Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
“I am quite worried our country is going into ruin because people have done things their own way”
– Extracted from Bhumibol Adulyadej’s speech, quoted in “King calls for unity in polarized Thailand”, Reuters, 23 August 2009. Some more details on the speech, and the campaign to “blacken” Privy Council Chairman Prem Tinsulanonda’s upcoming birthday, are available here.
“I am quite worried our country is going into ruin because people have done things their own way”
Thai people are much worried their country is going into ruin because the ruling class has done things their own way, as they call it “Thai style democracy”
0
0
THIS IS THE LATEST FINGER POINTING EXERCISE TO TAKE PEOPLES EYES OFF THE REAL PROBLEMS OF THEIR INABILITY TO GOVERN THE ECONOMY ……..
Source: Bangkok Post
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.
Foreigners ‘own 90% of Phuket beach land’
Technorati Tags: Foreigners ‘own 90% of Phuket beach land’
If you make it illegal for Thai’s to have anything to do with foreigners. confiscate all Ferang monies. That should do it. Then The Ferangs could do this in their countries for Thai’s Take all their land in the various countries. Then send the Thai’s home with nothing. Good idea there. Might be a problem for his Royal Highness The king. As he owns billions of dollars in property all around the world ! But hey! lets give it a go………..
Comment by David Higgs 08.24.09 @ 9:45 pm
0
0
@ Nobody
In every society the ruling class does things their own way – that’s why they are described as “ruling”. I suggest that the issue that New Mandala contributors seem to continually confuse is just what struggle is actually going on in Thailand; moreover, who are the real “ruling” class in Thailand.
The present players continue to exploit the growing concentration of wealth and the urban – rural divide for their own gain. Beating the nationalist drum and fanning anti foreigner sentiment started in the 2000 election. Sincere and ethical political leaders have yet to be able to attain any stature and those that present themselves as the voice of the rural population are actually are those that have the most to lose economically from any real political development (far more than the now familiar target of most Mandala blog threads). They are those that can only live on corruption and are most threatened by real progressive politics starting with the 97 constitution and its underlying checks and balances. Leadership back then basically blew that constitution away by circumventing it and stayed in power by systematically dismantling public trust and any social contract between the have and have nots. In their as yet to be successful efforts to turn back the clock to the extreme crony capitalism found in SE Asian in the 70s to the 90s, the only thing that has really happened is the elimination any predictable rule of law in Thailand.
0
0
It would be nice to get more context, this is a very brief snippet that could mean many things.
0
0
The King is right.
0
0
Reuters talks about the red shirt occupation of Government House leading to the worst violence in 17 years. I thought it was the yellow shirts that occupied Government House itself.
“But if people are working together … the country will prosper”. This is a truism and just saying it won’t make it happen. It needs concrete steps otherwise it is just calling for the unity of the graveyard.
0
0
Pity then that no one in the elite will ever actually listen. They are all too busy fighting with each other over who gets what.
I don’t really believe the reports about land ownership in places like Phuket. I suspect ultra-nationalist spin is at work. But if true, they are just another indication that the elite is totally incapable of running the country properly. The long-term effects of political incest.
0
0
I would just like to point out that I am not NOBODY (in caps) as I post here from time to time as nobody 😉
It looks like an official I cannot/will not take sides and please work together announcement. In a constitutional democracy that is what would be expected from a monarch.
0
0
out of grade school says: “Beating the nationalist drum and fanning anti foreigner sentiment started in the 2000 election.” That’s hardly accurate. Nationalism has been strong in Thailand for many decades (remember Vajiravudh? Luang Wichit?).
But if we assume OOGS means the economic nationalism in recent times, then 2000 is wrong. The recent rise in ant-foreign sentiment came with the economic crisis of 1997-98. Recall, amongst others, Narong Petprasert’s call for a neo-nationalist movement that was racist in orientation. The king added to the nationalist fervor of that time with his “back to the farm” entreaties. The economic crisis brought nationalists together from the extreme right to the left in Thailand. When TRT were elected, worried foreign commentators referred to “nationalist policies,” but those concerns soon faded.
0
0
Nationalist policies died out as the Thaksin admin settled in, Ralph. The man was and is a rabid xenophobe. So much so that he really doesn’t feel at all happy when cut off from his easy ride back home.
0
0
From personal experience, after the TRT’s election victory I certainly felt that there was a rise in anti-foreigner feeling in the civil service, probably on the back of Thaksin’s anti-IMF election campaign. At this time I wasn’t against Thaksin and hoped that maybe he could clean up the endemic corruption.
As with many foreigners my dealings are mainly with the immigration department and the Ministry of Labour. The anti-foreigner sentiment didn’t improve much during the TRT reign except for very rich investors. It should also be noted that there was no improvement under either the coup leaders or the post-coup governments up until this one. At the moment both Malaysia and the Philippines are trying to encourage foreigners to buy second homes in their countries, so Thailand misses out on that inward investment.
Now we some lessening of it in the likes of the Ministry of Labour, but no improvement in those departments under the police. I wonder why? The nationalist rhetoric does tend to be used by both sides to the harm of Thailand’s wellbeing and discourages anyone being brave enough to go against it.
0
0
The 90% land story is written by Neo nationalists in a classic finger pointing away from the real (economic shambles) problem exercise. A ‘blame the Ferangs’ attempt at dodging the responsibility of making a total mess of the economy. It is a dangerous departure, because foreigners will lose even more confidence (if that is possible). there is a naive school of thinking, that because Thailand was so ‘export’ oriented over the last decade, they don’t need the ‘Ferangs’. Exports are down 40% now. In a way the right wing want to punish the poor for supporting Thaksin by putting them under pressure to survive, they might worry about eating and not politics!
The next coup will be interesting.It might not be lead by the yellow shirts
0
0
reg: “The man was and is a rabid xenophobe.” He might be but recall the criticisms of his policies and actions (in no particular order and recognizing that there were also “nationalist” policies, especially where crony capitalism rubbed up against “neo-liberal” policies etc.):
Sold Shin Corp to the Singaporean govt’s holding company (he was accused of selling out the “national interest”)
Brought the rich guys from the Middle East to “buy” Thai rice land
Opposed the monarchy (so central to Thai nationalism)
Developed FTAs with a range of countries
Negotiated the major non-NATO ally status for Thailand with Bush.
Worked closely with the US on the “war on terror”
Policies on privatisation were (in part) attacked as “selling the nation”
Advanced the export promotion of healthcare services with a “medical hub project” to lure rich foreign patients to Thailand for medical treatment, that was criticized as undermining the national health system
So if Thaksin is a “xenophobe” it is difficult to know what his critics were “uber-xenophobes”?
Thaksin used nationalism for personal benefits but also saw a strong economic nationalism as part of a strong national capitalism. His policies were riven by contradictions, but just a “xenophobe” seems too simplistic.
0
0
Ralph. None of those things exactly indicate Thaksin is an internationalist. They’re are all about his finding ways to harness the state for his own personal profit. I suppose you are now going to tell me that he didn’t stand to gain massively from those moves.
“So if Thaksin is a “xenophobe” it is difficult to know what his critics were “uber-xenophobes”?”
Well, I am inclined to agree with that. Army, police, military, civil service, big business types. A very self-serving lot who like nothing better than a cheap labor economy. However, it is possible to be a Thaksin critic without belonging to this exclusive club. Indeed, my main criticism of the man is actually that he tried to pull exactly the same corrupt stunts as his critics. Having seen them in action for way too many years, I am not about to run out and endorse a man who has exactly the same completely cranked-out ultra-nationalist tricks up his sleeve.
0
0
Reg: The issue was not whether Thaksin was an “internationalist”. I pointed out what his critics said. You weren’t asked to sign up to a Thaksin fan club, just to consider that the terms used lacked nuance and thought. You might also note my use of words like “riven by contradictions” and “recognizing that there were also ‘nationalist’ policies” before jumping to far toward conclusions.
0
0
It would be a bit rich to expect nuanced and thought-out comment from either local or international media when there has consistently been nothing nuanced and thought-out in Thaksin’s policies. As with most local politicians, his policy appears to have been largely dictated by his short-term gut reactions to impending challenges to his kleptocracy.
0
0
Reg: are you being deliberately thick or am I misunderstanding? I was asking you to be more nuanced and thoughtful.
0
0
I personally put it down to being riven by too many contradictions.
0
0
Ralph – you recently wrote “I know you are lazy Chris, but how do you know he (the Crown Prince) is doing his best?”
Well Ralph – how do you know I am “lazy” ? Have we met ?
Not that I know of.
The Crown Prince is flying airplanes for charity – which is more than you have done Ralph, I’ll bet.
0
0
Chris: you told me you were lazy on this thread – http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2009/08/18/17-august-2009-petition-day/, where you said: “I do not have the time, money, energy, or inclination to comment on this website, as often as you.” More there than “lazy” alone, admittedly, but then again you make assumptions as well about my inclinations….
But let’s be serious, even if you are on the wrong thread here. The prince and charity flights. Yes, you are right. As far as I am aware he did one when his dad’s adviser was prime minster appointed by the military.
He did it in a 737 that seem exclusively for his use. Maybe “charity” works more in his favour?
http://skyliner-aviation.de/regdb.main?LC=nav4&page=2&SkyID=0
0
0
What does it mean to “fly airplanes for charity”? It sounds to me as a contradiction in itself! Sorry…
0
0
Giving out an opinion here, it’s like fighting to a child especially to Ralph Kramden. He will never give up. Always come back with something, anything all the time. It’s a sample of obsessive compulsive disorder here.
0
0