Phuket governor responds to 90% foreign ownership claims

[Faustian]

This all sounds a bit worrying. Fair enough, lots of shits have been exploiting loop holes, but I fear for the new laws to counteract this...what will be the outcome?

 

http://www.phuketgazette.net/news/index.asp?id=7710

 

 

Phuket governor responds to explosive land claim

 

 

Phuket Governor Wichai Phraisa-ngop.

 

PHUKET CITY: The governor of Phuket, Wichai Phraisa-ngop, on Tuesday responded to explosive claims by a Thai research body that foreigners own 90 percent of the island’s beach land.

 

The Thailand Research Foundation announced the results of its research into land ownership at a seminar attended by economics and law scholars last week.

 

The Bangkok Post quoted Siriporn Sajjanont, a member of the research team from the economics faculty at Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University, as saying foreigners controlled 90 percent of land along the coastline of Phuket through Thai nominees.

 

The claims have caused a furor in the Thai media, following reports that businessmen in the Middle East were snapping up rice farms in other parts of Thailand using local proxy companies.

 

Questioned by the media at a ceremony to give out scholarships to students at Phuket City Municipality offices, Gov Wichai refused to confirm or deny the 90 percent claim.

 

The governor nevertheless conceded that foreigners were exploiting legal loopholes in order to gain control of Phuket’s land.

 

“One way to own property is through a business registered as a juristic person,†Gov Wichai said.

 

“As long as Thai people own 51 percent or more of the company and foreigners 49 percent or less, that’s legally permissible.

 

“The Thais are then transferring their shares to the foreigners after the transaction is complete, so the foreigners get 100 percent control of the land.â€Â

 

Gov Wichai said the government was drafting new laws to prevent this from happening.

 

Foreigners were also marrying Thais in order to own businesses to purchase property, he said.

 

“The law doesn’t allow foreigners to own land and property, except for condos, so they’re finding Thai husbands and wives,†he said.

 

“Sometimes they even use fake marriage documents,†Gov Wichai added.

 

The governor said that Phuket authorities were carrying out stringent checks to find out whether the money to buy land was coming from Thais or foreigners.

 

“If marriage licenses are fake or Thai nominees are used but the money used to buy the property isn’t coming from Thai people, we won’t let them buy property. In the past, many people have been refused permission to buy property in Phuket.†he said.

 

The governor expressed concern that foreigners were renting farmland in other parts of Thailand.

 

“Outside Phuket, we have to worry about people from the Middle East leasing our farmland. They can rent it for 30 years and can extend the lease two more times – that’s a very long time,†he said.

 

[Faustian]

Opinion piece from the Phuket Gazette....

 

OPINION: Do foreigners really own 90% of Phuket's beach front?

 

PHUKET: The front page story in today’s Bangkok Post which quotes a leading research body as saying foreigners own 90% of Phuket's beach front land has certainly struck a sour note against foreign ownership of land in Thailand.

 

The study, which was put together by the Thailand Research Fund, quotes a professor from Sukhothai Thammathirat University who says these holdings are lodged with Thai nominees.

 

Much of the current controversy stems from the recent reports of foreign parties looking to enter the rice and farming business in the country, with Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva telling the media that the Foreign Business Act explicitly forbids this, and that any violations would result in revoked land titles.

 

It’s disappointing to see such a one-sided story hit page one of the Bangkok Post as it's clearly sensationalist. It appears that no facts or supporting documents have been presented; that there have been no hands-on investigations by Post journalists; and that no effort was made to obtain comments from foreigners with an interest in the Thai property industry. The story takes us back about two years, to the days when the Foreign Business Act plunged the nation's property business into a serious flattening of demand.

 

Examining the claims made in the report, it has to be noted that there is, in fact, little beach front land available in Phuket as a large portion of the island's coasts are rimmed by roads, such as in Patong and Karon. At Bangtao, Laguna Phuket has legal title to its large-scale land holdings through the Thai Government’s Board of Investment scheme. In Mai Khao, Anantara and Marriott are owned by the Thai-listed Minor Group.

 

Locally-owned hotels such as the Kata Thani, Thavorn, Sri Panwa and Sala occupy considerable areas. Even more noteworthy is the expansive Sirinath National Park which covers much of the west coast, pre-empting land ownership by anyone – Thais and foreigners alike.

 

The type of tabloid sensationalism in today's Post will only further hamper efforts to encourage foreign investment during the current recession and property downturn. If there is substance in the theme of the report, the Post should publish evidence to support the 90% foreign ownership claim and give a bit of background on the foreigners and their nominees. Surely, that would be far better than inflaming an issue which only damages the country's reputation amongst the investment community.

 

Click here to read the story.

– thephuketinsider.com

 

[Faustian]

Original story....bias in full effect!

 

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/22577/foreigners-own-90-of-phuket-beach-land/page-8/

 

 

Foreigners 'own 90% of Phuket beach land'

Report says land grab rife in tourist spots

 

Writer: PENCHAN CHAROENSUTHIPAN

Published: 24/08/2009 at 12:00 AM

Newspaper section: News

About 90% of beach land in Phuket is controlled by foreigners through Thai nominees, a leading research body has found.

 

 

A similar situation exists in other prime tourism destinations in provinces such as Chiang Mai and Rayong.

 

Local officials and legal experts have helped clear the way for foreign investors to take control of the country's rice farms and property in resort provinces, according to research on foreign land ownership by the Thailand Research Fund.

 

TRF called a seminar on the research findings yesterday attended by economics and legal scholars.

 

There recently has been speculation that foreign businessmen, particularly from the Middle East, were snapping up rice fields in the central plains and elsewhere through proxy local companies.

 

Transnational business consortiums were said to be holding the land through Thai nominees, which is against the law.

 

Some farmers are leasing land they previously owned but have since sold to the foreigners' proxy firms, observers said.

 

Siriporn Sajjanont, from the economics faculty at Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University and a member of the research team, said the study showed many kinds of property had been bought by foreigners through Thai nominees.

 

"About 90% of land along the coastline in Phuket is controlled by foreigners through Thai nominees," she said.

 

Foreign investment capital was essential for developing Phuket and Samui, as Thais do not have enough money to invest themselves, Ms Siriporn said.

 

The coastal areas most sought after by foreign investors were Pattaya in Chon Buri, Koh Phangan and Koh Samui in Surat Thani, Phuket and Hua Hin in Prachuap Khiri Khan.

 

In Chiang Mai, foreigners had used legal loopholes to exceed the limit on sales of condominium units, Ms Siriporn said.

 

There was evidence they hold the property through Thai nominees by marrying Thais. In some cases, Thai women were asked to register the foreigners' property in their own names.

 

The study found similar problems in Rayong involving foreign landholdings through Thai nominees with foreigners marrying Thais.

 

 

In some land lease cases, the period of leasehold was unusually long, Ms Siriporn said. The study found that some lease contracts stated the leasehold was "for life".

 

Land ownership by foreigners had been made possible by their Thai lawyers who had found legal loopholes to clear the way for foreigners to take control, the research found.

 

Village heads also had acted as land brokers to arrange sales of state land given to local people so they could make a living, the panellists said.

 

Village heads were close to residents and knew which prime land was available.

 

Some legal entities had been set up with 51% of shares held by Thais, although those Thais turned out to be mere legal advisers for foreigners and had no power to run the legal entities, Ms Siriporn said.

 

"We also found the same people had set up many entities," she said.

 

Some entities' regulations on shareholding structures allowed foreign shareholders more power than Thais in running those entities.

 

Col Surin Pikulthong, president of the Community Organisations Development Institute, said he had received information that Hmong people in the US had provided financial support for Hmong in Nan province to buy land and grow rice for shipment to the US.

 

Silaporn Buasai, vice-president of the institute, said she had heard that investors from Taiwan had bought land here for growing oranges to be sold in Taiwan.

 

Wichian Phuanglamjiak, vice-president of the Thai Rice Growers' Association, said rice farmers held additional information on land grabs by foreign investors.

 

 

He said the problem had remained unaddressed for too long and no state agency had taken the matter seriously.

 

Mr Wichian said farmers were pinning their hopes on the Department of Special Investigation to pursue the matter.

 

DSI investigator Pakorn Sucheevakul on Saturday said the agency was investigating four Thai companies in Ayutthaya which own rice farms of almost 10,000 rai.

 

Malee Antasin, 59, a farmer in Ayutthaya's Bang Ban district, said businessmen had bought many plots in her village since 1995.

 

She said she had felt "besieged" and pressured to sell her rice plot as her land had been enclosed by other plots owned by those investors. She was now taking the matter to court.

 

[Khun_Kong]

 

... Col Surin Pikulthong, president of the Community Organisations Development Institute, said he had received information that Hmong people in the US had provided financial support for Hmong in Nan province to buy land and grow rice for shipment to the US.

 

Silaporn Buasai, vice-president of the institute, said she had heard that investors from Taiwan had bought land here for growing oranges to be sold in Taiwan.

 

Wichian Phuanglamjiak, vice-president of the Thai Rice Growers' Association, said rice farmers held additional information on land grabs by foreign investors....

 

She said she had felt "besieged" and pressured to sell her rice plot as her land had been enclosed by other plots owned by those investors. She was now taking the matter to court.

 

... Col Khun_Kong, president of the Bangkok/Pattaya Wayward Girls Development Institute, said he had received information that Muslim people in Dubai had provided financial support for fanatics in Khrungthep province to buy land and grow more fuckwads for export to the rest of the civilized world.

 

And that poor "besieged woman"? Double fuckwad. Made a deal and now wants to renege because it went up in value.

 

[Gadfly]

The original story in the Bangkok Post was essentially incoherent. It jumbled together foreigners residing in beach resorts in Phuket with claims about foreigners allegedly owning farm land in the north of Thailand. The story made no sense, and it was obviously pure sensationalism intended to pander to nationalistic sentiments.

 

The more interesting story here is why did the Bangkok Post ran such a flaky article - poorly written and demonstrably wrong - as its lead article? Somehow The Nation missed this "scoop". Really embarrassing for the Bangkok Post. So why did they run this nonsense? What's the story behind the story? You have to ask that question since the lead story itself was absolute nonsense.

[Faustian]

Nothing like a bit of nationalistic fervour to gel the great unwashed...especially when you are facing a divided society, massive rises in crime, civil unrest and an economy in pieces...

 

Or maybe I'm just being cynical.

[Flashermac]

 

The more interesting story here is why did the Bangkok Post ran such a flaky article - poorly written and demonstrably wrong - as its lead article? Somehow The Nation missed this "scoop". Really embarrassing for the Bangkok Post. So why did they run this nonsense? What's the story behind the story? You have to ask that question since the lead story itself was absolute nonsense.

 

 

The Bangkok Post used to have a large number of expats on its staff (almost all Brits). They have mostly been retired and replaced with Thai yuppie types. There are hardly any freelancers writing either, since the pay sucks so badly. (Same as it was 25 years ago, no increase.) The paper has become boring, since the Farangs at least presented a different viewpoint.

 

Roger Crutchley said to me ages ago, "Look for the stories we have missed. That is what we want." But not any more.

 

 

[ThaiHome]

Nothing like a bit of nationalistic fervour to gel the great unwashed...especially when you are facing a divided society, massive rises in crime, civil unrest and an economy in pieces...

 

Or maybe I'm just being cynical.

 

Or maybe the just wanted to sell more papers. Could it be it was just that and there was no sinister reason?

TH