Residential leases are liabilities, not investments

It is misleading to state, as you do in this article, that foreigners can lease residential properties for 30 years, renewable for a further two 30-year terms. Although dishonest property developers and lawyers love to persuade buyers that this is the case, it is simply not true. The Land Code permits the Lands Department to register leases on land used for residential purposes for a maximum of 30 years and this law applies equally to Thai and foreign lessees. Lessors and lessees are free to enter into any type of lease they choose but, since the two additional 30 year terms cannot be registered, they are not enforceable in a Thai court which will only consider the lease information provided by the Lands Department as evidence in case of a dispute.

It should also be pointed out that long-term leases in Thailand can not be reassigned without the permission of the lessor and that the lease is only binding on the original parties. Thus, if either party dies, or the lessor sells the land, the lease may no longer be enforceable. In view of these shortcomings the article is also misleading in referring to acquisition of property through long-term leases by Scandinavians or others as a form of investment.

The characteristics of these "assets" are as follows: they cannot be sold by the buyers, they can be taken away from the buyers or their heirs before the end of the first 30-year term; they provide no return; they require expensive maintenance; they are worth nothing to the buyers after 30 years. In my book these are liabilities not investments.

George Morgan

Chon Buri

BMA deserves credit for some improvements

Re: "The hazards disabled face on Bangkok's footpaths", News, April 22.

The positive improvements instituted by the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration should not be ignored. Asoke Road, for example, has been re-paved and the former muddy obstacle course now offers a relatively passage whether it's raining or not. The sewage drain-off system still requires attention and the pedestrian traffic lights (when working) should be supplemented with crossover bridges. Giving credit where it is due is important.

Charles Frederickson

Bangkok

Negative stereotypes plague mixed marriages

Re: "The benefits of mixed marriage", News, April 22.

In response to "The benefits of mixed marriage", I have to say that article gave me quite a chuckle. For starters, I find it laughable that somebody would start a Website to link poor Thai women with lonely farang men looking for a sweet little wife to settle down in the village with. Do men really think that if these women weren't cash-strapped they would be so willing to take them into their lives?

I suppose many don't even care and in the end it's a case of to each his own. But I'm tired of reading all these stories about so-called knights-in-shining-armour who swoop in and rescue poor prostitutes, almost like a scene out of "Pretty Woman". All these stories are doing is perpetrating the mixed-marriage stereotype.

I have many male farang friends with intelligent, career-oriented Thai girlfriends and wives whom they consider their equals, proving that not every mixed couple can be painted with the same brush. Sadly, they tell me that people often look down on them, assuming they picked their wife up in some beer bar in Pattaya.

As a farang woman, I already know the responses to this letter are going to dub me as "bitter". I promise you, no farang has ever left me for a Thai, so I have no axe to grind. In reality, I have lived in Thailand for six years, have many Thai female friends, am married to a wonderful Thai man and have two kids, so I'm well aware of the cultural and family dynamics. And personally, having your mother-in-law hovering around day and night isn't all that great, but maybe that's just me.

Cathy Patumsuwon

Bangkok

Correction: A portion of MR Pridiyathorn Devakula's column published on Saturday read "If he or she could not clearly explain the source and provide enough evidence to satisfy the NCCC, the case would be closed and the report would not be made public, which helped to prevent the negative interpretations of the case". That sentence should have begun "If he or she could clearly explain..." We apologise for the error.

     send us your views in an instant!

E-mail your opinion, with 'Letters to the Editor' in

the subject box, to:

letters@nationgroup.com