Strict New Controls on Foreigners

[SingaporeSteve]

I posted on here that I use the law firm Gadfly has quoted and that I was meeting him last week about another matter but would also raise this question on company structuring.

 

I have had that meeting and whilst I am not going to go in depth as its not information that I want to publicly disclose, suffice to say we are not going to be making any changes in how we are doing things or how we are structured. However probably a big difference is that our Thai shareholders get dividends and were correctly recorded (we have all the paperwork) of where they withdrew their share of capital and then paid it into our company bank account. Our Thai shareholders are not nominees and do not do this kind of thing for over 200 companies that just so happen to own lots of houses that effectively do not trade.

 

As I have said before, I believe this has all come around due to actions of a civil service wishing to close the stable door after the horse has bolted, in the acquistion of Shin by Singapore Inc through various guises.

 

For me personally, we looked at this situation when we decided to look at investing this kind of money into Thailand - we concluded that the return was worth the perceived risk that one day everything could change. At worst, we will have to gift a piece of land to someone for which we paid 4,000,000 baht and then lease it back from them for 30 years. Our model provides full return on all capital deployed in 6 years, of which we are 2 years into that already. All in all thats a risk we are prepared to take.

 

 

Cheers

[Guest]

As I have said before, I believe this has all come around due to actions of a civil service wishing to close the stable door after the horse has bolted, in the acquistion of Shin by Singapore Inc through various guises.

This is an interesting comment because one of the theories I have heard put forth is this: the biggest opposition to Thaksin is coming from the Thai civil service, particularly the senior ranks of the civil service.

 

I heard this from a relatively senior person at an AMCHAM meeting and I heard it from a relatively senior Thai from the Thai Federation of Industries. They both came at it from different angles, but both said there is a strong anti-business/anti-foreigner sentiment in some parts of the civil service.

 

This does make sense when you look at civil servants in other countries (most are not exactly famous for being pro-business) and you look at the historical roots of the Thai bureaucracy. It could also explain what has been characterized as the "radical implimentation" of existing laws (This argument over whether the law has or has not changed seems entirely acadmic and irrelevant to me (perhaps interesting to law professors, but not businessmen); if the laws are being implimented in a radical manner - something no one seems to be abe to dispute - that is a change worth commenting on and worthy of a title to this thread, even if the underlying text of these laws has not changed.) But other than what I heard, and the fact that it makes sense, I honestly don't know if that is really what is behind the current radical implimentation of laws generally that restrict foreign business activities.

[BuffHello]

why would anybody want to buy land or property in LOS when you can risk free buy land and property in the opening up east european countries and make a pile in a year or 2 risk free and without all the hassle.

[Bangkoktraveler]

Quote from BuffHello:

 

[color:"red"]"why would anybody want to buy land or property in LOS when you can risk free buy land and property in the opening up east european countries and make a pile in a year or 2 risk free and without all the hassle."

[color:"black"]

 

I bought but I have payments spread over 30 years with 10% down. Investment is minimal and hopefully we will not part but if we do, I realize I don't get the house.

 

House payments is less then rent. So that was one main reason for buying.

[Nervous_Dog]

Gadfly <<but both said there is a strong anti-business/anti-foreigner sentiment in some parts of the civil service. >>

 

I'd say that covers most Thais regardless of what their jobs are.

 

Remember at the height of the Anti-Thaksin Sondhi marches, Nation published a cartoon that was VERY anti Farang!

 

And thats the people we think support Farangs in Thailand,

 

None of them support us

 

DOG

[SingaporeSteve]

BuffHello said:

why would anybody want to buy land or property in LOS when you can risk free buy land and property in the opening up east european countries and make a pile in a year or 2 risk free and without all the hassle.

 

 

Because I am here in Thailand and I know nothing about the property market in Eastern Europe !!!!

 

Cheers

[thailien8]

Well, I must admit that I haven't yet read all the pages in this thread, but BuffHello's long post on page 2 is, IMHO, brilliant. Any farang who may be in love with Thailand, take hee!!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

Gadfly <<but both said there is a strong anti-business/anti-foreigner sentiment in some parts of the civil service. >>

 

I'd say that covers most Thais regardless of what their jobs are.

 

Remember at the height of the Anti-Thaksin Sondhi marches, Nation published a cartoon that was VERY anti Farang!

I can understand why many Farangs get that impression, particularly after they have been here long enough where the rose-tinited glass simply have to come off just to move forward through the morass or they have had a single unpleasant business deal with an "influential" Thai. But I think the truth is more complicated, and that views are very mixed.

 

Many views have been put forward, and I have personally put forward several theories (really guesses) that are not necessarily consistent with each other, but I think that you can lump the driving forces of Thai attitudes into the following categories:

 

1. Local Politics: At times it has suited TRT to emphasize economic nationalism, and at other times (say, when its in their interests for the economy to do well, and they need to be more realistic) they have emphasized open markets and the positive force of globalization. The opposition (and by this, I mean the reasonably responsible opposition, the Democrats, and not opportunists like Sondhi) have also employed nationalistic cant, but have been more reasonable when doing so.

 

2. Globalization and Open Markets: The way forward is pretty clear, but there is a lag in thinking here, largely because of an unholy alliance between (a) vested interests that will suffer from foreign competition and open markets and ( fuzzy headed utopians - the sort F.A. Hayek was sarcastically referring to when he devoted his book The Road to Serfdom to "Socialists of All Parties." Thailand is not unique here. If we are going to blame groups, Farangs are partly to blame for this. Muddled thinking in the West has provided Thai nationalism with a patina of credibility and this, in turn, has led many Thais to believe that protectionist measures are entirely legitimate and indeed good for average Thais when clearly the opposite is true. And when their own interests have been at stake, vested interests have thrown enough gasoline on the fire to cloak their own agendas behind a smokescreen of nationalistic rant.

 

3. Cultural Factors: Pride in your culture is necessary and good, but it can also be a serious problem. In Thailand, the first refuge of a scoundrel is often patriotism. But this doesn't make Thailand unique; the manner in which the flames are stoked makes Thailand unique.