What will it take for Thailand to become an international hub?

[SovietChild]

Our society as one is becoming more international then ever before. International hot spots like Dubai for example is pretty much growing like a flower. Thailand has what it takes to become an international hub. Right? It has good weather, beaches and it has people who are ready for change because of how many coups their has been.

 

So, what would you suggest for Thailand to do in order to become more international?

 

If Thailand does opens up more to internationals like having them buy the land at 100% instead of 49% then the chances are the entire nation will be bought by outsiders. It can be a good thing because of how rich Thailand can become. Better roads, better rail roads and better looking cities.

 

Our society eventually will be international and some countries already taking a step forward to become international. Thailand might as well play this card, because whatever one does he becomes better at it. The chances are Thailand people will be more educated if it opens up to international market. Right? Yes they will lose their Thai identity, but is it worth it? Is it worth of keeping their Thai identity and keeping things local instead of international? I failed business class in college, but one of the things I learned was that businesses who have different mix of people (international) solve problems faster. 

Edited March 26, 2017 by SovietChild

[FritsSikkink]

Don't know which part you have been but it has been international for quite a while already.

[steven100]

more bars and massage shops ......

[CharlieH]

Applying the rules of Chess in a society that plays Checkers aint going to work.

You need to learn Checkers better not try to teach them Chess.

[worgeordie]

Just needs the powers that be to say," Thailand is an International Hub,"

and it is, ...in there eyes, like so many hubs here,

regards worgeordie

[daveAustin]

Thailand can become anything it wants to as long as no outsider can own anything and the 'right' people continue to get back-handed. With that, no it cannot truly become an international hub. They're not at that stage and, to be fair, I don't really want it to change too mutt.

[Kwasaki]

8 hours ago, SovietChild said:

So, what would you suggest for Thailand to do in order to become more international?

The main Bkk airport is international,  don't understand what your on about. 

[tso310]

and there was I thinking Pattaya was the world number 1 hub for intoxication and intercourse beating such competitors as Magaluf , Agde and Skegness.

[kannot]

9 hours ago, tso310 said:

and there was I thinking Pattaya was the world number 1 hub for intoxication and intercourse beating such competitors as Magaluf , Agde and Skegness.

People only go there for the nature.........ask any Pattaya chief of police

[canuckamuck]

As a proxy Chinese colony, Thailand has no interest in allowing other nations to become embedded. They were here first and have manged to secure most of the political power and a controlling interest in the economy. Making things easier for westerners is very low on the to do list.

[KIWIBATCH]

I thought it was already a "hub"....education.....medical....sex...aviation...every week some politician or supposedly important person announces Thailand as being the "hub" of some thing or another.....

[williamgeorgeallen]

ready for change because they have had so many coups. did i read that right?

[Xobtsiwt]

Where have you been these past twenty years? Thailand has been the Hub of Hubs for many years now. Every year they add more hubs - this year, for example, they have added several hubs already, and it is still only March. 

I fully expect 2017 to be a vintage year for Thai hubs.

[chicowoodduck]

Just needs a Happy Zone in Pattaya...lol...??

[Suradit69]

2 hours ago, KIWIBATCH said:

I thought it was already a "hub"....education.....medical....sex...aviation...every week some politician or supposedly important person announces Thailand as being the "hub" of some thing or another.....

Not to mention a hub for farang who came here because they don't want to stay in their own countries, but who endlessly complain that Thailand isn't more like the countries from which they fled.

[lordblackader]

I'm going to presume you mean economically and the first thing they could do would be to encourage foreign business beyond the high-end ones they only wish to attract now. Dropping the 4 Thais per farang rule + not allowing a farang to own the majority of a local business would be a start, it's why countries such as Hong Kong and Singapore attract far more businesses particularly in tech, from startups through to more advanced firms. 

 

Before anyone goes "oh but there's the BOI option" that doesn't work for tech startups without huge amounts of capital, end of story. 

[lvr181]

On 3/26/2017 at 1:54 PM, worgeordie said:

Just needs the powers that be to say," Thailand is an International Hub,"

and it is, ...in there eyes, like so many hubs here,

regards worgeordie

Pattaya is international hub?   Hubahubahuba....................... 

 

My apologies if English is not your first language.

[lvr181]

Instead of restriction to 49% for foreign owning land, why not give 99 year leases for 100% of foreigner using land?

 

The reality is that if a foreigner was to own, by any %, the land , he/she can never remove it from Thailand! Therefore what's the problem?

 

Any country just has to "nationalise" the asset, if foreign ownership is a burden or detrimental to the country.

[lvr181]

XXX

Edited March 27, 2017 by lvr181
Slow internet. Double posting removed.

[Shaunduhpostman]

Anything Thailand or any country does to maintain its sovreignty is a good thing, futile as it may be. It might seem that the internationalisation of the world would be a good thing. Perhaps it sounds nice on the face of it,  that things such as living wherever, going wherever you want would be easier, etc.But you only need look at globalising forces such as international trade agreements for example  the TPP (Trans-Pacific Parnership) to see that such kinds of "trade" agreements -they are not actually trade agreements-  have written into them rules that state global corporations may sue nation states in their own tribunal courts for anything that corporations and other business entities deem damages or threatens their profits. It is already happening more and more that corporations directly attack nation states , for example cigarette giant Phillip Morris who sued the country of Uruguay $25 million dollars for warnings about smoking on its cigarette packages. They then used this and a failed case with Australia to threaten the tiny and poor country of Togo with billions of dollars in court fees. Togo backed down from health warnings on cigarette packaging. This kind of freedom for corporations to do what ever they want to make profits at our expense is what is behind the movement towards greater globalisation the sinister reality of direct governance by financial institutions and corporations. It has been long in the making, since the beginning of the last century at least.   Nation states are in the way of these entities and have been for a long time. National systems are not proving to be much hope but at least they secure that there are some things in place, albeit heavily comprimsed,  whereby people could elect or otherwise force government to work in their interests. The way I see it, they have, as long as I have been alive, trying to sell us on this idea of a borderless world. The problem with that world is that there would no longer be anything between you and corporations. Essentially, you would have no possiblity of laws to protect you from anything that banks, corporations etc want that would enhance their profits. Just  being being born you would be beholden to them, essentially  the opposite of how they have tried to portray a global borderless world as one free from fighting between countries, one that would have equal rights for all, equal opportunities for all, freedom of movement ad travel etc. This borderless internationalisation of the planet in fact means our enslavement to Phillip Morris, Exxon, General Electric, Microsoft, the IMF, Dow Chemical, Monsanto etc. Of course all nations are heavily corrupted by these entities at present and thus mostly work for them, for example  in the United States these entities have recently been given the same rights as people, but at least in some countries there are courts that will uphold the rights of people to say defend themselves from the possibility of say Phillip Morris being allowed to sell cigarettes in the schools or food corporations that would  say that nutritional information on packaging damages their profits or that oil companies find it expensive to remove highly carcinogenic toxic effluents and by-products from  being dumped into their rivers and waters or that would uphold cases where workers were being cheated of their pensions or pay etc etc ad nauseum.

[Lamkyong]

33 minutes ago, Shaunduhpostman said:

Anything Thailand or any country does to maintain its sovreignty is a good thing, futile as it may be. It might seem that the internationalisation of the world would be a good thing. Perhaps it sounds nice on the face of it,  that things such as living wherever, going wherever you want would be easier, etc.But you only need look at globalising forces such as international trade agreements for example  the TPP (Trans-Pacific Parnership) to see that such kinds of "trade" agreements -they are not actually trade agreements-  have written into them rules that state global corporations may sue nation states in their own tribunal courts for anything that corporations and other business entities deem damages or threatens their profits. It is already happening more and more that corporations directly attack nation states , for example cigarette giant Phillip Morris who sued the country of Uruguay $25 million dollars for warnings about smoking on its cigarette packages. They then used this and a failed case with Australia to threaten the tiny and poor country of Togo with billions of dollars in court fees. Togo backed down from health warnings on cigarette packaging. This kind of freedom for corporations to do what ever they want to make profits at our expense is what is behind the movement towards greater globalisation the sinister reality of direct governance by financial institutions and corporations. It has been long in the making, since the beginning of the last century at least.   Nation states are in the way of these entities and have been for a long time. National systems are not proving to be much hope but at least they secure that there are some things in place, albeit heavily comprimsed,  whereby people could elect or otherwise force government to work in their interests. The way I see it, they have, as long as I have been alive, trying to sell us on this idea of a borderless world. The problem with that world is that there would no longer be anything between you and corporations. Essentially, you would have no possiblity of laws to protect you from anything that banks, corporations etc want that would enhance their profits. Just  being being born you would be beholden to them, essentially  the opposite of how they have tried to portray a global borderless world as one free from fighting between countries, one that would have equal rights for all, equal opportunities for all, freedom of movement ad travel etc. This borderless internationalisation of the planet in fact means our enslavement to Phillip Morris, Exxon, General Electric, Microsoft, the IMF, Dow Chemical, Monsanto etc. Of course all nations are heavily corrupted by these entities at present and thus mostly work for them, for example  in the United States these entities have recently been given the same rights as people, but at least in some countries there are courts that will uphold the rights of people to say defend themselves from the possibility of say Phillip Morris being allowed to sell cigarettes in the schools or food corporations that would  say that nutritional information on packaging damages their profits or that oil companies find it expensive to remove highly carcinogenic toxic effluents and by-products from  being dumped into their rivers and waters or that would uphold cases where workers were being cheated of their pensions or pay etc etc ad nauseum.

nice cut and paste  Phew

[tso310]

Cutting it up into paragraphs would help readability immensely.

[kannot]

On 3/26/2017 at 4:24 PM, Kwasaki said:

The main Bkk airport is international,  don't understand what your on about. 

about 30 years ago I remember landing  in "Male International Airport" (Maldives) it was a shed in a field with a corrugated iron hole in the ground toilet.

[lvr181]

"What will it take for Thailand to become an international hub?" Another 600 years I would expect!

 

Just because Singapore made it in 50 years there is no reason to expect that Thai governments would learn from them (because Thai authorities do not want or cannot learn from others). 

[sandemara]

Hubs are associated with axles. Everyone knows it takes a lot of grease to pack an axle. Lots and lots of grease on a regular basis.

Most major criminal, civil and social organisations throghout Thailand have understood the need for grease in  Thailand is vital to its continued enrichment.   Tote dat barge, pack dat grease!