Thailand Sees Potential As Regional Hub With Future Hi-Speed Train

[Morakot]

the country's second city is smaller than a quarter of a million souls and after that you have to struggle to find towns larger than 150,000 people.

To end your struggle!

#2 Nonthaburi: 262,158

#3 Pak Kret: 178,114

#4 Hat Yai: 158,007

Ah I see, number 2, North Bangkok, and #3 even a little bit further North Bangkok.

Nonthaburi town?

Pakkret is in Nonthaburi province

Indeed Pakkret is in Nonthaburi province and has Thesaban Nakhon status since 2000.

So is Nonthaburi "town" which had the status since 1995.

Check out the maps in the official publication (in Thai) to see the designated areas.

00018697.PDF

29.PDF

Edited August 1, 2012 by Morakot

[PoodMaiDai]

I'm still struggling with Thailand's high speed internet. Don't see a high speed train in their future.

[dcutman]

I'm still struggling with Thailand's high speed internet. Don't see a high speed train in their future.

Excellent point. How many years has an outdated 3G been coming to Thailand? The funny thing it would not cost the Thai Govt 1 baht, in fact would get revenue from it, still cant get it done. Why? corruption.

[Nigel1500]

Bangkok has built more railways in the last 10 years than Sydney has over the last 50.

I wouldn't write off the idea. Give them a chance. Let's see what happens.

[Mosha]

Bangkok is the epic center of ASEAN.

So Bangkok should be ASEAN capital, and its financial and logistic hub.

Very logical.

I want some of what you are smoking

[PoodMaiDai]

I'm still struggling with Thailand's high speed internet. Don't see a high speed train in their future.

Excellent point. How many years has an outdated 3G been coming to Thailand? The funny thing it would not cost the Thai Govt 1 baht, in fact would get revenue from it, still cant get it done. Why? corruption.

North Korea has full 3g coverage. They have 3g on the top of Mt Everest (yes, really). But Thailand is struggling with it.

Go figure.

[Bagwan]

Is it that time of the month again?? Another HUB?? When will they ever STOP using the word HUB??

When they actually establish one hub. I think it's a little like registering a patent, get in 1st with the name Hub of "$##@" and then they think they own it. Ideas that never evolve.

I think that the word 'hub' describes Thailand very well. A hub goes round and round, at least the outer components do. However in Thailand's case the movement is in ever decreasing circles and the country may well disappear up it's own fundamental orifice unless it joins the 21st century and there is a serious outbreak of common sense.

[Skywalker69]

Bangkok has built more railways in the last 10 years than Sydney has over the last 50.

I wouldn't write off the idea. Give them a chance. Let's see what happens.

Sorry, I couldn´t hold myself.

[Skywalker69]

Bangkok is the epic center of ASEAN.

So Bangkok should be ASEAN capital, and its financial and logistic hub.

Very logical.

I want some of what you are smoking

Me too....

[MaxLee]

They just don't get it. What happens if there's a flood? That'll cost them millions.

And besides Thailand is not the country that values passengers or raw material safety standards. When the raw materials are bad quality and they're just hiding it real typically "face saving corruption style.... the train track is bad quality from onside, then what will happen if it's high-speed train that weighs tons,,... you get the idea????

Edited August 2, 2012 by MaxLee

[planr]

They just don't get it. What happens if there's a flood? That'll cost them millions.

And besides Thailand is not the country that values passengers or raw material safety standards. When the raw materials are bad quality and they're just hiding it real typically "face saving corruption style.... the train track is bad quality from onside, then what will happen if it's high-speed train that weighs tons,,... you get the idea????

I don't think you get it. By that I mean, I don't think you understand how high speed rail lines are constructed with respect to local environmental conditions, including flood risk. If lines are built on land, like raised earthen berms, box culverts are placed at calculated intervals to allow water to pass underneath the track from one side to the other unimpeded. The capacity for these culverts is typically based on worst-case scenario flood projections. In locations where the risks are very high, necessitating many culverts, the decision is typically made to elevate the tracks in similar fashion to the Skytrain and Airport Rail Link here in Bangkok (I'm speaking strictly as an example of the structural engineering).

Regular trains weigh tons. In fact, I'm pretty sure the existing SRT network is designed to handle 20-ton axle loads in most places. Sure the existing track is poorly maintained, but it still does a decent job except during periods of heavy rainfall in places where the tracks are not elevated. You rarely hear of trains derailing at random, for example. I have every confidence that "face saving corruption style" will get me just as safely on an HSR train from BKK to Chiang Mai as the BTS and MRT get me safely around Bangkok on a daily basis.

No, the solution is transparency. It doesn't matter what I say or what you say. Thailand is a third-world country, and it will continue to be. Thaksin tried to nationalize the BTS (why didn't that work? What's the problem? Why did it take so long to get the extensions running?) so you clearly have no idea how complex BOT projects work. Compared with Kuala Lumpur's infrastructure, Bangkok's is pathetic, and that is the result of class system that doesn't enable your average Thai to afford BTS/MRT tickets.

If your average Thai could afford those tickets, the system would be so over-spent that no one would seriously consider it as a transportation alternative. Lots of projects continue (you DID NOT PAY ATTENTION TO HONEYWELL), in Thailand, especially indefinitely.

So if China and Japan have offered (clearly much more trustworthy countries), then what's the problem? I'm confused SaNim? This should be so easy based on your prescription?

Oh, and trying to compare England's most hilarious infrastructure project (completed half-a-century ago) and Thailand's is like comparing a old fool to a young moron. The UK and Thailand are incomparable. What is Thailand's per capita GDP compared with the UK's? That is the best measurement of economic value. Thailand is a joke and it provides a convenient home for the deluded (i.e. Thais and especially Europeans who live here and need to believe things are improving).

1) Transparency is not a silver bullet. Since we're talking about the UK and London, which may or may not be worthwhile, let's talk about Crossrail. The idea has been thrown around since WWII, and its implementation has been fraught with controversy. I'm not from the UK, but I would like to imagine these types of mega-projects are handled with a reasonable degree of transparency, especially when compared to places like Thailand.

2) The income question. I do not disagree that for many people living in Bangkok, the BTS/MRT/ARL is an expensive proposition, but the facts are that ridership on the three systems is increasing every year. This year I suspect the combined average daily ridership is somewhere around 800,000 per day (550,000 on BTS, 200,000 on MRT, and 50,000 on the ARL City Line). At the same time, ridership on the BMTA buses has decreased every year for the last 20 years, to the point that in 2010, barely more than 1,000,000 people rode them on the average day. In a few years, urban rail ridership will overtake urban bus ridership.

While that fact is indisputable, what I would love to hear from you is how all of Bangkok's population who apparently cannot afford rail transport are getting to work these days... clearly it's not on the bus. What less expensive alternative is there?

3) I also question Chinese money and motives. With Japan it's clear, they perceive continued investment in Thailand as worthwhile for many reasons. They are definitely not altruistic, in providing JICA ODA, they certainly seek to gain more than just a few points on a low-interest soft loan (think technology transfer, improving infrastructure for private Japanese firms here, etc) BUT at the same time, JICA has quite strict rules for transparency and accountability; perhaps less so than ODA from the World Bank or ADB, but certainly much more than any money coming out of China.

4) I'm not clear why comparing Thailand and England / the UK is foolish. True it may not be the best comparison, but your arguments for why it is not are equally shall we say... foolish. First of all, GDP per Capita is hardly the best measure of economic performance OR social well-being... at least according to a couple of Nobel-prize winning economists. Second if it it were the best metric, what's the point in comparing a post-war country in shambles to a thriving developing nation? Since 1980, PPP-adjusted GDP per Capita (In constant prices, as to account for inflation), Thailand's annual growth (5.4%) is more than double the UK's (2.4%). Whereas in 1980, GDP per capita in the UK was 10 times higher than in Thailand, in 2011 it is less than four times higher. So... what's your point here. They are not the best comparison, sure I buy that.

Lastly, I'm not sure how a country that has boasted strong economic performance, even if for the blip in 1997, has made great strides in family plannning, has some of the best infrastructure in the region (really, it does), is a regional or world leader in many respects, etc. can be considered a joke just because the ineptitude and malpractice of the government is very much out in the open as opposed to taking place either behind closed doors, or in front of a brain-washed public (or both, as in the case of my beloved USA).

Edited August 2, 2012 by planr

[Unkomoncents]

@ SaNim

ad hominem fallacy

@ planr - No, transparency is not a silver bullet. Neither is rampant corruption. When were you last stopped by a UK/US police officer and asked for a bribe. It happens in Thailand every day. Is this the future?

Thailand has a dozen other road transportation services aside from the large blue-green/red/yellow buses. If you posit that the BTS is being used more by your average Thai, then you further prove my point: Bangkok is more in need of infrastructure expansion. More importantly, Thailand has become home for medium/high-income expatriates from all over the world but especially China, India, Bangladesh, etc. Ridership may have decreased on certain buses, but Thailand is an excellent example of how difficult it is to measure progress in developing countries. What about Songthaews or mini-buses?

You're right that the JICA requires transparency, but Olympus is a lesson in what kinds of transparency we can expect from Japan. They are pragmatic, and have been doing a great deal in Cambodia. Cambodia is a country so chronically corrupt that business does not step foot there without paid influence. I trust the JICA to do good. But do I doubt that the JICA is so altruistic that it disregards business concerns in the face of competition. I would caution you to remember that Japan chose Thailand as its SE Asian production hub. Japan has reconsidered this in very serious ways since the flooding last year (they stayed because to leave would be a massive investment loss). For cost reasons, and based on promises, Japan chose to keep Thailand as it's production base for many of its industries. Companies from other countries, like Western Digital, have largely left Thailand.

Your post is extensive and I cannot respond to everything here. A couple of things though: Thailand was at the heart of the 1997 economic fiasco. That isn't a coincidence. The country has learned little since then, other than that they should jail the Indian national responsible for much of fiasco. Perhaps I chose the wrong metrics, in measuring the UK against Thailand. Regardless, if Thailand were the heartland of economic development and progress, why aren't the world's intellectuals flocking to the Kingdom? Why does the Kingdom produce no internationally recognized companies? Why are there no Thai Nobel laureates?

[Unkomoncents]

They just don't get it. What happens if there's a flood? That'll cost them millions.

And besides Thailand is not the country that values passengers or raw material safety standards. When the raw materials are bad quality and they're just hiding it real typically "face saving corruption style.... the train track is bad quality from onside, then what will happen if it's high-speed train that weighs tons,,... you get the idea????

I don't think you get it. By that I mean, I don't think you understand how high speed rail lines are constructed with respect to local environmental conditions, including flood risk. If lines are built on land, like raised earthen berms, box culverts are placed at calculated intervals to allow water to pass underneath the track from one side to the other unimpeded. The capacity for these culverts is typically based on worst-case scenario flood projections. In locations where the risks are very high, necessitating many culverts, the decision is typically made to elevate the tracks in similar fashion to the Skytrain and Airport Rail Link here in Bangkok (I'm speaking strictly as an example of the structural engineering).

Regular trains weigh tons. In fact, I'm pretty sure the existing SRT network is designed to handle 20-ton axle loads in most places. Sure the existing track is poorly maintained, but it still does a decent job except during periods of heavy rainfall in places where the tracks are not elevated. You rarely hear of trains derailing at random, for example. I have every confidence that "face saving corruption style" will get me just as safely on an HSR train from BKK to Chiang Mai as the BTS and MRT get me safely around Bangkok on a daily basis.

No, the solution is transparency. It doesn't matter what I say or what you say. Thailand is a third-world country, and it will continue to be. Thaksin tried to nationalize the BTS (why didn't that work? What's the problem? Why did it take so long to get the extensions running?) so you clearly have no idea how complex BOT projects work. Compared with Kuala Lumpur's infrastructure, Bangkok's is pathetic, and that is the result of class system that doesn't enable your average Thai to afford BTS/MRT tickets.

If your average Thai could afford those tickets, the system would be so over-spent that no one would seriously consider it as a transportation alternative. Lots of projects continue (you DID NOT PAY ATTENTION TO HONEYWELL), in Thailand, especially indefinitely.

So if China and Japan have offered (clearly much more trustworthy countries), then what's the problem? I'm confused SaNim? This should be so easy based on your prescription?

Oh, and trying to compare England's most hilarious infrastructure project (completed half-a-century ago) and Thailand's is like comparing a old fool to a young moron. The UK and Thailand are incomparable. What is Thailand's per capita GDP compared with the UK's? That is the best measurement of economic value. Thailand is a joke and it provides a convenient home for the deluded (i.e. Thais and especially Europeans who live here and need to believe things are improving).

1) Transparency is not a silver bullet. Since we're talking about the UK and London, which may or may not be worthwhile, let's talk about Crossrail. The idea has been thrown around since WWII, and its implementation has been fraught with controversy. I'm not from the UK, but I would like to imagine these types of mega-projects are handled with a reasonable degree of transparency, especially when compared to places like Thailand.

2) The income question. I do not disagree that for many people living in Bangkok, the BTS/MRT/ARL is an expensive proposition, but the facts are that ridership on the three systems is increasing every year. This year I suspect the combined average daily ridership is somewhere around 800,000 per day (550,000 on BTS, 200,000 on MRT, and 50,000 on the ARL City Line). At the same time, ridership on the BMTA buses has decreased every year for the last 20 years, to the point that in 2010, barely more than 1,000,000 people rode them on the average day. In a few years, urban rail ridership will overtake urban bus ridership.

While that fact is indisputable, what I would love to hear from you is how all of Bangkok's population who apparently cannot afford rail transport are getting to work these days... clearly it's not on the bus. What less expensive alternative is there?

3) I also question Chinese money and motives. With Japan it's clear, they perceive continued investment in Thailand as worthwhile for many reasons. They are definitely not altruistic, in providing JICA ODA, they certainly seek to gain more than just a few points on a low-interest soft loan (think technology transfer, improving infrastructure for private Japanese firms here, etc) BUT at the same time, JICA has quite strict rules for transparency and accountability; perhaps less so than ODA from the World Bank or ADB, but certainly much more than any money coming out of China.

4) I'm not clear why comparing Thailand and England / the UK is foolish. True it may not be the best comparison, but your arguments for why it is not are equally shall we say... foolish. First of all, GDP per Capita is hardly the best measure of economic performance OR social well-being... at least according to a couple of Nobel-prize winning economists. Second if it it were the best metric, what's the point in comparing a post-war country in shambles to a thriving developing nation? Since 1980, PPP-adjusted GDP per Capita (In constant prices, as to account for inflation), Thailand's annual growth (5.4%) is more than double the UK's (2.4%). Whereas in 1980, GDP per capita in the UK was 10 times higher than in Thailand, in 2011 it is less than four times higher. So... what's your point here. They are not the best comparison, sure I buy that.

Lastly, I'm not sure how a country that has boasted strong economic performance, even if for the blip in 1997, has made great strides in family plannning, has some of the best infrastructure in the region (really, it does), is a regional or world leader in many respects, etc. can be considered a joke just because the ineptitude and malpractice of the government is very much out in the open as opposed to taking place either behind closed doors, or in front of a brain-washed public (or both, as in the case of my beloved USA).

I guess I don't agree that Thailand has made great strides in any of the areas you mention. Family planning? Great. Compared to who? China, Japan, the US? Thailand is not a regional or world leader in any area that I can think of. Yes, they make more Japanese-designed cars than any other country, but in the end, Japan takes all the credit. Thailand is a country on the decline. Yes, they have plugged billions into a country that is roaring back to economic significance but if you know anything about Thailand, you'd know that this cannot be sustained. The country means well but it fundamentally unwilling to adopt the kinds of policies that will keep it competitive. Other ASEAN countries are already soaking up Thailand's lost potential. What happens when the great inevitable (I cannot speak of this on this or any forum without potentially being prosecuted) happens. See this:

http://www.asiarisk.com/exsum.pdf

Thailand is like America: a country so convinced of its own greatness that no reality can shake that conviction. It's sad.

Also, as the far as having the regions "best" infrastructure: do you mean compared with Malaysia and Singapore, or Burma and the Philippines?

Edited August 2, 2012 by Unkomoncents

[notmyself]

Saying potential is meaningless. Given the will, Thailand has the potential of being the hub (or whatever word is in fashion) of almost anything. Does Thailand have the ability to realize a given potential? No. The LoS just doesn't finish things such as roads and rail links so eventually, the wheel falls off.

[Thai at Heart]

Just build a decent train system that benefits Thai business and trade and the hub will follow.

horses and carts come to mind.

[planr]

@ SaNim

ad hominem fallacy

@ planr - No, transparency is not a silver bullet. Neither is rampant corruption. When were you last stopped by a UK/US police officer and asked for a bribe. It happens in Thailand every day. Is this the future?

Thailand has a dozen other road transportation services aside from the large blue-green/red/yellow buses. If you posit that the BTS is being used more by your average Thai, then you further prove my point: Bangkok is more in need of infrastructure expansion. More importantly, Thailand has become home for medium/high-income expatriates from all over the world but especially China, India, Bangladesh, etc. Ridership may have decreased on certain buses, but Thailand is an excellent example of how difficult it is to measure progress in developing countries. What about Songthaews or mini-buses?

You're right that the JICA requires transparency, but Olympus is a lesson in what kinds of transparency we can expect from Japan. They are pragmatic, and have been doing a great deal in Cambodia. Cambodia is a country so chronically corrupt that business does not step foot there without paid influence. I trust the JICA to do good. But do I doubt that the JICA is so altruistic that it disregards business concerns in the face of competition. I would caution you to remember that Japan chose Thailand as its SE Asian production hub. Japan has reconsidered this in very serious ways since the flooding last year (they stayed because to leave would be a massive investment loss). For cost reasons, and based on promises, Japan chose to keep Thailand as it's production base for many of its industries. Companies from other countries, like Western Digital, have largely left Thailand.

Your post is extensive and I cannot respond to everything here. A couple of things though: Thailand was at the heart of the 1997 economic fiasco. That isn't a coincidence. The country has learned little since then, other than that they should jail the Indian national responsible for much of fiasco. Perhaps I chose the wrong metrics, in measuring the UK against Thailand. Regardless, if Thailand were the heartland of economic development and progress, why aren't the world's intellectuals flocking to the Kingdom? Why does the Kingdom produce no internationally recognized companies? Why are there no Thai Nobel laureates?

No I've never been asked for a bribe, but I do know full well in the US case, even middle class folks can "pay their way" out of trouble if you know the right person... obviously this is not as endemic in the US as in Thailand, where it seems more the status quo.

I agree with everything you have said in terms of transport and JICA... Bangkok and Thailand both need more and better and if those can be achieved with the modicum of transparency that JICA ODA brings, great.

As to your last comment, I guess two points. 1) Where are the world's intellectuals flocking to, outside of finance where it's rather obvious? and 2) Depending on your metric, the same could be said about the private sector in Europe in recent decades, and well, with Nobel laureates I think we know that the education system here is largely to blame.

I guess I don't agree that Thailand has made great strides in any of the areas you mention. Family planning? Great. Compared to who? China, Japan, the US? Thailand is not a regional or world leader in any area that I can think of. Yes, they make more Japanese-designed cars than any other country, but in the end, Japan takes all the credit. Thailand is a country on the decline. Yes, they have plugged billions into a country that is roaring back to economic significance but if you know anything about Thailand, you'd know that this cannot be sustained. The country means well but it fundamentally unwilling to adopt the kinds of policies that will keep it competitive. Other ASEAN countries are already soaking up Thailand's lost potential. What happens when the great inevitable (I cannot speak of this on this or any forum without potentially being prosecuted) happens. See this:

http://www.asiarisk.com/exsum.pdf

Thailand is like America: a country so convinced of its own greatness that no reality can shake that conviction. It's sad.

Also, as the far as having the regions "best" infrastructure: do you mean compared with Malaysia and Singapore, or Burma and the Philippines?

With respect to family planning, most of its peer developing nations. Thailand brought birth rates down and brought STD's under control, in no small part through Mechai's efforts. In terms of its economy, if you want to focus on the automotive sector in particular... Thailand embraced one model while Malaysia, who you seem to repeatedly mention, embraced another, through trying to create a domestic brand. I'm going to hazard a guess that in terms of employment, value added, and just about any other metric you want to discuss, Thailand's automotive industry wins hands down. While some non-Japanese firms may have pulled up stakes in the wake of the floods, if you use FDI as your key indicator, Thailand looks as strong as ever with no more or less FDI coming from Japan post-flood than pre-flood.

Who is soaking up Thailand's lost potential and how? Really, I want to know... you're not the first to mention this, but I haven't seen much of any concrete evidence of it to date. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places...

I agree on your USA / Thailand assessment.

As for infrastructure, I said some of the best... not THE best, and my source is the World Bank. And I don't think it is fair to compare a city-state like Singapore with countries spanning hundreds of thousands of square kilometers and tens of millions of people. From an empirical standpoint, having traveled to and around every ASEAN country within the last 2-3 years on more than one occasion (save for Brunei where I've never been), I'll take Thailand's national road network any day. Same goes for the urban rail network in Bangkok.... except of course, Singapore.

Edited August 2, 2012 by planr

[DocN]

Can't wait to get on the hi-speed train to get out to the F1- circuit.....

[OzMick]

Is it that time of the month again?? Another HUB?? When will they ever STOP using the word HUB??

It has become hubitual.

[yoshiwara]

If there is one thing that the government of the day fervently believe in, it is that the announcement is the action and claim credit in advance of one sod of earth being moved.

the actual implementation is almost an afterthought. When something does happen as with the new airport woe betide any criticism. The image is all. This is one of the key Achilles Heels if how Thailand works.

[Satcommlee]

What is it about this forum that assumes that we as Western visitors/guests are all high and mighty! Do you really think that the Thai government is stupid? Do you really think that Thailand cannot manage it's own affairs and they need uneducated westerners to advise on government policy?

ASEAN is quite an achievement for this region and who are we to mock their most ambitious plans?

My advice is to sit back and enjoy the ride, cos whilst the west suffers perpetual recession, this part of the world is growing exponentially.

[Unkomoncents]

@ SaNim

ad hominem fallacy

@ planr - No, transparency is not a silver bullet. Neither is rampant corruption. When were you last stopped by a UK/US police officer and asked for a bribe. It happens in Thailand every day. Is this the future?

Thailand has a dozen other road transportation services aside from the large blue-green/red/yellow buses. If you posit that the BTS is being used more by your average Thai, then you further prove my point: Bangkok is more in need of infrastructure expansion. More importantly, Thailand has become home for medium/high-income expatriates from all over the world but especially China, India, Bangladesh, etc. Ridership may have decreased on certain buses, but Thailand is an excellent example of how difficult it is to measure progress in developing countries. What about Songthaews or mini-buses?

You're right that the JICA requires transparency, but Olympus is a lesson in what kinds of transparency we can expect from Japan. They are pragmatic, and have been doing a great deal in Cambodia. Cambodia is a country so chronically corrupt that business does not step foot there without paid influence. I trust the JICA to do good. But do I doubt that the JICA is so altruistic that it disregards business concerns in the face of competition. I would caution you to remember that Japan chose Thailand as its SE Asian production hub. Japan has reconsidered this in very serious ways since the flooding last year (they stayed because to leave would be a massive investment loss). For cost reasons, and based on promises, Japan chose to keep Thailand as it's production base for many of its industries. Companies from other countries, like Western Digital, have largely left Thailand.

Your post is extensive and I cannot respond to everything here. A couple of things though: Thailand was at the heart of the 1997 economic fiasco. That isn't a coincidence. The country has learned little since then, other than that they should jail the Indian national responsible for much of fiasco. Perhaps I chose the wrong metrics, in measuring the UK against Thailand. Regardless, if Thailand were the heartland of economic development and progress, why aren't the world's intellectuals flocking to the Kingdom? Why does the Kingdom produce no internationally recognized companies? Why are there no Thai Nobel laureates?

No I've never been asked for a bribe, but I do know full well in the US case, even middle class folks can "pay their way" out of trouble if you know the right person... obviously this is not as endemic in the US as in Thailand, where it seems more the status quo.

I agree with everything you have said in terms of transport and JICA... Bangkok and Thailand both need more and better and if those can be achieved with the modicum of transparency that JICA ODA brings, great.

As to your last comment, I guess two points. 1) Where are the world's intellectuals flocking to, outside of finance where it's rather obvious? and 2) Depending on your metric, the same could be said about the private sector in Europe in recent decades, and well, with Nobel laureates I think we know that the education system here is largely to blame.

I guess I don't agree that Thailand has made great strides in any of the areas you mention. Family planning? Great. Compared to who? China, Japan, the US? Thailand is not a regional or world leader in any area that I can think of. Yes, they make more Japanese-designed cars than any other country, but in the end, Japan takes all the credit. Thailand is a country on the decline. Yes, they have plugged billions into a country that is roaring back to economic significance but if you know anything about Thailand, you'd know that this cannot be sustained. The country means well but it fundamentally unwilling to adopt the kinds of policies that will keep it competitive. Other ASEAN countries are already soaking up Thailand's lost potential. What happens when the great inevitable (I cannot speak of this on this or any forum without potentially being prosecuted) happens. See this:

http://www.asiarisk.com/exsum.pdf

Thailand is like America: a country so convinced of its own greatness that no reality can shake that conviction. It's sad.

Also, as the far as having the regions "best" infrastructure: do you mean compared with Malaysia and Singapore, or Burma and the Philippines?

With respect to family planning, most of its peer developing nations. Thailand brought birth rates down and brought STD's under control, in no small part through Mechai's efforts. In terms of its economy, if you want to focus on the automotive sector in particular... Thailand embraced one model while Malaysia, who you seem to repeatedly mention, embraced another, through trying to create a domestic brand. I'm going to hazard a guess that in terms of employment, value added, and just about any other metric you want to discuss, Thailand's automotive industry wins hands down. While some non-Japanese firms may have pulled up stakes in the wake of the floods, if you use FDI as your key indicator, Thailand looks as strong as ever with no more or less FDI coming from Japan post-flood than pre-flood.

Who is soaking up Thailand's lost potential and how? Really, I want to know... you're not the first to mention this, but I haven't seen much of any concrete evidence of it to date. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places...

I agree on your USA / Thailand assessment.

As for infrastructure, I said some of the best... not THE best, and my source is the World Bank. And I don't think it is fair to compare a city-state like Singapore with countries spanning hundreds of thousands of square kilometers and tens of millions of people. From an empirical standpoint, having traveled to and around every ASEAN country within the last 2-3 years on more than one occasion (save for Brunei where I've never been), I'll take Thailand's national road network any day. Same goes for the urban rail network in Bangkok.... except of course, Singapore.

You're right about Singapore. It's fallacious to compare a city-state like Singapore with Thailand, just as it would be disingenuous to compare Switzerland to France or Spain. Thailand does have some of the best infrastructure for a large country in Southeast Asia, but that is changing. When I speak of Malaysia, I speak primarily of KL, which is an important point. Malaysia does NOT have Thailand's infrastructure on a country-wide basis but Kuala Lumpur is quickly outdoing Bangkok both as a regional transport hub and as a destination for business. Kuala Lumpur's intercity transport is as good, if not better, than Bangkok's. You are also significantly less likely to be scammed by a taxi driver in KL than you are in Bangkok.

As far as where the world's intellectuals are flocking to: China, for one. The Chinese government is intent on maintaining it's ascendancy and it's willing to put the funds forward to make that happen. This means that in areas as diverse as education and stem-cell research, China is attracting the world's most brilliant minds.

With regard to soaking up Thailand's potential: Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines. Vietnam is already 4G capable in some areas. Thailand is still haggling over the proceeds to 3G. Because of companies like Air Asia, Kuala Lumpur has made itself a transport mecca. Cheap flights to Singapore, where money is in more ample supply, mean that Kuala Lumpur's status is nearly assured (couple this with the fact that the real estate sector has seen the lid blown off the Kuala Lumpur housing market). In Thailand, there is a huge bubble, and the associated fact that much of Thailand's real estate serves as a cover for money laundering. The Philippines is currently SE Asia's biggest success story. Much of that is to do with the Aquino regime's (seemingly legitimate) campaign against corruption. Thailand will need to adopt a similar strategy to outsmart countries such as the Philippines in the long run. Perhaps Indonesia's issues will continue to hamper its growth and irk those who predicted it's total domination of ASEAN (in the next couple of decades), but perhaps not. Indonesia still has the region's youngest population, which means a huge economic potential (though India has shown how this can be stifled). In the end, it's a grassroots problem though. Thailand is seen as an exotic locale where one can enjoy the finer points of life while in an environment enlivened by dancing and Eastern music. This always results in radical shift of perspective. At one time, Thailand could claim some legitimacy in the comfort world. Nowadays, Bangkok often has roughly the effect of Mexico City on visitors and many will never, ever return. Yes the numbers of tourists keep rising. And in the mind of the government, well, that's all that's necessary.

[Ricardo]

Just build a decent train system that benefits Thai business and trade and the hub will follow.

horses and carts come to mind.

Fine, that's one approach, wait for these familiar worn pre-election promises to be implemented. Sooner or later, in the fullness of time, at the appropriaye juncture, after due study and consideration.

The alternative is for the Chinese to finance/build what they want, to get their exports to-market faster, and hope that the Thai government can design-in a few minor-benefits for the local people/economy along-the-way.

I'm sorry to be cynical, but feel that the latter is more likely, to happen first.

The school motto of 'Private Eye's' St-Cakes school, 'quis payet entrat' (who pays gets in !) seems somehow relevant, here.

[Thai at Heart]

Just build a decent train system that benefits Thai business and trade and the hub will follow.

horses and carts come to mind.

Fine, that's one approach, wait for these familiar worn pre-election promises to be implemented. Sooner or later, in the fullness of time, at the appropriaye juncture, after due study and consideration.

The alternative is for the Chinese to finance/build what they want, to get their exports to-market faster, and hope that the Thai government can design-in a few minor-benefits for the local people/economy along-the-way.

I'm sorry to be cynical, but feel that the latter is more likely, to happen first.

The school motto of 'Private Eye's' St-Cakes school, 'quis payet entrat' (who pays gets in !) seems somehow relevant, here.

No i question this endless hub, hub, hub nonsense. It isn't about compelling those around you to deal with you and gain a bigger share because you hold all the access. There is no guarantee that just because you plan a hub that everyone will accept your dominant position and deal through you anyway.

Hub of wellness? Why can anyone else build nice spas and retreats, what makes you believe your status is so much higher than anyone else around you. Singapore doesn't claim to be the hub of business, it just got on with providing laws and conditions that make it the most attractive place to do certain types of business in the region.

So Thailand is geographically advantageous for rail, so it appears if we say it, it will become a hub. utter piffle as we all know.

If however, they simply concentrate on building a worlds class rail service connecting Ports, cities and regions, people from outside will use it to move their goods too. Thailand has had a partial geographical Advantage over some of it's neighbors forever, but it is less and less relevant. I am sure 100 years ago to get to Laos you went overland through Thailand. Today, who cares.

If it's crap, they won't use it. Simple really.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Thai at Heart

[ddpffft]

i must say the "wellness thing" to be linked to thailand, sounds to me somewhat ridiculous...

some poster previously said, its massage and things - but - there is NO wellness expertise that the "wellness community" (out there in the western world) would attribute to thailand...

thailand isnt any famous for wellness, nor is their massage - imo even its the opposite...

thai massage is linked to sex massage, sort of...

sri lanka, parts of india, can become a wellness hub...

they have ayurvedic medicine and wellness (massage), which is famous all over the world and sort of recognized in "wellness-circles"... there is NO such thing in thailand...

Edited August 3, 2012 by ddpffft

[jerrysteve]

[OzMick]

Is there that much time-critical freight coming out of China to justify a high-speed network over an upgraded double track standard system? Or even a 3rd track dedicated freight line with express freight services?

If there is, why rail it all the way to Singapore when port sites are available in Myanmar?

Did anybody else notice that the huge costs of HSR are about the same per leg as the annual bill for the rice scam? Souldn't infrastructure be more important than buying votes with taxpayer's money?

[Ricardo]

If you can save 3-4 days, compared to sea-freight all-the-way, in getting the containers down to Singapore, then perhaps the Chinese view it as worthwhile ? Up to them, if they're the ones paying ! Shipping via Burma makes sense on-the-face-of-it.

Perhaps with global-warming it will go past Russia via the shorter Arctic-route, in the middle-future, anyway ?

Maybe the strategic-plan is more geared towards access-to-S.E.Asia, and trade-advantage in the areas neighbouring China, with trade-outlets for low-cost goods in Thailand/Malaysia/Singapore ?

But there's a big difference between a fast efficient China-to-Singapore freight-line and a high-speed passenger-network for the locals. Whether a combined-option can be crafted, who knows ?

[Thai at Heart]

If you can save 3-4 days, compared to sea-freight all-the-way, in getting the containers down to Singapore, then perhaps the Chinese view it as worthwhile ? Up to them, if they're the ones paying ! Shipping via Burma makes sense on-the-face-of-it.

Perhaps with global-warming it will go past Russia via the shorter Arctic-route, in the middle-future, anyway ?

Maybe the strategic-plan is more geared towards access-to-S.E.Asia, and trade-advantage in the areas neighbouring China, with trade-outlets for low-cost goods in Thailand/Malaysia/Singapore ?

But there's a big difference between a fast efficient China-to-Singapore freight-line and a high-speed passenger-network for the locals. Whether a combined-option can be crafted, who knows ?

In comparison with shipping from western China via huangpu, going via Myanmar may more than 10 days

[planr]

Is there that much time-critical freight coming out of China to justify a high-speed network over an upgraded double track standard system? Or even a 3rd track dedicated freight line with express freight services?

If there is, why rail it all the way to Singapore when port sites are available in Myanmar?

Did anybody else notice that the huge costs of HSR are about the same per leg as the annual bill for the rice scam? Souldn't infrastructure be more important than buying votes with taxpayer's money?

On time-critical freight, if Thailand (and Laos / Malaysia by extension) had high-quality double-tracked rail where freight was given a priority, there would be absolutely no need for high-speed freight services. With respect to Myanmar question, it's a logistics nightmare (I do have firsthand experience on this, as I'm working on several projects now). As an example of what a dedicated, coordinated freight rail system can achieve - last year freight rail services connecting Chongqing with Germany (Duisberg) opened. HP now ships the majority of its laptops (which are made in CQ) to Europe via rail, rather than sending them down to HK/SZ or over to Shanghai. This cuts the travel time in half (from about 30 days to about 15) and reduces costs.

That said, I do question why Chinese firms in general see the need to invest in a link all the way to Singapore... I guess if Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Malaysia all work together to create a seamless network, China could access about half of ASEAN's population via rail quite easily, but if you want to go to Indonesia, Myanmar, or the rest of the Asia-Pacific region... you've got to put things on a boat anyway, might as well kick it through the PRD or Shanghai.

On HSR and rice... yes, infrastructure is of course vastly more important, but since something like a third of Thailand's workforce is in agriculture, even awful economic policy like the rice pledge will win more votes than HSR or double-tracking since benefits from these infrastructure projects will largely accrue to middle-upper income citizens and large private firms (though I guess if the 3rd class trains can make it to Isaan and up to Chiang Mai in far less time, the lower-income segment of society also stands to benefit greatly).

[Nigel1500]

Bangkok has built more railways in the last 10 years than Sydney has over the last 50.

I wouldn't write off the idea. Give them a chance. Let's see what happens.

Sorry, I couldn´t hold myself.

I agree. The railways in Sydney are a joke!