Gaybutton

If there is such a word, my guess is that it is used about as often as we use "withal," "thither," and "gadzooks" in our normal daily conversation. I am told that the reason for the lighting is to curb crime and sexual activities along the beach during the night. I can understand trying to do something about crime along the beach, but I suppose it didn't occur to anyone to increase police presence along the beach at night. Curbing sexual activity? Of course! After all, why allow people to cruise the beach at night, looking for free sex, when they can go to bars and pay for it? After all, we have to support the local economy, don't we? So much for the romantic, moonlit stroll along the beach. Let's not forget the people who live in condos along the beach and stay in hotels along the beach. Why permit them to have that star-filled sky and moonlit beach view at night when those who don't live there can't have it? Fair is fair. Well, we won't have to worry about people missing out on the view at night. Nobody will be living in the condos anyway. The units will all be confiscated and vacant as soon as the government starts confiscating them from people who bought via corporations. I don't understand your complaint, Hedda. Are you actually saying a pristine beach ought to be left pristine when it can be overstuffed with beach chairs, be sandbagged, have a drainage ditch that overflows instead of draining, have a walkway that is falling apart less than a year after being built, have a set of loudspeakers installed to blare out messages in Thai when the majority of people visiting the beaches don't speak Thai, have giant screen TV's that don't work and never had anybody watch even when they did work and are just left there to rust their way into oblivion, have a background of condos with a number of floors that stretch well into the double digits, have raw sewage dumped directly into the waters, and now will have lights that give a whole new meaning to the word 'ugly'? What's wrong with you?

It seems like the pedophiles are coming out of the woodwork lately. This time it's another American. The story appears in the PATTAYA CITY NEWS: _____ Tourist Police Arrest American Man Accused of Sex with Minors Pattaya

I know it's an exercise in futility, but I'm trying to make at least some sense out of this part of the article. Can someone out there explain what possible difference the value of foreign currencies makes to the price of a baht bus ride? The last time I checked, you still pay for the ride with Thai baht. I believe ten baht is still ten baht, isn't it? If there was any logic to that statement at all, then considering the American dollar is the weakest it's been in years against the Thai baht, then anyone who can show an American passport ought to be getting a cheaper fare. Am I missing something here? Also, his statement about 'most' tourist cities doing the same thing . . . I'd like to know which tourist cities he's referring to. I've been to an awful lot of tourist cities in my time and the fares for transportation were the same for everybody, no matter where the tourists came from. The only exception to that I ever hear about is when an unsuspecting Japanese tourist goes to New York, gets into a taxi driven by a cabbie wearing a diaper on his head, and the cabbie tries to charge him $500 for the ride. Other than that, the idea that this is typical of most tourist 'cities 'is news to me. Even if this actually is typical of most tourist cities, that doesn't make it a right thing to do. It's a wrong thing to do and just because other cities might be doing it, that doesn't make it something Pattaya ought to be doing, especially as a matter of stated policy. He is arguing to permit discrimination based upon values of currency. His argument that other cities do the same thing, an argument for which I see no evidence, to my mind is as absurd as the child argument, "He did it too . . ." Sorry Mr. Chamlong, but your logic is about the most ridiculous example of Thai logic I've encountered in quite some time. I see absolutely nothing in your logic that is going to convince anybody that baht bus fares for foreigners ought to be greater than fares the locals pay for precisely the same ride.

The following appears in the June 23 issue of the PATTAYA MAIL. I don't know how much help this article will be to those who are in jeopardy because of the regulation enforcement, but at least you'll know you're not alone in your concerns. Unfortunately, there still is no hint as to how all of this will eventually play out. _____ Property Law Enforcement Changes Discussed at PBTA Meeting as Property Developers Start Losing Billions Discussions and clarifications sought with MOI Ariyawat Nuamsawat One of the hot topics discussed at the monthly Pattaya Business and Tourism Association meeting was the recent enforcement of land ownership laws. The changes in company ownership rules, specifically with foreign shareholders has led to housing project developers allegedly losing billions. On June 14, the Green Park Resort hosted the monthly PBTA meeting chaired by Thanes Supornsaharungsri, PBTA president. During the meeting, vice president and head of the property developers club, Sanga Kijsamrej raised the negative effects of changes to the enforcement of laws regulating company held property.

The following appears in the June 23 edition of the PATTAYA MAIL: _____ 19 Underage Boys Found Offering Sexual Services in Sunee Plaza Bar Boonlua Chatree Police raiding a boy go-go bar shortly after midnight on June 13 found a number of underage boys along with rooms on the upper level of the premises where they offered sexual services to foreign visitors. Pol Lt Col Wuttichart Luonsukhan, superintendent of Pattaya tourist police led the team of officers investigating Diamond Go-Go at Soi Sunee Plaza. The door was open when police arrived and they walked in to a conventional go-go setup with flashing lights and blaring music. However, there were boys aged between 11-17 years and wearing only underpants dancing around poles, while many foreign tourists sat around watching. Police ordered that the music be stopped and the lights turned on before ordering the boys into a corner and telling them to get dressed before checking their ID cards. There were a total of 19 boys aged between 11 and 17. Further investigations of the four-story building revealed that the upper levels had been divided off into small rooms. Police opened the doors to the rooms on the second floor. In one they found an American national identified as Ronald Sims, 44, who was lying naked while a 17-year-old boy (name withheld) was providing sexual services. Police told them to stop and get dressed before arresting Sims and taking the boy downstairs for questioning. Jaray Latum, 27, admitted that he managed the premises and hired the boys for 1,500 baht a month. If foreigners requested sexual services they had to pay a 200 baht services fee and the boys agreed their own fees with the foreigners. The license owner, Wittaya Kuanamon, 28, was not on the premises. Police confiscated the operating license and arrested Jaray on charges of acting as a pimp for young boys under 18. He was taken to Pattaya tourist police headquarters for further questioning. Sims was charged with committing lewd acts with a minor. The 19 boys

I'll let it speak for itself. The following article appears in today's PATTAYA MAIL: _____ Baht Bus Chief Says Fares Set in Accordance with Land Transport Department Guidelines Says foreign tourist fares are higher because of currency differences Vimolrat Singnikorn Songtaew operators maintain a fare pricing structure in accordance with the Department of Land Transport and are not able to arbitrarily raise fares because of rising fuel costs or any other reason, says the head of the association representing the operators. Currently there are 700 songtaews (baht buses) in Pattaya. The Pattaya Transport Cooperative held its annual ordinary meeting recently, with Mayor Niran Watthanasartsathorn presenting the official opening speech and Chamnan Chantarachart of the Chonburi Transport Cooperative and Chamlong Sukprom, president of the Pattaya Transport Cooperative on hand to welcome members to the Grand Sole Hotel. The Pattaya Transport Cooperative is a songtaew service that transports passengers on fixed routes throughout Pattaya. It was founded 29 years ago in 1977, and at present there are 700 member vehicles. Asked about the likelihood of oil prices affecting passenger fares, Chamlong said that fares are fixed by the Department of Land Transport. If any passenger takes a songtaew and the trip is not worth it for the driver because of the lack of passengers to make up transport costs, the passenger will be transferred to a vehicle carrying more passengers and which is traveling the intended route at no additional charge. Chamlong also said that foreign tourist fares are higher than normal fares because the value of the Thai baht and foreign currencies are different and that most tourist cities have the same pricing strategies. However, the fare differences are not that varied, the lowest maximum difference being 10 baht for short distances and the highest 20 baht over long distances. Local and foreign passengers who believe they are being overcharged can submit complaints to the cooperative by calling 0 38423 554, and full action will be taken to preserve the good image of Pattaya tourism. During the meeting, plaques were presented to Visut Mitavin and Vichien Buaplee who returned a bag containing valuables to a passenger.

I don't understand. If it has no doors, how do people go in and out?

Money boy or not, as far as I'm concerned he still turned out to be someone who is not worth another thought. We'll never know why he behaved that way. The rest of us fail to understand his motives and actions too. What difference does that make? Whether we understand it or not, he still chose those actions, actions that obviously caused you a lot of grief. There is no way he didn't realize that. It is even more unjustifiable in light of what you are saying about his education and experience. Some of the brightest people can still turn out to be jerks. Whatever you are looking for, you're not going to find it in this guy.

It looks like he didn't miss you, didn't love you, and didn't think about you all the time. If he did, it obviously was not in the same way you were thinking about him. This might-have-been-relationship seems to have meant everything to you, while to him it did not. I think Maurice is right. You were being had all along. To my mind there are only two possibilities that could account for his behavior. Either he has some sort of ulterior motive or he has some sort of mental problem. But what about your own behavior? You seem to think that he has failed to take into consideration what you went through just to meet him. I believe the truth is that he didn't give a damn about any of that. I hope you are considering the idea that every response to your message is essentially saying the same thing . . . get rid of him and forget about him and move on with your life. We are all advising you to simply let go of something that never existed, other than in your own mind, in the first place. You will be well served if you follow that advice. He's gone. That won't change, so forget about it. One thing is certain. If you try to hang on to him, then your life is going to be absolutely miserable. If you let him go, it will probably hurt for awhile, but that will pass and you will be much happier once you find someone else. And you will find someone else. Finding someone in Thailand is the least of the problems. Finding someone is virtually guaranteed in Thailand. The trick is to find the right person, and this guy for sure isn't it. Part of the problem is as I stated before. You have very little chance of finding a positive relationship through the Internet, phone calls, and text messages. I know a couple of the boys who placed personal ads on this very web site. I won't tell you which ones, but I can tell you they are so full of crap that their teeth must be brown. One of them tried to get on my matchmaking service, when I was running it. The guy was a complete liar and we saw through that very quickly. He didn't make it to the matchmaking service. He shows up at the beach every other week or so, and is constantly on the hunt for "farang." He advertises himself as wanting a relationship. Meanwhile, all he really wants is money. That is typical of boys who place personal ads. Some might be absolutely sincere, but so many are not that you are stepping into very dangerous waters by taking the risk with any of them. I wish that was not so, but they are well aware that they are young and attractive, so they prey on aging "farang" for their money by conning them into believing they have at last found true love with the boy of their dreams. Some are very good at it. I remember one boy who used to show up with two mobile phones, each with a different phone number. One was to place and receive calls from one "farang" and the second was to place and receive calls from another "farang." He would tell each one of them things like "I love you so much." "You are life me." "I love only you." Meanwhile he had both of the "farang" sending him money all the time and he would brag to me about it. He was proud of it. His actual boyfriend was a Sunee Plaza lady-boy. I asked him what he was going to do once these "farang" caught on and/or stopped sending him money. He merely shrugged and said, "Many 'farang' come to Pattaya." I have no idea what motivated the guy you met. Maybe it wasn't money. I don't know. But for someone to treat you in that manner over an incident so trifling, how do you think you will be treated if a relationship ever forms? He simply isn't worth it.

I agree with Hedda and Maurice. Maurice came on strong, but I think you needed to "hear" it like that. The very fact that you posted this guy's SMS message indicates that you are still grasping at straws, hoping for some logical explanation, and hoping that someone will tell you that things can still work out with this guy. Just forget about it. If he sends you any more SMS messages or E-mails, just delete them without reading them. Whatever you do, don't respond to any of them. If he tries to call you, hang up on him. He'll figure it out sooner or later. This guy is in the wrong, not you. I disagree with gmac about cultural differences even being a factor in this incident. After living here for a few years now, I think most of this cultural difference stuff is a lot of bullshit. I think most of it is nothing more than an excuse to justify inappropriate behavior. Certainly plenty of cultural differences do exist. I don't deny that, but in your case I don't see how cultural differences would fit into it at all. In my initial response to you, I suggested that he might have perceived your comment as a major loss of face. Upon reflection, I don't think so anymore. What seems to be coming out of this story is that this guy used that as an excuse, for reasons we probably will be unable to determine. It doesn't matter what his reasons were. The whole thing was so trivial and this guy blew it up so far out of proportion that I am convinced that Hedda is absolutely right. You fell in love with an illusion. I believe you are seeking love. I can't say I blame you for that. But you are going about it in the wrong way. Trying to find "love by Internet" has the least possible chance of working. You need to come over here and find it for yourself. As far as I'm concerned, responses to personal ads on the Internet might be fine for brief sexual encounters, but are rather useless for finding genuine love. You have a better chance of winning the Irish Sweepstakes than ever finding true love by Internet. In any case, I think you are far better off being rid of this guy.

I'm glad to know he wasn't a money boy. As I said, I think it is a waste of time to try to figure out why this incident happened. All we can do is guess. I hope you will try again with someone else.

Dear Pattaya Area American Citizens, The Consular Section of the American Embassy in Bangkok is pleased to inform you of an upcoming Embassy consular visit in Pattaya. Consular staff will be available to provide consular services on Thursday, June 29, from 8:00 AM to 12:00 PM at the Amari Orchid Resort on Beach Road in Pattaya (Tel: (038) 428161). Please watch for signs at the entrance directing you to the Consular services area. The following consular services will be available: *Passport renewal applications (US $67.00 or baht 2,680 for adult passports) *Additional passport pages (no charge) *Notarial services (US $30 or baht 1,200 for the first notarial; US $20 or baht 800 for each additional notarial) *Embassy registration and/or address change *Absentee ballot application and voting abroad information *Social security, VA or other federal benefits question NOTE: Due to the large amount of time and paperwork involved, no applications for Consular Reports of Birth will be accepted during consular outreach trips. **We ask that you bring correct change and that you provide a copy of your passport's photo page if you wish to renew your passport or ad visa pages If you have any questions, please e-mail: acsbkk@state.gov or call the American Citizen Services Unit at: 02-205-4049. We look forward to seeing you at the Amari Orchid Resort in Pattaya on June 29th. Sincerely, American Citizen Services U.S. Embassy Bangkok

I don't think it matters whether he is Thai, Vietnamese or anything else. It's the behavior that matters. I understand that you flew 11 hours to meet him. That also doesn't matter, at least not to him. I don't think he cared very much whether you flew 11 hours or 111 hours. When you say that if I saw the messages, SMS's, etc. I could reach no other conclusion, I have to disagree. You reached that conclusion. Whatever you were feeling, he was apparently not feeling the same thing or to the same degree. You have been quite clear about the way you were feeling, but none of us, including you, can know how he was really feeling, no matter what he wrote. Even if he truly did feel as strongly as you did - Even if he felt even more strongly than you did, he still behaved in that manner and although I am very sorry that things turned out this way, he simply was not the person you thought he was. There are many boys in this part of the world who are genuine and absolutely sincere. I just don't think he was one of them, especially since he let something so trivial ruin the whole thing. You did not answer one question. When he decided to get a room of his own, who paid for it? I am also curious as to who paid his airfare to Bangkok. Did you pay his airfare? If he paid his own way and paid for the second room, then perhaps he was sincere. If you are the one who paid everything, then that leaves much more room for doubt about his sincerity. However, even if he was completely sincere, his behavior shows that you are much better off without him. The thing for you to do, in my opinion, is to get over it and stop trying to figure out why he behaved the way he did. Nothing is going to change what happened, so he is now nothing more than an unfortunate experience in your life. What is important now is how you are going to let this incident effect you. Are you going to give up because of him or are you going to look for someone else? It didn't work out with this guy, but that doesn't mean that you won't succeed with someone else. You are a person who genuinely has very sincere, deep feelings. You simply went about trying to find love in a way that didn't work. Keep trying. Somebody out there is going to be lucky to have you and will realize that. Don't give up, but also don't be so quick to fall in love with someone you haven't even met.

Sometimes it is terribly difficult to understand why certain things, said or done in complete innocence, can set these guys off like that. At the beach there is a "farang" hunter who is there almost every day. I call him "Cousin Ellen" because his face looks just like my cousing Ellen. It's just a joke, but when I told my boyfriend about it he started carrying on and was quite upset. He thought I was honoring the boy by bestowing the name of a family member upon him. Once bhe calmed down and I explained, everything was ok again, but I had no idea that a nothing little joke would end up being something that would upset him like that. They often just don't see things the way we do. "J" probably considered your question as some sort of major loss of face and that might account for the way he behaved. Of course, he should have explained to you that the question upset him, assuming that is what is behind the upset, and gotten over it. Instead, he behaved like a child. Are you certain that the question is the only factor that prompted his behaior? Could there possibly have been more to it than that or could it have been something else entirely? Everything seemed to be going fine until one minor faux pas, and from that moment on he made your life miserable. That tells me he never really was what you thought he was. He sounds more like an ingrate to me and you are probably much better off finding that out right from the beginning. Suppose the incident never happened. What would be his response if you ever really did say or do something more serious? I had something similar happen. Before I met my current boyfriend, there was another boy who I liked very much. We were getting along great. One day I was at the beach with one of my "farang" friends and his boyfriend, along with this boy. That night we were talking on the phone and he asked something about one of them. I said, "Are you talking about the 'farang' or the Thai boy?" You should have heard him lose his cool over that. That was the last time we ever saw each other. That was years ago and to this day I still can't figure out what I said that should have upset him in any way. Apparently I committed some sort of a crime by asking which person he was talking about. "J" pouted like a little kid because he felt upset. He didn't seem to give a damn about the fact that you were upset too, although you tried your best to straighten it out. Yes, it was a minor thing that he blew way out of proportion, cultural differences or not. According to the way I am reading your story, the mention of the Australian came after "the big insult." I'm not so sure I believe that the Australian even exists. I think it's more likely he said that because he knew it would upset you. As far as saying thank you, the Thais don't do much of that within interpersonal relationships. In my case, I have helped my boyfriend's father several times when he couldn't pay his rent. I covered him when he got sick. It wasn't a phony illness either. I went and saw for myself. I helped his younger brother pay for his schooling. I have yet to hear a thank you or any other indication of appreciation from any of them. But I've lived here long enough to expect it to be that way. That doesn't mean I'm going to accept it, though. If these people want my help, I've got a few cultural norms of my own. I pointed that out to my boyfriend and made it clear that I am feeling like nothing more than an ATM when I don't even hear so much as a thank you. After all, I didn't go to them and give them a gift of cash. They came to me and asked for it. I also told him that I'm not here to be an ATM and I am not responsible for his family's problems. I'm all through helping out any of his family members. I told him that maybe Thais don't thank each other, but I'm a "farang" and I expect at least some sort of indication of gratitude when they come to me for help and they get the help they seek. I made it clear that I don't give a damn if they find it insulting or not. I can get insulted too, and that's exactly how I felt. I said that if it's too much trouble to at least say thank you, then don't come to me for help. Yes, I realize I am in their country and I have to adapt to their norms, but I draw the line when what they want is in my wallet. Say the words. Make the wai. Do something, but don't act as if I somehow owe it to them to help them out. In your case here you were, busy treating this guy as if he were royalty and paying for everything, and then he has the nerve to get all bent out of shape simply because you pointed out that you would appreciate some form of gratitude? I see absolutely no reason in the world why "J" should have responded the way he did. There is no excuse for it and I don't see that sort of behavior as anything ingrained into Thai culture. When he decided to take a room by himself, who paid for it? In my opinion, when he took things as far as that, you should have told him right then and there to get lost and should have spent the rest of your holiday enjoying yourself rather than letting his behavior get to you. The words "I love you" do indeed have meaning, but both of you were using those words far too prematurely. You hadn't even actually met each other yet. I think you were probably more in love with the idea of being in love rather than actually being in love. Unfortunately, the feeling was obviously not mutual.

I'm sure you are right about the majority of "farang" gravitating to those sorts of condos, but if someone wants to live in the Pattaya area, and if because of the new regulations they cannot buy into the condo, then they have no choice other than to look for alternatives or not buy at all. Fortunately, one thing Pattaya does have is an abundance of condos. There is something for everyone. Not everyone wants to live near the beach. Not everyone can afford a top-of-the line condo. I know several people who bought in far less expensive condos, but they do have the means to live in top-of-the-line condos. They simply prefer not to, for whatever reasons. Some people are choosing to buy condos outside of Pattaya completely, where the prices are much less expensive. One problem, as I see it, will be what can the developers of new top-of-the-line condos do now with the buildings under construction? If they can no longer sell 51% of the units to "farang" due to the regulation enforcement, then what will become of those units? I have no idea. While you are correct that "farang" usually want to buy units in these condos, not very many Thai people do, even when they have the means to do so. So, who will buy those units? What happens if nobody buys them? I don't have any idea. The same holds true for condos that are already fully occupied. Many "farang" did buy via a Thai corporation. If the shareholders are not valid in accordance to the regulations, are these people going to lose their condos? According to my interpretation of the situation, that is exactly what will happen. If these investigations are truly taking place, then it seems to me that it is only a question of time before we start reading about "farang" who are losing their condos. Then the units will be placed for government auction. If that happens, who will bid and buy? Obviously it can't be "farang." What will the buyers do with the units? The only thing that makes any sense to me is that they will try to rent back the units to those who lost them, probably at premium prices, or try to rent them to someone else. I don't know what else a Thai investor would do with the units, if it comes to that. The brouhaha over this has caught the attention of Pattaya officials. There is an interesting article in this week's PATTAYA MAIL. See www.pattayamail.com/current/news.shtml#hd1 .

We have a mutual friend (I believe you won't have any problem figuring out who I mean) who originally brought that to my attention. I don't know whether he is right or wrong, or where he got that from, which is why I said 'it is my understanding,' but he certainly seemed to know what he was talking about. I haven't checked it with my attorney. At the moment, I have no need to check it with my attorney because it would not affect me personally. I agree, the condo route is certainly the safest, and if I had to do it all over again, that's what I would do. I've had this house for a number of years. At the time I bought it, it seemed like the thing to do and the corporate idea was a non-issue for me. It still is, really, for me. I know my circumstances and I feel secure that the legal owner isn't going to hassle me in any way. That's me. I'm speaking only for myself now. I'm not trying to say that others wouldn't end up running into the kinds of legal problems you are bringing up, but I am definitely saying that if the contracts are all done by a competent Thai attorney and legally registered, then under Thai law you are protected whether the landlord wants to create problems or not. If you want a house, then I would suggest buying as I did. It doesn't matter who the landlord is, or how many times the ownership of the property changes hands if the lease is prepaid and legally resistered in the land office. That comes directly from my Thai attorney. Nobody can touch the lease or force me out until either the lease expires or I voluntarily relinquish the lease. That, according to my attorney, is Thai law. So, if someone wants to go to court with that, let them. Thai law is Thai law. Until and unless my attorney tells me otherwise, that's good enough for me. As I said, I have already double checked with him since the corporation matter became an issue and he is still telling me that I am perfectly safe and in full compliance with Thai law. I agree with you that buying a condo within the 49% limitation is the safest way to go. I believe a prepaid long-term lease is the second safest. I think third safest is to simply rent. The reason I place that third on the list is because whenever the rental contract runs out, whoever you are renting from can jack up the rent. You would either wind up paying his price or looking for something else. Of course, one positive aspect of renting is that you can simply walk away any time you wish without losing an investment. For me, the bottom line is that if I knew then what I know now, then I would have bought a condo. Well, what can I say? I didn't know then what I know now, but I at least had sense enough to protect myself legally as best as I could. When I took out the lease, I really wasn't thinking too much about what my boyfriend would do. I was thinking about his family. If anything ever happens to him, those leeches would have me out on the street the same day, since ownership of the property would revert to them. The lease protects me against that possibility. The lawyer pointed out that I have complete control and my lease even entitles me to throw out the boyfriend for the duration of the lease if I so choose. If he sells the property, according to the lawyer, that wouldn't make any difference to the terms of the lease. The new owner would have to honor the lease under any circumstances. So, I'm going to follow my USA attorney friend's advice about not worrying until I have something to worry about. The new corporation enforcement has nothing to do with me or my lease. For me nothing has changed . . . except for one thing. I had plans to form a corporation and transfer the ownership of my property to the corporation, which my boyfriend was quite willing to do. Now, since the enforcement issue came up, I can no longer do that. As it now turns out, it's a good thing I hadn't already done that. You said, "Frankly, I'm not sure how the land office could even determine the history of a land parcel in the way suggested, declining to register a lease because the company once had a 49% minority farang stockholder." I would imagine, if my information is correct, that they would do the same thing that is being done with property purchases. The corporate members would have to be personally present at the land office with documentation to prove they had sufficient means to be shareholders at the time the corporation was formed. If they can't do that, then no lease registration. Again, I have not checked that aspect with any attorneys because I have no need to. But if anyone is considering doing that, I would advise taking no further steps until you do check with a competent Thai attorney, one who is well versed in Thai real estate law.

If you are referring specifically to View Talay, then you are probably right. But there are a lot more condos than just View Talay. If you are saying that the 49% limitation has already been met by all the condos in town, then I'll have to take your word for it. I have no idea.

Actually, yes it did occur to me. I've double checked with my Thai attorney. According to him, at least in my case, there is nothing to worry about. When I took out the lease I prepaid the thirty years. It was, of course, a very small payment. He reminded me that it was the land office itself that set the minimum, not the Thai owner. It was all recorded, registered, and signed for at the land office. According to the attorney, there is nothing the owner can do, whether we have a falling out or not, until the lease expires thirty years later. Even if the owner sells the property, the buyer would, by Thai law, have to honor the lease. If I ever decide to leave, I have subleasing rights as part of the contract. From what he is telling me, it seems to be as iron clad as it is possible to be within Thailand. Also, he explained this with the owner sitting right next to me. So, even if what he said turns out to somehow not be correct, the owner believes it is correct. I doubt it would ever occur to him to try to dispute the lease even if there was ever a reason for him to do so. The thing is, according to my Thai attorney, you have to do it as I did. The lease was created at the same time the final payment was made on the house and it was all signed and recorded concurrently. It is my understanding that if a "farang" who bought under a corporation decides to transfer the property to a Thai, and then take out a similar lease, that won't work. I am told that such a lease will not be accepted by the land office. It is also my understanding that a lease is not legally safe unless it has been accepted and recorded at the land office. A private lease between two individuals, whether "farang" or not, isn't worth the paper it's written on unless it is recorded at the land office. That's where many of the scenarios you are pointing out, Hedda, would be most likely to occur. Of course, my attorney is primarily a real estate attorney, so I am taking him at his word. At least for now, I see nothing that will cause me to ever have to find out the hard way. Things like an owner claiming that the property is being damaged, drug use is going on, or something like that . . . he would have to show evidence of that, wouldn't he? Don't forget, the owner is not the only one who can hire a lawyer. There is one little fly in the buttermilk, though. My plan now is to take out another thirty-year lease, assuming the owner and I still are getting along at the time the lease expires and if I am even still alive. However, a "farang" friend told me he had read somwhere that Thailand has a law that permits a thirty-year lease, at least for "farang," only once. According to him, when that lease expires Thailand will not permit another one and they will not permit an extension of the current lease. You would have to go year-to-year. I have not yet checked that with the Thai attorney. It sounds absurd to me, but then again for something absurd to be the case in Thailand would hardly be out of the ordinary. In any case, the long term lease, taken out at the time the property is first paid for, seems to be the safest alternative if you can't buy a condo within the 49% limitation or prefer a house in the first place. I suppose we could all come up with a million possibilities and "what if's." I prefer to go with the advice a close friend, an American attorney, once gave me: "Don't worry until you have something to worry about."

My sources of information are the English language newspapers. Most of what I have written is my interpretation of what is in those newspapers. My own Thai attorney also is one of my sources. As for that third to last paragraph, it makes plenty of sense to me . . . at least in light of Thai logic. I don't know why you think "farang" can't buy condos, unless I am misreading what you mean. You said, "The 49% foreign ownership is already sold out." Are you saying that the 49% is already sold out in all the new condos? If that is what you mean, and if it turns out that you are correct, then yes, potential "farang" owners would indeed be out of luck. I agree with you that the chances of finding reliable Thai partners who would be interested in helping out "farang" buyers, even for a fee, would be virtually non-existent. The big question will be what will happen to those condos if they can't sell more than 49% of the units. Most of the condos that "farang" would want are not the kinds of places that many Thais would buy for themselves, even if they had the money. A scenario I can envision is that Thai investors might buy those units in hopes of renting them out to "farang" rather than selling them to "farang." If that doesn't happen, and if no other solution is found, then there's going to be a hell of a lot of vacant units. According to today's PATTAYA MAIL, real estate sales in Pattaya have already experienced a sharp drop in sales due to this. It doesn't even matter who is right about how many units are already sold. The result of this seems to be, at least according to the way I am interpreting the news reports, is that "farang" have stopped new buying whether they fit into the 49% or not. I don't think anybody really can be certain about what's going on, why it's going on, or where this is going to lead. The only thing I know for sure is that the only "farang" who can consider themselves safe from this mess are those who bought a house in the name of a Thai citizen, took out a long-term lease, and registered that lease with the land office. If they didn't register the lease, then they better do so. The best two descriptive words I can think of are "chaos" and "confusion." Nobody out there seems to be able to reliably answer any of the most urgent questions. One person tells you one thing and another person tells you something completely different. To my mind, at the moment two of the more important questions are why this enforcement is being done after so many years of ignoring the law and why now?

My latest information is that "farang" limited corportions, the type of corporation most often used when a "farang" needs a corporation in order to buy property, are being inspected. Because the corporation must be at least 51% Thai-owned, the Thai corporate members are being checked for sufficient funds at the time the corporation was formed. Sufficient funds means that they had enough money to buy their share of the property, and the source of that money can be established. In other words, suppose a foreigner bought a property for 1-milion baht. The corporation would have had to be formed with Thai citizens who had at least 510,000 baht in their bank accounts at the time, and they have to substantiate that the money wasn't in there because some "farang" stuffed their account. They have to show evidence that they really did have that amount of money. If they did not, then they are subject to fraud charges and a three-year prison sentence. The "farang" will lose the property through confiscation and the property will go up for government auction. Some people are saying that there won't really be such inspections because too much money is involved and there are just too many corporations to inspect. I believe that is wishful thinking. My information is that these corporations are being inspected. You are safe if you did what I did, and that was to buy property under the name of a Thai, who remains the owner, and take out a long-term lease on that property. That is perfectly legal because the property is completely Thai-owned. You are also safe if you bought, or will be buying, a condo, provided you fall within the 49% "farang"-owned limitation. No problem about that either. We have had several "beach chatter" discussions about this. Some of us believe that this enforcement was planned a long time ago and accounts for the seemingly unlimited condo construction taking place in Pattaya, and that the authorities were waiting for what they considered to be the right time to spring this. Most of those construction boom buildings are now completed or are close to completion. Enforcing this long ignored law forces "farang" to buy those condos, rather than houses, if they wish to purchase property in Thailand. Chonburi will no longer issue deeds to "farang"-owned corporations, but there is no problem about a deed to a condo, provided that the law is being followed to the letter. It is my understanding that if a corporate-owned property is found to be in violation of the law, then the "farang" is given thirty days to either sell or put things right. Please note that this is the way I understand things to be. I might not be right or I might be misunderstanding something. My advice is that before you buy any property in Thailand, consult a Thai attorney to make sure you are buying legally and can get a deed for the property. I would never advise simply taking a salesperson's word for it or relying on the word of someone posting on a web site. Make sure you are in full compliance with the law and you won't have a problem.

The following appears in the PATTAYA CITY NEWS: _____ American Man Arrested in Sunee Plaza Bar Raid. On Monday night, a group of Undercover Pattaya Tourist Police Officers conducted a raid of the Diamond Pub in Soi Sunee Plaza, South Pattaya after receiving information that the venue was being used to sell sex to foreigners. It was thought that underage foreign boys and Thai boys were available for sex at the venue. On the first floor of the venue, rooms were being used to accommodate these illegal activities. The raid took place and on the first floor of the venue, a partially clothed American National, Mr. Ronald Sims aged 43 was found in one of the rooms with a boy aged 16. Evidence including a used condom on the floor suggested that the pair had already engaged in sexual activities. Mr. Sims was arrested along with the Manager of the venue; Khun Jalae aged 27 and members of staff in the venue which included 17 males under the age of 15 which included foreign nationals who had entered the country illegally. Everyone concerned was taken back to the Tourist Police Station and Mr. Sims was charged with engaging in sexual activities with a person under the age of 18 for money. The venue has now been shut down pending a decision on its future by the governor of Chonburi who may decide to revoke all licenses for the establishment. _____ I keep warning and warning and warning about what can happen if one engages in sex with a minor in Thailand. This man had the misfortune of being in this bar at the wrong time on the wrong day. This bar has been in operation for years. Somehow I doubt that this man was exactly the first one to engage in sex in one of the short-time rooms. His troubles are only just beginning. I had an article about this on my web site. It might be a good time for people to review that article. I am re-printing it here for those who are interested: _____ CONSEQUENCES OF SEX WITH MINORS IN THAILAND Updated 1 January, 2006 If you engage in any kind of sexual activity with anyone who is even one day younger than age 18, then you are committing an extremely serious crime in Thailand. The consequences will be devastating, and your life is quite likely to be absolutely destroyed. At best, if you are caught, you might be able to bribe your way out of it if you have enough cash with you, and we

Were things ever in order in the first place? Yesterday this web site was blocked. That was the second day in a row. Today, the site is unblocked again.

I can now confirm that both Throb and Splash have indeed been sold and the sale took place about three weeks ago, with the contract to have been signed as of yesterday (Monday, June 12). The now former owner, Mr. Quill, is to remain for three months during the transition. From what I understand the buyer (or buyers - I do not yet know), is from the UK and currently resides in Bangkok. Le Caf

A friend of mine stays at the View Talay Condos for a very reasonable rental price, and the price includes water and electricity. It fits much of what you're looking for. As a matter of fact, he is there right now. It is located right across the street from the Jomtien Complex, where there are several gay venues. It is an easy walk to the beach. All you have to do is cross the street, turn right, and walk about half a block to the entrance to the Avalon Beach Resort. They don't mind people walking through to access the beach and you'll be right there at the gay beach. I don't think there's a fitness center in the building, but you're not far from several. There might be one in the Jomtien Complex, but I'm not sure. Maybe someone else knows. I exercised once in 1957, so I haven't paid much attention to the locations of nearby fitness centers. There is a large swimming pool, convenience store, laundry service, a barber shop, a couple restaurants, etc, all located within the bulding. It seems worth at least checking. If you wish, you can send me an E-mail at gaybutton@gmail.com . I will be happy to give him your E-mail address and ask him to write to you with the information, and I'm certain he will be happy to do so.

At this point I do know that Top Man is up for sale. It's difficult to maintain a bar when there are no customers. I've been talking about this for over a year and a half now, that sooner or later the bars are going to begin to go out of business if they don't have enough customers. Apparently that is now beginnin g to happen. On Soi Day-Night, Lek's bar is now closed. Two years ago there were several go-go bars on Soi Day-Night. Now there are none. On another nearby soi, there used to be Boy's Studio, Playboy, and one or two others. Now there are none. Other go-go bars, both in Sunee Plaza and Pattayaland, have closed, changed hands, and reopened under a different name and different ownership. The owner of one other bar complained to me, only yesterday, that he may be forced out of business because customers are no longer coming. I suggest that when you come to Pattaya, visit all the bars at least once. Obviously you have your favorites, but there are nowhere near as many go-go bars now as there were just two or three years ago, and the number of bars is decreasing, not increasing. Regarding Throb, Splash, and Le Caf