Thailand Has Much To Gain If Burmese Reform Process Proves Successful

[webfact]

Thailand has much to gain if Burmese reform process proves successful

Supalak Ganjanakhundee

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- If Burma's reform process manages to get the country on the road to genuine liberalisation and democratisation, and the so-called "national reconciliation" effort were to bear fruit, Thailand would be the first country to benefit - both economically and politically.

From the economic perspective, the reform process as it is currently taking shape, would create

a good atmosphere for economic development, trade and investment. If successful, it would enable the Burmese authorities to manage the economy rationally with effective economic instruments, rather than using only raw military power to run the economy as before.

The government of President Thein Sein, who took the helm last year, has done much to restructure the economy. Moreover, the authorities are now working to unify the multi-rate kyat, and the Burmese central bank could begin to float the currency by the end of this month. This move, under which a single-rate kyat is planned in two years, would benefit not only Burmese citizens but also foreign traders and investors, who have been suffering for a long time from the unrealistic exchange-rate regime.

Adjustment and amendment of trade and investment regulations to ease restrictions would definitely also benefit foreign traders and investors, especially Thais who are heavily engaged with many economic activities in Burma at present.

Many Thai traders and investors have complained about Burma's balancing act, which allows them to import capital goods only when they can find items of the same value to export. If this regulation were to be eliminated, it would create a freer flow of trade and investment in the country, and thus directly benefit Thailand.

Burma's reforms, if they were to continue in this direction, would pave the way for western countries and international organisations to lift sanctions against the country.

The sanctions that have been in place against the military regime for decades are really

counterproductive to Burma's development. They aim to hurt the junta and its key members, but consequently obstruct the country's economic development as a whole.

The United States' decision to lift one of the many sanctions against Burma early last month was a small but important step for the country, as it opened up a channel for international financiers to help Burmese economic development.

If all kinds of sanctions by western countries were to be lifted, trade and investment would flow freely to Burma, and hence countries that have already booked their concessions in the country would definitely benefit. Thailand's Dawei project by Italian-Thai Development would have more funding sources for investment, as investors from Japan and other states would have financial liberty to participate in the project.

Of course, some development projects such as Thailand's coal-fired power plant in Dawei and the Chinese-run Myitsone dam on the Irrawaddy River could be affected by reform, as the Burmese government would need to heed social and environment concerns in regard to major projects. However, such practice would be good for the economy in the long run, as it should ensure that all development projects were conducted in a transparent manner for the public interest.

Thailand would also benefit from the ongoing reform in Burma when it comes to political and security concerns. The Kingdom has long had a burden of proximity to shelter more than 100,000 refugees who fled from the conflict at home, but Thai governments have never hidden their intention to eventually repatriate them.

If the reform trickled down into permanent peace and reconciliation, with freedom and basic rights being guaranteed, the Thai authorities would have an excuse to repatriate all refugees to their place of origin.

Peace along the border, if it really could be achieved, would enable Thailand and Burma to regulate and maintain order in border areas that are home to many transnational crimes, including drug- and human-trafficking.

However, if the reform process were to go into reverse, everything would go back to the previous status quo and no one would benefit.

-- The Nation 2012-03-14

[hgma]

These so-called 'reforms" are a direct result of the membership Myanmar has with ASEAN.

Sanctions didn't work at all!!! ASEAN upcoming AEC 2015 has!!!!

A=ASEAN

E=Economic

C=Community

[noitom]

"Thailand has much to gain." Always a rhythm of what's in it for Thailand? You can count on one hand the number of times that the Thai press or government officials over the years have spoken out against the oppressive military regime in Burma. One can hardly remember even in passing the outright condemnation of the Aung San Suu Kyi and thousands of other outright political prisoners and press colleagues imprisoned.

Now when it suits Thailand even more, they can buy more natural gas that funds the military for maybe a better price. They can repatriate the hundreds of thousands of Burmese refugees, as the Thais have prayed for so many years to rid Thailand of that "scourge," rather than to assimilate them. Now they can project economic exploitation of the naive and underdeveloped society with Thai Black Market goods which they are expert at making and distributing. Too bad that Thailand never took the high road on Burma before on its ability to influence the region, and now looks like any other junior amateur player foaming at the mouth to capitalize without giving back.

[Unkomoncents]

I'm not sure how friendly Thailand and Burma are likely to be. It seems fairly certain that many of the abuses Thai people have imposed on Burmese migrants and workers in Thailand won't easily be forgotten. Also, Thailand's regional relationship record is not particularly promising. Most of the country's neighbors are not fans (think Cambodia), as Thailand tends to try to bully its ASEAN compatriots. Thai Ministers frequently act like royalty (full of misplaced hubris) during ASEAN symposiums and can often be ignorant, aggressive, and intransigent. In addition to this, Burma and Thailand have a long, long history of military conflict and both countries are effectively run by their respective militaries. It sure will be interesting to see how the relationship plays out.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Unkomoncents

[IsaanUSA]

Hold the phone, wait a second. "If Burma's reform process manages to get the country on the road to genuine liberalisation and democratisation, and the so-called "national reconciliation" effort were to bear fruit, Thailand would be the first country to benefit - both economically and politically."

Wouldn't the first country to benefit be.....Burma???

[noitom]

Of course!! But that's Thainess. Only seeing eyes through me attitude. Never thinking about the other country or person. Only the Thais. After all, that's all that counts to Thais, right?

[x5david]

Thailand has much to gain if Burmese reform process proves successful

Supalak Ganjanakhundee

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- If Burma's reform process manages to get the country on the road to genuine liberalisation and democratisation, and the so-called "national reconciliation" effort were to bear fruit, Thailand would be the first country to benefit - both economically and politically.

From the economic perspective, the reform process as it is currently taking shape, would create

a good atmosphere for economic development, trade and investment. If successful, it would enable the Burmese authorities to manage the economy rationally with effective economic instruments, rather than using only raw military power to run the economy as before.

The government of President Thein Sein, who took the helm last year, has done much to restructure the economy. Moreover, the authorities are now working to unify the multi-rate kyat, and the Burmese central bank could begin to float the currency by the end of this month. This move, under which a single-rate kyat is planned in two years, would benefit not only Burmese citizens but also foreign traders and investors, who have been suffering for a long time from the unrealistic exchange-rate regime.

Adjustment and amendment of trade and investment regulations to ease restrictions would definitely also benefit foreign traders and investors, especially Thais who are heavily engaged with many economic activities in Burma at present.

Many Thai traders and investors have complained about Burma's balancing act, which allows them to import capital goods only when they can find items of the same value to export. If this regulation were to be eliminated, it would create a freer flow of trade and investment in the country, and thus directly benefit Thailand.

Burma's reforms, if they were to continue in this direction, would pave the way for western countries and international organisations to lift sanctions against the country.

The sanctions that have been in place against the military regime for decades are really

counterproductive to Burma's development. They aim to hurt the junta and its key members, but consequently obstruct the country's economic development as a whole.

The United States' decision to lift one of the many sanctions against Burma early last month was a small but important step for the country, as it opened up a channel for international financiers to help Burmese economic development.

If all kinds of sanctions by western countries were to be lifted, trade and investment would flow freely to Burma, and hence countries that have already booked their concessions in the country would definitely benefit. Thailand's Dawei project by Italian-Thai Development would have more funding sources for investment, as investors from Japan and other states would have financial liberty to participate in the project.

Of course, some development projects such as Thailand's coal-fired power plant in Dawei and the Chinese-run Myitsone dam on the Irrawaddy River could be affected by reform, as the Burmese government would need to heed social and environment concerns in regard to major projects. However, such practice would be good for the economy in the long run, as it should ensure that all development projects were conducted in a transparent manner for the public interest.

Thailand would also benefit from the ongoing reform in Burma when it comes to political and security concerns. The Kingdom has long had a burden of proximity to shelter more than 100,000 refugees who fled from the conflict at home, but Thai governments have never hidden their intention to eventually repatriate them.

If the reform trickled down into permanent peace and reconciliation, with freedom and basic rights being guaranteed, the Thai authorities would have an excuse to repatriate all refugees to their place of origin.

Peace along the border, if it really could be achieved, would enable Thailand and Burma to regulate and maintain order in border areas that are home to many transnational crimes, including drug- and human-trafficking.

However, if the reform process were to go into reverse, everything would go back to the previous status quo and no one would benefit.

-- The Nation 2012-03-14

I would think Thailand would have allot to learn if Burma becomes successful economically and politically. Hopefully they will. The military practically runs Thailand today with the generals doing what they like when they like and accountable only to HM.

[mikebell]

Thailand could have a lot to lose too if Burma's liberalisation includes letting foreigners buy their own house. Easier visa regs/no 90 day reporting could see many ex-pats take their pensions elsewhere.

[pisico]

I'm not sure how friendly Thailand and Burma are likely to be. It seems fairly certain that many of the abuses Thai people have imposed on Burmese migrants and workers in Thailand won't easily be forgotten. Also, Thailand's regional relationship record is not particularly promising. Most of the country's neighbors are not fans (think Cambodia), as Thailand tends to try to bully its ASEAN compatriots. Thai Ministers frequently act like royalty (full of misplaced hubris) during ASEAN symposiums and can often be ignorant, aggressive, and intransigent. In addition to this, Burma and Thailand have a long, long history of military conflict and both countries are effectively run by their respective militaries. It sure will be interesting to see how the relationship plays out.

Thailand friendly to Burma?

Thailand surely expects to see a good predatory opportunity in Burma. Thais for centuries have been leery of the Burmese. Thailand has had 3 capitals because of the frequent raids and ransacking of the Burmese: Sukhothai, Ayuttayha and lastly, Bangkok, that so far has not been raided. It is a historical fact that Thais endeavored earnestly not to fight the Burmese but to create geographic distance for their capital as a deterrent. In the Thai subconscious there is dread and hatred of the Burmese. The usual Thai hubris can eventually flare up and change the course of negotiations and events. Thais are good at saang phaap (create image) with their own people and firmly believe they can use the same tactic with others. The Burmese in power nowadays are shrewd and will not fall for that unless Burma and the pyramid of power can materially benefit from it. Thais are assemblers, copiers and followers. Ah, yes! Thailand is an important producer of rice. Not a rare commodity within Asia. What can Thailand offer to Burma? Certainly not something for gratis.

[Payboy]

Thailand has much to gain if Burmese reform process proves successful

Just think of the number of Thai maids the wealthy Burmese would employ.

[BigJohnnyBKK]

Of course the locals only care about what's good for Thailand. The Thai elite have been getting a "head start" - I personally know of "0.01%" families that have already invested hundreds of millions USD starting a decade ago, much of which is already paying off.

Of course no one important here cares about democracy and human rights - if they don't care about these issues as they pertain to Thailand, why should they in Burma? They only care about the business opportunities.

No point in moaning and groaning about these things, that's the way the world works, except for the unrealistic and idealistic western governments holding back their corporations, they're the only ones that have been losing out.

IMO Burma would have been changing much more rapidly if there had been more outside interaction over the past few decades.

[khaowong1]

Thailand could have a lot to lose too if Burma's liberalisation includes letting foreigners buy their own house. Easier visa regs/no 90 day reporting could see many ex-pats take their pensions elsewhere.

In a heartbeat.

[stiggy]

If reform takes place, most tourist islands in the south are stuffed.

The Thais will have to work in restaurants, build houses,clean gardens ....and then who to blame when things go wrong ?

On a more serious note, investment there will be interesting in early days although high risk. A few I know are in the rush already buying land beach frontage etc.

Good luck to them be interesting to see what happens.

[Thai at Heart]

Wait until the day Burma starts really opening up its coastline to tourism.

There will cobwebs swinging in many a thai resort after that.

[Foggy Bottom]

Thailand friendly to Burma?

Thailand surely expects to see a good predatory opportunity in Burma. Thais for centuries have been leery of the Burmese. Thailand has had 3 capitals because of the frequent raids and ransacking of the Burmese: Sukhothai, Ayuttayha and lastly, Bangkok, that so far has not been raided. It is a historical fact that Thais endeavored earnestly not to fight the Burmese but to create geographic distance for their capital as a deterrent. In the Thai subconscious there is dread and hatred of the Burmese plays out.

Complete twaddle

Sukhothai was never the capital of any area remotely approaching the size of modern day Thailand - in fact, by the mid-1300s it was a vassal state of Lan Na, then of Ayutthaya by the 15th Century.

Ayutthaya too never controlled anything near the size of modern Thailand and never controlled Lan Na.

Lan Na on the other hand, via vassaldoms and allegiances, and direct conquests, controlled from the Tibetan Himalayas, through the Shan State, Lan Na itself, Souvannaphoum (southern Yunnan in China), the northern and western Laos areas, and the Black and Red River valleys of upper North Vietnam, as well as Sukhothai, Nan, and Loei. Almost all of which was captured and held by the Burmans for two and a half centuries until Chakri (Rama I) ordered the retaking of all lands south of the Mehkong.

Both Lan Na and Sukhothai generals and kings led multiple campaigns into what is now Burma, against various Burman, Shan, and Wa sub-kingdoms in the Irrawaddy Delta and the (modern) northwestern and northeastern Burmese states. One Sukhothai general even eloped with a daughter of a Sukhothai king and set up a new Burman kingdom east of Rangoon alongside the Thai border, after conquering the reigning princes there.

The "Saviour of the Thais from the Burmese" - King Taksin - did no more than drive the Burmans back west from the Central Plains over the 3 Pagodas Pass, then built a new capital at Thonburi, which his successor promptly relocated to Rattanakosin in order to have the Chao Phraya as a west-side defence feature.

Instead of reading tourist guide histories, do proper historical research and look at the military reasons for decisions, not just the royal chronicles and cultural propaganda approved by and issued from Krung Thep since WW2. That includes reading the contemporary writings from historians in neighbouring countries too.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Foggy Bottom

[pisico]

Thailand friendly to Burma?

Thailand surely expects to see a good predatory opportunity in Burma. Thais for centuries have been leery of the Burmese. Thailand has had 3 capitals because of the frequent raids and ransacking of the Burmese: Sukhothai, Ayuttayha and lastly, Bangkok, that so far has not been raided. It is a historical fact that Thais endeavored earnestly not to fight the Burmese but to create geographic distance for their capital as a deterrent. In the Thai subconscious there is dread and hatred of the Burmese plays out.

Complete twaddle

Sukhothai was never the capital of any area remotely approaching the size of modern day Thailand - in fact, by the mid-1300s it was a vassal state of Lan Na, then of Ayutthaya by the 15th Century.

Ayutthaya too never controlled anything near the size of modern Thailand and never controlled Lan Na.

Lan Na on the other hand, via vassaldoms and allegiances, and direct conquests, controlled from the Tibetan Himalayas, through the Shan State, Lan Na itself, Souvannaphoum (southern Yunnan in China), the northern and western Laos areas, and the Black and Red River valleys of upper North Vietnam, as well as Sukhothai, Nan, and Loei. Almost all of which was captured and held by the Burmans for two and a half centuries until Chakri (Rama I) ordered the retaking of all lands south of the Mehkong.

Both Lan Na and Sukhothai generals and kings led multiple campaigns into what is now Burma, against various Burman, Shan, and Wa sub-kingdoms in the Irrawaddy Delta and the (modern) northwestern and northeastern Burmese states. One Sukhothai general even eloped with a daughter of a Sukhothai king and set up a new Burman kingdom east of Rangoon alongside the Thai border, after conquering the reigning princes there.

The "Saviour of the Thais from the Burmese" - King Taksin - did no more than drive the Burmans back west from the Central Plains over the 3 Pagodas Pass, then built a new capital at Thonburi, which his successor promptly relocated to Rattanakosin in order to have the Chao Phraya as a west-side defence feature.

Instead of reading tourist guide histories, do proper historical research and look at the military reasons for decisions, not just the royal chronicles and cultural propaganda approved by and issued from Krung Thep since WW2. That includes reading the contemporary writings from historians in neighbouring countries too.

Dear erudite apologist. You should educate the TAT, the Ministry of Education and all the other Thai institutions that mention in their literature Sukhothai as the first capital of the kingdom of Siam and so on, to prevent them from twaddling. Then again, history in Thailand is what the powers that be say it is. Just like the Charter of the Constitution. How many Thailand have had over the years? Are the writings of historians from neighboring countries more reliable than history written by Thai historians?

[MILT]

Thailand friendly to Burma? Thailand surely expects to see a good predatory opportunity in Burma. Thais for centuries have been leery of the Burmese. Thailand has had 3 capitals because of the frequent raids and ransacking of the Burmese: Sukhothai, Ayuttayha and lastly, Bangkok, that so far has not been raided. It is a historical fact that Thais endeavored earnestly not to fight the Burmese but to create geographic distance for their capital as a deterrent. In the Thai subconscious there is dread and hatred of the Burmese plays out.

Complete twaddle Sukhothai was never the capital of any area remotely approaching the size of modern day Thailand - in fact, by the mid-1300s it was a vassal state of Lan Na, then of Ayutthaya by the 15th Century. Ayutthaya too never controlled anything near the size of modern Thailand and never controlled Lan Na. Lan Na on the other hand, via vassaldoms and allegiances, and direct conquests, controlled from the Tibetan Himalayas, through the Shan State, Lan Na itself, Souvannaphoum (southern Yunnan in China), the northern and western Laos areas, and the Black and Red River valleys of upper North Vietnam, as well as Sukhothai, Nan, and Loei. Almost all of which was captured and held by the Burmans for two and a half centuries until Chakri (Rama I) ordered the retaking of all lands south of the Mehkong. Both Lan Na and Sukhothai generals and kings led multiple campaigns into what is now Burma, against various Burman, Shan, and Wa sub-kingdoms in the Irrawaddy Delta and the (modern) northwestern and northeastern Burmese states. One Sukhothai general even eloped with a daughter of a Sukhothai king and set up a new Burman kingdom east of Rangoon alongside the Thai border, after conquering the reigning princes there. The "Saviour of the Thais from the Burmese" - King Taksin - did no more than drive the Burmans back west from the Central Plains over the 3 Pagodas Pass, then built a new capital at Thonburi, which his successor promptly relocated to Rattanakosin in order to have the Chao Phraya as a west-side defence feature. Instead of reading tourist guide histories, do proper historical research and look at the military reasons for decisions, not just the royal chronicles and cultural propaganda approved by and issued from Krung Thep since WW2. That includes reading the contemporary writings from historians in neighbouring countries too.

Great Stuff!

[ratcatcher]

I'm not sure how friendly Thailand and Burma are likely to be. It seems fairly certain that many of the abuses Thai people have imposed on Burmese migrants and workers in Thailand won't easily be forgotten. Also, Thailand's regional relationship record is not particularly promising. Most of the country's neighbors are not fans (think Cambodia), as Thailand tends to try to bully its ASEAN compatriots. Thai Ministers frequently act like royalty (full of misplaced hubris) during ASEAN symposiums and can often be ignorant, aggressive, and intransigent. In addition to this, Burma and Thailand have a long, long history of military conflict and both countries are effectively run by their respective militaries. It sure will be interesting to see how the relationship plays out.

Thailand friendly to Burma?

Thailand surely expects to see a good predatory opportunity in Burma. Thais for centuries have been leery of the Burmese. Thailand has had 3 capitals because of the frequent raids and ransacking of the Burmese: Sukhothai, Ayuttayha and lastly, Bangkok, that so far has not been raided. It is a historical fact that Thais endeavored earnestly not to fight the Burmese but to create geographic distance for their capital as a deterrent. In the Thai subconscious there is dread and hatred of the Burmese. The usual Thai hubris can eventually flare up and change the course of negotiations and events. Thais are good at saang phaap (create image) with their own people and firmly believe they can use the same tactic with others. The Burmese in power nowadays are shrewd and will not fall for that unless Burma and the pyramid of power can materially benefit from it. Thais are assemblers, copiers and followers. Ah, yes! Thailand is an important producer of rice. Not a rare commodity within Asia. What can Thailand offer to Burma? Certainly not something for gratis.

"What can Thailand offer to Burma?"

Well, for starters.tens of thousands of tourists, many of whom have become disenchanted by Thailand's attitude towards the many scams and inconveniences tourists (and foreign residents) have to endure in order to enjoy "Miracle Thailand".

Maybe in the not too distant future tourists will be arriving in Rangoon amazed by the gentle sincerity and warmth of the Burmese people who have been locked in a semi time-warp for 50 years. There are hundreds of pristine islands with clean beaches and clear waters. Hopefully they will be less greedily developed than Thailand has managed with its coastal lands.

Plus, as previously stated, it may one day be the case that Burma/Myanmar offers more attractive retirement opportunities than the Kingdom.

Maybe the headline should read"How can Thailand help the Burmese people emerge from oppression" not "What's in it for us"

Maybe................

[bigbamboo]

Thailand could have a lot to lose too if Burma's liberalisation includes letting foreigners buy their own house. Easier visa regs/no 90 day reporting could see many ex-pats take their pensions elsewhere.

If Burma ever gets it's tourist industry into gear Thailand will be the first one to suffer.