Foreign-Owned Thailand

[David48]

They want us out more and more every day. This is NOT the time that Thailand should be screwing with there biggest investors and I don't mean land wise. If we all left tomorrow what would happen to Thailand? The same thing that happened to the twin towers I think.

Non-pleasant visual comparison aside, our office brings in around 50 million baht per year from external sources. This will double over the next 3 years.

That is just one office's impact on the local economy if we were to pack up and leave.

TWAP, I don't understand your comment in light of the OP.

There is a difference between the ownership of the business property and working a business from it.

I doubt (but please correct me) that it's the nature of the business that you conduct that brings the "50 million baht per year from external sources" and not the ownership of the building?

Not trying to incite, just trying to understand the nature of your argument.

.

[TAWP]

They want us out more and more every day. This is NOT the time that Thailand should be screwing with there biggest investors and I don't mean land wise. If we all left tomorrow what would happen to Thailand? The same thing that happened to the twin towers I think.

Non-pleasant visual comparison aside, our office brings in around 50 million baht per year from external sources. This will double over the next 3 years.

That is just one office's impact on the local economy if we were to pack up and leave.

TWAP, I don't understand your comment in light of the OP.

There is a difference between the ownership of the business property and working a business from it.

I doubt (but please correct me) that it's the nature of the business that you conduct that brings the "50 million baht per year from external sources" and not the ownership of the building?

Not trying to incite, just trying to understand the nature of your argument.

.

It was a reply to the post I replied to, see the line "This is NOT the time that Thailand should be screwing with there biggest investors and I don't mean land wise."

It wasn't directly related to the OP, merely a continuation that the government shouldn't think one step further before they start being overly xenophobic or nationalistic.

It will cost them.

[Thai at Heart]

So as a percentage, of all the 30% of land supposedly owned by foreigners how much sits outside the perfectly legal structures you admit to?

1% 5% 10% 25%

I go with 1%

So let's ask some questions and I hope Nisa answers:

If a Thai wife of a foreigner owns land bought with his money is that within the law?

If it is a Thai husband buying land with a foreign wife's money is that within the law?

If the foreign spouse in the previous two cases takes a 30 year lease on the land is that within the law?

If a foreigner invests in a company here legally formed and it owns land with minority foreign ownership is that within the law?

If a Foreigner Loans money to a company or his wife/husband in order to buy land and registers the loan against the property then is that within the law?

If a foreigner takes a usufruct on land for his lifetime is that within the law?

If a foreigner has children can he use those children to own a share of the land whilst retaining control for the lifetime of the foreigner through a 30 year lease, registered loan or usufruct is that within the law?

I await your answer but suspect you have never really thought about it because these methods are all within the written law. If you begin to use the law to mean what you would like it to say (the spirit of the law meaning what YOU want it to say but it doesn't) then you might as well forget the rule of law because it becomes just what whoever is enforcing the aw wants it to be. In that case why bother going to the trouble of writing the law in the first place as it becomes all up to you.

What is so hard to grasp of a law that is very clear about foreign land ownership that restricts foreign individuals from owning land? What is so hard to understand that it is illegal to use Thai nominees as a way to get around the laws to control or be the de facto owner of this land? Not complicated. See Foreign Business Act (1999) if you want more info.

By the way, a lease in not a purchase and there are also clear laws here regarding types and duration of leases for foreigners. Not complicated or confusing.

There is also nothing illegal about a Thai buying their property with their own money ... if you want to give a Thai money, be it a male, female or 3rd gender, then it is there money to do with as they please. Not complicated or confusing.

People who cannot understand these laws are either confused people, people wishing to purposely try make confusion of the laws. people who don't want to know the law and/or people who search for legal answers on nonlegal based public forums such as this.

If you want to understand the laws, that obviously can sometimes be complicated everywhere, then don't ask Nisa or other posters here, check with a credible attorney.

But as it comes to owning land, if you try to circumvent the laws to own and/or control (buy & sell) land then chances are, you are breaking the law. And if you try to do this under the guise of a corporation then you are leaving yourself open to easily losing your land as the money trail is easy to follow (your personally putting the money into the corporation) as is the paper trail of nominees having no real interest in the company and assigning all their control of the company over to you.

[Beng]

I agree with the Thais to a certain extend. In my country (Brazil) foreigners could own unlimited amounts of land until a few years ago. You know what happened? The Chinese came in and bought vast amounts of agriculture land, I am talking about huge areas that equal the size of small countries in Europe. They come in <snip> up the soil with their polluting pesticides and herbicides all to produce food mostly for their cattle back in China. This is a real problem in Brazil nowadays and many other countries in South America. In Panama, central America they did the same thing, the tip of the country on the pacific side is almost entirely owned by Chinese companies, not even the Panamanians can get in there. I would not be surprised they are doing this in Thailand because of the Chinese.

Sorry, but In Thailand foreigners never could and stll can't own land. There might be some, very few exemptions. But in general, all the land is owned by Thais.

The article is a typical case of TIT. They're discussing matters that doesn't exist.

[Nisa]

So let's ask some questions and I hope Nisa answers:

If a Thai wife of a foreigner owns land bought with his money is that within the law?

If it is a Thai husband buying land with a foreign wife's money is that within the law?

If the foreign spouse in the previous two cases takes a 30 year lease on the land is that within the law?

If a foreigner invests in a company here legally formed and it owns land with minority foreign ownership is that within the law?

If a Foreigner Loans money to a company or his wife/husband in order to buy land and registers the loan against the property then is that within the law?

If a foreigner takes a usufruct on land for his lifetime is that within the law?

If a foreigner has children can he use those children to own a share of the land whilst retaining control for the lifetime of the foreigner through a 30 year lease, registered loan or usufruct is that within the law?

I await your answer but suspect you have never really thought about it because these methods are all within the written law. If you begin to use the law to mean what you would like it to say (the spirit of the law meaning what YOU want it to say but it doesn't) then you might as well forget the rule of law because it becomes just what whoever is enforcing the aw wants it to be. In that case why bother going to the trouble of writing the law in the first place as it becomes all up to you.

What is so hard to grasp of a law that is very clear about foreign land ownership that restricts foreign individuals from owning land? What is so hard to understand that it is illegal to use Thai nominees as a way to get around the laws to control or be the de facto owner of this land? Not complicated. See Foreign Business Act (1999) if you want more info.

By the way, a lease in not a purchase and there are also clear laws here regarding types and duration of leases for foreigners. Not complicated or confusing.

There is also nothing illegal about a Thai buying their property with their own money ... if you want to give a Thai money, be it a male, female or 3rd gender, then it is there money to do with as they please. Not complicated or confusing.

People who cannot understand these laws are either confused people, people wishing to purposely try make confusion of the laws. people who don't want to know the law and/or people who search for legal answers on nonlegal based public forums such as this.

If you want to understand the laws, that obviously can sometimes be complicated everywhere, then don't ask Nisa or other posters here, check with a credible attorney.

But as it comes to owning land, if you try to circumvent the laws to own and/or control (buy & sell) land then chances are, you are breaking the law. And if you try to do this under the guise of a corporation then you are leaving yourself open to easily losing your land as the money trail is easy to follow (your personally putting the money into the corporation) as is the paper trail of nominees having no real interest in the company and assigning all their control of the company over to you.

So as a percentage, of all the 30% of land supposedly owned by foreigners how much sits outside the perfectly legal structures you admit to?

1% 5% 10% 25%

I go with 1%

I don't have a clue and nor do I know if the 30% figure is accurate but I do know a good number of farangs who have purchased (illegally) expensive property in a number of beach communities. In fact, I would say about 80% of those people I know who live in a house have illegally (though they may think it legal) purchased it or believe including drawing up side contracts with their wife about loans / collateral against the property blah blah blah. The other 20% simply let the wife/GF purchase it with no strings attached.

In fact, I have a friend/acquaintance selling one of his old (3rd) houses in Hua Hin right now. It is beautiful but radically over priced because it has a business associated with it that will (illegally) allow a farang to buy this house and others... In all reality, he is selling the business whose only asset is the house (purchased whit his personal money not business income) and the false belief that owning this business allows legal ownership of the house because of the nominees signing over their voting rights.

I actually don't believe or at least cannot think of any farang who I know that legally owns land in Thailand. But that is just my personal experience and couldn't be able to even guess at an answer to your questions because I am informed enough to know I am not informed enough on all the relevant facts to even guess at a percentage like you.

[kawaiimomo]

What is this hate for Thais of Chinese origin about? They are just as Thais as the rest. Most posters talk about them as if they were a wealthy minority but most of my Thai friends have Chinese origin so I guess they are not the wealthy minority you are suggesting.

I fully agree with the law against foreigners owning land here. I just see it like what it is, a protective law. I come from Spain and there are some areas looking like foreign towns, many retired Europeans come and start buying land and living together; with their higher salaries/pensions they are in a much better position than locals for buying anything. You end up with foreign towns with people who don't even bother about trying to learn the language. I just hate that and I don't what that for Thailand. On the other hand I understand the foreigner who would like to own his/her own house here (but I just cannot stop thinking about farang ghettos with people who don't really want to be integrated in the society they live on).

I also wonder why so many posters think they are not welcomed here. How many Thais are rude to you everyday? In fact I really appreciate the kindness of Thai people and the very open they are with foreigners even with the cultural differences. I also think it is extremely nice of a country letting you become a citizen in just 8 years (many farangs have been living here that long or more, why are not you applying for citizenship? I just can't understand). Maybe I am just weird ;-P

[Nisa]

I have a hard time swallowing the 30% figure. Even in the US where restrictions are radically less when it comes to foreigners buying land, this figure would seem very inflated. Couldn't find any stats but I do know there is a growing concern in the US of foreigners buying farmland because they now own about 1% (one-percent) of US agricultural lands.

[LPCustom69]

Years ago, a thai female could not own land if she was married to a farang. She also had to give up her right to any land owned by her family. I hope that this isn't a first step to returning to that repressive era.

[Nisa]

What is this hate for Thais of Chinese origin about? They are just as Thais as the rest.

I have been wondering the same exact thing but didn't want to go down this road with posters.

[KeyserSoze01]

They want us out more and more every day. This is NOT the time that Thailand should be screwing with there biggest investors and I don't mean land wise. If we all left tomorrow what would happen to Thailand? The same thing that happened to the twin towers I think.

Ya just can't fix stupid

Ron White would be proud.

[Nisa]

Years ago, a thai female could not own land if she was married to a farang. She also had to give up her right to any land owned by her family. I hope that this isn't a first step to returning to that repressive era.

Really? Where did you read that?

[Gweiloman]

Nisa, I can understand the sentiment of what you are saying and assuming that you are Thai, the feeling that people who do not have residency of your country can buy/buy land, thus potentially depriving Thais of this privilege.

But, like most things in life, it is a balancing act.

Certainly I am against foreign entities, through whatever vehicle they use controlling large swathes of agricultural land as, in essence, this contravenes the spirit of the Kings' Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy

Prime tourist real estate does pose some issues assuming that there is limited capital available within Thailand to develop tourism infrastructure.

Assuming that the foreign controlled land is not allowed to be 'land banked' (held for an extended period of time while the surrounding land is developed) and, if purchased by a foreign entity must be developed to it's potential within an appropriate time frame.

With this tourism development, mostly the Thai are direct beneficiaries because not only are there employment opportunities created by the new tourism infrastructure and but also maybe a net increase in Tourism numbers.

Maybe what gets most angst here is the inability of a foreigner, like me, to simply own a home, a primary place of residence in his or her own name.

That home is maybe an apartment or a house or a small hobby farm.

Being a 'primary place of residence, you would not be allowed to own a second or subsequent property ... just a place to live and call home.

I could not find any reliable numbers on the actual numbers or percentage of 'foreigners' residing in a semi-permeant or permeant basis in Thailand, but relative to the Thai population I would suggest that it would very small indeed.

This ability to own a home would most likely not affect the trend of the Real Estate values in any particular area apart from an initial spike when there might be a rush to buy once the amended law was enacted.

Just a thought and I can sympathise with the sentiment of what you write about.

Give me land, lots of land with sunny skies above, don’t fence me in.

David48

.

@David48

I get the feeling that you are somehow involved in the tourism / hospitality business, from this and various other posts. I presume you're a hotelier?

Getting back on topic, on your point about 'land-banked' coupled with your comment about tourism, I assume you mean building a hotel. Not being a hotelier myself, I don't know about the ins and outs but I would have thought that the likes of Hilton, Conrad, Interconti etc would not want to purchase land, but merely lease it. Assuming they can get a 30 year lease to then build a hotel, surely that would be more than sufficient time to recover their initial investment and a return on their investment? As I said, I'm not a hotelier and would gladly stand corrected.

On the other point of just wanting to own a home, I can fully understand that. Thailand should consider something like what Malaysia has in 'MM2H' (Malaysia, my second home). Foreigners under this scheme (and all other foreigners in fact) can own property including land, subject to approval by the government. This would be an acceptable compromise in my book, as it allows the government to control the amount of foreign land ownership as a means to prevent speculation.

[Gweiloman]

What is this hate for Thais of Chinese origin about? They are just as Thais as the rest.

I have been wondering the same exact thing but didn't want to go down this road with posters.

My feeling is that the majority of farangs here cannot distinguish between an ethnic Thai and a Chinese Thai. However, this is actually irrelevant as they are both Thais.

Maybe the xenophobic side is being revealed?

[KeyserSoze01]

Confiscate the land and sell it at auction, have them spend 30-days in a Thai detention center before deciding to drop charges and then deport them. This is certainly what I would want done to foreigners who illegally obtain land or run illegals business in my country.

Even if the laws in your country provides a method for foreignors to own such land? And would not a foreign-owned company be subject to all current licensing and regulatory requirements set down by Thai governmental agencies, just like any other "legal" company in Thailand.

You cannot give provide the laws with one hand and then call it a crime on the other hand. At least not in a civilized society with a functioning government, can you?

No, me thinks your true colors are showing as you know these things to be true, but in true Thai fashion you choose to interpret your own laws in a nationalistic, &lt;deleted&gt; the farang attitude.

[Gweiloman]

Confiscate the land and sell it at auction, have them spend 30-days in a Thai detention center before deciding to drop charges and then deport them. This is certainly what I would want done to foreigners who illegally obtain land or run illegals business in my country.

Even if the laws in your country provides a method for foreignors to own such land? And would not a foreign-owned company be subject to all current licensing and regulatory requirements set down by Thai governmental agencies, just like any other "legal" company in Thailand.

You cannot give provide the laws with one hand and then call it a crime on the other hand. At least not in a civilized society with a functioning government, can you?

No, me thinks your true colors are showing as you know these things to be true, but in true Thai fashion you choose to interpret your own laws in a nationalistic, &lt;deleted&gt; the farang attitude.

If you know the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law, you will know that even if the letter allows nominees, it is against the spirit of the law.

Recently in the UK, the Govt is clamping down on 'loopholes' on tax avoidance to reclassify them as tax evasion, thus making it a criminal offence. About the only good thing that Gordon Brown has done for the UK. So what's this, &lt;deleted&gt; all Brits?

[TAWP]

It gets very silly when some posters try to say that paying (by giving gf/wife money to) for a house with a plot of land is illegal for foreigners. No, it isn't.

Are these posters saying that we should work here, make a lot of money, and not be able to build anything for our kids?

[Nisa]

Confiscate the land and sell it at auction, have them spend 30-days in a Thai detention center before deciding to drop charges and then deport them. This is certainly what I would want done to foreigners who illegally obtain land or run illegals business in my country.

Even if the laws in your country provides a method for foreignors to own such land? And would not a foreign-owned company be subject to all current licensing and regulatory requirements set down by Thai governmental agencies, just like any other "legal" company in Thailand.

You cannot give provide the laws with one hand and then call it a crime on the other hand. At least not in a civilized society with a functioning government, can you?

No, me thinks your true colors are showing as you know these things to be true, but in true Thai fashion you choose to interpret your own laws in a nationalistic, &lt;deleted&gt; the farang attitude.

What did you miss in my post about it being very clear that it was directed at those foreigners who "illegally" obtain land or run an illegal business in any country (including my own and Thailand)?

Some things that people want to believe are loopholes are in fact illegal including having side loan documents with your partner regarding the land she purchased and swore she purchased with her own money as well as The use of "nominee" shareholders which is expressly forbidden by the Foreign Business Act of 1999 and is actually classified as a criminal act. Just because enforcement and investigations have been weak it doesn't make these practices any less illegal.

Different countries have different laws and some countries are more strict about certain things while other are more strict about other things. Did I really need to tell you this?

So, I am a bit baffled at your reply since I made it very clear I was talking about all foreigners in all countries who are breaking laws regarding land purchases and running an illegal business. Unless of course you advocate foreigners coming to your country buying up property illegally then your reply makes sense to me.

[TAWP]

What did you miss in my post about it being very clear that it was directed at those foreigners who "illegally" obtain land or run an illegal business in any country (including my own and Thailand)?

What does illegally mean when it quotation-marks? It really isn't illegal?

[Nisa]

Nisa, I can understand the sentiment of what you are saying and assuming that you are Thai, the feeling that people who do not have residency of your country can buy/buy land, thus potentially depriving Thais of this privilege.

But, like most things in life, it is a balancing act.

Certainly I am against foreign entities, through whatever vehicle they use controlling large swathes of agricultural land as, in essence, this contravenes the spirit of the Kings' Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy

Prime tourist real estate does pose some issues assuming that there is limited capital available within Thailand to develop tourism infrastructure.

Assuming that the foreign controlled land is not allowed to be 'land banked' (held for an extended period of time while the surrounding land is developed) and, if purchased by a foreign entity must be developed to it's potential within an appropriate time frame.

With this tourism development, mostly the Thai are direct beneficiaries because not only are there employment opportunities created by the new tourism infrastructure and but also maybe a net increase in Tourism numbers.

Maybe what gets most angst here is the inability of a foreigner, like me, to simply own a home, a primary place of residence in his or her own name.

That home is maybe an apartment or a house or a small hobby farm.

Being a 'primary place of residence, you would not be allowed to own a second or subsequent property ... just a place to live and call home.

I could not find any reliable numbers on the actual numbers or percentage of 'foreigners' residing in a semi-permeant or permeant basis in Thailand, but relative to the Thai population I would suggest that it would very small indeed.

This ability to own a home would most likely not affect the trend of the Real Estate values in any particular area apart from an initial spike when there might be a rush to buy once the amended law was enacted.

Just a thought and I can sympathise with the sentiment of what you write about.

Give me land, lots of land with sunny skies above, don’t fence me in.

David48

.

I agree, this would be great, but in reality there are a couple concerns. They don't have the proper mechanisms in place right now to enforce current laws and prevent or really even curb these illegal land purchases. So, opening up another avenue for foreigners to exploit to illegally obtain land is not a wise move, at least at this time.

Another consideration is that what your saying doesn't have any real plus side for Thais and Thailand and it would be a law that would if anything "probably" have negative effects on Thailand though I agree they would barely be measurable. Point is, why allow this then when the laws are put in place for the benefit of its own citizens first and not foreigners.

I don't think Thai culture wants to add "Farang Town" to its list of attractions and allowing this would almost certainly create these kinds of communities.

There was a time when some countries needed immigration, such as the US, but Asian countries never really needed this because in most cases they already had too many people and still do. In fact, there is huge anti-immigration sentiment throughout America and many European nations but because of their history and diverse make-up, it is difficult to near complete close of the borders to immigration as Thailand and other countries do ... but that doesn't stop citizens in the West from demanding their government do just that.

I think it is hard for many to accept that we are the foreigners in Thailand after living so long in places where citizens (we) felt and were superior over foreigners and often foreigners and immigrants were the brunt of jokes for their different ways and speech. It is hard sometimes having the tables turned like this.

[Nisa]

What did you miss in my post about it being very clear that it was directed at those foreigners who "illegally" obtain land or run an illegal business in any country (including my own and Thailand)?

What does illegally mean when it quotation-marks? It really isn't illegal?

I don't understand what you are asking but I certainly didn't mean to indicate the opposite of illegal by highlighting the word "illegally" --- what I meant to do was highlight the word showing I used it in the post I am referring. However, I actually used the word "illegal" in the first post and not "illegally" but I imagine you must be asking about something else that is going over my head because this would seem awfully trivial.

Edit: not sure if this helps but ...

Definition for illegally: in an illegal manner; "they dumped the waste illegally"

[TAWP]

What did you miss in my post about it being very clear that it was directed at those foreigners who "illegally" obtain land or run an illegal business in any country (including my own and Thailand)?

What does illegally mean when it quotation-marks? It really isn't illegal?

I don't understand what you are asking but I certainly didn't mean to indicate the opposite of illegal by highlighting the word "illegally" --- what I meant to do was highlight the word showing I used it in the post I am referring. However, I actually used the word "illegal" in the first post and not "illegally" but I imagine you must be asking about something else that is going over my head because this would seem awfully trivial.

Edit: not sure if this helps but ...

Definition for illegally: in an illegal manner; "they dumped the waste illegally"

Using quotation marks for a single word in your own sentence, i.e. not quoted speech, has a meaning.

Irony

Main article: Scare quotes

Another common use of quotation marks is to indicate or call attention to ironic or apologetic words:

-- He shared his "wisdom" with me.

-- The lunch lady plopped a glob of "food" onto my tray.

Quotes indicating verbal irony, or other special use, are sometimes called scare, sneer, shock, distance, or horror quotes. They are sometimes gestured in oral speech using air quotes, or indicated in speech with a tone change or by replacement with supposed[ly] or so-called.

http://en.wikipedia....tion_mark#Irony

But if you really meant that foreigners are illegally obtaining land, then you better expand on how you mean this illegal action is done. Because giving your wife/gf money to own it is not illegal.

[Nisa]

What does illegally mean when it quotation-marks? It really isn't illegal?

I don't understand what you are asking but I certainly didn't mean to indicate the opposite of illegal by highlighting the word "illegally" --- what I meant to do was highlight the word showing I used it in the post I am referring. However, I actually used the word "illegal" in the first post and not "illegally" but I imagine you must be asking about something else that is going over my head because this would seem awfully trivial.

Edit: not sure if this helps but ...

Definition for illegally: in an illegal manner; "they dumped the waste illegally"

Using quotation marks for a single word in your own sentence, i.e. not quoted speech, has a meaning.

Irony

Main article: Scare quotes

Another common use of quotation marks is to indicate or call attention to ironic or apologetic words:

-- He shared his "wisdom" with me.

-- The lunch lady plopped a glob of "food" onto my tray.

Quotes indicating verbal irony, or other special use, are sometimes called scare, sneer, shock, distance, or horror quotes. They are sometimes gestured in oral speech using air quotes, or indicated in speech with a tone change or by replacement with supposed[ly] or so-called.

http://en.wikipedia....tion_mark#Irony

But if you really meant that foreigners are illegally obtaining land, then you better expand on how you mean this illegal action is done. Because giving your wife/gf money to own it is not illegal.

First of all I did expand on it but you chose to selectively take 1 sentence from my post in a conversation with somebody else and now act as though that was the entire reply. See: post you have selectively quoted

But Wow, you were being trivial and seemingly very obsessed with one of many ways to use quotation marks ... in fact, a kind of obscure use at that. Do you think in the definition I copied and pasted above with the example sentence in quotes is meant to be "ironic" or have the opposite meaning?

I apologize if the quote really got you confused but I find that very difficult to believe based on your communication skills and am greatly leaning towards your reply being about something else entirely. Regardless, this is not only trivial but wayyyyyyyyyyyyy off topic.

[Johpa]

Years ago, a thai female could not own land if she was married to a farang. She also had to give up her right to any land owned by her family. I hope that this isn't a first step to returning to that repressive era.

Really? Where did you read that?

Common knowledge amongst us older hands. Those laws were the reason we never changed my wife's name when we first got married 25 years ago. For many years she kept all her Thai ID in the name of Nang Sao and maiden family name, all to the amusement of other Thais. The laws have now changed and my wife has not only changed her name, but our kids now have full Thai citizenship and are registered on the tabian baan.

[Nisa]

Years ago, a thai female could not own land if she was married to a farang. She also had to give up her right to any land owned by her family. I hope that this isn't a first step to returning to that repressive era.

Really? Where did you read that?

Common knowledge amongst us older hands. Those laws were the reason we never changed my wife's name when we first got married 25 years ago. For many years she kept all her Thai ID in the name of Nang Sao and maiden family name, all to the amusement of other Thais. The laws have now changed and my wife has not only changed her name, but our kids now have full Thai citizenship and are registered on the tabian baan.

Do you have any link at all that you can point to that would confirm this law such as which version of the constitution it was included or even just some kind of credible link that speaks of the plight of women's rights in Thailand that mentions this? I am aware of laws that put more scrutiny on both land purchases of male or female spouses but have never heard this before and I apologize if I cannot simply take the word of what "older hands" believe are facts because too many times these facts turn out to be myths. I certainly am not saying you don't believe this to be true but I just want to confirm it because history such as this interests me. I've done a number of searches on the internet but cannot find anything that refers to this and only a number of posts on boards like this where people believe it is current law. In fact, there was a poster on this topic (or the related one running) the other other day the believed this to be law and spoke of how his wife kept her name to so she could buy property.

I do see references to other countries regarding this and actually old western laws that forbid married women (regardless if foreigner) losing their right to buy property because in a sense they became property when married. Even in places in the US the property of a single women who owned property would become the property of the husband once married.

Also, the 1997 constitution laid out equal rights for men and women and see references to issues about the head of the household (husband) only being allowed to own land but just cannot find any reference specifically to a women losing their rights because they married a foreigner.

[TAWP]

First of all I did expand on it but you chose to selectively take 1 sentence from my post in a conversation with somebody else and now act as though that was the entire reply. See: post you have selectively quoted

But Wow, you were being trivial and seemingly very obsessed with one of many ways to use quotation marks ... in fact, a kind of obscure use at that. Do you think in the definition I copied and pasted above with the example sentence in quotes is meant to be "ironic" or have the opposite meaning?

I apologize if the quote really got you confused but I find that very difficult to believe based on your communication skills and am greatly leaning towards your reply being about something else entirely. Regardless, this is not only trivial but wayyyyyyyyyyyyy off topic.

Don't be such a drama-queen. There was a point to selectively quoting the sentence, since it didn't make sense. Now you have explained that you indeed think that a lot of foreigners wife-owned buildings and lands are somehow illegal.

Alright - so let's focus on: Why do you think so?

[submaniac]

Years ago, a thai female could not own land if she was married to a farang. She also had to give up her right to any land owned by her family. I hope that this isn't a first step to returning to that repressive era.

Really? Where did you read that?

Common knowledge amongst us older hands. Those laws were the reason we never changed my wife's name when we first got married 25 years ago. For many years she kept all her Thai ID in the name of Nang Sao and maiden family name, all to the amusement of other Thais. The laws have now changed and my wife has not only changed her name, but our kids now have full Thai citizenship and are registered on the tabian baan.

Oh yeah. If you think that the laws now are xenophobic, it was worst many years ago. If I recall (and keep in mind I was a child when the laws were this way, so I don't exactly remember all the rules) if a Thai woman married a Falang, she lost her Thai citizenship or something to that effect...meaning she could not own land. The children of mixed Thai and Falang were not considered Thai and did not have Thai citizenship; in order for a mixed child to have citizenship, the father needed to be Thai. Something like that. I am not exactly sure. The law was changed and is no longer in effect and I frankly don't remember the specifics of it. For further reading on what it was see:

see this old thread:

http://www.thaivisa....en/page__st__25

see old Thailand nationality act, in this thread:

http://www.thaivisa....ts-in-thailand/

[TAWP]

Years ago, a thai female could not own land if she was married to a farang. She also had to give up her right to any land owned by her family. I hope that this isn't a first step to returning to that repressive era.

Really? Where did you read that?

Common knowledge amongst us older hands. Those laws were the reason we never changed my wife's name when we first got married 25 years ago. For many years she kept all her Thai ID in the name of Nang Sao and maiden family name, all to the amusement of other Thais. The laws have now changed and my wife has not only changed her name, but our kids now have full Thai citizenship and are registered on the tabian baan.

Do you have any link at all that you can point to that would confirm this law such as which version of the constitution it was included or even just some kind of credible link that speaks of the plight of women's rights in Thailand that mentions this? I am aware of laws that put more scrutiny on both land purchases of male or female spouses but have never heard this before and I apologize if I cannot simply take the word of what "older hands" believe are facts because too many times these facts turn out to be myths. I certainly am not saying you don't believe this to be true but I just want to confirm it because history such as this interests me. I've done a number of searches on the internet but cannot find anything that refers to this and only a number of posts on boards like this where people believe it is current law. In fact, there was a poster on this topic (or the related one running) the other other day the believed this to be law and spoke of how his wife kept her name to so she could buy property.

This old law, now repealed, is indeed known by many. What isn't known is that it is no longer true - but you will still see many posters think that it might be, or end up in discussions with extended family members that think it is - I did.

[Unkomoncents]

The more I read the posts on this thread, the more incredulous I get. I'm pretty much fully with Nisa on his opinions, to me, it's a no brainer.

One poster suggested that the Govt officials issue such statements to gauge the responses of farangs on TV - don't kid yourself. The Thai Govt has zero interest in what TV members think.

Another poster suggested limiting the amount of land an individual can hold - not a closet communist by any chance?

I can't understand why so many of you can't grasp the simple concept that this and previous governments (and probably future ones too) have decided that land within the Thai borders can only be owned by Thais (and before any other poster says that all land belong to all mankind, please kindly note that the biggest land grabs in history were initiated by farangs). If I'm a Thai, any government proposing to open land ownership to foreign ownership will not get my vote. Irregardless of whether most of the land is owned by a few wealthy Thais or not, the simple fact is that the greater the demand for a finite and limited "product", the higher the price will go. Economics 101, as many are happy to quote.

All this talk about reciprocity, barring Thais from owning land in foreign countries etc, are just inane, childish comments. America has some of the most rigid protectionist policies in place. Should the rest of the world ban American products (admittedly, they make very few world quality products). I wish that many European countries would relax their entry requirements for Thais - Japanese, Singaporeans, Malaysians, Hong Kongers, Taiwanese can pretty much travel most of Europe visa free - so why are these countries discriminating against Thais? For this reason alone, I'm very glad that Thailand does not allow foreigners to own land here. What a lot of these European countries do not realise is that if they opened their borders a bit more, the amount of money that Asian tourists will spend in Europe significantly outweighs what European tourists spend here - and this can only be a good thing for all those bankrupt European countries.

Maybe when Europe takes a hard long look at where she's heading will things change.

Which is why you see American products everywhere, because they're soooo bad. Sprite, Boeing, Hollywood, Nike, Calvin Klein, the military equipment governments use to protect themselves (especially the Thai government), Apple, Microsoft...not one of those is "world quality" (I think you meant "world class", by the way)? You're just wrong. Flat out wrong. You sound like you watched a little Al Jazeera or briefly picked up some Chinese newspaper when you start talking about America. You make such a vague and topical reference to American "protectionism", which a bunch of revisionist-history wannabes cite again and again to try to make what little sense they can out of global politics. Yep. America has some of the world's most protectionist policies. So that justifies every act of xenophobic economic duplicity out there? I'm trying to make sense of what your saying because what it sounds like is: "America is bad. Thailand should do what America does." Regarding your point about Thais not being able to get into other countries: have you ever read international news concerning Thais recently? Almost all stories involve corruption, trafficking, or visa violations in some capacity. I've asked both American, Canadian, and Swiss immigration officials and all say nearly identical things. Thais don't get visas because they violate them, constantly. I'm married to a Thai woman and she's been denied access to my home country since we got married on the basis of the belief I will now also shirk the rules.

[David48]

<snip>

Prime tourist real estate does pose some issues assuming that there is limited capital available within Thailand to develop tourism infrastructure.

Assuming that the foreign controlled land is not allowed to be 'land banked' (held for an extended period of time while the surrounding land is developed) and, if purchased by a foreign entity must be developed to it's potential within an appropriate time frame.

With this tourism development, mostly the Thai are direct beneficiaries because not only are there employment opportunities created by the new tourism infrastructure and but also maybe a net increase in Tourism numbers.

@David48

I get the feeling that you are somehow involved in the tourism / hospitality business, from this and various other posts. I presume you're a hotelier?

<snip>

Hi there Gweiloman, actually no, not involved in the tourist industry in any way shape or form.

I still live in my country of birth, but a regular visitor to Thailand.

What I did try and do is to present a balanced argument based on my extensive real estate experience.

To be fair to Nisa, I can understand her view point and she presents it with passion.

Also I can understand the extreme frustration of the many foreigners who come to Thailand with the intent of simply owning a home or a small hobby farm, want to contribute to their local community and wish to live a simple and unobtrusive life here, normally with their new Thai partner.

If you would like to meet me pop over to this tread http://www.thaivisa....nd-shrimp-farm/

There is so much more to this Forum away from the general news section ... I hope to see you over and saying hi in that thread.

David48

.

[IsaanUSA]

I think it is hard for many to accept that we are the foreigners in Thailand after living so long in places where citizens (we) felt and were superior over foreigners and often foreigners and immigrants were the brunt of jokes for their different ways and speech. It is hard sometimes having the tables turned like this.

100% exactly yes. We are the Mexicans/Indians/Pakistanis. For many people here on Thai Visa that is very hard to comprehend. We are a racial minority. We are a religious minority. Many of us don't speak the language.