At last, a good news !
Commerce Minister Krirk-krai Jirapaet admitted yesterday that amendments to the Foreign Business Act and the new Retail and Wholesale Business Act would not be approved by the current government.
”The [National Legislative Assembly] only has two meetings left, and previous meetings were adjourned due to the lack of a quorum,” he said.
Mr Krirk-krai said he was personally willing to push ahead with the two controversial bills, but said efforts to move the legislation forward had been undermined by various special interests. (Bangkok Post)
“The drafts drew huge opposition and it will be the next government’s responsibility to support the bills as both the Retail Business Bill and the FBA’s amendment are essential for the country,” said Commerce Minister Krirk-krai Jirapaet. (Nation)
Krirk-Krai was the designer of the FBA 2 draft… Result of this ? More than one year of uncertainty for investors. Congratulations mister Minister. 
Now, let’s see what will do the next governement…
More hopeless Thai incompetence. Lots of huffing and puffing and grandstanding to make themselves seem important, but no substance.
Straw men.
Bedwyr
The FBA, which seems squarely aimed at keeping the “farang” in their place, goes heavy on this “nominal” shareholder not being “legal”. A limited company in Thailand requires a minimum of no less than 7 shareholders. Am I right in thinking that even if a Thai, with bit of cash wants to set up a business, but he has no mates, cannot set up a company? What does a Thai do for the other 6 shareholders? How many companies in Thailand do we think operate with “nominal” shareholders in place? Or have I missed something?
Marvo.
You’re right from a rethorical point of view…
A thai could use some of his friends or his family as shareholders, even if these friends have no interest whatsoever in the company. The founder could even “give” the shares to his friends (or give them “loans”), in order to have the minimum 7 shareholders.
So his sister, his brother, his friends for instance could be labelled as his “nominees”.
HOWEVER… you would admit that the thai will not do it in order to by pass the law… Right ? Because as a thai, he doesn’t have too…
On the other hand, one foreigner doing the same thing… would do it obviously to by pass the law (in this case the FBA).
Here is I believe the legal nuance between the 2 situations.