Land Dept Claims 90% Of Prime Phuket Land Controlled By Foreigners

[bino]

The Hiltons, Marriots and other major hotel players aren't going to be getting involved with the dirt-poor Thai people. They will be dealing with the above mentioned Chinese Thais who are wealthy enough to be actual "qualified investors" as nominees.

Yes that's true for large multinational conglomerates, but most of the posters on this forum are concerned about the regular "joe" that just wants to buy a house for his family. They don't have the luxury of a high paid law department looking out for their best interests. They're worried, should their property come under scrutiny, is there a possibility they could loose their investment. That's an legitimate concern.

Fair enough reply, and if I was in the situation of being a landowner that bought my property in a questionable way, I would probably be concerned also. But, the undisputed fact is that land can not be owned by non-nationals. Guys who live with a Thai wife should have nothing to fear if they have followed the correct procedure. Import the money from farangland, declaring it as a gift to her, or sinsod, or whatever, then sign the appropriate paperwork declaring that the money for the purchase was hers. She holds the chanote and holds the property legally as hers. Anyone who tries to circumvent the law or invested their life savings into a loophole in a country where laws and tolerances can be changed on a whim is foolish.

[Bkkorupcountry]

Some of the posters here are really a sad, pathetic bunch of whiners with little intelligence to boot.

Are you happy for foreigners to be owning land in your own countries, driving up the prices to the point that the locals can't afford to own land and properties anymore? If you are, a lot of your fellow countrymen aren't. In that respect, the Thai government is way ahead of your own governments. Land is a finite resource (let's exclude reclaimed land for the purposes of this argument) - it is the government's duty to try and ensure that the citizens of that country has a realistic chance of owning their own land. Many years ago, Lee Kuan Yew stated as a government objective that every Singaporean should own their own house? Why? In the event of an invasion by Malaysia, a house owner would fight to their death to protect their house.

You guys have a much higher standard of living in Thailand than you would ever have in your own country. That's the No. 1 reason that you are here. But you want your cake and eat it too. Sadly, that is seldom the way things work. If you have bought land "illegally" and subsequently have it confiscated, som nom na. If you bought land and built a house for your wife lose it as a result of a divorce, that's unfortunate but that's the way things work here (in the UK, you lose 50% of EVERYTHING (car, house, cash, equities etc), here you lose only your house - I reckon that's a better deal).

At least until that happens, you have a dutiful, obedient, subservient wife and not a farang woman.

[silk]

Does this mean that farangs that own a house in Thailand or I should i say borrow one have start worrying about losing everything and getting deported?

It is still too early to tell and there is point in worrying about what's not even a law yet. More will surface (or not) in the coming months. But if the house is in your Thai Wifes / gf's name there is no reason to worry.

Until she decides to kick you out of the house

[Leggar]

Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion.

Foreigners only control 90% of Phuket is you include Thai-Chinese as foreigners -in which case 90% of all land in Thailand is owned by foreginers!

and guess who it whose got their beady little eyes on the 'confiscated' lands? See above.

[starcatcher]

Funny -> more funny -> Thailand

The best would be, no one, who knows a farang, can buy land anymore (like the Thai wife/Farang husband story before about buying land).

I guess, it wont take long time, till one Thai blames another Thai (land owner) to have farang connections, because the first Thai want s to have the land as well.

Now many farangs developed land, which never was theirs anyway and some Thais simply not want to wait till those existing leasing contracts run out, as it would be great to have it now already back ($$$). Tough no foreigner really ownes anything. But just Thais, I guess, want to have such developed land right now.

Unbelievable in one way,but so typical in the other way

Edited July 2, 2011 by starcatcher

[Imkah]

Some of the posters here are really a sad, pathetic bunch of whiners with little intelligence to boot.

Are you happy for foreigners to be owning land in your own countries, driving up the prices to the point that the locals can't afford to own land and properties anymore? If you are, a lot of your fellow countrymen aren't. In that respect, the Thai government is way ahead of your own governments. Land is a finite resource (let's exclude reclaimed land for the purposes of this argument) - it is the government's duty to try and ensure that the citizens of that country has a realistic chance of owning their own land. Many years ago, Lee Kuan Yew stated as a government objective that every Singaporean should own their own house? Why? In the event of an invasion by Malaysia, a house owner would fight to their death to protect their house.

You guys have a much higher standard of living in Thailand than you would ever have in your own country. That's the No. 1 reason that you are here. But you want your cake and eat it too. Sadly, that is seldom the way things work. If you have bought land "illegally" and subsequently have it confiscated, som nom na. If you bought land and built a house for your wife lose it as a result of a divorce, that's unfortunate but that's the way things work here (in the UK, you lose 50% of EVERYTHING (car, house, cash, equities etc), here you lose only your house - I reckon that's a better deal).

At least until that happens, you have a dutiful, obedient, subservient wife and not a farang woman.

You started out allrigt about sad, pathetic and all that, and ended on a sour tone I hope is ironcal? Think so and applaud your thoughts.

[silk]

<br />

<br />There is no way I will ever put money into Thai assets, because I think it's inevitable that a government will find an excuse one day to seize it in the name of nationalism.<br />Dodgy people, dodgy institutions, dodgy laws, dodgy governments and politicians = foreigner beware.<br />

<br /><br />Same here! I would never buy land in this country. I've looked into that "nominee" system that lawyers claim is totally legit, but it seem suspect to me. You'd just be setting yourself up for disaster where you could potentially loose everything, unless you have millions of dollars stashed away off-shore somewhere.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Americans can buy land, up to a Rai of land, and have full ownership in their names by virtue of the Amity Treaty.

So the best way is farang marries an amarican farang and moves to Thailand

[osiboy]

I am also not clear on your line of thought either, so the retired individual who does not have a Thai wife and uses a Thai company with nominees to hold the land his house is on, is safe?

No....that is exactly who they are targeting. It seems harsh to be fair, and to what extent they will pursue that individual will probably be down to luck, or lack of. However the root of the problem is that foreigners cannot be in control of land in Thailand, effective or otherwise. There have been recent reports of people in Phuket being bled dry of their assets as the 51% shareholder nominee has salted the assets away. This is the brutal reality, if you give 51% nominee shareholding to someone else you may as well give them 100% and get on your knees and pray.

To invest in Thailand under this law is ridiculous, anyone in the process of doing so, please stop. Anyone who has, please look carefully at how you are going to extricate yourself. There's no point huffing and puffing, this is harsh and brutal reality, you control nothing, and risk everything.

This is not quite accurate. A company can own land legally but it has to be a real, working company. Forming a company with the sole intention of owning land is illegal. And it is possible to control the land, to grow it and benefit from what it gives. And also to build on it. Look at a form for a usufruct.

yeah,..ok,..look at it,.. but dont invest,.. you have just read the headlines that thais want to rip off farang more than before !!!................is this possible ?................... invest in a TRUE democracy WITH REAL JUSTICE............Just come for a good holiday and see what thais can think of to create their own businesses,.........maybe selling sausages or laundery for the thai -chinese, or a dirty bar with no toilet , or a dirty toilet with no bar !!, lets face it ,... they are not the most imaginative of races,... if they did'nt copy, they would only have somtam & soup !!

[notime]

Well, well well .. if such new law is being drafted by the current government, if the current government allows this kind of ill-informed warmongering and hate-speech against the foreigners than ... as much as Mr. Thaksin appears dis-likable to me, I'm going to ask all my Thai "family" who still don't know who to vote for, to cast their votes for PT later today. Democrats didn't do anything for Farang's equality in their term, they didn't manage to heal, inspire and move the country and it may be time for them to go.

[thaiwanderer]

Well, well well .. if such new law is being drafted by the current government, if the current government allows this kind of ill-informed warmongering and hate-speech against the foreigners than ... as much as Mr. Thaksin appears dis-likable to me, I'm going to ask all my Thai "family" who still don't know who to vote for, to cast their votes for PT later today. Democrats didn't do anything for Farang's equality in their term, they didn't manage to heal, inspire and move the country and it may be time for them to go.

erm, there is no government currently?

this 'crackdown' will be no different than the last one or the one before that or the one before that etc

those whose structures are so weak as to be concerned by an investigation deserve to lose out when the time eventually comes

this thread is a classic example of how farangs often vastly over estimate their contribution to this country or any reliance of it on them

[PingManDan]

so the 40 people who own 12% of Thailand's wealth want a bit more?

i seem to remember something like this emerging from Phuket before - methinks some official has got a bit of a complex? (forgive the pun)

Yes that sounds about right to me, with todays present Government in Thailand, it is all about the rich Thai, from the PM on down the slide, todays vote will hopefully put an end to all this type of c_rap.

[Chua]

All Thai people who currently own land need to realize that the value of their land is at stake in this situation. The resale value of their land would be slashed dramatically if a significant segment of the market was eliminated. It is simple supply and demand economics.

If it is really the case that a significant percentage of Thai land is controlled by foreigners and that segment of the market has their land confiscated or is forced to sell, then this will have the tragic consequences for all legitimate Thai owners. In order for property prices to remain stable and Thai investors to realize a gain on their real estate investments, the market needs the same or *more* buyers, and increased capital inflow, not the opposite. Thailand's Xenophobic, protectionist tendencies are archaic and actually hurt the Thai economy. Investors are quite hesitant to invest in any asset unless they know they will have some serious degree of control over that asset. Therefore, Thailand must seriously re-evaluate the outdated notion that foreigners should not be allowed to directly invest in Thai property. Why are Thai investors any better for Thailand than foreign investors? Does being born in this country somehow make them inherently loyal or lacking in corruption. Looking at certain recent Thai political leaders, it seems quite the opposite is true. Yet, many foreigners chose to leave their home countries forever because they love Thailand and Thai people -- many of these people are fiercely loyal to Thailand.

Most all first world nations, including the USA have allowed direct ownership of land by foreigners for years; this has not hurt food production there at all. However, regardless, if that is a concern for Thailand, then they should have special protections for rice fields and farmland. But ownership of beachfront property in Phuket has no relationship whatsoever to food production.

Thailand made the right move a few years ago when the government created the condominium act, wherein foreigners can directly own up to 49% of the units in a condo complex with the other 51% owned by Thais. That has brought in countless billions of baht to Thailand from foreigners who otherwise would never have invested here. This is all good for the Thai economy. Why not offer additional special options for foreigners along these same lines in order to promote sales of larger, higher-end real estate. For example, why not allow developers who meet certain requirements to build communities of homes/villas for which 49% of those properties can be sold to foreigners directly in their own name, so long as the other 51% of those homes are sold to Thais.

Additionally, the Thai legislature should enact laws to further protect Thai people's right to enter into long-term leases or renewals of a land lease. Currently, Thai leases are limited to just 30 years, which is much too short a time for any investor to be interested. Even 90 years is too short, because it means that once inherited by the lessee's children, their possession of the property may terminate in the middle of their life. Therefore, leases can only have approximately the same value as ownership if their length can be long enough to protect subsequent inheritance by the lessee's heirs. Leases should be protected by statute for as many terms as the Thai owner wants to offer -- this will have the effect of increasing the value of their property and increasing the capital inflow to Thailand. Since under a lease the property remains owned by a Thai person, there are no ownership issues, so the government needs to codify these inherent rights of the Thai land owners, providing a law which clearly states they have the right to renew their lease any number of times they wish, or more simply, offer a lease of any length they want. The Thai land owner's right to offer a lease of say, 180 years or whatever term they want, should be legislatively protected.

[Gonsalviz]

my Thai gf just said that she want Thailand be Thai not Farang ! well maybe they should have thought bout that when they issued visa's to come here! and spend our coin !

Funny, I want Thailand to be Thai also. If all of Thailand was like Pattaya and Phuket I'd just go back home.

[Gonsalviz]

I have no sympathy for foreigner investors who get screwed here in Thailand. Everybody knows the deal here. Even if this news break is 'tongue in cheek' foreigners have always been banned from owning land/ property . Try and and make it all legal through fancy names,accountants,lawyers and companies and this is what could happen. This is not the generous west ,This is Thailand.<BR>Thaksin is about to be re-elected by proxy and you can bet he will demand 46 billion baht be returned pronto! This country belongs to the rich Chinese- Thais. not us farangs. The only thing a western man can do legally in Thailand is marry a poor Isan girl and the government will gladly give you a worthless marriage certificate and her a Thai passport for passage to Europe. Take a useless isan wife to Europe and get her to send money back to Thailand every month. Farangs are considered a joke here .

Apparently you are dense. The issue at hand is that they are talking about making businesses that are legitimate, illegitimate by re writing the law.

All is for naught though. This is just another ill thought out diversion.

[Gonsalviz]

I did better than that. I built the house on land the wife already owned.

I did something stupid'r than that, I bought land that my girlfriend's family already owned. Of coarse I didn't find out 'till after we broke up.

Your method is probably one of the safest ways to build a house. I believe a Thai woman looses her right to own property once she marries a falang (at least that used to be the case), but I'm not sure if that is proactive. Maybe some of our lawyer friends on the forum can clear that up.

Yeah, that's a good one alright. But there are good and bad everywhere.

Used to be she lost the right to own land.but not anymore.

[Gonsalviz]

I wonder how this will affect married couples. The authorities know that when a foreigner marries a poor Thai woman, and they buy a house together, which is put in her name, that the money came from the foreigner. I suppose we all have to find ways to make it look like the money came from her. The silly consequence is that if the land is confiscated, the Thai wife will lose both her home and husband. .....

If a Foreigner marries a Thai girl and they buy land/house in the Thai Wifes name, the foreigner has to sign a document at the Land Office (when the House / Land is transferred from 1 owner to another) that states, that the money to buy the house/land was from the Wife before they got married. So I don't see a problem there.

I did better than that. I built the house on land the wife already owned.

If she kicks you out, you can't pack your house into your suitcase either

I suggest you read about usufruct.

[MaiChai]

LOL....anyone who invests 1 cent in the idiotic Country is a complete numbskull..from the stockmarket down to the dirt you will be screwed 1 way or another

I think this is it in a nutshell. In fact have been there and done that (been screwed). This is a country when the rich and powerful control everything. Thus don't expect to be able to compete against them. Keep your money, rent, enjoy yourself here, and never, never, never forget you are just a visitor.

[tropo]

Funny, I want Thailand to be Thai also. If all of Thailand was like Pattaya and Phuket I'd just go back home.

No Pattaya or Phuket in Thailand - I'd probably already be back at home.

I would say leave "real Thailand" for the Thais.

Edited July 2, 2011 by tropo

[stanley2550]

Mr Sriracha said foreigners had already acquired about one-third of all Thai land, about one billion rai.

Are you serious?

[stanley2550]

Well what good for the Goose is certainly good for the Gander: Every country in the west should nationalize all foreign investments that the Thai People have that are not citizens of the any country in the west, and deport the Thails. Whats fair is fair.

[housepainter]

The point is that it will be legislation soon because the elite Thais will support it. The reason being that they stand to gain most from the repossessed land and homes and businesses; all illegally. That is the fact. It is illegally held.

The law has been ignored and farangs have foolishly comitted themselves despite this day of reckoning coming one day. Now is the time. Added to that is the fact that Wicki leaks has revealed how the Us views the Russian money laundering mafia here, along with other international mafia and cheap wanna be gangsters.

The quiet ultimatum given to the Thais is to enact its land laws, even strengthen them, but seize the assets and deport the corrupt farangs. The Thais don't take much persuading as they tend to gain immense wealth from it. Conversely, farangs will lose all they invested.

It should be highly entertaining watching it happen. I always believed the attraction of stunning villas would always be the target for the Thais to work some flim-flam land grab in order to move in.

Foreigners ignored the law, set up those bogus companies with no employees, stock, staff or taxes paid.

Is it any wonder then that the day of reckoning has come?

[johnnyk]

I thought the prime land was owned by Mr. Marriott, Mr. H. Oliday Inn, Mr. S.O. Fitel, Mr. Hyatt and similar others.

[thaiwanderer]

All Thai people who currently own land need to realize that the value of their land is at stake in this situation. The resale value of their land would be slashed dramatically if a significant segment of the market was eliminated. It is simple supply and demand economics.

- Assuming the official wasn't just chest beating (he was) any fall in value would be from an inflated foreigner price anyway so who cares?

If it is really the case that a significant percentage of Thai land is controlled by foreigners and that segment of the market has their land confiscated or is forced to sell, then this will have the tragic consequences for all legitimate Thai owners. In order for property prices to remain stable and Thai investors to realize a gain on their real estate investments, the market needs the same or *more* buyers, and increased capital inflow, not the opposite. Thailand's Xenophobic, protectionist tendencies are archaic and actually hurt the Thai economy.

- Its actually corruption which hurts the 'Thai economy' most but those with the power are only interested in helping their own economies.

Investors are quite hesitant to invest in any asset unless they know they will have some serious degree of control over that asset.

- The foreigner section of the Thai real estate markets shows there is no such hesitancy.

Therefore, Thailand must seriously re-evaluate the outdated notion that foreigners should not be allowed to directly invest in Thai property. Why are Thai investors any better for Thailand than foreign investors? Does being born in this country somehow make them inherently loyal or lacking in corruption.

- It's protectionism for the sake of interested parties. There is no need to re-evaluate anything (seriously or otherwise) for as long as the right Thai pockets get filled.

Looking at certain recent Thai political leaders, it seems quite the opposite is true.

- Only recent political leaders and what about other types of leaders?

Yet, many foreigners chose to leave their home countries forever because they love Thailand and Thai people -- many of these people are fiercely loyal to Thailand.

- So loyal they break the law. Even if they were loyal who cares what they think?

Most all first world nations, including the USA have allowed direct ownership of land by foreigners for years; this has not hurt food production there at all. However, regardless, if that is a concern for Thailand, then they should have special protections for rice fields and farmland. But ownership of beachfront property in Phuket has no relationship whatsoever to food production.

- Sovereignty allows for differing and non-reciprocal laws. As to the mention of the USA they are hardly the paradigm.

Thailand made the right move a few years ago when the government created the condominium act, wherein foreigners can directly own up to 49% of the units in a condo complex with the other 51% owned by Thais.

- Unit floor space not units.

That has brought in countless billions of baht to Thailand from foreigners who otherwise would never have invested here.

- It's not 'countless' and is not that significant anyway. You overstae the importance of condos.

This is all good for the Thai economy. Why not offer additional special options for foreigners along these same lines in order to promote sales of larger, higher-end real estate. For example, why not allow developers who meet certain requirements to build communities of homes/villas for which 49% of those properties can be sold to foreigners directly in their own name, so long as the other 51% of those homes are sold to Thais.

- Because they can't be trusted, they already can't refrain from breaking the current law.

Additionally, the Thai legislature should enact laws to further protect Thai people's right to enter into long-term leases or renewals of a land lease. Currently, Thai leases are limited to just 30 years, which is much too short a time for any investor to be interested. Even 90 years is too short, because it means that once inherited by the lessee's children, their possession of the property may terminate in the middle of their life. Therefore, leases can only have approximately the same value as ownership if their length can be long enough to protect subsequent inheritance by the lessee's heirs. Leases should be protected by statute for as many terms as the Thai owner wants to offer -- this will have the effect of increasing the value of their property and increasing the capital inflow to Thailand. Since under a lease the property remains owned by a Thai person, there are no ownership issues, so the government needs to codify these inherent rights of the Thai land owners, providing a law which clearly states they have the right to renew their lease any number of times they wish, or more simply, offer a lease of any length they want. The Thai land owner's right to offer a lease of say, 180 years or whatever term they want, should be legislatively protected.

- Why 'should' they? Foreigners have bought without longer leases. Sure more could be sold but can you imagine the THB price given the already hyper inflated figures for dwindling assets. Set that off against the price of giving foreigners anymore rights and comfort and you'll see why it won't happen.

[Keng11]

No worries in Australia,

We have already sold off the land to foreigners such as the Hong Kong Chinese.

And all quite legally!

YES & not to mention the cattle property's & the mines being bought with the blessing

of the brain dead government.

[rufanuf]

The whining here is quite ridiculous. Everyone understood that the intent of Thai law was to prevent foreigner ownership of Thai land. So, some foreigners cleverly set up their fake companies to exploit a supposed loophole allowing them to violate the expressed intent of Thai law. And, lo and behold, eventually the Thais get around to fixing the loophole and punishing the foreigners. Seemed inevitable to me. Foreigners don't have a right to own Thai land. Period. If you want to own land buy it somewhere else. The same thing happened in Mexico where foreigners were not allowed to own oceanfront land. But the law wasn't enforced. Americans loved buying up oceanfront property in Mexico because it was so cheap! Then one day the Mexican government confiscated it all. There were a lot of weeping gringos in those days.

If western countries would consider the well being of their most intelligent and driven citizens then none of this would be a problem. First off a lot of those foriegners wouldn't be living here in the first place, secondly, if western governments simply passed laws of "reciprocation" for the citizens of nations, then it would be easy to make Thailand's elite rule makers reconsider their views on foriegn ownership of land. The "reciprocity bill/act" would simply state the follow:-

"No citizen of a foreign land shall be entitled to rights or privelages that are beyond those afforded foreigners in their own country of citizenship"....just imagine how that would reshape the world!!!!

Edited July 2, 2011 by rufanuf

[atyclb]

You can legally marry rich Thai- Chinese woman as well.

I had a friend that did this. The family scrutinized his financial status to a degree that would even impress the IRS, it took about 2 years just to get into her pants, and the marriage lasted all of 1 year.

Very unusual cause usually wealthy woman will pre-qualify a guy before dating begins and because she isn't worried about "eating today" will be quite forward with an intimate relationship. She can base the relationship on mutual enjoyment of each others company and not financial gain. The way it should be.

[Chupup]

I don't mind it so much if they aim this at the big greedy mongrels and take their hotels off them, as long as they divide the land in such a way that it helps Thailand's underpaid and over-worked people<br>But i have a feeling they will just give it to the same rich souless types that have a Thai heritage instead if western.<br>It does sound like a land grab.<br>But on the other side of the coin, as someone said earlier, we in Australia have also lost a lot of our prime land to foreigners, not only Asian but English, and other European national companies.<br>And because of this many of our children will never be able to own their own homes because the developers have driven up the prices of properties.<br>If the world wants to do something positive then stop the wrong type of people buying and developing land, and don't worry about what country the owners come from.<br>

what an absolute load of rubbish

[thaiwanderer]

The whining here is quite ridiculous. Everyone understood that the intent of Thai law was to prevent foreigner ownership of Thai land. So, some foreigners cleverly set up their fake companies to exploit a supposed loophole allowing them to violate the expressed intent of Thai law. And, lo and behold, eventually the Thais get around to fixing the loophole and punishing the foreigners. Seemed inevitable to me. Foreigners don't have a right to own Thai land. Period. If you want to own land buy it somewhere else. The same thing happened in Mexico where foreigners were not allowed to own oceanfront land. But the law wasn't enforced. Americans loved buying up oceanfront property in Mexico because it was so cheap! Then one day the Mexican government confiscated it all. There were a lot of weeping gringos in those days.

If western countries would consider the well being of their most intelligent and driven citizens then none of this would be a problem. First off a lot of those foriegners wouldn't be living here in the first place, secondly, if western governments simply passed laws of "reciprocation" for the citizens of nations, then it would be easy to make Thailand's elite rule makers reconsider their views on foriegn ownership of land. The "reciprocity bill/act" would simply state the follow:-

"No citizen of a foreign land shall be entitled to rights or privelages that are beyond those afforded foreigners in their own country of citizenship"....just imagine how that would reshape the world!!!!

You jest? On the whole the standard of foreigners in Thailand leaves a lot to be desired.

[doji]

You can legally marry rich Thai- Chinese woman as well.

I had a friend that did this. The family scrutinized his financial status to a degree that would even impress the IRS, it took about 2 years just to get into her pants, and the marriage lasted all of 1 year.

Very unusual cause usually wealthy woman will pre-qualify a guy before dating begins and because she isn't worried about "eating today" will be quite forward with an intimate relationship. She can base the relationship on mutual enjoyment of each others company and not financial gain. The way it should be.

I agee.....and rich thai chinese women don't need to use sex anywhere anytime to trap a farang to stay with her.

Somehow I very much doubt his story is real.....or they could split up from the totally diff causes than what he thinks

[MaiChai]

All Thai people who currently own land need to realize that the value of their land is at stake in this situation. The resale value of their land would be slashed dramatically if a significant segment of the market was eliminated. It is simple supply and demand economics.

- Assuming the official wasn't just chest beating (he was) any fall in value would be from an inflated foreigner price anyway so who cares?

If it is really the case that a significant percentage of Thai land is controlled by foreigners and that segment of the market has their land confiscated or is forced to sell, then this will have the tragic consequences for all legitimate Thai owners. In order for property prices to remain stable and Thai investors to realize a gain on their real estate investments, the market needs the same or *more* buyers, and increased capital inflow, not the opposite. Thailand's Xenophobic, protectionist tendencies are archaic and actually hurt the Thai economy.

- Its actually corruption which hurts the 'Thai economy' most but those with the power are only interested in helping their own economies.

Investors are quite hesitant to invest in any asset unless they know they will have some serious degree of control over that asset.

- The foreigner section of the Thai real estate markets shows there is no such hesitancy.

Therefore, Thailand must seriously re-evaluate the outdated notion that foreigners should not be allowed to directly invest in Thai property. Why are Thai investors any better for Thailand than foreign investors? Does being born in this country somehow make them inherently loyal or lacking in corruption.

- It's protectionism for the sake of interested parties. There is no need to re-evaluate anything (seriously or otherwise) for as long as the right Thai pockets get filled.

Looking at certain recent Thai political leaders, it seems quite the opposite is true.

- Only recent political leaders and what about other types of leaders?

Yet, many foreigners chose to leave their home countries forever because they love Thailand and Thai people -- many of these people are fiercely loyal to Thailand.

- So loyal they break the law. Even if they were loyal who cares what they think?

Most all first world nations, including the USA have allowed direct ownership of land by foreigners for years; this has not hurt food production there at all. However, regardless, if that is a concern for Thailand, then they should have special protections for rice fields and farmland. But ownership of beachfront property in Phuket has no relationship whatsoever to food production.

- Sovereignty allows for differing and non-reciprocal laws. As to the mention of the USA they are hardly the paradigm.

Thailand made the right move a few years ago when the government created the condominium act, wherein foreigners can directly own up to 49% of the units in a condo complex with the other 51% owned by Thais.

- Unit floor space not units.

That has brought in countless billions of baht to Thailand from foreigners who otherwise would never have invested here.

- It's not 'countless' and is not that significant anyway. You overstae the importance of condos.

This is all good for the Thai economy. Why not offer additional special options for foreigners along these same lines in order to promote sales of larger, higher-end real estate. For example, why not allow developers who meet certain requirements to build communities of homes/villas for which 49% of those properties can be sold to foreigners directly in their own name, so long as the other 51% of those homes are sold to Thais.

- Because they can't be trusted, they already can't refrain from breaking the current law.

Additionally, the Thai legislature should enact laws to further protect Thai people's right to enter into long-term leases or renewals of a land lease. Currently, Thai leases are limited to just 30 years, which is much too short a time for any investor to be interested. Even 90 years is too short, because it means that once inherited by the lessee's children, their possession of the property may terminate in the middle of their life. Therefore, leases can only have approximately the same value as ownership if their length can be long enough to protect subsequent inheritance by the lessee's heirs. Leases should be protected by statute for as many terms as the Thai owner wants to offer -- this will have the effect of increasing the value of their property and increasing the capital inflow to Thailand. Since under a lease the property remains owned by a Thai person, there are no ownership issues, so the government needs to codify these inherent rights of the Thai land owners, providing a law which clearly states they have the right to renew their lease any number of times they wish, or more simply, offer a lease of any length they want. The Thai land owner's right to offer a lease of say, 180 years or whatever term they want, should be legislatively protected.

- Why 'should' they? Foreigners have bought without longer leases. Sure more could be sold but can you imagine the THB price given the already hyper inflated figures for dwindling assets. Set that off against the price of giving foreigners anymore rights and comfort and you'll see why it won't happen.

Big assumption here is the Thai thinks logically like the Westerner. This where the argument breaks down. Most Thais will think about whats in it for them before they think about the greater good (like the country or benefit to Thai people). You can be sure some Thais will personally benefit from a land grab back from foreigners. The foreigners will loose their investment and more than likely the transfer of ownership will quietly happen at a considerably less than market price. Some involved in this will most certainly sell the land on and make a sizeable profit. So like most things in Thailand this is about money, with a small handful of people benefiting. The foreigner with no rights is an easy target. Even Abhisit with his British upbringing and education has to bend his ways to the Thai mindset.

Edited July 3, 2011 by MaiChai