Support sought for bill to curb foreign land grabbers throughout Thailand

[culicine]

The most worrying piece of the article is the threat against foreigners that have leased land in Thailand. So, can't buy OK, can't lease either?? Thailand under the Shin dynasty is closing its doors.

Please reread OP. Leasing of agricultural land.

Not to be an apologist, but there are no SEA countries where foreigners can legally own land.

FALSE

Malasia. http://www.mm2h.gov.my/incentive1.php

Singapore http://www.stproperty.sg/articles-property/legal-guides/foreigners-buying-singapore-residential-real-estate/a/129619

Indonesia http://www.expat.or.id/info/ownershiprights.html

Laos http://jclao.com/foreign-investors-allowed-to-own-land/

Vietnam http://tuoitrenews.vn/society/9178/hanoi-to-grant-land-house-deeds-to-foreigners

Makes Thais look pretty xenophobic doesn't it? Or is Thailand the only desirable country to like in SE Asia?

One and how on earth can a wife be a nominee? The land/house is usually in her name and we sign documents at the land department to say the money for the house comes from the wife only....if we were forced to sell, I'd take the proceeds and send them back home and invest it, or just move back home, wife and kid in tow.

[hansgruber]

A middle east consortium bought 200,000 rai a few years ago for agricultural purpose, a deal Thaksin put together.

Will that be looked at?

[yooper2001]

this is a easy fix. just change the law to state that as a foreign land owner you must live on the land you purchase for 9 months a year. I remember back when japan was buying big cattle ranches in Nebraska and raising beef for the japan market until the law was changed to state that the owner must live on the land. not many owners wanted to live on a cattle or pig ranch.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Rooo

[culicine]

Not to spark the debate further, but does anybody know the origins or rationale for such laws? I would assume that it is to protect the Thai people from being taken advantage of by "comparatively more wealthy" foreigners. What I mean as an economist is that supply and demand are the basic drivers of price; since supply is finite in order to keep housing affordable the logical approach would be to limit demand.

The reason why a reciprocal law makes no sense in developed nations where so many posters are moaning that "Thais can own land" is that there are not significant numbers of Thai immigrants/visitors that are wealthier than the local population.

If anybody has a better way to keep pricing of land for Thais (yes, I said for Thais because this is Thailand after all), then I'm sure the gov't would love to hear it.

No people are moaning because they might not be able to buy (or contribute to the cost)of a house even it it's in their wife's name. Right now we can do this, but the OP suggests this might change. I think a lot is to do with the locals not liking competition from foreigners, especially in tourist areas. Perhaps if 1) law enforcement was better /less corruption, 2) Thais ran their tourist businesses so as not to rip off foreign tourists all the time, we might not have such a problem.

It would be very simple to put in restrictions if a foreigner buys a property here - e.g. they must have a WP and have worked here for x number of years, they can only own one property and they must live there full time, etc. It's quite simple, but the powers that be simply don't want this, even though it's obvious many other countries are able to do this.

[The Usual Suspect]

Please forgive my ignorance, but I just don't see what the actual issue is here. Foreigners, as I understand it, can't actually OWN property in Thailand outright. The bottom line is that at the end of the day, if the "Thai partners" who have a controlling interest in all land deals, decide to take full control of the property, the foreign partner is out in the cold sans their investment. So, this seems to be a mute point. Please correct me if I am in error.

[Credo]

Historically, land ownership has been a contentious issue in a lot of developing countries where day-to-day survival is tied to the ability to farm. Communist and Socialist ideologies also include land ownership/distribution etc.

Although the situation here is different, the mentality isn't.

I believe the ranching law that another poster was referring to has to do with corporate farming regulations. I don't believe you have to live on the land for 9 months to own it, but for tax purposes, you may have to incorporate as a business or rent the land out. Not sure, but some states have variations on corporations and absentee land owners rights regarding farm land.

[gemini81]

As the AEC comes, ASEAN moves ahead, countries open and other SE Asian countries develop & move forward in time, this place will deserve it when they're on their knees with no investors and little industry, and a poor economy, and a dictator or his offspring running the Thai.Mao Tse Dong show.

Edited August 20, 2013 by gemini81

[Cloggie]

Maybe I am the only one but I agree with the fact that foreigners are not allowed to own land in Thailand.

For the same reason I do not agree with German nationals who own land in Switserland, English nationals who own land in New Zealand, French nationals who own land in Denmark or Swedish nationals who own land in Malaysia - I can continue for one hour but I think you go the point.

Land belongs to the people who legally live there and have a passport and it does NOT belong to people who are just have money to buy it!

[gemini81]

Maybe I am the only one but I agree with the fact that foreigners are not allowed to own land in Thailand.

For the same reason I do not agree with German nationals who own land in Switserland, English nationals who own land in New Zealand, French nationals who own land in Denmark or Swedish nationals who own land in Malaysia - I can continue for one hour but I think you go the point.

Land belongs to the people who legally live there and have a passport and it does NOT belong to people who are just have money to buy it!

And which planet is that a reality in? I think the key thing is how they can buy land anywhere worldwide, and how insecure, protectionist and hypocritical of the few Thai Chinese folk here who own most of the land...and false estimates that foreigners own 30% up...

We all have passports; the complaint is those who have family/made a family here/stay legally/have a family & invest, run a business here. Why can't they? Tons of Chinese migrants came and bought it all up a few generation ago, did they not? Point is, when you kick the bucket, it goes back into the hands of Thai nationals/your family...so why all the paranoia?

Edited August 20, 2013 by gemini81

[Thai at Heart]

Please forgive my ignorance, but I just don't see what the actual issue is here. Foreigners, as I understand it, can't actually OWN property in Thailand outright. The bottom line is that at the end of the day, if the "Thai partners" who have a controlling interest in all land deals, decide to take full control of the property, the foreign partner is out in the cold sans their investment. So, this seems to be a mute point. Please correct me if I am in error.

Yes, apparently they don't even like you technically donating it to Thai people.

[Thai at Heart]

Maybe I am the only one but I agree with the fact that foreigners are not allowed to own land in Thailand.

For the same reason I do not agree with German nationals who own land in Switserland, English nationals who own land in New Zealand, French nationals who own land in Denmark or Swedish nationals who own land in Malaysia - I can continue for one hour but I think you go the point.

Land belongs to the people who legally live there and have a passport and it does NOT belong to people who are just have money to buy it!

Legally live there. You do realise that an enormous percentage of Thais don't own their own land? They lost it to Thai Chinese loan sharks years ago?

Note that banking is another protected industry.

[chrisartist]

I'm sick of reading about this garbage. it is legally impossible for a foreigner to own land illegally through nominees. legal ownership is determined by whose name is on the title deed and it is illegal for foreigners' names to appear on the title deed, so they cannot possibly own land.

If the land is bought, it must be bought with a Thai person's name on the title deed. if the land is sold, it must be sold by the Thai person whose name is on the title deed to another Thai person, whose name will be on the new title deed. So what if the Thai person allows a foreigner to use the land? it's still the Thai person's land and the foreigner has no rights at all.

I wish these Thai government officials would just visit their local DNA bank and arrange to grow a brain instead of conducting witch hunts against foreigners whose actions cannot possibly be illegal.

[AryanicAristocrat]

First investigate this omsbudman and his family and see if everything is in order......I am sure that we will find some skeletons. next, all TV members should help by sending this article to all foreign media and also this guys pictures and details of his family as all countries shoudl prevent this exenophobic from tarvballeing anyway. Next , try to get a mob organised......but make sure all wear Red Shirts to ask for the outsetr of his garbage guy and hs family out of thailand and also lobby your governments to stop any aid, loans or support to thailand and also to give it reciprocal rights to land ownership lawas it imposes. Really.....<deleted>!

[chrisartist]

Maybe I am the only one but I agree with the fact that foreigners are not allowed to own land in Thailand.

For the same reason I do not agree with German nationals who own land in Switserland, English nationals who own land in New Zealand, French nationals who own land in Denmark or Swedish nationals who own land in Malaysia - I can continue for one hour but I think you go the point.

Land belongs to the people who legally live there and have a passport and it does NOT belong to people who are just have money to buy it!

Actually, land doesn't belong to anybody in any absolute sense. The concept of "ownership" is just shorthand for right of use conferred by social consensus. In the same way, nation states and their boundaries are mere matters of social consensus. Further, in the state of nature, everyone can live wherever they like and that state of nature is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human rights, which guarantees the right to residence without condition. So to say that land belongs to the people that legally live there is absurd.

[chrisartist]

So, this seems to be a mute point. Please correct me if I am in error.

For "mute", read "moot".

[abhaya]

What this really means, is they want to grab anything a foreigner owns. In Psychology this is called projection, where someone rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world.

[FiestyFarang]

How is this going to fit in Asean in 2015, is this going to be a "special Thai law"

[Cloggie]

Maybe I am the only one but I agree with the fact that foreigners are not allowed to own land in Thailand.

For the same reason I do not agree with German nationals who own land in Switserland, English nationals who own land in New Zealand, French nationals who own land in Denmark or Swedish nationals who own land in Malaysia - I can continue for one hour but I think you go the point.

Land belongs to the people who legally live there and have a passport and it does NOT belong to people who are just have money to buy it!

Actually, land doesn't belong to anybody in any absolute sense. The concept of "ownership" is just shorthand for right of use conferred by social consensus. In the same way, nation states and their boundaries are mere matters of social consensus. Further, in the state of nature, everyone can live wherever they like and that state of nature is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human rights, which guarantees the right to residence without condition. So to say that land belongs to the people that legally live there is absurd.

So to say that land belongs to the people that legally live there is absurd.???

Why?

[chrisartist]

Maybe I am the only one but I agree with the fact that foreigners are not allowed to own land in Thailand.

For the same reason I do not agree with German nationals who own land in Switserland, English nationals who own land in New Zealand, French nationals who own land in Denmark or Swedish nationals who own land in Malaysia - I can continue for one hour but I think you go the point.

Land belongs to the people who legally live there and have a passport and it does NOT belong to people who are just have money to buy it!

Actually, land doesn't belong to anybody in any absolute sense. The concept of "ownership" is just shorthand for right of use conferred by social consensus. In the same way, nation states and their boundaries are mere matters of social consensus. Further, in the state of nature, everyone can live wherever they like and that state of nature is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human rights, which guarantees the right to residence without condition. So to say that land belongs to the people that legally live there is absurd.

So to say that land belongs to the people that legally live there is absurd.???

Why?

Because what you mean is not "Phaiboon owns his house because he lives there", but "The land in Thailand belongs to Thai people", and I believe that what I have already written provides an adequate explanation of why that xenophobic view is absurd.

[affen02]

Funny people in the year of 2013 they havent noticed that the Chineese own the gold buissness, the rice mills, the big shopping malls, hotels and just about all the land in the entire country, all big companies i could go on. Oh i forgot the are naturalized they are dual citizen. Its not the Thais screaming about this, its the Chineese scared that the farangs should manage to buy a small plot of land they have set their eyes on. I might start to become colour blind after all this years in the heat, but buggerf me if i dont see the red chineese coulors over just about every shop of a certain size, be it motorcycle or car dealers, Big C, Seven 11 and so on. My poor mother in law every year manages to sell to much of her harvest of rice to the local Chineese dealer for about 11 to 14 bth for so in mai or june sending me to town to bye rice back from the Chineese shop at about 30 bth. Yes i must definitly be coulor blind, or i might have come down with some other tropical sickness.

[chooka]

So long as Thai citizens rights are reciprocated in the western world there will not be a problem, as ridiculous articles like this would never appear in the first place.

The most worrying piece of the article is the threat against foreigners that have leased land in Thailand. So, can't buy OK, can't lease either?? Thailand under the Shin dynasty is closing its doors.

My wife is Thai and owns 3 properties in Australia, one unit and 2 blocks and houses. Perfectly legal and anyone can buy land as long as they promise not to tow it away from Australia.

[Arjay]

"The 40-section bill targets foreigners illegally holding land in Thailand, their legal consultants and their nominees.

Foreigners holding land plots in Thailand illegally would face five to 20 years in prison and/or a fine of B500,000 to B2 million, while the consultants would face two-thirds of whatever penalties are imposed on the wrongdoers". The very people promoting and encouraging these transactions only get 2/3 penalty? All this land was once sold by Thais and they reaped the rewards. Now they want it back to do it again! Criminals.

[quiksilva]

This is the same guy who last year claimed a third of Thailand was owned by foreigners and was going to deport everyone...

[Jalapenos]

How is this going to fit in Asean in 2015, is this going to be a "special Thai law"

If I understood the legal text correctly at asean.org, it means that all ASEAN-member nations must allow companies to have "100% foreign equity ownership". This means that all current Thai companies that use Thai nominees, can be converted into companies with 100% foreign ownership. Maybe someone with more knowledge can shed a light on this?

[monkeycountry]

"Mr Siracha became the centre of a heated debate in March last year when he claimed that foreigners owned 30 per cent of all the land in Thailand."

As with all other official statements, there is zero evidence to back up the claim. Perhaps the government should aks Mr. Siracha to provide some form of proof before wasting everyones time on it?

If asked, Mr. Siracha will of course claim that he cannot prove it, as the foreigners are hiding behind Thais in 49/51 partnerships, or through their wives etc. To counter that, I suggest Mr. Siracha simply include all land owned by companies where there are foreign partners, and all land owned by Thais married to foreigners, then to be on the safe side we can simply assume it is all controlled by foreigners.

It will not be anywhere near 30%, not even 3%, but perhaps somewhere around 0.3%.

Once we have the facts on the table, and it becomes clear to everyone, including the government, that Mr. Siracha is an idiot whose "study" was wrong by a factor of around 100, perhaps Ms. Yingluck can do what she should have done long ago, and fire this moron, or even better put him in jail for providing the government with information he knows to be false!

[dunque]

The most worrying piece of the article is the threat against foreigners that have leased land in Thailand. So, can't buy OK, can't lease either?? Thailand under the Shin dynasty is closing its doors.

Please reread OP. Leasing of agricultural land.

Not to be an apologist, but there are no SEA countries where foreigners can legally own land.

Away with you and your facts - these will not be welcome here.

[crazykopite]

Amazing Thailand without the foreigner they would still be in the stone age , Phuket and all the other places would be little fishing villages the Western world has introduced wealth into this Country all the motor, phone,TV industries are foreign owned if that were all to go what would happen It is okay for all these Thai politicians to own properties in abundance abroad and from what I hear the most expensive real estate in Singapore is the Thai Consulate !!!!!!!

[dunque]

The most worrying piece of the article is the threat against foreigners that have leased land in Thailand. So, can't buy OK, can't lease either?? Thailand under the Shin dynasty is closing its doors.

Please reread OP. Leasing of agricultural land.

Not to be an apologist, but there are no SEA countries where foreigners can legally own land.

FALSE

Malasia. http://www.mm2h.gov.my/incentive1.php

Singapore http://www.stproperty.sg/articles-property/legal-guides/foreigners-buying-singapore-residential-real-estate/a/129619

Indonesia http://www.expat.or.id/info/ownershiprights.html

Laos http://jclao.com/foreign-investors-allowed-to-own-land/

Vietnam http://tuoitrenews.vn/society/9178/hanoi-to-grant-land-house-deeds-to-foreigners

perhaps you should read those links a bit more closely - looks like glorified leases in the case of Vietnam and Indonesia and significant investments needed for Malaysia and Laos

[monkeycountry]

Perhaps to be fair to everyone, the laws should be amended so a thai married to a foreigner will have to show proof that the money used to pay the land/house was earned by the thai through salary, inheritance or anything else that has nothing to do with the foreign spouse, and not just given as a present by the foreigner. This way foreigners will avoid losing their money to thai spouses, and Thailand will avoid foreigners buying land/houses through their spouses. A win/win for everyone.

I expect that both Ombudsman Siracha and all the thai girls in Isaan and elsewhere will support my suggestion

[MAJIC]

The most worrying piece of the article is the threat against foreigners that have leased land in Thailand. So, can't buy OK, can't lease either?? Thailand under the Shin dynasty is closing its doors.

Please reread OP. Leasing of agricultural land.

Not to be an apologist, but there are no SEA countries where foreigners can legally own land.

And who is to say what is agricultural land. Its just a matter of zoning. My mate Denzil Penbirthy took a 30 year lease on 5 rai in Isaan to build a house for his Thai wife and kids to grow up on. Their neighbors grow some rice, and one neighbor has a few coconut palms and a pond they use to grow pla nin. This might make his land technically "agricultural" in an overall zoning map but he didn't think this nonsense would happen and they could get turfed out on their ear.

Makes sense to read yesterday that there is concern about the number of farang beggars. The authorities seem to be expecting an explosion in their numbers. Now we know why.

I doubt any mate of Jethro's would touch Thai Land with a Barge Pole!