Why Thailand must ease foreign ownership limits
Re: News that amendments to the Foreign Business Act are under review.
Foreigners make easy targets; we Thais just wrap ourselves in our flag, and if anybody questions our logic – or lack thereof – we shoot back: “Are you Thai”?
But I suggest that a crime by a Thai is as harmful as one committed by a non-Thai, and that we should therefore fight harmful actions regardless of the nationality of the actor.
Thus, in lieu of the Foreign Business Act, which focuses on nationality, we should attack actions which would damage our national interests. For example, why do we forbid non-Thais from majority ownership of listed companies? If we want Thai Airways to be available for emergency evacuation of Thais from overseas danger spots, then have shareholders enshrine that in THAI’s articles of incorporation – and let all nationalities buy THAI shares, accepting the attendant risks of evacuation. Arabian money controls Harrods of London; BMW owns Rolls-Royce, and three countries own Airbus: what’s the big deal about foreign ownership and control?
Likewise, why do we forbid non-Thais from owning land? If we fear that some Thais may not have a place to call home, then we could specify that they may sell all but, say, 200 square wah. But if we value home ownership that much, we should require that each Thai have land or enough in the bank to buy 200 sq wah – which would be the same as reducing his available funds for any other use. And if a farmer wants to sell all his land, rent his home, and use the savings to give his kids a quality education (or play the horses), who is the state to forbid him?
Permitting foreign land ownership will also greatly increase the income of the Thai peasantry that might want to sell, bettering their livelihoods – and isn’t that what we want?
So, control actions, not nationality.
Burin Kantabutra
