Transcript of the above video:

As the title of this video suggests, we are posing the question "should the Thai Foreign Business Act be amended?" For those who are unaware, the Foreign Business Act as probably you can surmise from the title, pertains to the regulation of foreigners doing business here in Thailand via corporate entities. As we have discussed in many other videos, there are a number of restrictions associated with what types of businesses foreigners can engage in here in Thailand and the Foreign Business Act has a great deal to say on that topic. 

I thought of making this video however after reading a recent article from the Pattaya Mail, that pattayamail.com, the article is titled: Foreigners working without a permit in Thailand face crackdown. As per usual, I would urge those who are watching this video, go check out that article in detail. The thrust of it goes in a different direction. As usual from the Pattaya Mail there is a lot of good insight in that article. I urge those who are watching this video to check that out with one exception. There is some analysis in there regarding changes to Labour rules that I don't know that the analysis is completely spot on; again it's kind of a nebulous thing anyway. But not to go too deep into that, I am going to quote a small excerpt here: "Some Parliamentarians are calling for legal changes to underpin the latest crackdown. Thus the Foreign Business Act of 1999 outlaws Thai nominees but fails to identify them comprehensively." 

Yes this has been something of a concern by folks who are troubled by the nominee provisions in the Foreign Business Act or I should say the anti-nominee provisions. Again to clarify, nominees are explicitly illegal in Thailand. It is illegal to utilize a proxy if you will, solely as a shareholder for example, solely in order to set the right ratio pursuant to the Foreign Business Act in order to maintain a certain type of company that may otherwise be restricted. The thing to understand about this is again what defines a nominee can sometimes be a little bit nebulous but at the end of the day, I'm not sure that further clarification is absolutely needed. I view it as one of those, you know when you are dealing with a nominee and when you're not. It's one of those things, that, what is it, I think one of the Justices talking about obscenity, I think it was Oliver Wendell Holmes on the US Supreme Court once said, "I don't know what obscenity is, but I know it when I see it." I think nominees are kind of in the same vein. It's one of those things where it either clearly is not and you know when it's clearly not a nominee situation or it clearly is. And this whole "well it's nebulous and maybe we need more comprehensive" I'm very hesitant to see any kind of changes to the laws oftentimes because I am a little bit cynical in this regard. I never think that any kind of change is going to be particularly for the better overall, that's just kind of my default position. That said I understand and reasonable people can disagree that there may be a reason for amending the law. Again I don't see it, but that being said, again reasonable people can disagree.

Whether or not we will see any changes to the Foreign Business Act remains to be seen. I tend to doubt it because quite honestly it would require a great deal of political capital in order to amend the Foreign Business Act and I kind of doubt we would see any such amendment to be any more lax or to be perceived as being any more lax on foreigners doing business illegally here in the Kingdom of Thailand.