Crackdown on foreign nominees, changes to the Foreign Business Act

[TheSiemReaper]

Friendlier for foreign investors

She added that the amended law should make the environment friendlier for foreign investors and streamline business regulations. Moreover, Thailand should be able to compete under the coming regional integration, which will allow other Asean countries to hold up to 70 per cent of some service businesses.

For non-Asean foreigners it is better then to open a company with 100% share in Malaysia, Philippines or Cambodia and then become active as Asean LTD in Thailand.

I believe Cambodia still doesn't allow 100% ownership in a company. They only in 2010 started to allow foreigners to own condo and apartments but not the 1st floor.

Cambodia has always allowed 100% foreign ownership of limited companies. It also has very easily circumventable laws on land ownership; ask the Koreans and Chinese who are buying up the country for more details...

[bangrak]

The Kingdom of Thailand has not yet officially ratified the ASEAN Treaty. According to the Constitution, such formal ratification of an international treaty, requires a majority of the gathered MPs and Senators. Considering the wide and deep ramifications of this treaty, several modifications to the Constitution will need to be first proposed, debated, and voted in, some of, like the right for ASEAN States' citizens and companies to own up to 70% of shares in Thai companies, implicate changes to very basic Thai(ness) principles. The ASEAN zone is set to come alive on December 31st, 2015. I see several evident practical reasons making it de facto impossible for Thailand to be ready by that date. Is there already an alternative scenario prepared under the table, in order to delay the ratification, and push away to an as remote as possible future all elements of ASEAN considered as not positive to Thailand, attempting to go on though only with the parts profitable to Thailand? There are many examples in History of this kind of attitude from the Thai (Siamese) State, with its diplomacy being recognised as world top experts in 'slalom', but it mostly ended in tears, sometimes in blood, and with losses uncomparably higher than what was originally at stake. Let that part of History not be repeated, please! But I'm afraid the Kingdom has already succeeded to maneuver itself into such an inextricable position... Will the ASEAN 'brother' countries be able to appreciate the exercise and ready to give Thailand all 'exceptions' it wants, when it wants, like to quiet down a spoiled child? May I seriously doubt it, ...but hush, I'm a Farang, and farangs mai rhu luang as Thais know, so... Ah, Thainess, how important it makes you feel, in your country...

[timewilltell]

One of the intentions of laws like the Thailand Foreign Business Act is to protect jobs and businesses for Thai nationals—and for good reason. All one has to do is look to the example of when the USA allowed factories to move production overseas to China and other low overhead nations. This directly resulted in unemployment and wage deflation for American workers and one of the worst economic periods in US history. In the last 20 years 6.4 million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the US. This phenomenon also illustrates that companies have little national loyalty and if companies can profit by moving to cheaper destinations, they will do so at the expense of existing workers.

Similar to EU and NAFTA integration, AEC integration causes economic harm to the working public and normally benefits the banking and corporate elite. The Thailand Foreign Business Act, as is, protects Thai jobs for Thai citizens. Although this concept might not seem progressive, Thailand still has a sense of national allegiance and regional economic integration that is directly in conflict with AEC integration.

You seem to be thinking a little askew here. US companies moved some of their business offshore to take advantage of lower wage costs in the developing world. The countries that took that business have benefited - Thailand being one of them but I am willing to stick my neck out and say they could have benefitted substantially more if they did not have that Act. Anyway that is an out flux of work for other countries citizens to do.

You state the Thailand a Foreign Business Act protects Thai workers by protecting Thai jobs. It doesn't! It does not prevent Thai Companies from exporting jobs to other countries as your US example purports to show. What it does is put a brake on foreign businesses starting up and employing Thai workers - it I'd a negative for Thai workers. What it does benefits only Thai businesses and by far the biggest beneficiaries are the biggest businesses such as CP who can monopolise the market and maker super profits. It benefits the rich like so many laws here.

Pray tell us how it protects Thai workers and puts more jobs at their disposal. You might also consider the huge number of Cambodians and Burmese who take Thai jobs and are welcomed here.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[Thai at Heart]

It's about time this country woke up to permtting farang (caucasians in particular) to buy land and property outright. Westerners tend to their land, gardens and properties - we even plant flowers and paint our properties regularly.... and grow GRASS (in it's truest sense of meaning) when given the rights. Sod ASEAN as the main agenda - it has to be worldwide interaction and permissions. In that way, Thailand would become a lot cleaner and less polluted in the long run.

The whole point is missed by the continued xenphobia of others infiltrating this land. If that's the fear, open it up to Westerners too, or ASEAN is going to break this place, and the influx from neighbouring countries will for sure take away opportunities for Thais themselves.

I wholeheartedly agree. However, there are no provisions in the AEC 2015 regulations that would give ASEAN citizens (non-Thais) rights to own Thai land after the implementation of AEC. And in any case, it's fear of the Chinese and other ASEAN nationals, perhaps even Indians to some extent, rather than westerners that has prompted Thailand to enact restrictive land ownership laws. Why? Simple - just look at the huge populations on Thailand's doorstep, with a large number of newly rich entrepreneurs and investors who'd be more than happy to own land in Thailand if they could (and probably try to speculate on property and land values and this is seen as risky in light of the lessons learned from the 1997 Asian financial crisis) although there are also more recent lessons that can be learned from the sinofication (Chinese extra-territoriality) of northern Laos and to a lesser extent, Myanmar. Although the Lao government didn't sell any land in question to the Chinese investors I am referring to, the long term lease or concession, for a period of up to 99 years is for all intents and purposes the same thing as that represents a lifetime right to do whatever the concession holder wants during this period of time, with every possibility of concession/lease renewal at the end of this period unless of course by that time the world is a very different place and laws have been changed. The King Romans Casino in Tonpheung, directly opposite Chiang Rai's Chiang Saen district on the Mekong River and the now defunct Boten special economic zone (which used to include a few now also defunct casinos) on the Lao-Chinese frontier are two examples of this. Both are basically transplants of China onto Lao territory and I can imagine Thailand does not want this to happen inside it's territory.

Westerners on the other hand only have a small number of investors who'd be trying to do the same and so far I haven't heard of one, or know of any one example. Nearly every westerner is either married to a Thai, working here or retired here and thus all they want is to own a small piece of land, which they reside on, generally not for commercial purposes. In any case westerners are only in Thailand in very small numbers compared to Asians from neighboring countries and thus as you rightly stated, are not a threat.

However, it's easier for Thailand to just place a blanket ban on land ownership to all foreigners and thus eliminate what they see as a "threat" to Thai sovereignty, citing examples such as the ones I've given above.

It is not fear that foreigners are going to come and suck up the land. It is because the country already has a long established immigrant population who have sucked it all up already, and don't want to have to fight to suck up the rest

Actually I believe I am correct, but what do you mean by "long established immigrant population", Chinese-Thais? Clearly the Thais or at least those in power (irrespective of their ethnic origins) feel that foreign competition for land would mean less available land for locals, i.e. they see the foreigners as a threat. Not sure how your point is any different to mine.

The issue has little to do with providing affordable land for Thais. Just look at the swathes of land still in the centre of many cities which are sitting unbuilt and untouched. Just look at the structure of land taxes, whereby land is basically a bank with status that is untouched by the state. Land in Thailand is a money washing exercise and it has become concentrated in the hands of the very few, and those few do not fancy have John Smith from England, Mr. Wong from Shanghai or any other place raining on their parade.

[timewilltell]

XENOPHOBIC RATS...who only want foreigners monies but thats all! All these changes are just a guise to make it more difficult for foreigners to do business here despite whatever claims they make. Foreigners are to be blame.....they never do anything to get their governments back home to give thais the same reciprocal conditions they levy on foreigners here and also foreign countries and foreigners should stop investing or doing any trade in this country , then only the fun will begin.

May I ask, why your post is so hateful.

Maybe because it is reciprocal?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[timewilltell]

You dont think the reduction in foreign owned businesses & increased closures has anything to do with Thai Coups & political unrest do you? Crappy reporting!!

First it's there law and we has to followed it. I know many people using this nominee company's to have control over land and house, and seems for me they are going to stop that. It's not allowed to has shareholders connected to etc law business as another got a letter about. They know from the beginning it was Against the law even the got a advice from lawyers to do it.

This general is very known of he's passion to cleanup the law enforced, wish I think it's good

has promised the thai people to clean up all the cheater of the laws.

I've heart a lot about farang saying ohh this is good all the scams, land cheaters and so on getting clean up by this good general.

Now when his going for the farang there is cheating all sudden change. Then he just want farang out

Can't believe foreigner sinks so low.

Well what law makes Thai shareholders illegal?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[timewilltell]

Won't it be fun when they get around to the companies that own land and rent it to their farang minority shareholders?

Never understood the mentality of not allowing some groups of foreigners (like say retirees) to own a limited amount of land, say a maximum of 1 Rai or even only 100 Wah would suffice. This would obviously be only for personal residence with tax penalties if sold within say 3 or 5 years to discourage property speculators misusing such a system. This would avoid a lot of these problems with Thai nominee shareholders being used and be good for Thailand by encouraging more genuine falang retirees to move here and bring in of course regular foreign currency.

Maybe as we now at last have an intelligent open minded and progressive Government (shows us all how sometimes democracy does not actually work as well), they may well read our TVF threads here on this issue and consider all the implications of making such a sensible move and actually bring in such legislation to allow a restricted and limited foreign land ownership for those who would qualify.

Wouldn't you think a property tax like 'council tax' would be a better way to handle it? All foreigners with a house or condo in company name would pay an annual fee based on the land office valuation of the property, it wouldn't be anything like UK taxes in comparison. I wouldn't mind paying an annual fee if it meant I could legally own a property and the money raised could go towards improvements in Thailand, such as street cleaning, garbage collection and waste management, rounding up soi dogs and even contributing to the police salaries, which may reduce the corruption of them having to make up Mickey Mouse traffic offences towards the end of the month just to cover their salaries. This could generate a huge amount of revenue for the economy and I'm surprised it's not been considered, as there never usually too slow to spot a money making idea.

Ha ha - you are surprised it is not being considered? Maybe it is because most wealthy Thais would be the ones paying and most law makers are wealthy Thais!

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[Marv]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

One of the intentions of laws like the Thailand Foreign Business Act is to protect jobs and businesses for Thai nationals—and for good reason. All one has to do is look to the example of when the USA allowed factories to move production overseas to China and other low overhead nations. This directly resulted in unemployment and wage deflation for American workers and one of the worst economic periods in US history. In the last 20 years 6.4 million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the US. This phenomenon also illustrates that companies have little national loyalty and if companies can profit by moving to cheaper destinations, they will do so at the expense of existing workers.

Similar to EU and NAFTA integration, AEC integration causes economic harm to the working public and normally benefits the banking and corporate elite. The Thailand Foreign Business Act, as is, protects Thai jobs for Thai citizens. Although this concept might not seem progressive, Thailand still has a sense of national allegiance and regional economic integration that is directly in conflict with AEC integration.

Huh?

Allowing more people to open businesses IN Thailand would boost unemployment. Asean is going to facilitate offshoring of Thai jobs to some degree, not the FBA.

If the FBA was changed to allow easier investment there would be more FDI into the country, and thus MORE jobs.

There are already procedures to encourage foreign investment in Thailand, pursuant to the Board of Investment (BOI). The objective of Thailand’s Foreign Business Act is not to boost investment—that is the role of the BOI. The intent of the FBA is to protect Thai jobs and Thai owned businesses.

Opening up additional businesses for foreigners to compete with Thais, via FBA amendments, does not necessarily improve Thai employment or Thai business. For example, the influx of megastores such as Tesco Lotus and 7-11 has bankrupted many Thai mom and pop stores. Furthermore, the corresponding introduction of GMO produce in Thailand (by foreign companies) has made Thai farmers dependent on Monsanto’s patented seeds and has destroyed their traditional, agrarian lifestyle. Similarly, in the US, technology workers in India have forced American tech workers out of work and depressed their wages.

Inducing foreign investment can be beneficial, provided it is selective and regulated, and Thailand’s BOI seems to be doing this task well. Economic colonialism, on the other hand, is harmful to local jobs and businesses, and only benefits multi-national corporations who are seeking markets to exploit.

[timewilltell]

One of the intentions of laws like the Thailand Foreign Business Act is to protect jobs and businesses for Thai nationals—and for good reason. All one has to do is look to the example of when the USA allowed factories to move production overseas to China and other low overhead nations. This directly resulted in unemployment and wage deflation for American workers and one of the worst economic periods in US history. In the last 20 years 6.4 million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the US. This phenomenon also illustrates that companies have little national loyalty and if companies can profit by moving to cheaper destinations, they will do so at the expense of existing workers.

Similar to EU and NAFTA integration, AEC integration causes economic harm to the working public and normally benefits the banking and corporate elite. The Thailand Foreign Business Act, as is, protects Thai jobs for Thai citizens. Although this concept might not seem progressive, Thailand still has a sense of national allegiance and regional economic integration that is directly in conflict with AEC integration.

Huh?

Allowing more people to open businesses IN Thailand would boost unemployment. Asean is going to facilitate offshoring of Thai jobs to some degree, not the FBA.

If the FBA was changed to allow easier investment there would be more FDI into the country, and thus MORE jobs.

There are already procedures to encourage foreign investment in Thailand, pursuant to the Board of Investment (BOI). The objective of Thailand’s Foreign Business Act is not to boost investment—that is the role of the BOI. The intent of the FBA is to protect Thai jobs and Thai owned businesses.

Opening up additional businesses for foreigners to compete with Thais, via FBA amendments, does not necessarily improve Thai employment or Thai business. For example, the influx of megastores such as Tesco Lotus and 7-11 has bankrupted many Thai mom and pop stores. Furthermore, the corresponding introduction of GMO produce in Thailand (by foreign companies) has made Thai farmers dependent on Monsanto’s patented seeds and has destroyed their traditional, agrarian lifestyle. Similarly, in the US, technology workers in India have forced American tech workers out of work and depressed their wages.

Inducing foreign investment can be beneficial, provided it is selective and regulated, and Thailand’s BOI seems to be doing this task well. Economic colonialism, on the other hand, is harmful to local jobs and businesses, and only benefits multi-national corporations who are seeking markets to exploit.

No - not Thai jobs - just Thai businesses. Stopping other people starting businesses does not improve the job market it just stifles competition for the benefit of businesses who generally treat their Thai workers rather hard.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

[makescents]

It's about time this country woke up to permtting farang (caucasians in particular) to buy land and property outright. Westerners tend to their land, gardens and properties - we even plant flowers and paint our properties regularly.... and grow GRASS (in it's truest sense of meaning) when given the rights. Sod ASEAN as the main agenda - it has to be worldwide interaction and permissions. In that way, Thailand would become a lot cleaner and less polluted in the long run.

The whole point is missed by the continued xenphobia of others infiltrating this land. If that's the fear, open it up to Westerners too, or ASEAN is going to break this place, and the influx from neighbouring countries will for sure take away opportunities for Thais themselves.

Yeah that's what we want. Bangkok as pricey as London because of property speculation.

I'm glad the Thais are protectionist about property ownership it makes it affordable for them. I just wish the UK had the 'nads to boot out the foreign property owners.

[NativeSon360]

It's about time this country woke up to permtting farang (caucasians in particular) to buy land and property outright. Westerners tend to their land, gardens and properties - we even plant flowers and paint our properties regularly.... and grow GRASS (in it's truest sense of meaning) when given the rights. Sod ASEAN as the main agenda - it has to be worldwide interaction and permissions. In that way, Thailand would become a lot cleaner and less polluted in the long run.

The whole point is missed by the continued xenphobia of others infiltrating this land. If that's the fear, open it up to Westerners too, or ASEAN is going to break this place, and the influx from neighbouring countries will for sure take away opportunities for Thais themselves.

I wholeheartedly agree. However, there are no provisions in the AEC 2015 regulations that would give ASEAN citizens (non-Thais) rights to own Thai land after the implementation of AEC. And in any case, it's fear of the Chinese and other ASEAN nationals, perhaps even Indians to some extent, rather than westerners that has prompted Thailand to enact restrictive land ownership laws. Why? Simple - just look at the huge populations on Thailand's doorstep, with a large number of newly rich entrepreneurs and investors who'd be more than happy to own land in Thailand if they could (and probably try to speculate on property and land values and this is seen as risky in light of the lessons learned from the 1997 Asian financial crisis) although there are also more recent lessons that can be learned from the sinofication (Chinese extra-territoriality) of northern Laos and to a lesser extent, Myanmar. Although the Lao government didn't sell any land in question to the Chinese investors I am referring to, the long term lease or concession, for a period of up to 99 years is for all intents and purposes the same thing as that represents a lifetime right to do whatever the concession holder wants during this period of time, with every possibility of concession/lease renewal at the end of this period unless of course by that time the world is a very different place and laws have been changed. The King Romans Casino in Tonpheung, directly opposite Chiang Rai's Chiang Saen district on the Mekong River and the now defunct Boten special economic zone (which used to include a few now also defunct casinos) on the Lao-Chinese frontier are two examples of this. Both are basically transplants of China onto Lao territory and I can imagine Thailand does not want this to happen inside it's territory.

Westerners on the other hand only have a small number of investors who'd be trying to do the same and so far I haven't heard of one, or know of any one example. Nearly every westerner is either married to a Thai, working here or retired here and thus all they want is to own a small piece of land, which they reside on, generally not for commercial purposes. In any case westerners are only in Thailand in very small numbers compared to Asians from neighboring countries and thus as you rightly stated, are not a threat.

However, it's easier for Thailand to just place a blanket ban on land ownership to all foreigners and thus eliminate what they see as a "threat" to Thai sovereignty, citing examples such as the ones I've given above.

It is not fear that foreigners are going to come and suck up the land. It is because the country already has a long established immigrant population who have sucked it all up already, and don't want to have to fight to suck up the rest

Actually I believe I am correct, but what do you mean by "long established immigrant population", Chinese-Thais? Clearly the Thais or at least those in power (irrespective of their ethnic origins) feel that foreign competition for land would mean less available land for locals, i.e. they see the foreigners as a threat. Not sure how your point is any different to mine.

Thai at Heart was really being diplomatic. Good for you Thai At Heart, I tend to be more of the "rough-around-the-edges type, as you'll see in the following.

Laying in squarely on the line. The people controlling the entire Thai "protectionism" umbrella, are the ethnic Chinese of Thailand. As the Brit, Nathan Rothschild stated, nearly 200-years ago "Give me control of a nation's banking-system, then I care not who makes it's laws." That premise further includes the control of the mass communication & transportation networks, of any country. Capiche,

Edited September 9, 2014 by NativeSon360

[cedel]

lucjoker, on 09 Sept 2014 - 08:43, said:

Look around , the major business is .....house building .

In every little town you can find building -shops (Home Pro,Home Market ......but also smaller shops on every corner )

If they stop farangs from owning a house via company ,those shops will have a hard time .

And a lot of Thai-landowners will cry ,because their land will be worth what is was before the farang came.(a few 1000 a rai)

All this land farangs control now ,will go automatically to Thai people ,so why the fear ?

Their fear in the future is that it will be difficult to control those rich widows with their smart kids ?

Or they just hate us that much ? Why not cancel all the visa's and allow only 30 day visa?

But we can only obey ,and find another smart solution .

...Or find another (neighbooring) country !

[ericthai]

One of the intentions of laws like the Thailand Foreign Business Act is to protect jobs and businesses for Thai nationalsand for good reason. All one has to do is look to the example of when the USA allowed factories to move production overseas to China and other low overhead nations. This directly resulted in unemployment and wage deflation for American workers and one of the worst economic periods in US history. In the last 20 years 6.4 million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the US. This phenomenon also illustrates that companies have little national loyalty and if companies can profit by moving to cheaper destinations, they will do so at the expense of existing workers.

Similar to EU and NAFTA integration, AEC integration causes economic harm to the working public and normally benefits the banking and corporate elite. The Thailand Foreign Business Act, as is, protects Thai jobs for Thai citizens. Although this concept might not seem progressive, Thailand still has a sense of national allegiance and regional economic integration that is directly in conflict with AEC integration.

You seem to be thinking a little askew here. US companies moved some of their business offshore to take advantage of lower wage costs in the developing world. The countries that took that business have benefited - Thailand being one of them but I am willing to stick my neck out and say they could have benefitted substantially more if they did not have that Act. Anyway that is an out flux of work for other countries citizens to do.

You state the Thailand a Foreign Business Act protects Thai workers by protecting Thai jobs. It doesn't! It does not prevent Thai Companies from exporting jobs to other countries as your US example purports to show. What it does is put a brake on foreign businesses starting up and employing Thai workers - it I'd a negative for Thai workers. What it does benefits only Thai businesses and by far the biggest beneficiaries are the biggest businesses such as CP who can monopolise the market and maker super profits. It benefits the rich like so many laws here.

Pray tell us how it protects Thai workers and puts more jobs at their disposal. You might also consider the huge number of Cambodians and Burmese who take Thai jobs and are welcomed here.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

Actually Big business can setup in Thailand and be 100% foreign owned. The bigger the business the easier it is. They can get a Foreign Business license so under this own the company 100%, they could also apply for BOI and if an american company apply under the amity treaty. Good example are the car manufactures in Thailand.

[ginjag]

Friendlier for foreign investors

She added that the amended law should make the environment friendlier for foreign investors and streamline business regulations. Moreover, Thailand should be able to compete under the coming regional integration, which will allow other Asean countries to hold up to 70 per cent of some service businesses.

For non-Asean foreigners it is better then to open a company with 100% share in Malaysia, Philippines or Cambodia and then become active as Asean LTD in Thailand.

I believe Cambodia still doesn't allow 100% ownership in a company. They only in 2010 started to allow foreigners to own condo and apartments but not the 1st floor.

Cambodia absolutely allows 100% foreign ownership in a company. However, said company would not be allowed to own the property their office sits on since there are similar land ownership laws to Thailand in that regard.

JCauto---how worldwide is this term 1st floor as in Thailand this means ground floor-

Wherever I have travelled in general this is the accepted layout. Basement then ground (reception normally) above starts the 1st 2nd 3rd 4th and so on.

[ericthai]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

One of the intentions of laws like the Thailand Foreign Business Act is to protect jobs and businesses for Thai nationalsand for good reason. All one has to do is look to the example of when the USA allowed factories to move production overseas to China and other low overhead nations. This directly resulted in unemployment and wage deflation for American workers and one of the worst economic periods in US history. In the last 20 years 6.4 million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the US. This phenomenon also illustrates that companies have little national loyalty and if companies can profit by moving to cheaper destinations, they will do so at the expense of existing workers.

Similar to EU and NAFTA integration, AEC integration causes economic harm to the working public and normally benefits the banking and corporate elite. The Thailand Foreign Business Act, as is, protects Thai jobs for Thai citizens. Although this concept might not seem progressive, Thailand still has a sense of national allegiance and regional economic integration that is directly in conflict with AEC integration.

Huh?

Allowing more people to open businesses IN Thailand would boost unemployment. Asean is going to facilitate offshoring of Thai jobs to some degree, not the FBA.

If the FBA was changed to allow easier investment there would be more FDI into the country, and thus MORE jobs.

There are already procedures to encourage foreign investment in Thailand, pursuant to the Board of Investment (BOI). The objective of Thailands Foreign Business Act is not to boost investmentthat is the role of the BOI. The intent of the FBA is to protect Thai jobs and Thai owned businesses.

Opening up additional businesses for foreigners to compete with Thais, via FBA amendments, does not necessarily improve Thai employment or Thai business. For example, the influx of megastores such as Tesco Lotus and 7-11 has bankrupted many Thai mom and pop stores. Furthermore, the corresponding introduction of GMO produce in Thailand (by foreign companies) has made Thai farmers dependent on Monsantos patented seeds and has destroyed their traditional, agrarian lifestyle. Similarly, in the US, technology workers in India have forced American tech workers out of work and depressed their wages.

Inducing foreign investment can be beneficial, provided it is selective and regulated, and Thailands BOI seems to be doing this task well. Economic colonialism, on the other hand, is harmful to local jobs and businesses, and only benefits multi-national corporations who are seeking markets to exploit.

Where are you getting this crap that Thai farmers on dependent on Monsanto's seeds? First off GMO imports are banned by the government. GMO testing was banned but was lifted so testing is going on at some Govt universities and land. Yes, some foreign GMO seeds have slipped into Thailand but nothing that makes the farmers dependent on Monsanto. Most thai farmers keep so much rice after their crop for planting the next year so they dont have to buy for planting. There is a variity of r seeds for Papaya that has been slipped in, mostly a Hawaiian version, but again no dependency.

[JCauto]

Friendlier for foreign investors

She added that the amended law should make the environment friendlier for foreign investors and streamline business regulations. Moreover, Thailand should be able to compete under the coming regional integration, which will allow other Asean countries to hold up to 70 per cent of some service businesses.

For non-Asean foreigners it is better then to open a company with 100% share in Malaysia, Philippines or Cambodia and then become active as Asean LTD in Thailand.

I believe Cambodia still doesn't allow 100% ownership in a company. They only in 2010 started to allow foreigners to own condo and apartments but not the 1st floor.

Cambodia absolutely allows 100% foreign ownership in a company. However, said company would not be allowed to own the property their office sits on since there are similar land ownership laws to Thailand in that regard.

JCauto---how worldwide is this term 1st floor as in Thailand this means ground floor-

Wherever I have travelled in general this is the accepted layout. Basement then ground (reception normally) above starts the 1st 2nd 3rd 4th and so on.

I think this is the North American way of describing building levels, whereas Europeans call the first floor the ground floor.

[crazykopite]

Won't it be fun when they get around to the companies that own land and rent it to their farang minority shareholders?

I have to assume that you own neither a company, land or house and are having a snigger at those who have chosen this route to gain a property in the Kingdom of smiles ! It's a funny old world how some people get there kicks !!

[MAMMartin]

Quote: "Meanwhile, the number of newly registered companies in Thailand dropped by 18 per cent in the first eight months year on year, partly because of controls on the retail prices for the government lottery."

- what does this sentence mean? How do newly registered companies relate to the retail prices of the lottery or is it that every lottery sales person is a registered company?

[maxtingtong]

.

Meanwhile, the number of newly registered companies in Thailand dropped by 18 per cent in the first eight months year on year, partly because of controls on the retail prices for the government lottery.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/755543-a-law-firm-requires-a-nominee-shareholders-of-the-exchange/

???

[maxtingtong]

Quote: "Meanwhile, the number of newly registered companies in Thailand dropped by 18 per cent in the first eight months year on year, partly because of controls on the retail prices for the government lottery."

- what does this sentence mean? How do newly registered companies relate to the retail prices of the lottery or is it that every lottery sales person is a registered company?

Was thinking the same.. What does it means?

[DrLom]

It's about time this country woke up to permtting farang (caucasians in particular) to buy land and property outright. Westerners tend to their land, gardens and properties - we even plant flowers and paint our properties regularly.... and grow GRASS (in it's truest sense of meaning) when given the rights. Sod ASEAN as the main agenda - it has to be worldwide interaction and permissions. In that way, Thailand would become a lot cleaner and less polluted in the long run.

The whole point is missed by the continued xenphobia of others infiltrating this land. If that's the fear, open it up to Westerners too, or ASEAN is going to break this place, and the influx from neighbouring countries will for sure take away opportunities for Thais themselves.

Yeah that's what we want. Bangkok as pricey as London because of property speculation.

I'm glad the Thais are protectionist about property ownership it makes it affordable for them. I just wish the UK had the 'nads to boot out the foreign property owners.

I wasn't referring to BKK. I was referring to places that are in dire need of foreign speculation; but since you asked; have you ever looked at capital prices per sq.m around the world? You'll find Bangkok is already, and has been for many years, within the top 30. If you can't afford to buy your condo, it maybe better you go home or find out rules of ownership before that, if you have spare dosh not spent in Nana.

[carstenp]

You dont think the reduction in foreign owned businesses & increased closures has anything to do with Thai Coups & political unrest do you? Crappy reporting!!

First it's there law and we has to followed it. I know many people using this nominee company's to have control over land and house, and seems for me they are going to stop that. It's not allowed to has shareholders connected to etc law business as another got a letter about. They know from the beginning it was Against the law even the got a advice from lawyers to do it.

This general is very known of he's passion to cleanup the law enforced, wish I think it's good

has promised the thai people to clean up all the cheater of the laws.

I've heart a lot about farang saying ohh this is good all the scams, land cheaters and so on getting clean up by this good general.

Now when his going for the farang there is cheating all sudden change. Then he just want farang out

Can't believe foreigner sinks so low.

Well what law makes Thai shareholders illegal?

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app

Ohh here we go again.. Please use search on this forum... Talking endless about this for about 2 month ago

[Thai at Heart]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

One of the intentions of laws like the Thailand Foreign Business Act is to protect jobs and businesses for Thai nationalsand for good reason. All one has to do is look to the example of when the USA allowed factories to move production overseas to China and other low overhead nations. This directly resulted in unemployment and wage deflation for American workers and one of the worst economic periods in US history. In the last 20 years 6.4 million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the US. This phenomenon also illustrates that companies have little national loyalty and if companies can profit by moving to cheaper destinations, they will do so at the expense of existing workers.

Similar to EU and NAFTA integration, AEC integration causes economic harm to the working public and normally benefits the banking and corporate elite. The Thailand Foreign Business Act, as is, protects Thai jobs for Thai citizens. Although this concept might not seem progressive, Thailand still has a sense of national allegiance and regional economic integration that is directly in conflict with AEC integration.

Huh?

Allowing more people to open businesses IN Thailand would boost unemployment. Asean is going to facilitate offshoring of Thai jobs to some degree, not the FBA.

If the FBA was changed to allow easier investment there would be more FDI into the country, and thus MORE jobs.

There are already procedures to encourage foreign investment in Thailand, pursuant to the Board of Investment (BOI). The objective of Thailands Foreign Business Act is not to boost investmentthat is the role of the BOI. The intent of the FBA is to protect Thai jobs and Thai owned businesses.

Opening up additional businesses for foreigners to compete with Thais, via FBA amendments, does not necessarily improve Thai employment or Thai business. For example, the influx of megastores such as Tesco Lotus and 7-11 has bankrupted many Thai mom and pop stores. Furthermore, the corresponding introduction of GMO produce in Thailand (by foreign companies) has made Thai farmers dependent on Monsantos patented seeds and has destroyed their traditional, agrarian lifestyle. Similarly, in the US, technology workers in India have forced American tech workers out of work and depressed their wages.

Inducing foreign investment can be beneficial, provided it is selective and regulated, and Thailands BOI seems to be doing this task well. Economic colonialism, on the other hand, is harmful to local jobs and businesses, and only benefits multi-national corporations who are seeking markets to exploit.

It is to protect Thai owned businesses. Period.

Not to protect Thai jobs.

[SanSaiExPat]

The owners of companies like banks and insurance companies are the lovely people responsible for many of the larger problems the coup solved.

The coup solved problems? Who's problems were solved?

[FiestyFarang]

As far as I know Western countries let Thai companies set up companies in their country would it not be fairer to let Western companies open here with full Western ownership. If you are a multi-million dollar company why would you want to have over 50% owned by foreigners in their own country. Thailand needs to start looking at the richest country in the world and fellow Asean member, Singapore, if Thailand wants to increase investment. I would never, never set up a company here with current rules.

[ericthai]

As far as I know Western countries let Thai companies set up companies in their country would it not be fairer to let Western companies open here with full Western ownership. If you are a multi-million dollar company why would you want to have over 50% owned by foreigners in their own country. Thailand needs to start looking at the richest country in the world and fellow Asean member, Singapore, if Thailand wants to increase investment. I would never, never set up a company here with current rules.

a Multi-million dollar company can own 100%. There are several ways for large companies to own 100% of their company. Me and my foreign partners own 100% of our company. We have BOI but started out with the Amity treaty for US citizens. If you dont know there are already very large companies with factories here in Thailand. Everyone from BASF, Nestle, Kraft, Toyota, Phelps Dodge, Goodyear etc etc. Thailand has a very large industrial sector with world wide companies. Also Thailand's GDP is about 100 Billion more than Singapore. So I dont think Thailand needs to learn anything from Singapore.

[tomacht8]

As far as I know Western countries let Thai companies set up companies in their country would it not be fairer to let Western companies open here with full Western ownership. If you are a multi-million dollar company why would you want to have over 50% owned by foreigners in their own country. Thailand needs to start looking at the richest country in the world and fellow Asean member, Singapore, if Thailand wants to increase investment. I would never, never set up a company here with current rules.

a Multi-million dollar company can own 100%. There are several ways for large companies to own 100% of their company. Me and my foreign partners own 100% of our company. We have BOI but started out with the Amity treaty for US citizens. If you dont know there are already very large companies with factories here in Thailand. Everyone from BASF, Nestle, Kraft, Toyota, Phelps Dodge, Goodyear etc etc. Thailand has a very large industrial sector with world wide companies. Also Thailand's GDP is about 100 Billion more than Singapore. So I dont think Thailand needs to learn anything from Singapore.

You are right with the Amity treaty with a special regulation for US citizens. Also for the multi-million dollar companys like next VW.

Good for you. But it is also about the small and medium investors from other countrys.

And here the investment conditions are not good!

[Jools]

Shed a tear for Thailand. the evil, colonialist farangs are trying to INVEST MONEY here. "Exterminate, exterminate". The American version of the "Tea Party", is alive and well in Thailand.

[dBrown]

Shed a tear for Thailand. the evil, colonialist farangs are trying to INVEST MONEY here. "Exterminate, exterminate". The American version of the "Tea Party", is alive and well in Thailand.

You will mean the Thai version of the KKK.

[happysanook]

Could you imagine the Western countries making laws that allowed only people from Western countries to own 70% of a business, but all people from Asian countries to own only 49%. All hell would break lose at the injustice, discrimination and inherent racism of such a law. Welcome to 1929 Thailand.