Crackdown On Land Owned By Foreign Residents

[smedly]

Oh dear..........If they start investigating the funding sources of a lot of these deals there will be a lot of problems for a lot of people......and if someone decide's it's a good way to get rich on the cheap then dive for cover!!

exactly why I rent here, I don't trust them, they change laws charters regulations like it's a kindergarden full of spoilt brats - just wait until the big reconcilliation happens (Thaksin's return) later this year - how he believes that this is reconcilliation is beyond me, it will be the most destabalising event to hit this country for decades - could even lead to civil war and if another very important member of Thai society passes then we are in deep deep dodo

[Unwisemonkey]

The problem is with us the Foreigners. We actually zealously believe in the rule of law. We would much rather own the land, pay taxes and report extortion and to make life better for Thai's. In my time here I've seen Thai's trying to scam and extort other Thai's more often then foreigners. I have my own set of problems here too but when I see people grifting their own that really gets my blood boiling. I don't want to change Thai culture. I just want Thai culture to benefit from itself. If all these street vendors paid taxes, or a flat tax or whatever that could benefit social programs, how awesome would that be?

More on topic, land ownership is essential to a free society which Thailand asserts it is. It is possible here to be creative and find ways around these restrictions if you are already wealthy or have the capital to back it up, but the lack of ownership absolutely is economic injustice as a foreigner is not allowed to leverage the land to grow his business or personal assets further. I think at the heart of it is that most foreigners of a particular class are more aware of investment vehicles and how to utilize them then your average Thai of that same class distinction. If the riff raff start learning how to do this from their foreign neighbors and rising up, well that would just upset the whole status quo.

[bobdown1]

The rent is so cheap in this country I dont see any need to buy a property. If i dont like my neighbors i just move to another rented property

Thats the way i look at it.

[Reasonableman]

Saving the land for future generations of Thai people? What about saving the land in England for future generations of English people?

What are English people? Seems that they are Indian, Pakistani, Caribbean, African, you name it. So who are Thai people? Is Thaksin Thai people? Just a thought.

The Brits are paying the price for that global empire they once had. Canada is full of Indians and Hong Kong Chinese because they could freely immigrate through the empire.

<deleted>?

[airconsult]

The rent is so cheap in this country I dont see any need to buy a property. If i dont like my neighbors i just move to another rented property

Thats the way i look at it.

Each to his own. I love my wife's house. Good neighbours, so quiet you can hear the birds and crickets (not traffic), and 20 minutes travel time by train into the city.

As the law stands now, if anything terrible happened, I am at the mercy of the in-laws (to a degree). Fortunately as he's an ex-governor, they have a healthy income from his pension and rental property investments over the years.

[Reasonableman]

The rent is so cheap in this country I dont see any need to buy a property. If i dont like my neighbors i just move to another rented property

Thats the way i look at it.

Cheap is all relative I guess. Cheap in relation to expendable income, cheap compared with other countries, etc.

But not everyone has that luxury, and it is a stratagem, not a solution, and only then if you can afford it. To start somewhere to redress this injustice (IMO), I would suggest that if you are a permanent resident of good standing, married, have children, a reasonable job with income (or other regular income, such as superannuation/pension), and have lived in Thailand for a reasonable period (say 5-10 years), you should be able to buy land in your own name.

[jpp2bkk]

One third (if not more) of Sriracha Charoenpanit brain (if any) is occupied by stupidity

[Nisa]

Is it really to the point of not being able to honestly recognize facts if they don't bash Thailand or Thais?

Of near 200 countries in the World Thailand rates in the top 15 for International Tourism and or 3rd in all the Asia Pacific Region. Clearly there should be no arguing it is considered a top tourist destinations and that the number of arriving international) tourists .continues to trend up ... not down as so many people wish or want to believe.

Relax, I was not Thailand-bashing, just feeling a bit pedantic before my second cup of coffee. Thanks for the clarification, but you did see my point? TAT should never be satisfied with "Hey! we're in the top 15!!!" They should always be working for more.

And back on-topic, why should Thailand be satisfied with the current level of foreign investment, when by relaxing foreign ownership laws, that investment may turn into a flood, leading to much greater economic growth.

Or, if the wish of the Thai people is not to become richer, fair enough, how about respecting the Human Rights of foreign spouses?

Cheers

EDIT - d*mn quote bug again! Is anyone working on that?

Foreigners buying land in Thailand is much to do with protecting Thai citizens to be able to afford to buy land and homes. The way the laws are now has already created a significant rise in prices in some parts of the country but if they opened up this avenue of investment it would have a devastating impact on Thais given their current economic stage.

[Chua]

Some facts:

The American Amity treaty has nothing to do with land ownership. The Amity treaty with America allows US citizens to own up to 100% of a Thai company, but those Thai companies are restricted from certain types of business operations, including land ownership.

There is a special rule allowing wealthy foreigners (those investing 40 million THB into Thai businesses or markets) to directly own up to 1 Rai of land, but this is subject to approval of the Interior Ministry and is usually only granted for multinational business owners, ambassadors and other diplomatic/political figures.

If a farrang married to a Thai purchases a land in Thailand, the land can only be in the name of the Thai spouse plus the farrang must sign a document stating that all the money used for the purchase belongs to the Thai spouse. The foreigner is not in any way the owner of such property. In the event of a divorce, the foreigner has no rights and no claim for the property. In the event of the death of the Thai spouse with no other surviving Thai relatives, the property must be sold within 1 year some other Thai entity.

The process of using Thai Nominees within land owning companies who are not legitimate Thai partners is already illegal under Thai law. In the last several years, land office officials have routinely been checking the Thai shareholders within land owning companies for much more carefully.

If a foreigner has legitimate Thai partners, they may legally own up to 49% of a Thai land owning company, but that doesn't mean they own 49% of the land. It means they are a minority shareholder in a Thai company, while the Thai company is the entity which owns the land. That's a big difference.

There are also perfectly legal and legitimate Thai condos which can be owned 100% directly in a foreigner's name. The foreigner only has a fractional share of interest in the underlying land -- a tenancy in common -- yet in aggregate, the foreign ownership of any condo complex cannot be greater than 49%, and the foreigner has no right to any specific piece of the land and can do nothing with it, other than the space within the condo apartment itself.

Foreigners can also own leasehold property (with lease terms up to 30 years, potentially renewable) directly in their own name, however, that is not ownership, it is a limited term lease.

-----

To the extent that foreigners have invested in Thai property, this is a very good thing for the Thai economy and Thai real estate owners because it directly supports the Thai real estate market. Think for a second what would happen if foreigners who have already invested in the Thai real estate market were forced to sell? Hypothetically, if that happened, there would be an increase in supply of real estate and the reduced demand (because land investment would then be limited to Thais only). Economy 101: increased supply + reduced demand, results in a marker crash; the Thai real estate market would plummet to all time lows. All the other existing Thai property owners would see their property values incur a huge loss -- and most of this land is owned by very wealthy, influential, and powerful Thai people. They would never stand for such a thing and thus for this reason, you will never see any new restrictions on foreign ownership of land; it is already quite restricted. To the contrary, the general trend, with the failure of the previously proposed amendments to FBA (which would have restricted foreign voting rights in Thai companies), the recent condo act law which allows foreign ownership of that type of property along with the plan currently being discussed in parliament to allow 100-year leases to foreigners are quite helpful and supportive of the Thai real estate market and the overall Thai economy. This trend is moving in a positive direction.

Now Thailand is beginning to wake up and realize that in order to be a viable economic power in the world today, it needs an infusion of foreign capital investment and thus must compete with other countries to attract that capital. This means it is important to move away from isolationist protectionism and towards a more constructive, attractive, favourable environment; one where foreigners will feel more confident and comfortable bringing their money into Thailand.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Chua

[Jawnie]

....hehe...more of the marvelous Thai-style Love/Hate relationship with the rest of the world...

[Thai at Heart]

Is it really to the point of not being able to honestly recognize facts if they don't bash Thailand or Thais?

Of near 200 countries in the World Thailand rates in the top 15 for International Tourism and or 3rd in all the Asia Pacific Region. Clearly there should be no arguing it is considered a top tourist destinations and that the number of arriving international) tourists .continues to trend up ... not down as so many people wish or want to believe.

Relax, I was not Thailand-bashing, just feeling a bit pedantic before my second cup of coffee. Thanks for the clarification, but you did see my point? TAT should never be satisfied with "Hey! we're in the top 15!!!" They should always be working for more.

And back on-topic, why should Thailand be satisfied with the current level of foreign investment, when by relaxing foreign ownership laws, that investment may turn into a flood, leading to much greater economic growth.

Or, if the wish of the Thai people is not to become richer, fair enough, how about respecting the Human Rights of foreign spouses?

Cheers

EDIT - d*mn quote bug again! Is anyone working on that?

Foreigners buying land in Thailand is much to do with protecting Thai citizens to be able to afford to buy land and homes. The way the laws are now has already created a significant rise in prices in some parts of the country but if they opened up this avenue of investment it would have a devastating impact on Thais given their current economic stage.

Why not take all the land in the country and give it away to the entire population?

[Nisa]

The problem is with us the Foreigners. We actually zealously believe in the rule of law.

<snip>

More on topic, land ownership is essential to a free society which Thailand asserts it is. It is possible here to be creative and find ways around these restrictions if you are already wealthy

<snip>

I find the first statement at odds with the last statement above.

As for Thailand asserting itself as a free society ... Thailand is for the most part of free society but it has never in my mind been implied that it wanted foreigners to immigrate and be part of that society. Opening its borders to immigration is a completely different story and one might want to look around the current world to see how that is working out in many places in the west.

[Reasonableman]

The problem is with us the Foreigners. We actually zealously believe in the rule of law.

<snip>

More on topic, land ownership is essential to a free society which Thailand asserts it is. It is possible here to be creative and find ways around these restrictions if you are already wealthy

<snip>

Thailand is for the most part of free society but it has never in my mind been implied that it wanted foreigners to immigrate and be part of that society. Opening its borders to immigration is a completely different story and one might want to look around the current world to see how that is working out in many places in the west.

Just Chinese, Indians, Sri Lankans, Burmese, Cambodians, Indonesians and other Asians. Don't you think that it is racist to pick and choose based on skin color and similarity of other physical characteristics?

[airconsult]

Is it really to the point of not being able to honestly recognize facts if they don't bash Thailand or Thais?

Of near 200 countries in the World Thailand rates in the top 15 for International Tourism and or 3rd in all the Asia Pacific Region. Clearly there should be no arguing it is considered a top tourist destinations and that the number of arriving international) tourists .continues to trend up ... not down as so many people wish or want to believe.

Relax, I was not Thailand-bashing, just feeling a bit pedantic before my second cup of coffee. Thanks for the clarification, but you did see my point? TAT should never be satisfied with "Hey! we're in the top 15!!!" They should always be working for more.

And back on-topic, why should Thailand be satisfied with the current level of foreign investment, when by relaxing foreign ownership laws, that investment may turn into a flood, leading to much greater economic growth.

Or, if the wish of the Thai people is not to become richer, fair enough, how about respecting the Human Rights of foreign spouses?

Cheers

EDIT - d*mn quote bug again! Is anyone working on that?

Foreigners buying land in Thailand is much to do with protecting Thai citizens to be able to afford to buy land and homes. The way the laws are now has already created a significant rise in prices in some parts of the country but if they opened up this avenue of investment it would have a devastating impact on Thais given their current economic stage.

I disagree, I think that that thinking is what keeps Thai citizens in "their current economic stage". If the land is sold (and there is property taxes), then the land must be developed to generate a return. More money flows in to develop the land, that money stays in the country as it is used for builders, and then in jobs for people later. Meanwhile the government is getting a tax on the land sale, taxes on the development, taxes on the workers. The people developing and working locally spend that money inside Thailand...

As an example, I met a farmer from South-West Queensland one time who owned a large amount of land and raised cattle for Beef. He used to earn about 100,000aud per year net. Which is a pretty poor return for what amounted to over 10 million AUD of assets. One day a large Japanese company came to him and asked to buy his property for 12 million, he was hesitant, as he was the third generation to own the farm, but agreed when they also guaranteed him an initial 10 year contract as farm manager for 120,000aud per year.

You might think the Japanese company was being silly -offering him a package worth 15 million when he could only generate 100,000 per year, but they had a plan - they invested more with the stock breeding, then ended up selling the beef in Japan for 120aud per kg compared to the 20aud per kg the farmer had been getting locally.

And everyone paid their tax, and all was good. (end of bedtime story)

Cheers

[Nisa]

Is it really to the point of not being able to honestly recognize facts if they don't bash Thailand or Thais?

Of near 200 countries in the World Thailand rates in the top 15 for International Tourism and or 3rd in all the Asia Pacific Region. Clearly there should be no arguing it is considered a top tourist destinations and that the number of arriving international) tourists .continues to trend up ... not down as so many people wish or want to believe.

Relax, I was not Thailand-bashing, just feeling a bit pedantic before my second cup of coffee. Thanks for the clarification, but you did see my point? TAT should never be satisfied with "Hey! we're in the top 15!!!" They should always be working for more.

And back on-topic, why should Thailand be satisfied with the current level of foreign investment, when by relaxing foreign ownership laws, that investment may turn into a flood, leading to much greater economic growth.

Or, if the wish of the Thai people is not to become richer, fair enough, how about respecting the Human Rights of foreign spouses?

Cheers

EDIT - d*mn quote bug again! Is anyone working on that?

How in the world are the human rights of Thai spouses effected by this topic???? There is NOTHING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that infringes on her right to be a homeowner by marrying a farang .. in fact, chances are greatly increased she can become a homeowner.

And if Thailand's tourism continues to grow at the steady pace it has over the last decades then it would certainly seem to indicate they are improving despite all the doom and gloom opinions here. Protecting one's people and nation has nothing to do with not wanting tourism. Should the US and UK allow anyone from from almost any country (including Thailand) to visit on a 30-day visa exempt waiver or do you think maybe this might go against the greater good of their citizens? But who knows, maybe they don't want to increase tourist numbers even though neither ranks as #1.

[Nisa]

The problem is with us the Foreigners. We actually zealously believe in the rule of law.

<snip>

More on topic, land ownership is essential to a free society which Thailand asserts it is. It is possible here to be creative and find ways around these restrictions if you are already wealthy

<snip>

Thailand is for the most part of free society but it has never in my mind been implied that it wanted foreigners to immigrate and be part of that society. Opening its borders to immigration is a completely different story and one might want to look around the current world to see how that is working out in many places in the west.

Just Chinese, Indians, Sri Lankans, Burmese, Cambodians, Indonesians and other Asians. Don't you think that it is racist to pick and choose based on skin color and similarity of other physical characteristics?

None of these people have any advantage over a person from the west when it comes to immigrating to Thailand ... unless you believe it is unfair and want to take a job as doing work that no Thai wants below Thai wages as is offered to some of the poor bordering country's people .... but then again you can get a job teaching English working much less hours for more much more pay than the average Thai. Yes, it is so sad the way farangs are being discriminated against.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Nisa

[airconsult]

Is it really to the point of not being able to honestly recognize facts if they don't bash Thailand or Thais?

Of near 200 countries in the World Thailand rates in the top 15 for International Tourism and or 3rd in all the Asia Pacific Region. Clearly there should be no arguing it is considered a top tourist destinations and that the number of arriving international) tourists .continues to trend up ... not down as so many people wish or want to believe.

Relax, I was not Thailand-bashing, just feeling a bit pedantic before my second cup of coffee. Thanks for the clarification, but you did see my point? TAT should never be satisfied with "Hey! we're in the top 15!!!" They should always be working for more.

And back on-topic, why should Thailand be satisfied with the current level of foreign investment, when by relaxing foreign ownership laws, that investment may turn into a flood, leading to much greater economic growth.

Or, if the wish of the Thai people is not to become richer, fair enough, how about respecting the Human Rights of foreign spouses?

Cheers

EDIT - d*mn quote bug again! Is anyone working on that?

How in the world are the human rights of Thai spouses effected by this topic???? There is NOTHING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that infringes on her right to be a homeowner by marrying a farang .. in fact, chances are greatly increased she can become a homeowner.

And if Thailand's tourism continues to grow at the steady pace it has over the last decades then it would certainly seem to indicate they are improving despite all the doom and gloom opinions here. Protecting one's people and nation has nothing to do with not wanting tourism. Should the US and UK allow anyone from from almost any country (including Thailand) to visit on a 30-day visa exempt waiver or do you think maybe this might go against the greater good of their citizens? But who knows, maybe they don't want to increase tourist numbers even though neither ranks as #1.

Please recheck - I said *foreign* spouses, not Thai spouses.

Though actually you make a good point, why should a Thai wife with a foreign spouse have to prove where the money came from? What if you required proof of all buyers that the money was obtained legally? The whole system could collapse!!!!!

Cheers

[Roj]

Even if the figure were true it pales in comparison with the fact that a small group of elite Thais own much of the rest of Thailand and the boys and girls of the sois will never own their own land because a super rich, over privileged, self interested group will do whatever is necessary to maintain the present lopsided status quo. Foreigners make convenient whipping boys when a diversion from the real issue is required. One piece of advice I`d give to farangs whose wife owns the family property is to get her to make out a phi nai gam through the authorities (not a lawyer). That way if you do out live her you`ll receive the property and be given time to sell it on as you wont be able to legally keep it.

[chainarong]

Don't worry , Australia will sell it's mother inlaw , as well as land , only heard last week that the man from Mars brought a cattle station next to Premier Wen from china.

[Reasonableman]

The problem is with us the Foreigners. We actually zealously believe in the rule of law.

<snip>

More on topic, land ownership is essential to a free society which Thailand asserts it is. It is possible here to be creative and find ways around these restrictions if you are already wealthy

<snip>

Thailand is for the most part of free society but it has never in my mind been implied that it wanted foreigners to immigrate and be part of that society. Opening its borders to immigration is a completely different story and one might want to look around the current world to see how that is working out in many places in the west.

Just Chinese, Indians, Sri Lankans, Burmese, Cambodians, Indonesians and other Asians. Don't you think that it is racist to pick and choose based on skin color and similarity of other physical characteristics?

None of these people have any advantage over a person from the west when it comes to immigrating to Thailand.

The advantage is that they are already here, and that many of them came here many years ago, before Thailand controlled its borders. Was that all bad, allowing "foreigners" into the country? In just the same way, westerners are here, but they've arrived later. Why the desperate attempts to keep the late arrivals out now? You do know about globalisation, don't you?

[Nisa]

Please recheck - I said *foreign* spouses, not Thai spouses.

Though actually you make a good point, why should a Thai wife with a foreign spouse have to prove where the money came from? What if you required proof of all buyers that the money was obtained legally? The whole system could collapse!!!!!

Cheers

Sorry I misread that because I never thought anybody could with a straight face say the human rights of farang are abused because they married a Thai. Then again I have seen a number of people call holiday alcohol bans here a violation of human rights too.

Please tell me what right they lose by marrying a Thai?

And a Thai spouse married to a farang doesn't have to prove anymore where the money came from than anybody else. There is absolutely nothing wrong with her buying land given to her by her spouse as long as she is not buying the land for a foreigner (regardless if a spouse or not).

Get over it, it is not at all uncommon for countries, especially in Asia to restrict foreigners from buying land. And despite our belief that Thailand can't survive without us or how much better Thailand would be if they allowed us citizenship, it is not what they want and it is there county to decide. If we want to live by western ways then we all know what to do.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Nisa

[Mattd]

As stated in several posts, a completely, utterly ridiculous statement.

Take myself, I live in a house that is situated on the land my wife owns, yes the money that paid for this came from me, but the deeds are in her name and not mine, so the land remains Thai owned and it always will as it will be passed on to our children.

The money that paid for this was earned here in Thailand, Thai taxes were paid on that money.

But, why is it they fail to understand that the money that the majority of Foreigners paid for land that their partners own came from overseas, this money was not in circulation in Thailand prior to this, which makes it 'good' money (so long as it wasn't earned illegally of course ).

Seems just a tad hypocritical for the Thai government to encourage tourists to come to Thailand and spend their hard earned foreign currency in Thailand, but then say it is illegal for the 'few' to purchase land for their wives, girlfriends, boyfriends etc. etc.

Maybe the likes of the UK etc. should rescind all land / properties owned by the current 'mob' of Thai politicians.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Mattd

[Nisa]

Thailand is for the most part of free society but it has never in my mind been implied that it wanted foreigners to immigrate and be part of that society. Opening its borders to immigration is a completely different story and one might want to look around the current world to see how that is working out in many places in the west.

Just Chinese, Indians, Sri Lankans, Burmese, Cambodians, Indonesians and other Asians. Don't you think that it is racist to pick and choose based on skin color and similarity of other physical characteristics?

None of these people have any advantage over a person from the west when it comes to immigrating to Thailand.

The advantage is that they are already here, and that many of them came here many years ago, before Thailand controlled its borders. Was that all bad, allowing "foreigners" into the country? In just the same way, westerners are here, but they've arrived later. Why the desperate attempts to keep the late arrivals out now? You do know about globalisation, don't you?

OMG, then you believe the UK, Australia and US and all western nations should just open their borders and allow citizenship to everyone? Why stop with who is there now not allow it to any future arrivals just because they came late? Thailand has enough freaking people that they don't need an influx of immigration. The US once pleaded for people to immigrate and now they are building fences along the border to keep people out.

[connda]

Looks like we're coming around for another round of "Foreigner Bashing". MPs must be bored at the moment. Gotta bang the drum of xenophobia and stir up nationalistic fervor in the masses.

I wonder what they're really trying to attract attention away from? Is some politico up on corruption charges?

[Nisa]

Seems just a tad hypocritical for the Thai government to encourage tourists to come to Thailand and spend their hard earned foreign currency in Thailand, but then say it is illegal for the 'few' to purchase land for their wives, girlfriends, boyfriends etc. etc.

Maybe the likes of the UK etc. should rescind all land / properties owned by the current 'mob' of Thai politicians.

There is nothing illegal about giving a Thai money to buy property as long as it is there property. And I guess once the UK allows Thais to visit without the need of visa then your argument of double standard might hold some water ... by they way, there are plenty of wealthy foreigners who own land in Thailand.

[HAL9000]

This is a totally bogus story. We own 1/3 of Thai land? Just walk around the streets and look at the proportion of foreigners sprinkled in the crowds. That's representative of how much foreign presence is in Thai land. And let's not forget how many foreigners aren't wealthy enough to own land, but live on their wives' land or rent. Plus the average foreigner lives on a tiny lot compared to vast estates owned by wealthy Thais. And how much Thai land is utilized in agriculture or owned by the government, such as national parks? How much land is owned by large Thai landowners? No, this is just a political story written to stir things up and distract attention from other issues by finding someone to focus anger on.

[airconsult]

Don't worry , Australia will sell it's mother inlaw , as well as land , only heard last week that the man from Mars brought a cattle station next to Premier Wen from china.

I'm glad you're able to tell them how they're doing such a poor job. Last I checked with a population of 22 million they were 13th in world GDP (1.2 trillion USD). Thailand should be able to do much better, but comes in at 30th (318 billion USD) with a population of 65 million.

There's always ways to improve.

Cheers

[janetrizzo]

This is acceptable. It is Thai law. Foreigners can't own land. In Malaysia freehold is legal.

[airconsult]

Please recheck - I said *foreign* spouses, not Thai spouses.

Though actually you make a good point, why should a Thai wife with a foreign spouse have to prove where the money came from? What if you required proof of all buyers that the money was obtained legally? The whole system could collapse!!!!!

Cheers

Sorry I misread that because I never thought anybody could with a straight face say the human rights of farang are abused because the married a Thai.

Please tell me what right they lose by marrying a Thai?

And a Thai spouse married to a farang doesn't have to prove anymore where the money came from than anybody else. There is absolutely nothing wrong with her buying land given to her by her spouse as long as she is not buying the land for a foreigner (regardless if a spouse or not).

Get over it, it is not at all uncommon for countries, especially in Asia to restrict foreigners from buying land. And despite our belief that Thailand can't survive without us or how much better Thailand would be if they allowed us citizenship, it is not what they want and it is there county to decide. If we want to live by western ways then we all know what to do.

Ok - A Thai lady marries a foreigner, they buy a house, they have 2 children, aged 3 and 5 - the wife passes away. Do you see the problem? The foreigner is denied the right to raise the children in the family home, and in fact if they have not been married long enough for citizenship, he must leave the country, (but that's O/T here).

I'm not sure why you feel that that's not a problem?

Edited March 13, 2012 by airconsult

[Nisa]

Please recheck - I said *foreign* spouses, not Thai spouses.

Though actually you make a good point, why should a Thai wife with a foreign spouse have to prove where the money came from? What if you required proof of all buyers that the money was obtained legally? The whole system could collapse!!!!!

Cheers

Sorry I misread that because I never thought anybody could with a straight face say the human rights of farang are abused because the married a Thai.

Please tell me what right they lose by marrying a Thai?

And a Thai spouse married to a farang doesn't have to prove anymore where the money came from than anybody else. There is absolutely nothing wrong with her buying land given to her by her spouse as long as she is not buying the land for a foreigner (regardless if a spouse or not).

Get over it, it is not at all uncommon for countries, especially in Asia to restrict foreigners from buying land. And despite our belief that Thailand can't survive without us or how much better Thailand would be if they allowed us citizenship, it is not what they want and it is there county to decide. If we want to live by western ways then we all know what to do.

Ok - A Thai lady marries a foreigner, they buy a house, they have 2 children, aged 3 and 5 - the wife passes away. Do you see the problem? The foreigner is denied the right to raise the children in the family home, and in fact if they have not been married long enough for citizenship, he must leave the country, (but that's O/T here).

I'm not sure why you feel that that's not a problem?

I am not sure why you believe any of this to be true if you have at all researched the issue or why you would even believe that after some time frame of being married that a Farang is going to become a citizen or that a farang needs to leave the country when their spouse passes away.

As with any marriage and homeownership as well as having kids things need to be considered such as wills and a usufruct. There is no reason that the husband or kids would need to be put out of the house if the wife died.