or need you.

[ArtfulD]

sorry.not interested.i already own land (by proxy), and everything is kosha , given the proposition, i see no benefit for my personal situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Till your wife divorces you?

[khunlungphudhu]

I beleive that it is all about size......

The expat baht being somewhat bigger than the local baht,

and, comming from the UK, appreciate fully the Thai desire to protect their space.

[Heng]

If everyone took Penelope's attitude and only acted if it was of benefit for their personal situation the world really would be a sorry place...

Not for Penelope.

[thai_norman]

if the uk had had the same land ownership laws 50 years ago as thailand has now and the same immigration laws, the uk would surely be a better place for it, it would be a country to be proud of, now stores are not allowed to have a father xmas becos it may upset ethnic groups, blackboards are now called chalk boards, as its offensive to call a black painted piece of wood a black board, i for one think thailand is doing the right thing, and as with any laws there are always round them...

[The_Moog]

hey Erwin

2 years ago I wrote an economic manifesto for a Presidential candidate. (In Indonesia).

I suggested exact same thing. It got deleted immediately by the policy wonks who said nobody would vote for him if the policy was included.

I think the same reason applies here. It is a political no-no - seen as national sacrilege, not by intelligent politicans but unsophisticated electorates - and that applies to any SE Asian country. Its the hottest of hot political potatoes. Its seen as a metaphor for neo-colonization.

There are 'sub rosa' methods of owning land to get around the rules. Foreigners just have to use them.

I haven't voted. Good luck

[Erwin1011]

hey Erwin

2 years ago I wrote an economic manifesto for a Presidential candidate. (In Indonesia).

I suggested exact same thing. It got deleted immediately by the policy wonks who said nobody would vote for him if the policy was included.

I think the same reason applies here. It is a political no-no - seen as national sacrilege, not by intelligent politicans but unsophisticated electorates -  and that applies to any SE Asian country. Its the hottest of hot political potatoes. Its seen as a metaphor for neo-colonization.

There are 'sub rosa' methods of owning land to get around the rules. Foreigners just have to use them.

I haven't voted. Good luck

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Moog,

I know it is a 'difficult' issue. But there are examples in other SE Asian countries : Singapore and you cannot say that Sing as a colonized country, on the contrary.

Malaysia is opening up it's doors, albeit very slightly and hesitantly. The Phils have a relative easy retirement and marriage system and are currently considering expanding it.

Of course there are round about ways to bypass the system, but I think that is exactly what causes many people to restrain themselves in investing and on top of that it creates a legal uncertainty.

Would be interested to have a look at that manifesto, maybe can extract some ideas from it.

[tuky]

As an aside,

Whilst thaivisa.com encourages debate, we do not always condone the subject of said debate.

This is an interesting topic, we all feel strongly about this so please feel free to pursue it and take it to whatever level you wish, however please acknowledge that thaivisa.com in itself does not lend its name to any lobby group or organisition that wishes to lobby against any establishment.

We are infact a bunch of pacifists well, all except Darknight, he seems to be a little on the proactive side

Thanks guys.

Please continue---

[The_Moog]

Erwin

Its down in my place in Jakarta - I didn't bring it over with me !!

Indonesians will do anything for money - and yet they're hyper-sensitive about it....(Well the educated people aren't - as they see it as a nice little earner !).

I was a bit pessimistic in my last post. Whilst I still don't think we'll see Moog's sole name on a Channot - or on a Thai Passport, some sort of extension to existing rights is certainly possible.

I wrote a piece on this issue for UPI once - making the point that mining companies were allowed to physically dig up parts of Indonesia and send them abroad, but foreingers couldn't own an acre of land. Which is something of a sublime paradox.

[gburns57au]

Can you imagine if they gave farangs the right to own land ????

Think about it.....

eventually it would destroy Thailand.....

Edited May 14, 2005 by gburns57au

[Rumpole]

Moog,

I know it is a 'difficult' issue. But there are examples in other SE Asian countries : Singapore and you cannot say that Sing as a colonized country, on the contrary.

Malaysia is opening up it's doors, albeit very slightly and hesitantly. The Phils have a relative easy retirement and marriage system and are currently considering expanding it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even China allows foreigners limited rights to buy property (you can even get a bank loan if you are married to a citizen), and the visa regulations are being simplified and streamlined. As someone mentioned on another thread, many expats in Thailand seem to be blissfully unaware of just how xenophobic the Thais really are.

Edited May 14, 2005 by Rumpole

[thai_norman]

20 posters have voted yes...

i bet you couldnt even get them to post there user names let alone their real names..

pls be realistic when you vote ppl

[Erwin1011]

As an aside,

Whilst thaivisa.com encourages debate, we do not always condone the subject of said debate.

This is an interesting topic, we all feel strongly about this so please feel free to pursue it and take it to whatever level you wish, however please acknowledge that thaivisa.com in itself does not lend its name to any lobby group or organisition that wishes to lobby against any establishment.

We are infact a bunch of pacifists    well, all except Darknight, he seems to be a little on the proactive side   

Thanks guys.

Please continue---

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Duly noted and acknowledged.

[Erwin1011]

20 posters have voted yes...

i bet you couldnt even get them to post there user names let alone their real names..

pls be realistic when you vote ppl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Along journey always starts with a single little step. ( Lao Tze, I think )

[peder.klockmann]

Whilst thaivisa.com encourages debate, we do not always condone the subject of said debate.

Count another vote cast for the yes category.

Would our cause need a website as to not point a finger in the pacifist direction of Thaivisa.com?

I have some spare time at work to lend a few hours every day.

[bino]

I voted yes- I'm all for trying and will lend whatever support is needed. After all if you don't ask the answer is always no!

But- I have my doubts and reservations.

I put the chances of success / foreigners ever being able to own Thai land as slim to none. Given the huge differences in buying power, it wouldn't take long before the foreigners did own Thailand! The Thai people are a very proud race, and this land has been theirs for centuries longer than most of our home nations have existed. I can't see them giving it up so easily. Part of me would feel bad taking it from them.

Can you imagine what would happen? Huge tracts of land would be subdivided into "farang sized" lots, and the prices would surely skyrocket. Marketing gobshites would be selling it overseas to people sight unseen. The land made available would probably be the least "desirable"- I'm sure that restrictions would be in place to prevent foreigners from owning prime urban land, or beachfront.

I'd love to own a piece of this beautiful country and call it my own, but am willing to settle for the proxy method and call it ours! The proxy in herself is definitely an excellent perk / asset, and the reason I want to stay here!

[Jeff1]

I have to agree with Bino , except that I vote NO . What I would like to see is , if a farang gets divorced he/she would get half their money back on a house / land purchased if desired .

[bino]

I have to agree with Bino , except that I vote NO . What I would like to see is , if a farang gets divorced he/she would get half their money back on a house / land purchased if desired .

This does exist- If the land is held by a company which is 51% Thai and 49% foreign. You are entitled to your 49% of company assets when it is sold.

The big catch is that there is no restriction on WHEN the land must be sold, and the 51% Thai shareholders can control this. Also- the Thai shareholder can control to WHOM the land is sold, and selling price. I heard a story about the 51% Thai owner selling the land to her sister for 1000 baht! Amazing Thailand.

Edited May 14, 2005 by bino

[roscoe]

sorry.not interested.i already own land (by proxy), and everything is kosha , given the proposition, i see no benefit for my personal situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

owning by proxy is to own nothing.

[roscoe]

has any of you seen this topic farang name on land title ??????????????????

if it's true ,good news?how did you vote I voted yes.

[penelope]

sorry.not interested.i already own land (by proxy), and everything is kosha , given the proposition, i see no benefit for my personal situation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

owning by proxy is to own nothing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well, my wife actually bought all the thai land.being married, we share the passive income the land/buildings produce.its a moot point really.there is more than 1 way to get yourself into a position to benefit from having land.for me, owning the land in my name would advance my cause no further.and i dont give a rats ass if joe bloggs farang down the road cant own land.maybe he should invest his time in acting on alternate ways to get land, rather than winging,moaning and hitting voting buttons.

[LaoPo]

Erwin1011,

although I was the one who brought up the idea of the 'Lobby' subject, I wonder what you think about the important topic 'Major Major' wrote on the 14th of May..

please have a look here:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...=0entry350979

Maybe we should discuss this item with him first, since it is important enough and he has, as a lawyer, a good point there.

If it all fits together, the Lobby would only be of any importance if we were to discuss and start it just for private individuals, as you already mentioned before, and not in the case Major Major describes.

best regards

LaoPo

[samran]

if the uk had had the same land ownership laws 50 years ago as thailand has now and the same immigration laws, the uk would surely be a better place for it, it would be a country to be proud of, now stores are not allowed to have a father xmas becos it may upset ethnic groups, blackboards are now called chalk boards, as its offensive to call a black painted piece of wood a black board, i for one think thailand is doing the right thing, and as with any laws there are always round them...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am assuming that you support the repatriation of all farangs from Thailand doing continual visa runs and others who are working illegally then. Maybe Thailand should make all farangs queue up at 6am in the rain to get a visa to travel to LOS......

I think immigrants care less about political correctness than the white middle class tree huggers with nothing better to do with their time who are the ones on telly moaning about all this stuff. Immigrants in the UK (like me) are too busy working hard and basically wanting to get on with life than give a toss about what something may/may not be called.

On more serious note, while I am all for the lifting of foriegn ownership restrictions, please realise that foriegn land ownership is the third rail of thai politics. Any politican who advocates it is on a one way trip to electoral oblivion. So be prepared to be treated as if you were a leper.

[Tarragona]

I would think anyone voting no is not a true lover of Thailand and it's people and are only here to see what they can get out of it. Goodbye no voters. We don't want or need you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And those voting 'yes' don't want to get anything out of it for themselves?

[lampard10]

20 posters have voted yes...

i bet you couldnt even get them to post there user names let alone their real names..

pls be realistic when you vote ppl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did...............If you're that interested I'll tell you what I had for breakfast as well. I hide nothing on this forum.

And Tarragona; you know well full what I meant. But if you want to play the hear no evil, see no evil role, I will explain it. Those who voted yes are willing to work together to make a new home more enjoyable to live in. Those who voted no, basically want the same thing,but they want others to do, and pay for it, for them.

Edited May 15, 2005 by lampard10