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

Originally Posted by spiff

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

^
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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

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.

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.

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.

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.