We are Natt & Camila, a Thai + British couple who moved from the UK to Thailand for a better life with our two daughters. 🇹🇭🇬🇧
We started our journey on a rural farm in Chachoengsao before spending 6 months in Bangkok. While we loved the city life, Thailand's countryside is what really captured our hearts and so we will be settling in Surin province in Isaan for now 😊
We'd love for you to follow along as we navigate this amazing country as a family of four - don't forget to SUBSCRIBE! Thank you 🙏
Life is good, my wife is Thai. We bought three rai in Ban Phai, going to build our home and a spirits distillery bar in the front. I agree only Thais should own there land. Look what happened in the USA, many Americans can not afford a home anymore.
Foreigner here living in Thailand. Just enjoy life Thailand will not be like it is coming and living here 20+ years and changed a lot. It will not stop.
Totally agree. It’s not just Thailand most of south east Asia. Brits and Australians seem to be the worst and the way they barter over food is insulting. Try getting any Thai food in Australia for under $20. Love your channel really hope it does well
I agree, keep Thai-land for Thai people. And I say that as a Londoner living in Thailand with a Thai wife and child. Imagine what would happen to the land, not to mention the property prices, if foreigners were allowed to own land. It would be an instant speculative market, with the local people priced out. This has already happened to some degree in places like Phuket, with a plethora of shady 'Thai' companies buying land on behalf of foreign backers, but it would be nation wide within a year. Wish England had done something similar to be honest, protected it's own people etc
Countries that open their land for sale to other countries slowly just prices the locals out of their property. The initial batch of owners would profit, after a generation or two the money would be gone. Truth is though, nobody owns land anywhere, in any country. The government does. Whoever is collecting the tax, has final rights on the land.
You're correct on every point. Thailand was never occupied by foreign countries. If foreigners are allowed to own land, it would be an occupation that leads to the down-fall of Thailand.
I both agree and disagree... or rather I disagree but understand the argument. However I think a good solution would be to make long term stay in Thailand and subsequent citizenship easier for people that want to commit to the country.... alternatively a straight out 90 year lease would fend off investment groups but still enable private investment into the country.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree one hundred percent with what you are both saying Camila and Nat. Being married to a Thai and living in Rural Isaan is something special and I couldn't wish for anything better to see out my days. On the subject of land ownership, my thoughts are these. None of us really owns any land as it all belongs to God and we are just stewards of the land, keeping it for future generations. It doesn't matter to me who "owns" the land and I am happy for my wife to handle our land and our finances, which she does very well. Marriage is not just about love it is also about trust and I would never have formed a relationship with her if I didn't trust her. I am all in favour of Thailand for the Thais and keep this beautiful rural idyll as it is. God bless you all always😀❤🙏
Hi Guys. I don't comment much as I tend to agree or enjoy the content and don't feel the need to comment. I do however think you have these possible changes slightly confused. It is my understanding that these changes regarding land leases allow for an extension of the time that an individual can lease the land for. There are no changes regarding ownership. The land would still be Thai owned. For example. If I bought a house and the land has a 30 year lease, I would have the option to extend that lease to say 60 years up to 99 years. The house is mine and the land is Thai owned, albeit leased to me. That would never change. I highly doubt that you would see an influx of foreigners "buying" land because they simply can't. The condo issue. Well at the moment this is 49% of the condo numbers are allowed to be sold to foreign ownership at the point of construction. This means that any committee would always have a Thai majority. This again does not change. What does change is the numbers that foreigners can buy. Regarding back home in the UK. Many houses and flats are on leasehold land. So, every 99 years you negotiate a new lease with the land owner. My feeling about the possible changes are that of the same ilk as the UK. Just my thoughts and not a critical take on your comments. 🍋🍋🍋🍋
Surely a 99 year lease would be as good as freehold to the Chinese. As far as I'm aware there is no such thing as freehold in China and the longest leases are 70 years. If this is indeed the case, a 99 year lease in Thailand would provide more security than what they can get back home. There is also the case of arable land. If big foreign investors get hold of the arable land they could turn farming upside down in Thailand and the land as it exists at the moment would be irretrievable.
we going to look for some plots in Surin on the end of the week i am happy to buy the land for my wife, its easy to lease it, no need to keep it i would like they have the same rules in Europe.s
Camila nailed it. Regarding ownership of land and things remaining the same. I'm always amazed by people coming and staying in Thailand and then complaining and wanting things to be the same as "back home" I love a good roti too. The problem being that the stack the weight on.
I agree with you I love the village. Life. Would not like to see the nice places disappear... thay give are homes to. All of Europe. And more. .. I love Thailand.. and keep the open. Spaces
I totally agree that our lands should belong to Thai people only! Thailand was one of the only countries in South and Southeast Asia that never been colonised by Europeans so we are proud of that!! Please keep it that way...
Thailand not being colonised was not something that Thailand had a choice with. The French and British decided to keep Thailand a netrual country to avoid war starting between the French and British and their South East Asian colonies. The British had Burma, India and Malaysia to the west and South and the French had Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam to the east and north. Thailand would have been colonised very easily if the French or British had chosen to do so and Thailand could not have stopped this. Thailands government at the time did what they could to westernise and please the British and French to avoid being colonised. We can see how quickly Thailand capitulated to the Japanese army in world war II. Thailand is no military force and has used its army against it own population more than foreign powers.
@@Philip_Thornton In 1941 Thailand capitulated to the Japanese however there was some resistance in the south, as they hadn't got the message! Seri Thai was the underground resistance movement, passing on information to the allies.
@@sallylee1005 and then later when they could see it wasn't going in Japan's favour they changed their stance. Thailand also supported Pol Pot. But that's all ancient history.
Our saleng needs new piston rings and a kickstart spring. Something to do when we go back to Thailand in a month or so. Its an old Wave 100s. Saleng bit is bright red like yours. Adding a saleng to an old bike only costs 5k baht or so. Agree with you on land ownership, and had some experience with this before. Leasing land to a foreigner is fine IMHO.
so sweet seeing the girls playing with locals. soon enough they'll be the local kids too. the thai government need to protect the purchasing power of thais. the government continually redistributes land to the landless thais. the commodification of the basic need of housing has ruined the west, it would be a shame to see thailand fall deep into that trap. id admit that if they opened up the rules, id be in line to buy too, its just how it would be. i just hope I'm never put in that position.
I have bought land in Thailand for my wife as I can't buy in my name. We have added places for animals and expanded for my wife to produce rice. A Orinally, I thought that it was discriminative.. However, I am happy that only Thai citizens can buy land. Otherwise, land prices would soar.
There should be designated areas for ex-pats to buy property as they are an asset to the local economy or maybe reciprocal to citizens that are allowed to buy in other countries. So if Thais are allowed 100 percent ownership in the UK then the Thai government should allow the same to UK citizens. One-sided laws will always cause disparity.
most thais do not have the purchasing power parity with UK citizens. and there are designated areas, its called condos. its a failure of the UK government, not the other way around.
@@seekhearts Totally agree! It is a failure of the UK government to protect the interests of British citizens. Unfortunately there are already a lot of foreigners investing here through nominees and companies. If foreigners were ever allowed to buy land you would see many Thais becoming homeless.
@@Philip_Thornton of course just like anywhere where wealth accumulates, people will spend it, but only city centres or tourism hot spots have seen a drastic increase just like any country, and that is probably more to do with competing with the tourism industry, amenities growing and thai families generally earning more money. 5% (3.6-3.8 million) of the population is foreigners, majority of which are from neighbouring countries with similar purchasing power. i don't think that small number of married couples are making an overall impact in land prices in a broader sense... yet. and thai diaspora living overseas is anywhere between 1-2million. so i also don't think that's having an overall effect either.
Southeast Asian countries are smaller and poorer than most Western nations. It is unethical for wealthier individuals from other countries to feel entitled to own land there, especially when they have the option to return to their homeland, unlike the local Thai people. If such laws pass, you and your children won't have the freedom to enjoy the scenery or stop by a pond. Instead, you'll see unwelcoming signs like 'private property,' similar to the incident where a woman was assaulted for sitting on someone else's property. In Southeast Asian culture, we welcome people to walk, pick fruits, and talk to neighbors freely-sharing is our culture. When foreigners complain of discrimination, I believe it stems from a colonial mentality. The Thai and Lao governments should enforce limits on land ownership in mixed marriages to prevent wealthy outsiders from buying excessive land and resources. Their purchases are often based on greed and entitlement, not necessity. We do not want natives to become homeless or enslaved in their own country.
I have to agree, I’ve seen it happen in my city, increasing the cost of living to the point that people can’t afford to live comfortably. Glad Thailand gov is protecting their citizens
I'm with Camilla on this one, property laws should just remain the same. Let's face it, most expats come here in later life, so why do they need to own it, just so they can pass it on to family members in other countries who've never been here, and forcing up land prices for Thai's. If the current renting or leasing law is not acceptable to them, then they should consider alternative retirement locations....I wonder if the Thai government brought in a foreigner owned land tax, of let's say 10% per year, if foreigners would still be wanting to buy Thai land. We foreigners came here to get away from all the western BS, so we shouldn't be trying to change the system. Rant over.......lol
