Will the Philip. pave the way for new Thai business and property laws for foreigners?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spiff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmperorTud

Fair enough, but don't complain when we exercise reciprocity by tightening our borders, clamping down on immigration and restricting foreign property investment in the near future then.

---

Tell me, how easy is it for a Thai national to get a tourist visa to the UK at present? Or a work permit, or retirement visa? :rolleyes:

You'd think the Thais would line up now that living expenses in the UK are well below Thailand. :p

---

They certainly aren't lining up to flee, regardless of their life circumstance. You don't really consider that the average Thai would 'be at home' in Blighty, do ya? The UK is one thing, try observing US or Australian immigration laws when it comes to Third World brown folk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plorf

^^ I admit to not being an expert when it comes to the Philippines, but can it really be that much worse than Thailand ?

---

Why does one need to project comparatives?

^ I most certainly don't insist that they be like "us", whatever that might mean.
But I can assure you that Thais can learn a lot from working with foreign companies, I have several friends who do, and they are definetely not "less Thai" than anyone else. That is proper progress, copy the good things from others while keeping your own qualities. Rest assured, all my friends are "proud" to be Thai, like Thailand, see the bad in some western manners but just aren't blind to their own faults. Bad it is when you copy the bad and resist to improve by learning from others. But now we're straying off the main topic, and I must admit I find it intriguing what's happening in the Phil. and how that might affect surrounding countries. (not a big fan of Arroyo tho !)

^ I was answering to 2 posts above... as you could clearly see. I think you've started with a few good posts some time ago but you have no resorted to posting senseless oneliners without reading other peoples posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butterfly

it's even more ridiculous in England where the "ownership" expires every 99 years.

---

I think thats for apartments where you buy a lease to live there for 99 years as you dont own the entire structure or the land its on, most houses in the UK are bought on a freehold not a leasehold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plorf

I admit to not being an expert when it comes to the Philippines, but can it really be that much worse than Thailand ?

---

Yes, it can. And is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spiff

Tell me, how easy is it for a Thai national to get a tourist visa to the UK at present? Or a work permit, or retirement visa?

---

Not easy, but then tens of thousands do manage to emigrate there every year. They get full citizenship, full rights and all the other benefits that come with it.

There's a quota on Britons being allowed to become Thai citizens, and that number is in the dozens.

There is a reason there's such tight restrictions on Thais as so many of them overstay their visas and become illegal immigrants, especially to the USA where an incredible 70% overstay the length of their visa.

^
Oh, there are reasons for visa regulations and legal status of foreigners?
Do tell. Could there be reasons for Thai legislation as well, I wonder?

Tens of thousands? Kinda OTT dontcha think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spiff

^
Oh, there are reasons for visa regulations and legal status of foreigners?
Do tell. Could there be reasons for Thai legislation as well, I wonder?

---

The reason for forbidding farang to own land is to keep the rural Thais in utter misery.

Oh, right.

Yes, this must be it. :laugh2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Tens of thousands? Kinda OTT dontcha think?

---

A valid Tuddy argument.

Take the total of immigrants to the UK and compare against the number of Brits who become nationalised Thais every year. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spiff

and compare against the number of Brits who become nationalised Thais every year.

---

Not who become, how many are allowed.

The quota is in the dozens, and it isn't filled because it's a gamble that involves hundreds of thousands of Baht.

There's tens of thousands of Thai immigrants settled in the UK, with full rights as UK citizens.

There's probably under a couple of hundred Western foreigners who have become Thai citizens.

So save your comparisons over tourist visas, especially given Thailand is economically heavily dependent on British tourists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmperorTud

especially given Thailand is economically heavily dependent on British tourists.

---

Best of luck to the Thais on that one in 2009 then!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmperorTud

The quota is in the dozens, and it isn't filled because it's a gamble that involves hundreds of thousands of Baht.

---

Oh, the quota isn't even filled? The Brits can't be all that desperate to become (or rather be allowed to become) Thai citizens. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmperorTud

There's tens of thousands of Thai immigrants settled in the UK, with full rights as UK citizens.

---

Ah, yep, the ten-thousands per year was, ehr, not quite correct, so let's change it to the overall figure of Thais in the UK. No problem.
And you are right, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmperorTud

especially given Thailand is economically heavily dependent on British tourists.

---

Best of luck to the Thais on that one in 2009 then!

---

Yeah, the Thai economy will crash with the reduced number of Brit chavs getting pissed in Pattaya this year. :doglol:

I can only offer my thoughts, observations and opinions like anyone else on this subject. But I believe the answer lies within history with respects to comparisons made between the Phillippines and Thailand. Thailand has never been conquered by any nation and there is a reason for this. They uphold a culture that has not been divided, polluted or watered down. A true believe in their own way of thinking, one that has stood the test of time. We may easily judge them, but we do not really understand their ways or what it would be like to be truly Thai. When it comes to push and shove, aren't they really a proud people who may in the end only possess this one last piece of cultural heritage. We can critise them based possibly on our own cultural models and historical events.

Even 1500 years ago when the Khmer people controlled the Thai land they did not control the essence of the Thai culture and their way of thinking. Over 1 million people in the North East Thailand still speak this non tonal language of the Khmer empire.

With respects to the Phillippines, the spainish in the 1500's took this country. First with the sword and then with the cross. Those European models at that time brought the catholic church and a new way of thinking to this land. In some way it seems to change a culture, to what extent I do not know.

If anything you must admire at some level the Thai culture and their way of thinking. It will always be hard for any country to resist a western influence, so in my mind they are just trying to be who they have always been. Keeping, and isolating themselves against the outside world, so it is not so surprising that they will tighten their strings as a westen style of thought is constantly invading their way of life. They at least have some motivation not to cut their kingdom up into tinny pieces and sell it off to the highest bidder, and even more given the western economical shortfalls. Just a thought.

[at]Musty: Not saying you're wrong here, but you aren't comparing much between the 2 either. Both currently have relatively strict anti-foreign investment and property laws because of strong nationalist sentiments in the respective countries at the time of its introduction. If you look at the arguments exchanged pro and contra today, you will notice that both countries use exactly the same lines of arguments and reasoning in their public debate. The same fears and worries and the same factual arguments are voiced. So the spanish do not seem to have automatically paved the ways for further westernization today, that is a path every country has to struggle with, regardless of their history. One might even argue that by not being colonized Thailand has always had to adapt much more proactively to outter influences than other, neighbouring countries, which might be a reason why it's wealther than them and seemingly more western.
But I agree that this is a completely different topic altogether.
But like I stated before, I am not going much into the depths of the respective cultures, I am just trying to follow public and academic debates, much more so in Thailand than in the Philippines, which I admit to now knowing well.
All I think is that such a move might result in slightly more pressure to the Thai government to do likewise.

The Philippines haven't changed any laws so the discussion is moot, (even though as a mining company you can legally dig up bits of their land and put it in a boat and take it away)

When I wrote a Presidential manifesto for a candidate in Indonesia, I made similar suggestions, and he said 'The idea is okay, but no Indonesian would vote for me if I proposed it" So it was canned.

Thanks for your view Plorf, I can see your focus with respects to the academic debate in the 'now'. I also appreciate your desire for constructive debate. :)

My comments in yellow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Can you as a Farang...really own property in the West?
I don't believe you can really own land in the industrialized West. Everything is controlled by the state. Eminent domain. Vacancy of familial land. The West isn't so special. exceptional, or extraordinary as you envision....

---

I wholeheartedly agree. You pay for the piece of dirt but you will always be taxed on it...forever!!!
Years ago (1980's), I decided that it was wrong for any government to tax people on land that they own. My "simplified" solution was to make land available with 100 year leases, free of tax. The cost of the land would be equal. i.e all land has the same price per square metre or hectare. The lease will automatically be passed on to relatives (or as elected by a "last Will & testament"), free of charge until the lease expires. Upon expiry, the land holder pays the required sum of the lease (this sum only changes with C.P.I.). Should the land holder wish to relinquish the land, it can only be available for the standard lease price...nothing more or nothing less. Of course, there are those that will really want a piece of dirt for reasons of "location" etc & those people may secretly offer an "incentive" to the seller. This is where the Taxation Office does their bit...making the income equal the outgoings.

The way I see it, humans need some very basic things in order to survive. They are:
1] a piece of dirt.
2] water.
3] food.

These things should not be subject to standard market conditions. Water should be government controlled & therefore the supplier should not make a profit but the overheads should be covered. Food production profit should be capped at a sensible & "liveable" rate. Land needs no profit at all since it already exists. Surveyor & other charges may apply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Your attempts at re-making Asia in your image or Eurocentric model is futile. Never has been nor never will be. Can you as a Farang...really own property in the West?

---

I agree, if foreigners were given rights to own land, you losers would be complaining how you got priced out and how it's not fair because you couldn't get a fair deal. Thai land for the Thais.

---

Believe it or not Butterfly, I fully agree with you. As a matter of fact, have a green.
If Thailand adopted the western ideal of land ownership, we'd all be screaming about the price of land. The worst thing the west did was to invent Real Estate Agents, who are in the same realm as car salesmen, banks & lawyers.
However, if Thailand were to "grow a brain", they could adopt the smart ideas of the west & forget the bad ideas...a perfect opportunity to "beat the west at it's own game". Instead, there is this xenophobic attitude, which is fuelled by moronic nationalism.

From the interesting Professor Pavin Chachavalpongpun, expert on Thai nationalism and Thai identity:

"Thai identity is elusive because of a lack of cultural coherence or uniqueness, so it is easier for its promoters to imagine what is not Thai"

"Thainess...is able to seize power because it can generate mass support for what is often forwarded as the defence of national survival."

"The adherence to Khawnpenthai [Thainess]... is a part of the exercise of Thai nationalism through which power holders portray themselves as legitimate players formulating legitimate policy"

"[The power holders] high degree of power helps create the official version of Thainess that masks political unattractiveness as well as elites' private accummulation"

"Thais comply with this variable nationhood and perceive it as though it is part of their chit winyan, or spirit... This explains why they never look beyond the boundaries of Thai nationhood, and why it always remains predominant, ultimate and supremacist."

"according to this... self-image, Thais are not guilty of anything and blame is always placed upon foreigners"


"The farang... have continously represented a real enough threat to the power interests of the Thai leaders"


"The very idea of nationalism being a rational and self-conscious attempt to achieve autonomy and liberty is demonstrably false. Indeed, nationalism as an ideology is irrational, narrow, hateful and destructive"-- Partha Chatterjee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redneck

Thailand has never been conquered by any nation and there is a reason for this.

---

They were 'conquered' in 4 hours by the Japanese in WWII then occupied for the duration of rest of the war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MUSTY

They at least have some motivation not to cut their kingdom up into tinny pieces and sell it off to the highest bidder

---

In the last few hundred years Siam and Thailand has been cut up and sold to the highest bidder, with former parts of Siam going to China, Burma, Laos and of course as has been in the news recently, Cambodia.

Of course they omit a lot of it from the history books, to suit their revisionist history, to which I assume you have been fooled into believing given the naivety and uninformed nature of your post.

I am aware that the topic of foreign land ownership (1 Rai max with one house allowance) was seriously consided by the Thaksin government and a decision was made that they would pass it once a few of the old stagers passed away.

I have no idea who the old stagers are but maybe Tuddy's reference on a previous post would not be too far from the mark.

under BOI, I believe foreigners can own commercial land

Any country which can manage to keep its airports open is going to fare better than Thailand in 2009.

Good for you Tuddy. I can appreciated the promotion of being suspiscious of conventional and established historic content. As most people tend to follow this theme...that's the principle reason why most are terribly ignorant towards historiography {in general}. Revision works in every which manner.