Only been here two years but feel Thailand is missing such an opportunity but making ownership of land so restrictive. There are many ways Thai government could allow this but still stop massive investment. For example it may be land can only be owned by foreign individuals. The capital gain tax on a future sale could be made high. So why not allow it?

I see so many qualified expats living here. There is so much wasted and undeveloped land even in bkk.

Expats have untaped skills going to waste. Thai could learn so much. Some of building practices are from medieval times.

Not medieval -- 1954 as in Land Code Act B.E. 2497 (1954) as further amended.

Edited March 7, 201412 yr by JLCrab

Not medieval -- 1954 as in Land Code Act B.E. 2497 (1954) as further amended.

I was being a little sarcastic. I was referring to Thai methods of construction. From foundations to the pillar/infill walls. I'm suggesting is when you allow people from overseas to work and own such things as real estate, you untap so many skills and techniques.

Australia did this post WW2 and has ripped the rewards from Europe and other areas. A closed country falls behind quickly in the long run.

Since when has ownership facilitated education ?

The education and training for methods or techniques of construction dont require ownership.

There may very well be more than one good idea why forenigners or outsiders can not usually own.

Politics, dear boy, politics.

Thailand is still a rural society in many ways. Land is extremely important to Thais, it represents a store of wealth and security. They don't trust paper and with good reason.

No Thai politician is going to risk his place at the trough by advocating changes to the law in favour

of falangs. Falangs have no votes. Period. Full stop.

Most Thais are parochial, they know little and care even less about international investment or happy falangs or the long term.

As long as their rice bowl is full, little else matters.

Edited March 7, 201412 yr by johnnyk

Since when has ownership facilitated education ?

The education and training for methods or techniques of construction dont require ownership.

Yes you are correct. I was meaning that ownership would need to also allow some sort of work permit capacity. For example perhaps supervisor capacity without actual sub contractor work. Yes may be far fetched but it brings in money from overseas, provides jobs,. Also if the foreign individual has skills and is allowed to work in some way brings training.

Since when has ownership facilitated education ?

The education and training for methods or techniques of construction dont require ownership.

Yes you are correct. I was meaning that ownership would need to also allow some sort of work permit capacity. For example perhaps supervisor capacity without actual sub contractor work. Yes may be far fetched but it brings in money from overseas, provides jobs,. Also if the foreign individual has skills and is allowed to work in some way brings training.

There is a work permit capicity for architectural, advisory or consultancy basis. People with such skills can also be employed as teachers or trainers. Still dont need ownership to do it.

Whats required is education and the willingness of the Thais to accept and adopt those techniques, now thats a whole new discussion.

Edited March 7, 201412 yr by CharlieH

Not medieval -- 1954 as in Land Code Act B.E. 2497 (1954) as further amended.

I was being a little sarcastic. I was referring to Thai methods of construction. From foundations to the pillar/infill walls. I'm suggesting is when you allow people from overseas to work and own such things as real estate, you untap so many skills and techniques.

Australia did this post WW2 and has ripped the rewards from Europe and other areas. A closed country falls behind quickly in the long run.

Great -- why not take your suggestions down to Parliament and look for this --

Unfortunately keeping people ignorant means you can buy their vote more easily. That's why the laws are archaic.

Marcusd. Via tapatalk

It would double, triple the prices for the locals

Foreigners that want to own/control land in Thailand ......already do by the various means available.

It would double, triple the prices for the locals

Sorry. Disagree completely. Money comes from overseas. As land currently owned by Thai, it turns nothing plots into rentable properties. Actually buts more supply also an injection in realoney terms to Thailand. Win win

I have to agree with the parochial mind set of Thais. Look at the protest that just finished. They said they want Democracy but wanted to stop people from voting in the last election

If they don't like the results they start to protest rather than suck it up and wait 4 years like other democracies do.

This is the mentality of the Thais and it will not change . As said before No education on international affairs They want to keep the masses stupid

This is the problem.

If they went with both eyes open this would be the richest Asian country in the world ahead of Hong Kong and Singapore but they are squandering it .

I have to agree with the parochial mind set of Thais. Look at the protest that just finished. They said they want Democracy but wanted to stop people from voting in the last election

If they don't like the results they start to protest rather than suck it up and wait 4 years like other democracies do.

This is the mentality of the Thais and it will not change . As said before No education on international affairs They want to keep the masses stupid

This is the problem.

If they went with both eyes open this would be the richest Asian country in the world ahead of Hong Kong and Singapore but they are squandering it .

Yet Farangs still flock here to live.

Of course you could always move to Hong Kong, Singapore or Tokyo.

But, the rents are sky high and the natives are not easily exploited..............

Edited March 7, 201412 yr by Banzai99

I have to agree with the parochial mind set of Thais. Look at the protest that just finished. They said they want Democracy but wanted to stop people from voting in the last election

If they don't like the results they start to protest rather than suck it up and wait 4 years like other democracies do.

This is the mentality of the Thais and it will not change . As said before No education on international affairs They want to keep the masses stupid

This is the problem.

If they went with both eyes open this would be the richest Asian country in the world ahead of Hong Kong and Singapore but they are squandering it .

Yet Farangs still flock here to live.

Of course you could always move to Hong Kong, Singapore or Tokyo.

So true. There are farangs in Thailand complaining that Thailand should be like HK, or Singapore, or Japan. Well why don't they just freakin move there and not have to keep preaching this crappola!

I have to agree with the parochial mind set of Thais. Look at the protest that just finished. They said they want Democracy but wanted to stop people from voting in the last election

If they don't like the results they start to protest rather than suck it up and wait 4 years like other democracies do.

This is the mentality of the Thais and it will not change . As said before No education on international affairs They want to keep the masses stupid

This is the problem.

If they went with both eyes open this would be the richest Asian country in the world ahead of Hong Kong and Singapore but they are squandering it .

Yet Farangs still flock here to live.

Of course you could always move to Hong Kong, Singapore or Tokyo.

So true. There are farangs in Thailand complaining that Thailand should be like HK, or Singapore, or Japan. Well why don't they just freakin move there and not have to keep preaching this crappola!

Because they can't afford it, and they would be lonely.

I had a letter published in Bangkok Post back in '98 explaining to the Thais that there would be no "Asian Financial Crisis" if they would sell land to foreigners. It obviously would have been a great financial boom. I can't imagine how crowded this place would be and how high the prices would be if they would change that policy. The great rift in wealth differences would be even more apparent.

In a way, I'm glad they don't allow it. This country has become way to globalized/westernized in the past 25 years.

If it was up to me, the law in Australia would be similar.

There would be a terrible lad grab, and as suggested above, a hike in prices to exclude the majority of Thais. It would deepen resentment already there for the foreigners nudging their way into business. Foreigners would not respect the character of the Thai landscape. The ugliest parts of Thailand are where foreign developers have replicated Western suburbia. Ugly ugly ugly.

Of course. Why would the immigrant thais want foreigners in the market pushing the price up.

70% of the decent land lies in the hands of 10%., and they aren't giving that up any time soon.

Your all missing the point.

Foreign ownership for INDIVIDUALS would not push up prices. I give up. . Clearly no one here understands wealth creation for Thai people, not farang. I never suggested company players or foreign condo development. This joint is stuffed for Thai people because there is very low tax on land and the rich sit on it. And the not rich cannot sell it or use it. The land is owned by Thai people, broaden the purchaser based market and they make money. Very subjective that a farang will make much. Would be better investing in AU. . They would do it as they want to live here.

It would double, triple the prices for the locals

Sorry. Disagree completely. Money comes from overseas. As land currently owned by Thai, it turns nothing plots into rentable properties. Actually buts more supply also an injection in realoney terms to Thailand. Win win

Austria had to restrict ownership of Germans...I recall it, nice lakes couldn't accessed anymore by locals because the land around was complete closed with foreign houses.

Same would happen with Thailand, all nice beaches would be full with Farang owned houses.

Great -- So you are suggesting revisions to the Thai Foreign Business Act, The Thai Immigration Act, the Thai Land Code Act, the Civil Code of Thailand, etc.

Not medieval -- 1954 as in Land Code Act B.E. 2497 (1954) as further amended.

I was being a little sarcastic. I was referring to Thai methods of construction. From foundations to the pillar/infill walls. I'm suggesting is when you allow people from overseas to work and own such things as real estate, you untap so many skills and techniques.

Australia did this post WW2 and has ripped the rewards from Europe and other areas. A closed country falls behind quickly in the long run.

" has ripped [sic] the rewards from Europe and other areas. "

Possibly you meant "reaped," but ripped the rewards seems fitting for the form of economic colonialism and feudalism you think would be so beneficial.

One of the reasons that condos tend to cost more than houses is because foreigners are allowed to own those and drive the market prices up, thus putting them out of the reach of Thai people in many areas. I haven't noticed that there's been a consequent and commensurate rise in building standards.

Assuming you took any history classes that taught anything beyond the white-man's-burden worldview, you may have noticed that foreign involvement in most countries benefits the foreigners far more than the indigenous population in most cases.

Australia did this post WW2 and has ripped [sic] the rewards

That would be white Australians of course. Here's some Australians who may not fully appreciate the benefits of having their country run to benefit Europeans. Although I'm sure they did learn what it was like to have Europeans take their children away. Stop assuming that the color of your skin makes you innately superior or that everyone would benefit from your "benign" interest in exploiting "wasted" land.

The only thing Europeans want to export from their mismanaged economies is their unemployed "experts."

Edited March 7, 201412 yr by Suradit69

Great -- So you are suggesting revisions to the Thai Foreign Business Act, The Thai Immigration Act, the Thai Land Code Act, the Civil Code of Thailand, etc.

Yes that will do for a start. And the bloke who posted about Germans over taking Austria beaches. <deleted> you mean Pattaya is lovely. Most beaches are stuffed here with uncontrolled development. Also AGAIN I suggested ownership by INDIVIDUALS

Give me a break . Australia puts in per head of capita to help indigenous Australians more than any country. And you go sideways with this rubbish. Shall we talk about Indians in USA and Canada. Come on

infinity11

Super Member

Posted Today, 11:49

There may very well be more than one good idea why forenigners or outsiders can not usually own.

Yes one is racism the other is zenophobia

Great -- So you are suggesting revisions to the Thai Foreign Business Act, The Thai Immigration Act, the Thai Land Code Act, the Civil Code of Thailand, etc.

Yes that will do for a start. And the bloke who posted about Germans over taking Austria beaches. <deleted> you mean Pattaya is lovely. Most beaches are stuffed here with uncontrolled development. Also AGAIN I suggested ownership by INDIVIDUALS

Yes that will do for a start. So you're really not serious about any of this.

It would double, triple the prices for the locals

Sorry. Disagree completely. Money comes from overseas. As land currently owned by Thai, it turns nothing plots into rentable properties. Actually buts more supply also an injection in realoney terms to Thailand. Win win

Austria had to restrict ownership of Germans...I recall it, nice lakes couldn't accessed anymore by locals because the land around was complete closed with foreign houses.

Same would happen with Thailand, all nice beaches would be full with Farang owned houses.

That is impossible : You have thousands and - thousands again - empty miles of beaches in Thailand. If you just start to investigate how much empty land there is around the Thai Kingdom you´d be surprised....

(And so would the Thai people....)