Thai Commerce Ministry Launches Probe Into Irregular Shareholdings By Foreigners

[Phatcharanan]

Why aren't Chinese state enterprises buying up massive chunks of Europe, US, Australia.

Errrrrrrr, the Chinese are doing exactly that..............in Australia. Just Google.

Below is just one typical example.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/chinese-mine-giant-snaps-up-43-nsw-farms/story-e6frg6nf-1226082387428

[Banzai99]

I love this country with all my heart, but we must admit that some things should change.

You love the place with all your heart just the way it is, why would it change ?

All Farangs know they can't own land in Thailand, they cannot own more than 49% of a Company, the employment opportunities are very restrictive etc etc.

Yet......Still they come.

They leave their own countries where they can buy land, own a company outright and have access to all professions to live in a country where they cannot do these things, therefore that must mean these things were never that important to them.

Thais have got it right, Farangs still bring their money to Thailand no matter what restrictions they face, why should they change the rules that suit them ?

[Phatcharanan]

As to the 'The UK should let foreign billionaires in so their taxes can be used for the betterment of society' [sic], Newsflash - The City of London is amongst the most popular tax havens in the world.

Truly ridiculous statement

[Time Traveller]

Property price inflation does not make the country richer.

It results in the natives being out priced, and unable to afford property in their own country.

Yes to the first part. However, higher land values do allow farmers to obtain loans to buy farm machinery and thus be more productive in farming.

But the second part is not really correct either. Many thai people already can't afford to own land here, so obviously the law doesn't help them. In fact it probably makes it easier for the super rich to buy up land from the poor since they have no foreign buyers to compete with

Edited June 22, 2012 by Time Traveller

[crazykopite]

Why invest big money if you cannot hold a good percentage of shares yes the rule is 49% of preferencial shares to protect your investment but is that good enough . I heard not so long ago of a German who had set up a company with a Thai and after two years of hard work and good profit the Thai decided he wanted it all, from all accounts the German and his family were given 7 days to move on ( gun to his head ) which he did within 6 months of his departure the company he had built was struggling and in debt and closed its doors . I leave it to you to decide who now is being chased for the debt !!!!

[Lannatyne]

"We had the same problems in Austria, every nice place was owned by Germans."

And Brits have the same problems in Spain, where every nice deckchair has been beach-towelled by the Germans.

[scorecard]

So how come there are Thai companies withforeigners owning more than 49% shareholding?

Sounds like some govt. officials need to explain how this was ever recorded as such?

Inactive posts on the horizon?

[Tatsujin]

It sounds like the Deputy Commerce Minister has been shafted on a shares deal so has started a vendetta.

No, it's just that time of the year again . . . more probes . . . is he up for election again by any chance? Or needed his name in the papers by acting all tough against us wicked foreigners who are stealing the bread from the mouths of the poor, poor Thai's?

[frimu]

I have never understood why other countries do not reciprocate the 'rules and regulations' that countries such as Thailand impose on foreigners. For example, if a Brit cannot own land or property in Thailand , then a Thai should be under the same rules in the UK, if a Brit cannot own a company in Thailand then the same should apply in the UK for Thai nationals. Things would soon change in Thailand, Saudi and the UAE if we simply matched their respective regulations. When the elite suddenly found they cannot own properties in London and shift large amounts of money by say owning football clubs ! Then things would rapidly change for us.

It sounds like the Deputy Commerce Minister has been shafted on a shares deal so has started a vendetta.

Because western governments and electorates are smart enough to realise such protectionism doesn't work. What it would mean is that the price of top end houses, football clubs etc in the UK would fall pretty sharply, investment would dry up and the UK would be poorer as a result. If Thai, Russians and middle eastern billionaires want to spend their money in the UK, good for the UK.

==> Good message to the Thai government!!!

[cutter007]

It is about time that foreign countries are going to pay Thai shareholders back with the same currency by excluding them too from holding majority stakes in their own companies abroad. What does Thailand fear? That they become competitive and that the elite can no longer rob the consumers blind?

Gotta agree with this. A major reason for them not wanting foreigners to own land in the resort and housing industry, is because foreign companies can and do build better quality developments, for cheaper prices.

The property development business in Thailand is extremely lucrative, letting to many foreign companies develop properties will ruin the margins for all the Thai owned developers that put up shotty built developments, and want there 250% return.

This explains also why first world countries are not restricting land ownership in retaliation, because they aren't worried that a foreign company will come in buy a bunch of land, and develop it better than the local outfits.

And yes, if they let foreigners buy land, they would be a huge land grab in Thailand, one of the main reasons why, no property tax,

so you aren't majorly penalized for sitting on premier high value pieces of land for long periods of time.

[belg]

what a bunch of crapie crap crap... you cannot own land, you cannot own your own company, your wife is on the lease anyway, when you lose your job, you have 7 days to get the hell out, etc...

[Unkomoncents]

The Commerce Ministry must be low on funds again. Time for the quarterly corruption/xenophobia campaign to fill up Ministerial coffers and distract the public from unsavory politics.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Unkomoncents

[Unkomoncents]

what a bunch of crapie crap crap... you cannot own land, you cannot own your own company, your wife is on the lease anyway, when you lose your job, you have 7 days to get the hell out, etc...

No, you have twenty-four hours. The seven days come into play only if you pay the 2000THB visa extension fee. That little immigration stipulation has to be one of the most un-Thai requirements: in a country that prides itself on being slow and easy-going, that is straight-up Nazi-like in its purpose and application. Both the United States and South Korea give a grace period on visas of at least two weeks. It's pretty amazing to see the Thais being more anal-retentive than the Americans.

On the topic of ownership in Thailand, I have to agree with other posters who have pointed out the pitfalls of competition for Thai companies. As a country develops, it's only natural to create barriers to enable up-start, indigenous companies to become competitive enough to eventually go toe-to-toe with the already established heavyweights. Japan did that with its manufacturing industry and that is precisely why Japanese companies now are so competitive and efficient. The problem with Thailand is that the companies do not improve. They do not become more efficient (see True Corp for a thousand great examples of this). Rather they become dependent on protectionism and the state-sponsored terrorizing of foreign business concerns. They get fat, comfy and so utterly uncompetitive that the protectionism apparatus becomes the most critical key to staying in business (I've loved watching True try to make absurd arguments about the national security interests of Thailand being compromised by DTAC's far more successful and efficient business model).

[SIamYank]

Large successful economies benefit from allowing foreign investment, poorer countries do not always benefit from foreign investment in many economic sectors. Good case studies would include Hawaii, large parts of Africa and banana republics in Central America. When rich foreigners (or mainland Americans and Japanese in the case of Hawaii) own the best property, the big factories, and the mineral resources the locals become the kitchen help, the miners and the unskilled factory workers.

Some could argue that rich Thais are doing that to their own country anyway. I think the problem would be much greater if the foreign own restrictions were not in place.

[impulse]

1) Sounds like scaremongering to me. Why would Chinese state enterprises come in and buy all the land. Is Thailand's land that sought after?? Why? What is so special about it?

2) Why aren't Chinese state enterprises buying up massive chunks of Europe, US, Australia.

1) Then you apparently don't read too much.

2) They are- mostly strategic parts like oil, water and mineral rights, and companies with technology they need. They can get the land (they need for growing food) cheaper elsewhere.

If the door were opened, SOE's could easily buy such a significant portion of Thailand's rice production that the first time there's a drought in China, Thais could easily find themselves going hungry.

If you want to see real scare mongering, read the conspiracy theories about what they're buying up in Africa (and why).

BTW, I was using SOE's as examples of entities that COULD afford to displace a lot of Thais, not as a prediction they WOULD. Heck, it could be GE and Exxon, too.

Edited June 22, 2012 by impulse

[Suradit69]

I have never understood why other countries do not reciprocate the 'rules and regulations' that countries such as Thailand impose on foreigners. For example, if a Brit cannot own land or property in Thailand , then a Thai should be under the same rules in the UK, if a Brit cannot own a company in Thailand then the same should apply in the UK for Thai nationals. Things would soon change in Thailand, Saudi and the UAE if we simply matched their respective regulations. When the elite suddenly found they cannot own properties in London and shift large amounts of money by say owning football clubs ! Then things would rapidly change for us.

It sounds like the Deputy Commerce Minister has been shafted on a shares deal so has started a vendetta.

Same should apply to visas then too. If Thais are regularly denied visas to UK, then the same should apply to Brits. There certainly seem to be no end to Brits here who are on the run from police or who are involved in criminal activities once they get here or who claim to be tourists staying here for years on end and who even the UK embassy won't rescue once found indigent and unable to support themselves.

[gamini]

I have never understood why other countries do not reciprocate the 'rules and regulations' that countries such as Thailand impose on foreigners. For example, if a Brit cannot own land or property in Thailand , then a Thai should be under the same rules in the UK, if a Brit cannot own a company in Thailand then the same should apply in the UK for Thai nationals. Things would soon change in Thailand, Saudi and the UAE if we simply matched their respective regulations. When the elite suddenly found they cannot own properties in London and shift large amounts of money by say owning football clubs ! Then things would rapidly change for us.

It sounds like the Deputy Commerce Minister has been shafted on a shares deal so has started a vendetta.

By the same token then Thais should be allowed to live in Britain as easily as Brits can live here.

[rayw]

Hmm Australian land now is it and I thought it was Austrian. How can you get confused as Austria is the land of yodelling and where the worlds best yodellers come from. Whereas Australians do not generally yodel unless you are old enough to remember Frank Ifield :-0 Whoops is this tread drift, sorry folks !!!

Back on topic the Thais could safely make some lifting of this land owning restriction without even the remotest chance of so many foreigners rushing in that Thailand would be mainly owned by foreigners. Crazy to think that. By for example lifting the restriction and allowing those on proper fully qualified retirement visas to own say up to half a Rai of land for their single retirement home here that would encourage more retirees to move here and financially of course benefit the country without ANY risk to Thais losing vast swathes of their land. Same may apply for example to those with work permits who live here permanently, and any other cases where genuine home ownership for residence is needed. Main thing is for all private residence they would be sensible to restrict foreign ownership to about half a rai per person or family (that is quite a reasonable 200 square wah) or certainly not much more as then it would be unnecessary for a normal nice residence plot and avoid foreigners owning land in excess of what is needed for residence, that would be far more understandable. Get rid of all those land owning companies set up just so foreign retirees can at least part own their residence plot via a Thai Company (not so easy these days but used to be even a recommended method by our immigration officers years ago, so many such fully legal Thai companies are so set up when only a few years ago it was an okay acceptable thing to do).

[TPI]

I have never understood why other countries do not reciprocate the 'rules and regulations' that countries such as Thailand impose on foreigners.

I find Thailand's differential treatment of foreigners frustrating myself. But face it, if they allowed foreigners to own land, a tiny group of the 1% (or a few Chinese state owned enterprises) could come in and buy pretty much all of it.

And if they set aside a certain percentage of land to allow foreign ownership, you and I would be out of luck anyway because we couldn't afford the prices driven up by the 1% and SOE's.

Sounds like scaremongering to me. Why would Chinese state enterprises come in and buy all the land. Is Thailand's land that sought after?? Why? What is so special about it?

Why aren't Chinese state enterprises buying up massive chunks of Europe, US, Australia. The truth is (IMHO) that you would see similar amounts of foreign ownership in Thailand as you do in other countries. And remember this if the Thais sell their lands, with the money they make, the will go and buy land elsewhere. Its often forgotten that the seller, probably a Thai will end up with a big wad of cash and will use that to fund other land purchases (probably) in Thailand.

I have several relatives who have land sitting idle which they don't want to use, but can't find a buyer for. Which means their capital is effectively locked away. To access it they take out loans secured against it.

Ma friend, the Chinese, the Kiwi's, the Japanese, the Vietnamese, the Hong Kongese... dam_n it! Every "ese" you can think of is buying up land like crazy in every country they can! It's all about food security! Look at the huge land buy's in Africa, the biggest group of land holders in Australia are Kiwi's! People are buying up land in LOS it's just that most of the people selling have hugely inflated prices on the land and most of the time the "titles" are very shonky!

[Kilgore Trout]

It is about time that foreign countries are going to pay Thai shareholders back with the same currency by excluding them too from holding majority stakes in their own companies abroad. What does Thailand fear? That they become competitive and that the elite can no longer rob the consumers blind?

I think you hit the nail on the head there.

[bangkokheat]

I have never understood why other countries do not reciprocate the 'rules and regulations' that countries such as Thailand impose on foreigners.

I find Thailand's differential treatment of foreigners frustrating myself. But face it, if they allowed foreigners to own land, a tiny group of the 1% (or a few Chinese state owned enterprises) could come in and buy pretty much all of it.

And if they set aside a certain percentage of land to allow foreign ownership, you and I would be out of luck anyway because we couldn't afford the prices driven up by the 1% and SOE's.

Sounds like scaremongering to me. Why would Chinese state enterprises come in and buy all the land. Is Thailand's land that sought after?? Why? What is so special about it?

Why aren't Chinese state enterprises buying up massive chunks of Europe, US, Australia. The truth is (IMHO) that you would see similar amounts of foreign ownership in Thailand as you do in other countries. And remember this if the Thais sell their lands, with the money they make, the will go and buy land elsewhere. Its often forgotten that the seller, probably a Thai will end up with a big wad of cash and will use that to fund other land purchases (probably) in Thailand.

I have several relatives who have land sitting idle which they don't want to use, but can't find a buyer for. Which means their capital is effectively locked away. To access it they take out loans secured against it.

Ma friend, the Chinese, the Kiwi's, the Japanese, the Vietnamese, the Hong Kongese... dam_n it! Every "ese" you can think of is buying up land like crazy in every country they can! It's all about food security! Look at the huge land buy's in Africa, the biggest group of land holders in Australia are Kiwi's! People are buying up land in LOS it's just that most of the people selling have hugely inflated prices on the land and most of the time the "titles" are very shonky!

yeh but what part of oz are they buying up? the farms that families are walking away from?

[SIamYank]

If Thailand did away with the foreign land ownership ban I would buy up about 200 rai of my village and kick out all the people I don't like.

[surangw]

""irregular shareholdings" is thai translation for they were making more than their thai counterparts ?

[Soi Sauce]

Crackdown on the Foriegn ownership and Thai MPs can buy their holdings on the cheap.

Not rocket science and the currency will be next. Change your baht to a diff currency, devalue the baht, and buy Thailand for nothing.

More than obvious what is going on.

[Keesters]

I have never understood why other countries do not reciprocate the 'rules and regulations' that countries such as Thailand impose on foreigners. For example, if a Brit cannot own land or property in Thailand , then a Thai should be under the same rules in the UK, if a Brit cannot own a company in Thailand then the same should apply in the UK for Thai nationals. Things would soon change in Thailand, Saudi and the UAE if we simply matched their respective regulations. When the elite suddenly found they cannot own properties in London and shift large amounts of money by say owning football clubs ! Then things would rapidly change for us.

It sounds like the Deputy Commerce Minister has been shafted on a shares deal so has started a vendetta.

The way it should be, IMO, is that if Thailand feels it wrong and therefore makes it illegal for a foreigner to own land here then they should also feel it wrong and make it illegal for a Thai to own land overseas. Anything else is DOUBLE STANDARD. Same goes for other things that we (farang) can't do here but they (Thais) can do in our countries.

[Sharp]

""irregular shareholdings" is thai translation for they were making more than their thai counterparts ?

Spot on .....

[Sharp]

I have never understood why other countries do not reciprocate the 'rules and regulations' that countries such as Thailand impose on foreigners. For example, if a Brit cannot own land or property in Thailand , then a Thai should be under the same rules in the UK, if a Brit cannot own a company in Thailand then the same should apply in the UK for Thai nationals. Things would soon change in Thailand, Saudi and the UAE if we simply matched their respective regulations. When the elite suddenly found they cannot own properties in London and shift large amounts of money by say owning football clubs ! Then things would rapidly change for us.

It sounds like the Deputy Commerce Minister has been shafted on a shares deal so has started a vendetta.

Because western governments and electorates are smart enough to realise such protectionism doesn't work. What it would mean is that the price of top end houses, football clubs etc in the UK would fall pretty sharply, investment would dry up and the UK would be poorer as a result. If Thai, Russians and middle eastern billionaires want to spend their money in the UK, good for the UK.

Exactly - more foreign money brings more jobs, salaries increase, better infrastructure and more importantly more tax revenue for the US / UK governments which can be spent on education, social welfare, defense etc.

Exactly Thais don't want that ...

[hawker9000]

Boy, does this country know how to bring in the foreign investment or what!? LOL

[NBD]

I have never understood why other countries do not reciprocate the 'rules and regulations' that countries such as Thailand impose on foreigners. For example, if a Brit cannot own land or property in Thailand , then a Thai should be under the same rules in the UK, if a Brit cannot own a company in Thailand then the same should apply in the UK for Thai nationals. Things would soon change in Thailand, Saudi and the UAE if we simply matched their respective regulations. When the elite suddenly found they cannot own properties in London and shift large amounts of money by say owning football clubs ! Then things would rapidly change for us.

It sounds like the Deputy Commerce Minister has been shafted on a shares deal so has started a vendetta.

The way it should be, IMO, is that if Thailand feels it wrong and therefore makes it illegal for a foreigner to own land here then they should also feel it wrong and make it illegal for a Thai to own land overseas. Anything else is DOUBLE STANDARD. Same goes for other things that we (farang) can't do here but they (Thais) can do in our countries.

Put it another way, if I own a house abroad, what enables any government to tell me who I can and can't sell it to? I will sell it to whoever gives me the best price, British, Thai or whatever else.

Swings and roundabouts, but if Thailand wants to hamper their ability to attract investment in that way it's their concern. I suspect most Thais would rather be able to sell their land to whoever they wish if it meant they could get a better price. But reciprocating in other countries would be silly.

What about reciprocation for the things we can do here that Thais can't do in our countries? Visa on arrival is the big obvious one. Obtain a residence or work visa fairly easily, or a retirement visa with the price of a second hand car in your bank account.

[Bagwan]

Sure, visas to other country is hard for Thais because if not, all the dorty old men sex tourists would be flying their hookers into town fr a jump and then kicking them out into the street where they would stay illegally. In a nut shell.

Thailand loves to f*(k the farangs because in their mind they simply believe that all farangs do is f#%k their girls. And they hate it. they are clueless about anything in the real world, and the HiSo elite know dam_n well that as soon as free market competition is opened up all of their crumby companies (the Banks, telcom / IT / TV / internet / infrastructure etc etc etc) will be torn apart by first rate businesses that know the meaning of the phrases "Customer Satisfaction" and "do a proper job". So they will resist resist and then resist some more and things will never change.

Would the dirty young sex tourists also fly their hookers into town?