Transcript of the above video: 

Buckle up, this is going to be one of my longer videos today. We are getting into this issue that is coming into the foreground in the Parliamentary space right now here in Thailand regarding 99-year leasing, so let's jump right in. Again this is going to be a long one. It is also going to be one of those where I end up reading through the bulk, if not the entirety of a given article, because there is a lot to comment on here. I first thought of making this video after reading a recent article from the Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: Legal rejig needed for foreign land leases. Proposal requires further study. Yeah, I would say so 

Quoting directly: "The idea of allowing foreigners to lease land in Thailand for up to 99 years, with the land transferred from private ownership to State Property.." - which I will get into that in a minute. I don't even know where this came from. Actually I did. I did the research on it. When they were originally talking about 99 year leasing,  I don't know, 9 months ago now, going back into January, they mostly brought that up in the context of land that was already state owned. But now the discussion has shifted to ‘well any kind of leasing where foreigners would end up with 99-year leases, the land has to be converted’ which again this stuff is coming so it's like inexplicable where these notions are coming from until I yet again sit down and go well "whose big mantra is you'll own nothing and you'll be happy?" Well it’s the World Economic Forum isn't it? Quoting again: "The idea of allowing foreigners to lease land in Thailand for up to 99 years, with the land transferred from private ownership to State Property, may require amendments to the State Property Law." Yeah, of course and amendments we don't need quite frankly. Quoting further: "..says Finance Permanent Secretary, Lavaron Sangsnit. Mr. Lavaron said to implement such a scheme, a detailed study is needed, possibly requiring amendments to related laws. Public input would also be required, in accordance with the Constitution, for new legislation. Former premier Thaksin Shinawatra recently proposed allowing foreigners to hold long-term land leases for a period of up to 99 years." And here is where it's worth going over and quoting another article from the Bangkok Post that I have quoted in the past. Quoting directly: "Jatuporn calls for protests next month. Quoting directly: "Former red shirt leader Jatuporn Prompan is calling for a protest next month to oppose a number of Government initiatives." Note, that time has already come and gone, so we are not getting into that. But the issue was, "such as increasing the cap on foreign ownership on condominiums to 75% and 99-year land leases for foreigners, which he said would benefit only the country's elite." Quoting further: "He added that extending the maximum land lease terms from 30 years to 99 years would effectively enable foreigners "to establish colonies" in Thailand." Yeah it's a good point. I don't necessarily see eye to eye with Mr. Jatuporn Prompan on much but as a naturalized Thai, as somebody who lives here and somebody who wants what's best for Thailand, yeah I'm not sure that 99-year leasing for foreigners is what's best for Thailand. I can see circumstances where it may be good under certain conditions but not across the board. In any event, quoting further: "Thai landowners wishing to lease their land to foreigners would first need to transfer the title deed to the Treasury Department for “supervision”." Why? Why would they need to do that? Again I keep coming back to this World Economic Forum, "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy"! So a landowner wants to lease, and again talking about the 99-year leasing, I see Mr. Jatuporn's point, but okay let's set that aside for a moment and just presume that we're going to go ahead with it, why does the state need to take over someone's land in order for them to lease it. Again, I keep thinking "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy". It's just ridiculous to me. Quoting further: "Over the course of the lease, the Thai landowner would receive full payment from the foreign party, but would relinquish ownership, converting it to state property under the Department." So they are selling it? I don't even get the privity of the relationship in the buyer-seller relationship. It sounds to me like state interventionism. It sounds an awful lot to me like Communism, quite frankly. Quoting further: "Foreign lessees would have the right to own a lease for up to 99 years, after which the land would revert to state property under the Treasury Department." So they are just taking it? The proposal is "oh yeah you can lease to foreigners but if you do that you have to give us your land. You have to give us the ownership title to your land.” Who's benefiting from that other than the state? Which again we have discussed another videos World Economic Forum seems to have their goal as ‘state-ism’ as the end goal. Quoting further: "Conditions would prohibit foreigners from purchasing land for agricultural purposes in competition with Thais, or developing affordable housing projects for low-income individuals without requiring a down payment, said Mr. Lavaron." And this is key though here, this is key. "No progress has been made on this concept at the policy level, he said." Good, good. I hope no progress ever gets made on this notion.

I mean, again it was already controversial the 99-year leasing and the issue of "colonies" from 99 at least in which again Mr. Jatuporn brings up a valid point. I think it's very good one I think it's meant for discussion. So the solution to that is we'll take away your private property? And again I it poses the question is this some kind of Hegelian sort of exercise where ‘problem –reaction – solution’ sort of thing, like creating a problem in order to thereby contrive the desired solution which is this WEF, "you'll own nothing and be happy" nonsense? It kind of looks like that. 'Oh we have got a problem. Foreigners want 99-year leases. Well first of all, is that a real problem for the Thais? I don't think so. I don't think it's imperative that the Thais allow any type of extra foreign enjoyment of Thai land than is already allowed under the current Civil and Commercial Code first of all. So the "problem" much like the "problem” of the economy being used as the pretext for the so-called digital wallet rollout, the "problem" isn't really a problem to begin with, much as the state of the economy didn't really warrant a lot of "stimulus". I get there are people in the economy that could use the money, but really it was not the emergency it was sort of made out to be. Now they're creating a problem of “foreign” land ownership which again it doesn't look to me like a ton of Thais actually want that and then the "solution" they come up with is the state takes the property. Quoting further: "For this plan to move forward, several laws would need to be revised.." and I hope they aren't, quoting further: "..including Treasury Department regulations that limit leases to a maximum of 30 years," said Mr. Lavaron." And again, this discussion of the state ownership is sort of steamrolling over the fact that there really does not appear to me to be a consensus in Thailand amongst the Thais for 99-year leasing for foreigners to begin with. There already seems to be blowback from that, but then the solution to that is state-ism, I guess. Quoting further: "Extending the lease to 99 years would require legal amendments," he said. "There are also laws concerning the transfer of state property that must be reviewed to determine whether land can be transferred from private ownership, setting specific conditions for foreign leasing. Amendments to the Civil and Commercial Code would also be necessary, along with defining the types of land use restrictions that may apply." Yeah, because the current laws aren't really in line with this Marxist hogwash; I suspect that that's probably why amendments are necessary. Quoting further: "The Ministerial Regulation on the utilization of state property, issued in 2021 under the authority of the State Property Act of 2019, stipulates that "[a] leasing contract for state property shall not exceed 30 years, except for leases of state property for commercial or industrial purposes under the Real Estate leasing laws for commercial or industrial purposes, where leases exceeding 30 years must first be approved by the Finance Minister."

Yeah, as we have discussed in other videos, they could use already existing state property and lease it out to foreigners for example for industrial expansion or something of this nature or something that is considered to be a priority economic initiative. They already have the ability to do that, from state property. But they are now conflating this with private property and saying “well if you want to lease to a foreigner, we'll just take your land”. Again, it's very nonsensical unless you just look at it from "oh this is like World Economic Forum thinking, this is globalist thinking, we're just going to pull a fast one on the little guy", basically is the modus operandi if you will. Quoting further: "The determination of rental rates or other compensation must be less than the rates approved by the Director-General, according to the regulation." Yeah, and again that's like rent control which that's not the greatest idea ever.

Again, and I know Thailand is a little bit different in this regard due to the history and everything so again in this country, I've noticed that some State intervention actually does work as opposed to where I'm from originally where I think it's just a boondoggle often times across the board. Thailand has a different way of doing things but leaning too much into this state-ism and especially leaning into this globalist propaganda by the World Economic Forum and all of this nonsense, I think it's just a bad road for Thailand across the board; I just think it's going to lead to not good results for Thailand. Quoting further: "However, in cases where the utilization of state property involves a value exceeding 500 million Baht from private entities, the rental rates or other compensation must not be less than the rates approved by the State Property Committee." Again, Rent Control makes me uneasy, even with something that big.  That said, something of that economic magnitude I do understand why there is deemed of need to be some level of - especially involving State Property - some level of regulation, that makes sense. But again all of this language really creeps me out. The state is going to take the land, it’s going to lease it to foreigners for such a long period of time of Thai that it's been brought up that notions of colonization start kind of seeping into one's brain if you will. Then on top of all of that the solution to that problem is the state just seizes and takes the land. I mean this is ‘worst of all worlds’ kind of thinking. Quoting further: “A source from the Finance Ministry who requested anonymity,’ - so wow, real proud of this initiative I guess! “..said the idea of allowing foreigners to lease land for up to 99 years faced opposition in the past." Yeah, because Thais don't want to be invaded and have those invaders colonize them. Quoting further: "..with critics arguing it was akin to selling the country to foreigners." Well it ain't too far off. Quoting further: "However, long-term leases while maintaining Thai ownership addresses previous concerns, said the source." Yeah, except the state owns it and then has a direct relationship with a foreigner. Again this just looks like worst of all worlds kind of thinking to me. I hope cooler heads prevail on this.

Again I don't wish to throw foreigners under the bus here in Thailand and I know it seems odd coming from somebody who was once a foreigner; yes I'm naturalized to Thai but over this past weekend people were saying “well you know you're not a real Thai?”  It is like yeah I have a mirror, I know what I look like, I know what I am! That said I became Thai and I have come to love this country and I can see the things that didn't work in my country of birth that they might be able to take a page from Thailand's book on, is not allowing foreigners to own land; it's a real problem. You know I really think it is. I think most of the West can learn something from Thailand in terms of foreign ownership of property. Now again, we are talking about leases here but a 99-year lease is effectively a century. That gets pretty close to effective ownership, so I understand the Thai uneasiness. And bear in mind, wasn't it Hong Kong which was a British colony that only allowed 99-year leasing of property in that jurisdiction. So again I don't think it's hyperbole to make these kind of comparisons with colonization with talking about leasing here in the Kingdom of Thailand.