Foreign Investors Remain Uncertain About Nominee Status

[chinadarling]

In post #4, 'Gaz Chiangmai' said:

"Given the current account deficits left by TRT, sale of land to foreigners will get you out of the poo in the same way it did for the UK after the last 3 recessions."

Yes, the UK has 'got itself in the poo' from time to time, and has had to sell a bit of its equity each time to balance its books. I am old enough to remember the 'recycling of the petrodollar' thirty years ago, which resulted in the observation that London used to have a West End, but now it was a Middle East End.

However, Thailand is not in the weak position of the UK in the present circumstances of industrialisation passing its peak.

Thailand's fundamentals are enormously strong. Clement climate, small population, lots of fertile land that doesn't depend on irrigation from depleting aquifers and more-and-more-expensive inorganic fertiliser, and the skills for extended families to live well in sustainable partial sufficiency.

Thailand has one of the best futures ahead of it in the forthcoming era of de-industrialisation and de-citification that will be forced on the planet in general by the exhaustion of stored resources.

What Thailand needs to do is to stand aside from the lemming-like rush down the slippery steepening slope of pursuing greater GDP. To protect itself, it needs to keep its laws that foreigners are not allowed to buy land, that all companies must be genuinely owned in the majority of their equity by Thai nationals, and that residence in Thailand by foreigners is firmly controlled (and limited to small numbers) by the Thai people.

Thailand has some problem in that the Dash-For-GDP of the last twentyfive years has given it an over-blown hyper-urban primate city, with a large group of urban poor, and excessive concentrations of private power.

But Thaksin being seen to have taken that last one to an extreme (87-billion in 'readies' and readying himself (in his own words) "so I can concentrate on politics") sent the shudders out big-time. We aren't allowed to discuss the widely-disparate political-bedfellows that resulted, but we will live in interesting times ere all-that-long, when the unmentionable occurs.

For the present, it is a return to 'bureaucratic polity'. Provided the leading bureaucrats are not so misguided as to follow the half-baked nostrums that are peddled by Western Universities, Thailand may well do well.

Funny when I think of UK vs Thailand I don't think of UK as being the weak one...

[tornado40]

Well I've been working on a project to set up an extension to our UK office in Thailand - to employ Thai staff at decent rates of pay.

Think I'll wait a bit - as its like trying to hit a moving target!

[ColPyat]

Thailand's fundamentals are enormously strong. Clement climate, small population, lots of fertile land that doesn't depend on irrigation from depleting aquifers and more-and-more-expensive inorganic fertiliser, and the skills for extended families to live well in sustainable partial sufficiency.

I think you are very wrong there.

The skills of successfully performing sufficiency agriculture are rapidly lost, neither do the young enjoy tilling a few rai of land that is not enough to survive. The available land is distributed absolutely unfairly, the vast majority of farmers have not enough land to survive from, while a relatively small sector of the rich own most.

Most available land depends on heavy irrigation, still though more years than not harvests are destroyed by floods or draughts. Deforestation has done huge damage in Thailand, and will keep doing so. Global climatical change will make agriculture even more difficult here.

As a result of these developments you have huge migration into the industrial belt of Bangkok and the eastern seaboard - the only areas where work is available.

There is no landreform in sight, all attempts so far were not successful because they were halfarsed from the beginning, and died down completely because of endemic corruption. Neither seems to be any long term plan for decentralisation of industry, nor for build up of the necessary infrastructure. Nobody even speaks about these issues here apart from a few slightly left wing fringe organisations.

[ColPyat]

And add to that the increasing confusion over what exactly "sufficiency economy" means, and military officers sitting now on boards of state enterprises without having any background in business.

Does anybody have any clear idea how the economy is doing now in Thailand?

The cynical amongst us may take the "sufficiency economy" to be applicable mainly to the poor.

IE you get on with your lot so long as you just have enough to be able to work and produce things and farm the land.

We will protect our riches but not seek to increase them dramatically. At least not as openly as before.

We remain rich and you remain in your place and forget any ideas of becoming a threat to us (rich people) by getting educated and political.

Its face with the rich Thais, they don't care about the economy so long as they are richer than the poor. We've had this before, take your Issan girlfriend round Bangkok to buy a new car and the middle classes hate it, sulk and would rather not sell the car than deal with somebody darker than them.

When i heard first about "sittakit por pueang", sufficiency economy, i was very impressed. That was about 12 years or so ago.

This idea was a clearly defined agricultural system designed for small scale farmers, needing about ten rai of land per family to survive. It is based upon a system of planting and raising most for consumption, and some for sale for cash. We have over the years built up a farm loosely based on these guidelines. We left the buddhist mumbo jumbo included in this philosphy out, and used the practical definitions as they make sense.

Over the years though this "sittakit por pueang" became some magic phrase. When i read it now, translated into national economy, i completely miss the practical guidelines, and only see buddhist mumbo jumbo, everybody interpreting for himself what and how it could be applied for, and foreign investors without a buddhist background seem to be bewildered what it could mean. Well, most Thai academics and economists i have spoken with appear to be as confused.

"Sufficiency economy", and how the term is used now, appears to me just an expression for a complete lack of vision for Thailand towards adapting to the globalised world.

[ting_tong_farang]

It's very sad that it seems that Thailand is 'losing' control of it's ambition, if there ever was one, to try and boost its economy by the 49/51% rule.

It seems that countries as Singapore, India, China and now Vietnam and Malaysia are a lot more agressive, progressive and aware of the possibilities in order to boost their economy by being more flexibel on foreign investment-rules.

If Thailand doesn't change their economical policies (very soon) I fear that the country will end up as an non-progressive 'island', losing most of the -new- business to their competitor-, neighbouring countries, and wil, thus, fall to (even) more poverty...

Sad!

ps: where the bl__dy heck are the brilliant economists from Thailand, educated on top-universities in the UK/Europe, USA and Australia ?

Surely, the most influential families in the country must have sent their children to these universities ?

LaoPo

Dear Sirs

We here in Thailand are not only going to loose, the -new- business to the competitoring-, neighbouring countries,we are allready douing so bigtime...sorry to say, I can personally confirm this as the Thaibaht are as high against the dollar as ever, we are not exatly competitive any more,

china is allready eating this country up from the inside also....if anyone understands what i am trying to refer to...... paperwork here, are still extremly difficult for the export market, I am seing a less bright future for Thailand just ahead, right now, even all company's complain nobody even try to understand that we should devaluate the Baht with some points to get back on track.

That was just a few words, from another farang here.

Thank you for reading.

Edited November 10, 2006 by ting_tong_farang

[argus]

as I said 3 days in an other forum already, the enforcement of the law in Thailand become the rule not the exception. This is an other example. I am wondering what next. Life for foreigner become tough and tougher here and I have to accept that facts are facts

Many when not all of the foreigner get grilled, it started today....

[realthaiperson]

Look at everything that is going on from investing, start up companies, visas, etc. that is geared towards hurting every aspect of the foreigners here. I can’t help but wonder if this is going to become an Islamic country.

[pap]

Foreign investors grill Thailand on ownership

1. "We would like to reassure non-resident investors that we will maintain the existing practice of allowing the free flow of capital, which has been a policy of Thailand all along," he said."

2. "Finance Minister Pridiyathorn Devakula said post-coup Thailand would be a model of good governance and foreigners need fear no big change in investment policies."

1. Hmmm, that's exactly the problem...non-resident investors.

Thailand wants the -foreign- capital but gives very little, or next to nothing, in return.

2. And that's the problem: Thailand need BIG changes, instead 'no big changes in investment policies'

Very unintelligent economical politics.

That's why billions and billions flow into China every week and not into Thailand.

LaoPo

Very accurate. Its why money is pouring into China and India. Even Vietnam is surpasing Thailand in influxes of capital. Thailand needs to decide what it wants. If it is happy to move more slowly and have poorer people in the long run that is fine. I don't believe the average Thai understands that. But I don't beleive the average population of any country understands that including mine.

It used to be you could protect yourself from outside investment but in todays world economy you have to choose which things you want to protect and which things you should open up. The Thais need to find a way to protect their culture from the influx of problems these changes will cause but allow the economy as free a run as possible. Its not a simple nut to crack. As much as I want in and want to advise others Thailand is a great place to invest it still does not have all the protections I would like to see for foreigners. Long run I still believe it to be a great place to invest just not currently the best.

I would love to be more heavily invested there but if the Thais have to change the things I love about their country for me to do this I don't want that. I think they can have both. I just don't think it will be as easy as many people seem to think.

[Macx]

For sure I am a conservative. I would not like to see Thailand grow into a new Singapore or Hong Kong in my lifetime at least. Selfish yes, but I like Thailand the way it is.

"The comfort of the rich depends on the abundance of the poor." --Voltaire

[ColPyat]

Look at everything that is going on from investing, start up companies, visas, etc. that is geared towards hurting every aspect of the foreigners here. I can’t help but wonder if this is going to become an Islamic country.

I know of the rumors about "Islamic domination" in Thailand going around here presently. People saying that Prem is secretely Muslim, that Gen. Sonthi being Muslim means that there is some secret conspiracy coming to fruitition that Thailand is becoming Islamic, especially because Surayudh's move towards being conciliatory in his rethorics towards the problems in the three changwats.

Sorry, but this is fantasy.

Nothing is geared towards hurting foreigners, it is much simpler. There is a slight traditional burocratic xenophobia, partly justified fears that multinationals might sweep away Thai business that are often not yet ready for the competition, but protectionism and cronyism of many Thai companies as well, and very much a clear lack of ideas how to adapt Thailand towards the challenges of the global world, without becoming a victim of this inevitable process.

What i see is a lot of insecurity here, especially under the middle and ruling classes. Much of that stems from the power vacuum left by Thaksin, but is especially the result of decades of mismanagement of the country which has left large sectors of the society behind, stuck in an archaic patron-client based society. The rest of the world, and the millions of Thais that have not been part of the profit sharing of the last decades, have huge demands on Thailand, and many are justified.

It is very easy to personalise issues, such as demonising Thaksin, or using Thaksin, or anybody else here, as a symbol for salvation.

But is is very hard to accept that there are many things fundamentally wrong with the whole system so carefully propagated to the world, and the Thai society itself, a process that has started long before Thaksin. And it is going to be a long road to sort out this increasing mess, to move away from personalisation, and to form sound policies to tackle pressing issues.

[pap]

In post #4, 'Gaz Chiangmai' said:

"Given the current account deficits left by TRT, sale of land to foreigners will get you out of the poo in the same way it did for the UK after the last 3 recessions."

Yes, the UK has 'got itself in the poo' from time to time, and has had to sell a bit of its equity each time to balance its books. I am old enough to remember the 'recycling of the petrodollar' thirty years ago, which resulted in the observation that London used to have a West End, but now it was a Middle East End.

However, Thailand is not in the weak position of the UK in the present circumstances of industrialisation passing its peak.

Thailand's fundamentals are enormously strong. Clement climate, small population, lots of fertile land that doesn't depend on irrigation from depleting aquifers and more-and-more-expensive inorganic fertiliser, and the skills for extended families to live well in sustainable partial sufficiency.

Thailand has one of the best futures ahead of it in the forthcoming era of de-industrialisation and de-citification that will be forced on the planet in general by the exhaustion of stored resources.

What Thailand needs to do is to stand aside from the lemming-like rush down the slippery steepening slope of pursuing greater GDP. To protect itself, it needs to keep its laws that foreigners are not allowed to buy land, that all companies must be genuinely owned in the majority of their equity by Thai nationals, and that residence in Thailand by foreigners is firmly controlled (and limited to small numbers) by the Thai people.

Thailand has some problem in that the Dash-For-GDP of the last twentyfive years has given it an over-blown hyper-urban primate city, with a large group of urban poor, and excessive concentrations of private power.

But Thaksin being seen to have taken that last one to an extreme (87-billion in 'readies' and readying himself (in his own words) "so I can concentrate on politics") sent the shudders out big-time. We aren't allowed to discuss the widely-disparate political-bedfellows that resulted, but we will live in interesting times ere all-that-long, when the unmentionable occurs.

For the present, it is a return to 'bureaucratic polity'. Provided the leading bureaucrats are not so misguided as to follow the half-baked nostrums that are peddled by Western Universities, Thailand may well do well.

Your post only seems to look at half the issue. The purpose of a thriving economy is not to denude forests or take self sufficiency away.

It is to make life better for the next generation. You can do this without exhausting stored resources. You may have heard of them. They are renewable resources.

For any country to follow the path you propose means they accept malnutrian, lack of health care, no social net, no time left over for art, music etc. Your thoughts don't appear to work to me when you have a global population of its current size. Not dealing with issues is not a solution. It is avoidance. Having everyone go back to self sustaining villages is not a realistic solution. It would also require a lot of people to die in the large cities to work. My assumption is you didn't mean that city folks should die. My assumption is you have not thought this through to it logical conclusion.

[pap]

Look at everything that is going on from investing, start up companies, visas, etc. that is geared towards hurting every aspect of the foreigners here. I can’t help but wonder if this is going to become an Islamic country.

I know of the rumors about "Islamic domination" in Thailand going around here presently. People saying that Prem is secretely Muslim, that Gen. Sonthi being Muslim means that there is some secret conspiracy coming to fruitition that Thailand is becoming Islamic, especially because Surayudh's move towards being conciliatory in his rethorics towards the problems in the three changwats.

Sorry, but this is fantasy.

Nothing is geared towards hurting foreigners, it is much simpler. There is a slight traditional burocratic xenophobia, partly justified fears that multinationals might sweep away Thai business that are often not yet ready for the competition, but protectionism and cronyism of many Thai companies as well, and very much a clear lack of ideas how to adapt Thailand towards the challenges of the global world, without becoming a victim of this inevitable process.

What i see is a lot of insecurity here, especially under the middle and ruling classes. Much of that stems from the power vacuum left by Thaksin, but is especially the result of decades of mismanagement of the country which has left large sectors of the society behind, stuck in an archaic patron-client based society. The rest of the world, and the millions of Thais that have not been part of the profit sharing of the last decades, have huge demands on Thailand, and many are justified.

It is very easy to personalise issues, such as demonising Thaksin, or using Thaksin, or anybody else here, as a symbol for salvation.

But is is very hard to accept that there are many things fundamentally wrong with the whole system so carefully propagated to the world, and the Thai society itself, a process that has started long before Thaksin. And it is going to be a long road to sort out this increasing mess, to move away from personalisation, and to form sound policies to tackle pressing issues.

I could be wrong but I beleive the poster was speaking figuratively about Thailand becoming an Islamic state.

I find it hard to read it any other way since 97% of Thailand is Buddhist.

There are many structures such as Joint Ventures that can protect Thai companies until they have their wings.

Thaksin was many bad things but he definitely understood business in its most ruthless sense. That understanding is needed by Thailands leaders. It is the only way they can defend against it. Unfortunately he chose the path he chose. But they still need someone of his Calliber to run things. They just need their leader to have some ethics this time.

He was one of the first to have a world view as an insider. It allowed him to do things no one before him had even thought of. It is difficult to protect against something that hadn't really been seen before. Now they know. Maybe this time they will do better. One can only hope.

[tropo]

If Thailand doesn't change their economical policies (very soon) I fear that the country will end up as an non-progressive 'island', losing most of the -new- business to their competitor-, neighbouring countries, and wil, thus, fall to (even) more poverty...

Sad!

LaoPo, don't spend you life in "fear" of what will happen if Thailand loses ground economically compared to neighboring countries. It's not your country, let Thailand <deleted> themselves and thereby learn a lesson (maybe).

If Thailand f**ks up their own economy, there is likely going to be huge benefits in the future for foreigners choosing to invest and/or living there. A weaker baht would help too. I don't see any downside for foreigners i f the country "falls to (even) more poverty".

I'm sorry if this comes across as being cold and callous, but in the end we have to look after our own interests, and Thailand certainly doesn't respect ours.

[tropo]

"The comfort of the rich depends on the abundance of the poor." --Voltaire

That sentence makes no sense.

It should read:

"The comfort of the rich depends on AN abundance of the poor".

The poorer Thailand can get, the better off we'll be. Sad but true.

One day if they become needy, they might actually welcome us. At the end of the day it's all about the money.

Edited November 10, 2006 by tropo

[m02]

Yes, Thailand is not overly sophisticated in its stance towards welcoming outside investors. However, come on guys, have you forgotten where you are? This LOS, TIT, the land of mai pen rai. These guys want to nail Toxin, they don't want to run off foreign investors. This is a one shot deal, mai me ben ha, okay?

Before everyone goes running off to put their money in Vietnam perhaps you should go take a good look at what really goes on there.

Internet censorship - but then Signapore does that as well, and China...

Stress on Government ownership of companies: checkout most businesses and you will find many of them are actually government owned or managed - often after running the original overseas startup pioneer company out of business. But then China does that as well, doesn't it?

You also should take a good look at their banking procedures.

Yes, Thais look at farangs as 'cash cows', but then when was the last time armed police or troops came knocking on your door and hauled you in for being seen talking to a deviant member of society?

When was the last time a farang was jailed or kicked out of the country because of their religion?

When was the last time a successful farang businessman was arrested and his business and all assets confiscated because he was too successful? Well... okay some will argue about that German fellow but I'm not convinced that was, or is, the case.

Mostly what goes on here is the small time unwary sucker being taken in by professional scam artists who assure the feckless farang that they will take care of all the business and partnership arrangements for them, no problem, and then alas the business goes belly up along with all the farang's savings - for the umpteenth time. So what else is new, this is not a phenomena unique to Thailand.

About the most common problem with officialdom, for the small time farang business owner, is simply being hit up by the local cops for a small payoff if you don't have the right connections; and while that is annoying it is not in the same league as what goes on in Laos, Vietnam, or China. And in fact, to be fair, I have met some superb Thai police.

If greed talks then by all means go invest your savings in Vietnam. Good luck.

[LaoPo]

If Thailand doesn't change their economical policies (very soon) I fear that the country will end up as an non-progressive 'island', losing most of the -new- business to their competitor-, neighbouring countries, and wil, thus, fall to (even) more poverty...

Sad!

LaoPo, don't spend you life in "fear" of what will happen if Thailand loses ground economically compared to neighboring countries. It's not your country, let Thailand <deleted> themselves and thereby learn a lesson (maybe).

If Thailand f**ks up their own economy, there is likely going to be huge benefits in the future for foreigners choosing to invest and/or living there. A weaker baht would help too. I don't see any downside for foreigners i f the country "falls to (even) more poverty".

I'm sorry if this comes across as being cold and callous, but in the end we have to look after our own interests, and Thailand certainly doesn't respect ours.

I'm not living in fear.

You're wrong when you say there will be huge benefits in the future for foreigners choosing to invest.....that opportunity was there in the past, and maybe just a little while to come because of the 'poor' circumstances for the same foreign investors.

Thailand has had SO many opportunities in the past because 'Farang-(investors)' like the Thai as such but they don't like the investment environment; that's why they go somewhere else to work&invest and just return to have fun, sun, beaches and to relax.

I am much more concerned for the dozens of Millions of real poor people in the (North)-East, South and elsewhere.

Poor people wish to improve their lifes but since decades there has been so little for them to benefit from OR improve their lifes.......

If the protection-laws are kept in place, in other words, if the government holds on to the stupid 49/51% rules that means that hundreds of thousands of jobs are NOT created....and thus keep the poor, poor or even poorer in the future.

The poor.....unfortunately the vast majority in this beautiful country

LaoPo

Edited November 10, 2006 by LaoPo

[fanclubcm]

[quote name='Chua' date='2006-11-10 22:07:05' of loopholes & grey areas are simply not conducive to the serious business investor. Thailand is missing out on 1st world economic status bedroom 'cause Thaksin: case and point.

The fact is

If Thailand wants to attract a serious steady-stream of investors and not loose the ones they already have they had better very quickly enact clear cut laws that make Thailand attractive for foreign investment and give everyone a legitimate sense of confidence (such as through a royal decree confirming it) that such new laws are here to stay. If investors don't have ability to control their investments, they will need to do it via nominees, or trust me, they won't invest AT ALL. Sufficiency economy is a good idea, and it does not have to mean SELF-sufficiency, it just means use only what you need, be efficient, and make use of all that is available. When there are potentially Trillions of Baht available in foreign investment capital to help boost and support Thailand's sufficiency economy, they'd be fools not to do everything they can do attract it, instead of confusing it and scaring it away.

Exellent, well Done synoposis !!!!!!!!!!!1[cut out parts] ARE YOU TEACHING @ a ???ugh THAI University??? Applause, accolaides, etc to YOU

[noodle]

"The comfort of the rich depends on the abundance of the poor." --Voltaire

That sentence makes no sense.

It should read:

"The comfort of the rich depends on AN abundance of the poor".

Perhaps it should read “The comfort of the rich rests on abundance of the poor.”

In any case Monsieur Voltaire didn't say it in english.

[nikster]

It's too late to say that Thailand's policy is not going to change. Actions count more than words, and Temasek looks about to be screwed big time. Which means the policy has already changed, and what's needed now is change for the better rather than no change.

Let's be honest, the current situation makes it impossible for a foreign company to invest here.

[pap]

One of the main problems as many economically savy people know is that it will take a long time for the mistakes currently being made to hit the bottomline of Thailand in a negative manner that is noticeable. The same can be said of the positive things.

What Thailand does now for better or for worse will not be felt until months down the line. People savy enough to be able to look back and say this is why things are bad now are few and far between. Although most posters on this thread seem to get that.

I know a lot of money slated for Thai investment has already moved elsewhere until Thailand figures out where it wants to go. But waiting to long to decide means people have to start over from scratch as investment plans are not easy to alter once committed. Thailand is benefiting from this currently. But a year down the line and the investments that were in the pipe will be finished. I submit that there is a very small amount of investment money currently entering the pipe. It won't enter the pipe until Thailand figures out what its going to do.

[Dakhar]

Overall, Farang employers will pay their employees better than Thai employers - and quite likely treat their Asian employees better. Case in point: intern nurses, both 16 and personal friends of mine, are working at a Bangkok hospital ('The Senior' in Jankasem) are required to be on call 24 hours, for a minimum 84 hours per week. What does the hospital pay for those hours? Not one satang. In fact, the Thai employers only provide a dorm room, but no bed or mattresses, AND NO FOOD !!!!

I know a young woman who's in her third year of business school and got a gig working with a large corporation in Chiang Mai. What does the company pay her for 10 hours per day? Forty baht. She takes the job because she needs the cumulative hours for her university internship.

If you want sterling examples of 'haves' taking advantage of 'have nots' - look no farther than jolly old Thailand. Example #3: every construction firm and farm in this area pays their workers the absolute minimum or lower. To the bosses it's simple business sense: "Pay as little as possible" ....which winds up being about 50 to 80 baht per day for hard labor. Heck, if the one brown skinned hill tribe guy doesn't want to work for that amount, there'll always be some other guy who will take it. Farang bosses, on the other hand, generally pay a decent wage, and often pay above minimum wage - plus offer tips and kindness.

Sometimes I am asked for business advice.

I had a Thai business owner ask me if he should spend 40K on a piece of equipment that essentially will not generate on stang. I said, with that kind of money you could employ more people.... his question was.... what would I have them do? Ummm how about spread out the work load, how about work your people 5 days a week rather than 6 or 7. How about keeping your employees happy rather than haveing to limp along with a staff of 60+ that survive off of a staff of 15 star employees. How about making this work environment an honor and a privaledge to be here.

But as you so noted, Thais don't see employees as the back bone of a co. and honestly, America has become the same.

I am well paid, I have no complaints, but I see what others go through, and I think it as like what you said, Thais need to be better paid.

[lincsong]

Military intelligents is an oxy-moron.

[Arkady]

If the Alien Business Law and the current immigration laws had been in place earlier, those "Thai" businessman who now claim they need more time to compete would have to find ethnic Thai nominees for their businesses and do visa trips.

The solution is simple. Protect those sectors that are deemed strategic from foreign control and open up all other sectors to 100% foreign ownership.

[johnnyk]

Military intelligents is an oxy-moron.

Shouldn't it be military intelligents are oxy-morons

[bahtbox]

Quote:

Overall, Farang employers will pay their employees better than Thai employers - and quite likely treat their Asian employees better. Case in point: intern nurses, both 16 and personal friends of mine, are working at a Bangkok hospital ('The Senior' in Jankasem) are required to be on call 24 hours, for a minimum 84 hours per week. What does the hospital pay for those hours? Not one satang. In fact, the Thai employers only provide a dorm room, but no bed or mattresses, AND NO FOOD !!!!

I know a young woman who's in her third year of business school and got a gig working with a large corporation in Chiang Mai. What does the company pay her for 10 hours per day? Forty baht. She takes the job because she needs the cumulative hours for her university internship.

If you want sterling examples of 'haves' taking advantage of 'have nots' - look no farther than jolly old Thailand. Example #3: every construction firm and farm in this area pays their workers the absolute minimum or lower. To the bosses it's simple business sense: "Pay as little as possible" ....which winds up being about 50 to 80 baht per day for hard labor. Heck, if the one brown skinned hill tribe guy doesn't want to work for that amount, there'll always be some other guy who will take it. Farang bosses, on the other hand, generally pay a decent wage, and often pay above minimum wage - plus offer tips and kindness.

Unquote

It sounds like the example owners are not 100% Thai but more like Chinese-Thai. I have nothing against Chinese-Thais. Some of them are extremely kind people with high morals but there is a lot of totally heartless scum around who are only interested in the money and treat their employees worse than they treat their dogs. One of the problems with this country is that it is ruled and run by Chinese-Thais.

Unfortunately there does not seem to be a solution for this problem.

Bahtbox

[kmart]

The trouble with this country is still basically a lack of decent education. Its at the root cause of just about every economic or social problem here, still.

Kids are not taught how to think for themselves, or about the world around them. How can the economy of this country ever be "self-sufficient" when nothing is ever invented or developed here? Its a bunker-mentality, bordering on the absurd.

Thailand will always be a follower, not a leader, until this changes.

[wolfmanjack]

The cynical amongst us may take the "sufficiency economy" to be applicable mainly to the poor.

IE you get on with your lot so long as you just have enough to be able to work and produce things and farm the land.

We will protect our riches but not seek to increase them dramatically. At least not as openly as before.

We remain rich and you remain in your place and forget any ideas of becoming a threat to us (rich people) by getting educated and political.

Its face with the rich Thais, they don't care about the economy so long as they are richer than the poor. We've had this before, take your Issan girlfriend round Bangkok to buy a new car and the middle classes hate it, sulk and would rather not sell the car than deal with somebody darker than them.

Obviously you are the cynical one. The king is the one that stressed the "sufficiency economy" and I do believe he was referring mainly to the poor and not the entire kingdom. Fortress Thailand was not what he intended. My wife is from a hilltribe village and here is what happened after the million baht per village fund was started.

1. Many have a new motorbike when an old one or walking was good enough before. This means air and noise pollution where there was little before. Money must be spent on gasoline which would be better off saved for the farm. Riding instead of walking decreases the amount of exercise one gets.

2. The other major purchase was a refrigerator. The electricity shuts off so frequently that the frig is useless and now sits unplugged.

3. Furniture was purchased and not used. I see homes with tables and chairs but every one sits on the floor.

4. Cell phones with no cell service in the village. They have to drive 10 kilo away to the top of the Doi to get service when they have a pay phone in the middle of the village.

These are just a few of the examples where the poor are going into debt to buy things they really don't need or even use. I believe that the self sufficiency was meant to stop the useless spending and the use of imports by people that can not afford it. In the past 90% of what was used by the villagers was also produced in that village.

[Gary A]

When you talk about investment, what exactly are you talking about? Are you talking about bogus real estate trading companies? Are you talking about beer bars and Go Go bars? I think we place too much value on our "HUGE" investments here. Some time back I was involved in a BOI sponsored company. The BOI cut through a LOT of red tape and helped the company whenever they could. My work permit as well as a number of other farang work permits were pushed through by the BOI. Like it or not Thai laws are written so that they can be selectively enforced. Looking at the visa rules should tell you that few things are black and white. I believe that it is planned that way.

[Jai Dee]

Investors: gov. roadshow increased their understanding of sufficiency economy policy; still concerned over vagueness over alien shareholding law

Thai and foreign investors, after yesterday's roadshow by economic ministers, said they have increased understanding of the "sufficiency economy policy" but are still concerned over the unclear law on alien's shareholding.

Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister M.R. Pridiyathorn Devakula yesterday explained the government's sufficiency economy policy to investors, both Thai and foreign. He asserted that sufficiency economy can go in line with globalization, and emphasis will be placed on creating balance and taking care for the economy to remain at a proper level. He also confirmed the continuation of megaprojects, especially the electric train projects that will be open for bidding in March next year. He also affirmed that the state grants freedom in capital inflow and outflow.

Deputy Prime Minister and Industry Minister Kosit Panpiumrat said that in 1 year the government will accelerate progression in 4 aspects comprising problems retained from the previous government, country development under sufficiency economy principles, empowering citizens to be self-reliant and creating conciliation within society.

Commerce Minister Krikkrai Jeeraphaet yesterday admitted that amendment of the law on alien shareholding is difficult, but he affirmed that the Commerce Ministry's committee will fix this law within 60 days.

Private sector representatives said the explanation of economic policies helped to create clarity, especially on the sufficiency economy policy. However they said the matter of alien shareholding law amendment is still unclear.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 11 November 2006

[Martin]

'chinadarling' in post #31 said:

"Funny when I think of UK vs Thailand I don't think of UK as being the weak one..."

Well, when I look at fundamentals and futures (rather than the remnants of an empire of the past), I do see the UK as the weak one. I cannot, for the life of me, see anything that the UK will be able to offer to do or make, by 2036, that some other country will not be able to offer to do or to make far more cheaply. So I see the UK economy of the future being desperately difficult.

On the other hand, I see Thailand could put itself in a very strong position, as it has surplus food to export and need have very little (if any) need of imports. So, if it acts right, it could be a strong one.

'Colpyat' in post #33 said that "the available land is distributed absolutely unfairly", and he is absolutely right. However, it could happen that it becomes more profitable for the big landowners to rent out their land in family-sized holdings than to do large-scale monoculture. So 'land reform' could come without resorting to legislation.

'pap' in #41 gets into the wider picture, by saying (to my agreement) about my posting:

"Your thoughts don't appear to work with me when you have a global population of its current size".

Sadly, sorrowfully, but realistically, I am afraid that is right. But I wasn't saying that partial-sufficiency, partial specialisation can work for all the populations on the globe. I was only pointing to Thailand.

Thailand is exceptional in that it can feed and house its population adequately from its own resources, no matter how much those resources (food and energy) are in short supply for the countries that are net importers of them.

Global population has ballooned on the back of cheap bulk energy. Now that has peaked, there is a need for each generation to be quite a lot smaller than the previous one. Otherwise there will be pockets (and some will be very big ones) of starvation in other places than Thailand.

The danger, as I see it, for Thailand is that "Bangkok may sell out Ban Nork". If some of the upper middle class power brokers sell Thailand's assets to foreigners now, Thailand could end up colonised by MiddleEasterners and the Chinese. (Because that is where the money is coming from, albeit channelled through USA, UK, and EU firms.)

There may be a desperate power struggle to come, between those who feel they have a duty to protect the interests of future generations and those who just want to be rich themselves for now. That may well have been part of what was going on behind the scenes earlier this year, but we are forbidden to speak thereof. (Says he, hoping to have expressed his thoughts elliptically enough).

I hope the view of several posters that Thailand should let in foreign capital and climb on the globalisation bandwagon, just as it begins to run out of gas, does not prevail.

Thailand can stand aside whilst that bandwagon splutters to a stop.

To have a long term future Ban Nork doesn't need Bangkok, but Bangkok needs Ban Nork. But the long term future depends on the correct handling of the short term and mid term situations.

So I applaud this move by the present administration to keep out foreign ownership (if that is what it is).