Lord Toad Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 If I am return to the thought that more economic problems may help somebody. This is the final para. from todays Nation's main leader. When will his(Tacksin's) luck run out? Lucky stars have long ceased to cast a decisive influence over Thaksin when compared to his big money and power. Luck alone will not suffice, given the magnitude of the current risks. He needs the help of mayhem to play a saviour role and elevate himself to god-like status, if that would satisfy him. In conclusion this has been an interesting thread and of course we know damn all. And as most people realise doing business here is always uncertain. The ownership of land through a company is clearly likely to be a problem for a while. How long remains to be seen. The other problms are not new and have always been there. I think everybody agrees that arresting convention goers would be financial suicide, as would arresting people on a quick business trip: on the viability of investing here. But THailand, like many other imature coutries, has laws that prohibit just about anything: it just a question of which law in used today. Without all those sweet girls Thialand would have a lot less inward investment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SingaporeSteve Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 Just a quick comment as I dont have much time at the moment - regarding Gladfly's reference to Deacons Law Firm. They are the law form I use for my company and I use the partner who set things up 40 years ago. Suffice to say, although not as well known as some of the bigger 'western' orientated firms, I believe they are exceptionally good at what they do and they are extremely thorough - as you would expect for a firm that is charging partners time out at up to US$500 an hour. I actually have a meeting with this partner this coming week and one of the things I will be talking to him about is how our company owns our land - reading between the lines, I suspect that we have nothing to be concerned over as I recall we had to be very carefull in how we recorded the manner in which our Thai shareholders 'paid' in their element of capital. In a nutshell, these firms are thorough and they explain the full implication of the law - thats after all what your paying them for - however some of their papers can read like a horror story, but they are merely showing all sides of the situation. I have to say, nothing I have seen in print, is contrary to what they told me as we set up our company structure even though other pseudo lawyers never even mentioned it which is why I switched to using this firm after a personal recomendation about this partner. dont forget from what I can see, the laws have not changed - they have just tightened up the 'vetting' process in support of existing law, certainly in relation to land ownership. Incidentally, we do not use nominees in our company - the Thai shareholders will be entitled to dividends in a similar manner as all other shareholders. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous_Dog Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 Gaddie, to be fair your comment <<Specifically, I have posted references to and quoted from books put out by two law firms and a quote of a third lawyer >> All your doing is quoting law firms, and who will benifit in people talking to a partner at $500 a hour? The law firm, the more fear, the more work they get. DOG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 Hi, And also in all fairness, that doesn't change the fact that the 'opposition' hasn't provided *any* references Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SingaporeSteve Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 Nervous_Dog said:Gaddie, to be fair your comment <<Specifically, I have posted references to and quoted from books put out by two law firms and a quote of a third lawyer >> All your doing is quoting law firms, and who will benifit in people talking to a partner at $500 a hour? The law firm, the more fear, the more work they get. DOG Nervous Dog - I think thats a bit of a simple scenario - the numbers of individuals these firms cater to is miniscule - they are interested in working with corporations on long term relationships - frankly these guys are not interested in one off house purchases and work permit applications - thats not their target market - therefore they have hardly anything to gain. What they often do though is produce 'white papers' for their clients and also for self promotion whereby they analyse things of relevance to a wider audience. The risk though in such a scenario is that actually put corporations off doing business here - in which case they get no work at all. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khwaimaisabai Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 HI guys, Just my The difference is between what the law says and how it is applied. I don't doubt gadfly's statements about the strict legal provisions, or others whose line is that this is not enforced. Very difficult to provide any authoritative source for this. Some say they are tightening up, but asking for work permits to attend a conference is madness. Use of nominees is not confined to small scale enterprises set up to allow someone to buy a house. It is a device used by international corporations (to my personal knowledge) to circumvent limits on foreign shareholdings and control a Thai company. This device is well known to at least some parts of the government and afaik has not been challenged. If it were, there would be a lot of complaint and most likely a fall off in foreign investment. Khwai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous_Dog Posted June 4, 2006 Report Share Posted June 4, 2006 <<And also in all fairness, that doesn't change the fact that the 'opposition' hasn't provided *any* references >> Except that the law has been long known and clear, Gaddies arguement is that events are about to change, or have changed, yet the only reference is the law firms. In other words, it is status quo, nothing has changed except the opinion of a law firm. If the law HAD changed, then the owniss would be upon those against his arguement to show the law had not changed. In this case, the law is the same except for the building ownership. DOG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elef Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 "All your doing is quoting law firms, and who will benifit in people talking to a partner at $500 a hour? The law firm, the more fear, the more work they get." As long as Gadfly isn't one of those partners I don't see the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 yet the only reference is the law firms Nervous Dog - Several quick points on this: First, where else do you expect me or anyone else to get this sort of information? From a book by a doctor or an engineering firm's website? Be realisitic. Second, this has turned into a damned if I do and damned if I don't situation. If I cannot rely on accessible information from law firms, we're left with the "impressions" of a banker on the law. Now, weren't Suadum and Chuckwow criticizing my comments before claiming that they were nothing more than my "impressions" of what is going on? Third, my sources are three different law firms, one of which is quoted in the Bangkok Post. You think they are conspiring together to make this up? I am familiar with Baker & McKenzie, but not Deacons or the guy quoted in the Bangkok Post. Singapore Steve, however, seems to have a high opinion of them and the other guy is quoted in the paper as an authoritative source. Obviously none of this is perfect, but... Fourth, it is miles ahead of the "support" for the contrary position. The contrary position really is nothing more than the impressions of anonymous posters on this board. No one has posted a single reference to any source to back up the contrary view - not even one reference! If there are sources to back up the contrary view, wouldn't it be in the best interest of everyone here to hear from those sources? Well, where are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 5, 2006 Report Share Posted June 5, 2006 I skimmed this thread and just finished reading Stickman's weekly ezine; guess what? There are sources other than law firms. (Apparantly we aren't supposed to rely on documented and accessible statements from Thai law firms when arguing about Thai law.) I mentioned the JFCCT circular. I also mentioned discussions at AMCHAM and BCCT meetings. And other members have posted information consistent with what I have said, but of course those are only ?impressions?. The information is out there. But there is also a lot of misinformation out there. Stickman interviewed the British Counsel in Pattaya, and British Counsel said this about work permit violations: There are others such as working without a work permit, the second most common reason for arrest this. Some people are naive. They do not even know this! Link to Stickman Interview with British Counsul in Pattaya Now if the authorities only enforce work permit laws against Cambodians and are not devoting any resources to enforcing work permits laws against Westerners, as was suggested earlier here by someone (exact words: ?The "Alien Occupational Control Division" of the Ministry of Labor does not even HAVE an enforcement arm with respect to Westerners"), why are work permit violations the second most common reason for arrests of Brits in Pattaya? Or do you think the British Counsel made that up to justify his position? The British Counsel is certainly right about people being naïve; I think we see some evidence of that on this board. OK, next a comment on the changing times, because that is more interesting to me than what seem to be pointless arguments about work permits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.