The laws that govern Asia’s property markets serve many gods. A range of cultural values affects land ownership. Political considerations in the region encompass everything, from free democracies, to tightly controlled communist regimes. And of course, there is economics. In many cases this is the driving force behind regulatory changes that cool down, or speed up, investment.

“It’s very much a mixed bag,” says Jane Niven, regional general counsel for Jones Lang LaSalle. “You have Singapore, Hong Kong and India, which follow a common law based on the English system, as well as French and German influences elsewhere in Southeast Asia, an Australian system (Torrens), which has been adopted in some countries, and of course heavily regulated systems in Communist China and Vietnam.

“India is a title-based system, but it operates within such a corrupt environment that there are no guarantees of land ownership. People can claim an interest in property, even if they don’t have an interest, and they can tie it up in court for years and years, frustrating a legitimate owner’s ability to deal with that land for years at a time.

“There has been quite a lot of change in Malaysia, where there’s a recognition of the need to improve the private land situation, particularly with regard to foreign investment. “And many of these countries – Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia – will put legislation out for consideration which can take 18 months, two years, even up to five years to be passed.”

And yet, if Asian property law development has a common denominator, Niven contends, it is a reticence to encourage foreign ownership. This is an area that her team spends a good deal of time monitoring.

“Unquestionably, it’s one of the driving factors. You see it in places like Indonesia, changes to the laws in Thailand, particularly company laws which this year have made it more difficult for foreign corporations to operate and own property,” Niven says.

“Even in China, although they’ve introduced legislation to free up private ownership, they’ve actually made it much more difficult for foreign entities to own property, and that is an attempt to slow down the economy more than prevent foreigners from owning land.”

( Read full information… )