• Thanong
  • ranking : Nation Staff
  • email : thanong@nationgroup.com
  • created : 2007-07-02
  • entry : 279
  • visitors : 201302
  • votes : 316
  • send msg :
Thanong
Thanong Khanthong
Permalink : http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/thanong
Friday , October 2 , 2009
Curbing industrial growth can work for Thailand
Posted by Thanong , Reader : 1089 , 11:52:33  
Print

October 2, 2009 


On Wednesday, the Cabinet ministers discussed a plan for industrial development in the South before deciding to take a whole new look at it - because the Eastern Seaboard has been running into legal complications.

On Tuesday, the Central Administrative Court ordered 76 industrial projects at the nation's largest industrial estate to suspend operations temporarily, pending an investigation into whether they are operating legally.

Environmental groups and local people in Rayong have filed complaints against state agencies and several ministries for failing to properly issue operating licenses at the Map Ta Phut Industrial Estate. The value of the 76 projects is estimated at Bt330 billion.


At the Cabinet meeting, Staporn Kavitanont, an adviser to Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, expressed his reservations about the proposed industrial development in the South. He was quoted as saying, "Enough is enough."


It should be noted that Staporn was the former secretary-general of the Board of Investment, and played a key role in promoting industrialisation in Thailand during the 1990s. Now he has changed his view, coming to believe that the South, which is rich in natural resources and tourism opportunities, should be left alone rather than encroached upon by heavy industries.


Abhisit concurred, in a way. The Cabinet ended up deciding that a development plan for industrialisation in the South should be put on hold, pending a complete review.


Recently, Korbsak Sabhavasu, the deputy prime minister, has said he is not sure whether it is good for Thailand to continue to attract investment from heavy industries. But he is still half-hearted in his opinion, believing that the manufacturing sector continues to be the engine of Thai economic growth - although Thailand needs to focus more on the agricultural sector during this time of global economic turmoil.


According to SCB Securities, three companies under the PTT group will be affected by the court order - PTT's gas separation plant number 6, PTT Chemical's 50ktpa HDPE expansion, and PTT Aromatics and Refining's condensate residue splitter (CRS).


"Other projects, while not on the 76-project list, might also face risk of project delay if the court order expands beyond the initial 76. Glow Energy should not be affected directly since its project on the list does not exist, since it failed to win the bid. All three companies have projects that have already received clearance from the environmental inspection [process] but not operating licenses," the research report said.


At this point, we need a serious discussion on Thailand's industrial policy. It is time that we walked away from heavy industries and embraced light industries and agriculture instead.


Bangkok is now hosting a 12-day forum on global warming, which will lay the groundwork for a further meeting in Barcelona and a final pact in Copenhagen later this year. The global agreement on measures to arrest global warming will replace the Kyoto Protocol, which will expire in 2012.


If Thailand is to contribute to the new round of global warming talks, we should seriously review all new investment plans in heavy industries and impose stringent environmental standards on the existing industries.


Secondly, the global economic turmoil will continue for the foreseeable future. Investment in export-oriented heavy industries will turn sour if the global recovery is further stalled. There might be some nascent recovery, but we could slip back into another recession at any time. The world is now suffering from over-capacity. Factories are holding on to dead stock. It would be unwise to pursue further heavy-industry investment.


Thirdly, the course of industrialisation naturally suffers a tragic end. Look at Japan Inc as a case in point. Decades of industrialisation turned Japan into the world's second largest economy. But Japan is now a sick patient, with deficit problems, unsustainable public debt and growing public nervousness about social and health care plans. No matter how much money the Japanese make, it never seems to be enough, as costs and inflation also keep on rising in tandem.


Finally, if Thailand were to turn back to supporting agriculture - at least by setting a target to double output to 20 per cent of the gross domestic product - it would be able to balance the risk from the economic turmoil. In the worst scenario, agriculture will save Thailand - not cars and machine parts, electronic products or petrochemical products.


That being said, it's time for Thailand to embrace a shift in our policy by taming industrialisation and promoting agriculture and renewable energy instead.

Read comment

comment 53
Ian date : 11/10/2009 time : 19.14
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Stal, at times I think you choose to intentionally misinterpret my comments because it suits your purposes. It is your government and those who control it whom are Xenophobic, the elite in this country are sitting pretty and do not wish to have Farangs compete with them.
They produce propaganda to support their views, you simply go along with it. This thinking permeates Thai culture, but it is by no mean universal, fortunately there are plenty of Thais who are friendly and welcoming to Farangs, unfortunately they are very few in these Nation blogs.
comment 52
stalingrad date : 11/10/2009 time : 17.04
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/stalingrad

Look Ian, I’ m not xenophobic and resent the fact that you now have the gall to suddenly accuse all Thais of having xenophobic paranoia. It’s this kind of broad generalization of attacking a nation as having this or that kind of negative national character without giving any adequate proof that irks me (or anyone belonging to that ethnic or racial group) immensely.

I don’t think there is any point in continuing this line of discussion in which one is talking calmly about a particular issue, then it rapidly degenerates into what amounts to a racial or ethnic slur. So I’m not responding to your argument about this nominee thing which could turn out to be interesting as I can agree with many of the things you say in these blogs.

Others would have responded by scathingly attacking you but where will that lead to? A downward spiral, where nobody wins. In fact, winning is not the purpose of blogs at all. So I’m saving time and moving on to other more fruitful matters.
comment 51
Alien date : 11/10/2009 time : 11.28
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/alien

Dear Mr. Thanong,

Curbing industrial growth and reverting back to an agrarian society happens to be one of my specialties. I am available at any time and have assistants to help me implement your plan. References provided upon request.

Sincerely,

Pol Pot.

PS - For legal purposes, please just call me George. People seem to think I am dead and I would like to keep it that way.

Thanks,

George
comment 50
Ian date : 11/10/2009 time : 10.56
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Stal, 49. You are displaying the Xenophobic paranoia which permeates Thai thinking. Firstly the government has failed to find any evidence of large scale buying up of farmlands. Secondly if foreigners were not forced to use Thai proxies the whole process would be transparent and controllable. Thirdly has the land gone, has Thailand shrunk, or is it still part of the nation.
I could sell you my house in England, it would be yours 100%, there are thousands of Thais living in England who own their own homes, pay taxes and contribute to their communities.
Can you give me one sensible argument why I should not be allowed to own the house I live in and have the protection of the law in that ownership. I know of fellow Farangs who have lost millions through these proxy ownerships, I myself recently lost 400,000 Baht through a case of bad judgment by my gf, this could not have happened if I could have been directly involved.
The money does not hurt, but it does mean that I am one of the many Farangs who will never invest more in this country.
I am now starting to invest in the Philippines, let the Chinese have Thailand.
comment 49
stalingrad date : 11/10/2009 time : 00.20
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/stalingrad

Thai agriculture will be the savoir (and has been) of the Thai people in this century, and indeed will help feed the other people on this planet. Thais do not appreciate enough what they are holding in their hands, and they are losing it gradually to foreigners who are buying valuable national assets and resources through nominees. Don't blame the foreigners at all, but the nominees are the real culprits. There has to be a better way to earn a living than by being an accomplice to help foreigners buy what should eventually belong to your children and grandchildren.
comment 48
Ian date : 09/10/2009 time : 22.17
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Netnapit, I would like to comment on two points you raised, both important. Firstly education, which can loosely be defined as the ability to use knowledge and skills.
My country was the first to enter the industrial age, the industrial revolution started in England. Now we are a post industrial nation, we have a small industrial base, instead we sell, education, technology, innovation, commercial and financial services. Singapore has followed a similar route it uses brains rather than industrial output. The problem globally is that we cannot have every nation progress to this stage. We need our steel, cement, aluminium, petrochemical plants, they are the backbone of everything else.
Thailand is primarily agricultural, but much is primitive, it needs to be modernised and mechanised, and to achieve this its people need to be educated. Until Thailand can achieve a globally competitive education system it will not progress.
The second point is recycling of resources. Too much is sold with built in obsolescence, we have got to globally move away from this concept. Last years model should be good for 20 years not 2 years.
comment 47
netnapit date : 09/10/2009 time : 10.13
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/netnapit

Ian, I thought I already added the women's perspective. NO WAR! For whatever reason, thank you.

Definitely not with Cambodia, what would that achieve but losses on all fronts? I think Burma is still paying for being warlike those centuries ago. Thailand was actually lucky we lost that war because it allowed us to reinvent ourselves, but it cost us our history. Our historical record were wiped clean, reconstruction hardly makes up for what could have been learned if those records were kept intact.

As for my thoughts about female leaders? My opinion would be that, it would be difficult for a female taking the role of a leader to be thinking straight as a female. Not during these times anyway, maybe in a couple more decades. Much as I cheered Obama, I would have enjoyed it just as much if Hilary Clinton became President as well.

Thinking about strategic industry, it loops back to your earlier comment. In these times, the most strategic weapon a country can have is intelligence, knowledge, EDUCATION! For example, we may not need to heavily invest in steel, but we better know how to make it and how to get our hands on it when we need it. I think armed with the internet there is much that appropriate knowledge can do for a nation.

Khun Plaadip, you're right. Khun Thanong did say "Curbing industrial growth".

Back to that point about industry and energy consumption, I was just checking the EPPO website and from a powerpoint presentation I found out that the largest consumer of energy is transportation. Industry consumes out a bit less. Furthermore, among the energy intensities of industries, the food and beverage sector comes out as the second high energy intensity after basic metal, should we then curb the growth of food industries too?
comment 46
Ian date : 08/10/2009 time : 09.18
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Netnapit, it would have been more meaningful if you could have added a woman's perspective
Would you accept a war with Cambodia if all other solutions failed?
comment 45
netnapit date : 08/10/2009 time : 02.15
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/netnapit

Thank you, Khun Stal and Ian, those were interesting points raised and countered.
comment 44
Ian date : 07/10/2009 time : 09.48
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Stal, 43. Add Joan of Arc (Jean D'Arc), Golda Meyer, Boadicea (Buddicca), and a few others. Yes militant females do exist but they are the exception rather than the norm. I could go into this in much more detail but I think it would move too far from the theme of this blog.
comment 43
stalingrad date : 06/10/2009 time : 21.14
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/stalingrad

Ian, yes, a gender based perspective. But aren't you forgetting one famous personage, my hero (ine) and your compatriot? Margaret Thatcher, who's daring Falklands miltitary operation stunned the world and lifted British prestige to new heights (at least among males). I'm not talking about her other policies but her iron will in approving the venture, whilst her opposite number Michael Foot who predicted dire outcomes had to hang his head in disgrace, being denigrated as a sissy.

As a matter of fact, the Argentine military government that invaded (liberated) the Falklands later fell, and Mrs. Thatcher was shrewdly magnaminous about the whole affair, knowing not to go too far in subverting the male ego.

She maybe a warrior in her last life, and thus this overcame her feminine instincts, but sure women leaders probably avoid war until the last minute-- but then it may be too late, if the opposite side has a male vice president.
comment 42
Plaadip date : 06/10/2009 time : 16.01

Is Thanong arguing that Thailand should kick out all the heavy indsutry from the country? Is he not talking about "curbing the growth"? I don't know. We can't underestimate him when it comes to this issue.
comment 41
Ian date : 06/10/2009 time : 10.08
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Stal, Net. I think we are seeing here the difference between male and female perspectives.
Traditionally the father proudly cheered his son going off to war, the mother wept for the son she might never see again.
This is the problem, war means deaths and dead people cannot celebrate victory. So in war there are few victors.
We came close to a Global conflict during the "Cold War" era, but it never happened because of "MAD", mutually assured destruction, both the USA and the USSR knew they would be destroyed by each other in a nuclear war. Equally neither side could afford to show weakness.
This is the male mind, safety comes from strength. If all governments were run by women we would not need armies. But until that happens we have to think like Stal not like Net
comment 40
stalingrad date : 06/10/2009 time : 08.42
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/stalingrad

K. Net: It is important that we have this debate on war and peace, because wars in whatever form are recurrent phenomena due to stupidity of people and leaders in general in times of stress; remember the cheering crowds in Europe when war was declared in 1914? And Thailand is situated in a potential war zone, for many reasons I will not say here (takes too long) and there is a historical record of fighting with neighbors, of being invaded by predators, in which the bending to the wind policy might not work in this age. Moreover, the awakened masses won’t accept it when done with countries of equal or lesser weight.

In times of peace, people talk about milk and honey, and can’t bear the thought of preparing. Yet, while good and naïve people sleep, the bad are burning the midnight oil in making “defensive” preparations which can easily be turned into an offensive. The recent goose stepping show of force in Beijing, complete with an armada of tanks and other weapons parading down the square reminds one of the thirties. It’s all been done before, and for a reason. That’s why the balance of power doctrine is so popular, that is, you can’t let a power become too strong, as they will be tempted to be aggressive, and you’ve got to somehow steer them away from accumulating military power.

All this is why we need an industry able to produce some weapons to defend ourselves, whether it be steel, intelligent alloys etc. ( I’m not particular about the type as long as it serves the function) because when the crunch comes, as Ian says, no one is going to help us gratuitously. And bending to the wind also has its costs, as our past leaders learnt.

As for my blog name, whatever you prefer. S is fine, saving you hitting the keys.
comment 39
netnapit date : 06/10/2009 time : 02.30
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/netnapit

c38, Khun Stal, I hope you don't mind my shortening your name to one syllable, I thought it might be better than Khun S., please let me know which one you prefer or if I should make an effort with the full name.:)

With regards to Thailand's defense, I think our historical leaders, the Kings and people of Thailand did a pretty good job, understanding that counterbalancing 'the powers that be' would be the best way to ensure Thailand's survival; buffer state and even two-sided approach to allowing Japan to occupy our territory while working underground with the Allies.

Suffering some indignities is preferable than all out war. Nobody really wins in a war, victory on the battlefield is just an illusion, more is always lost than won.

I find it unsettling that during this time when war really should be considered a bygone option, an 'in case of war' scenario is entertained. I think humanity's creativity would be more constructively used if put to considering 'how can we further nurture peace'?

While, I think energy industries are crucial for Thailand, I'm afraid I disagree with you with regards to the need for a steel industry. This is an industry of the old industrial world. There are so many other important materials that can be developed, such as intelligent cement/ceramics and varieties of intelligent plastics from biodegradable to light but strong types.

As for the auto industry which the Federation of Automakers would like to make Thailand the Detroit of Asia. It seems to be an evil that we will have to endure for a few more decades until automobiles are transformed to 'bio-degradable', renewable-energy-driven, light transportation. I think Thailand will need to continue to support this industry so that we are kept in the technological, innovation and scientific educational loop while we stay determined in ensuring that technology and development does not destroy the environment in which humanity is dependent on.
comment 38
stalingrad date : 06/10/2009 time : 00.15
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/stalingrad

K. Net: good point. Problem is the Swiss has huge mountains in its favour, thus turning off a would be attacker. Besides, to maintain their neutrality they had to suffer from international moral condemnation as an insensitive brat, bent on selling watches and being the willing repository of stolen millions. Now they are trying to atone themselves by making their banking regulations more moral and transparent, thus dissapointing many corrupt leaders who now have stash their ill-gotten millions with the totally hypocritical Singaporeans instead.

Anyway, if you look at say Thailand, the geo-military landscape is one of flat plateaus in the east and that's easy for lighting attacks, and so we are more vulnerable than the Swiss. The western part is a little harder to attack but also to defend as it's such a long border, and it certainly didn't deter the Burmese. Thus, countries flat plains at the borders historically have prepared militarily by necessity, unless their leaders have been lax, as the Poles were prior to 1939.

No matter how you cut it, in terms of military preparedness, given its geography, Thailand has a long way to go. To be neutral like the Swiss is not an option, really.
comment 37
netnapit date : 05/10/2009 time : 21.41
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/netnapit

Khun Stal., c34, my preferred model for survival through war would be the Swiss model. Please note that they didn't need to have a steel industry and yet can still be one of the most important countries in the world.
comment 36
stalingrad date : 05/10/2009 time : 12.11
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/stalingrad

Ian : I agree with you 100% on this one. Objectively speaking,The British are truly a great nation, looking at how they throughout their history, using mainly brains and stealth have been able to fight sucesssfully against the odds. And they are inhabiting essentially a piece of rock jutting up from the sea, without the abundant natural resources of France or Spain, and in a rather inhospitable climate at that.

So their success need to be learnt carefully by the developing countries.
comment 35
Ian date : 05/10/2009 time : 10.48
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Netnapit, Stal, A nation should never become totally dependent on others for certain basic products, this leaves the door open for future blackmail by other nations.
A good example was Britain in the early stages of WW2, we stood alone and isolated against the German might. Our merchant shipping was being decimated by Nazi submarines and we had to fend for ourselves. Fortunately we had steel works, coal mines, an efficient farming sector, shipyards and chemical plants. We were able to feed ourselves, defend ourselves and arm ourselves for eventual retaliation.
Energy, food, steel and technical ability are the essentials for any nation to survive. All of these need education to be effective.
comment 34
stalingrad date : 05/10/2009 time : 07.39
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/stalingrad

K. Thanong: good raising of the issues, and the inputs from bloggers has been really educative.

I basically agree with the ideas, but want Thailand to have a strong metal and steel industry, in the event that there is a war, and we can't rely on foreign sources.

All wise nations would not blindly follow the rule of comparative advantage, and would maintain certain war-related industries so it can produce the basic arms to defend themselves against an attacker. One cannot rely on trade all the time. And Thailand has had a history of conflict with neighbours, so preparedness is a virtue here. The same can not be said of island nations who have more a sense of security from its geopolitical position.

Not to say we need to be able to build tanks or missiles, but just the basics for running a people's war of defense.

We also need a strong petroleum and gas base, at least secure access, as in a state of exterme tension or war or clashes, these two resources will be gobbled up quickly.
comment 33
netnapit date : 04/10/2009 time : 22.45
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/netnapit

Here's what Thailand needs to build a new energy consciousness bottoms up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_generation
comment 32
netnapit date : 04/10/2009 time : 22.30
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/netnapit

Here's an interesting read:

http://www.snec.org.cn/Read_e.asp?ID=3854

(I wish, the Nation's powers that be who make decisions could make finding the blog posts we want to read easier. How about a sidebar where each individual blogger can sort of bookmark on their personal blog space, the unique blogpost that he likes, has read, heavily commented on? You don't need to fire your old staff or hire new staff, just hire a consultant!)
comment 31
netnapit date : 04/10/2009 time : 21.59
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/netnapit

c30, that was an interesting post, thank you.

c29, Ian, I agree, there is much to do for education. I see a lot of space for private sector and individuals to make their own contributions/ investments in making this go to another level. Much more can now be achieved with the internet. Those who are convinced and passionate that education needs improvement shouldn't wait for public plans and funding.

Even for the energy sector, I feel that our chance relies on small, innovative private sector initiatives. These people with the passion and conviction can then lobby the government for the policies needed.
comment 30
lonewolf date : 04/10/2009 time : 21.31

This is a follow-up to my earlier comment about the importance of developing a good higher education delivery system to move Thailand forward toward the society that Thanong envisions. In 1979 a humble economist, Theodore William Shultz, who was born, raised and educated in the rural areas of the U.S. (South Dakota) won the nobel prize for developing an economics theory based upon the concept of advancing agricultural production in developing countries by investing in human intellect.

“The whole point of the human capital theory is that public programs that do promote education and the health of individuals and the securing of a quality family life not only pay dividends to individuals, but also in the form of stronger national economic growth and vitality."

“Much of his early work in economics involved agricultural policy in the United States, and how that policy was coping with difficulties in the farm economy during the Depression” His work “evolved into the concept that productivity growth in agriculture was tied to the education of the workers. He could see that was the secret to increased outputs in workers in agricultural environments in the United States. That output didn't happen in other countries where the skills of rural farmers were extremely limited."

“Schultz thought the investment in education and people's health and well-being would translate into a society that was richer, stronger and more productive. He tried to demonstrate that in field studies that took him to foreign lands, with peasant farmers in Russia and elsewhere. For that theory on human capital, for his work in increasing agricultural production through better-educated farmers and for his years as an academic economist, Schultz received the Nobel Prize in economics from King Carl Gustaf of Sweden on Dec. 10, 1979.”
comment 29
Ian date : 04/10/2009 time : 13.40
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Netnapit, 27. As a scientist and Thai observer, I see two basic requirements for the future prosperity of this country. One is cheap energy, preferably renewable and environmentally friendly. The other is good educational standards.
I think neither is achievable in the near future, there are too many old dinosaurs who stand in the way and simply seek to maximise their personal profits.
comment 28
Thanong date : 04/10/2009 time : 12.36
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/thanong

Maasein:
The merchant class plus the civil servants, through free market policy and disguised democracy, are to blame for the poor state of the farmers. The only way for farmers to improve their living is that they have to form cooperatives and run their own show.
comment 27
netnapit date : 04/10/2009 time : 12.36
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/netnapit

I'm totally in support of the need to look at more sustainable energies and taking care of the environment. However, let's have our feet firmly planted in the ground while we are doing that.

For one, when we are looking at the percentage of Thailand's oil import to GDP, let's not overlook the fact that some of our neighboring countries have substantial oil resources and therefore are less reliant on the need to import. If we are talking about the region, which one are we talking about? SE Asia? APEC? Asia? There are hugh disparities within any of those region/s.

If we were looking at SEA, we certainly cannot compare ourselves to Indonesia who is an oil exporter. Malaysia's GDP is about 3/4 of Thailand's, but their per capita income is better. If we were to compare oil consumption (a more useful gauge than import) between these two economies, Thailand's oil consumption is double that of Malaysia but Thailand's industry is 45% of GDP while Malaysia is 35% . The next comparable economy (in terms of population size at least) is Vietnam and we really can't put Thailand and Vietnam in the same economic category just yet (give them ten more years).

If the Thai government took the bold decision today or tomorrow to commit itself to developing solar and wind energy (I will leave biofuel out of it for pretty obvious reasons), could we realistically expect to be able to rely on those energies 100% in 10 years?

How much would it cost us to put up the infrastructure and refit the economy to be compatible with alternative energy? Refit the cars, the airplanes (unless the national air fleet is to be totally grounded in 10 years to achieve that no oil import goal), refit the machines running the factories, even the light industries ones? Maybe regrid the whole country? Certainly not less than at least a few more trillion Bahts of new investment is needed. Then also let's take into consideration that at this moment we can't produce much of the technologies needed for these new energies ourselves, so we would still end up importing crucial components for a couple of years. Well, I can go on and on....

I really do want to see Thailand eventually be less reliant on oil and gas, but with clear and achievable plans. It's going to require a lot of thinking and a lot of work.

Spain, one of the most advanced countries in solar energy production is able to produce solar energy for only 25% of its energy needs. Obama's most ambitious green plan is looking at renewables being to supply only 10% of the US' energy supply by 2012.
comment 26
Thanong date : 04/10/2009 time : 12.33
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/thanong

Plaadip:
My second paragraph is not rhetoric. You don't get my point. Japan's GDP is US$4.6 trillion, compared with Thailand's US$300 billion. But the Japanese are never enough with stimulus and debt.
Wealth from industrialisation goes to building buildings and factories, which have cost to maintain. No matter how much the Japanese make, it won't be enough because the cost, such as health care and other social safety net, keeps on rising. When the economy stalls, the country can easily go bankrupt.
comment 25
massein date : 04/10/2009 time : 12.25
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/massein

Thanong, I'm sure it could be arrange for you to spend a couple of days in the field getting that experience.
But herein lies the real problem, If the west truely decided to compete with Thalland over it main product rice, it would without a doubt win
as long as Thailand continues using current methods. To convert to modern methods would place many villege ppl out of work. Have a strong industrial complex in place would be necessary. but also to modernize farming would put Thailand ahead of the production game because of the year round growing season,and gernal plentful water supplies. There again much work needs to be done in water management. God Bless Thailand
comment 24
massein date : 04/10/2009 time : 12.04
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/massein

Thanong my main point is tha a typical villeger
is doing back breaking work, in merrisable conditions, and if they are lucky will only earn a income of ß4000 per month. ( If they or lucky )
giving the chance to work in in the southern factories for 7 - 10000ß per month the choice is clear, however this is still serf wages this is a crime premited by those who rule Thailand. Farming is a honorable and honest way of earning a living. Farmers continue to be the victems of billinaries who only want to bleed them dry Shame Shame Shame on all those that want to continue to cheat and abuse the hardworking farmers
comment 23
Plaadip date : 04/10/2009 time : 11.20

Concrete, not conclete, sorry as always. And why did Thai government not take up this ambitious target? There must be some resons.
comment 22
Plaadip date : 04/10/2009 time : 11.10

C20, who'll oppose the suggestion? When you write a conclete suggestion, posters here won't call it "outrageous". I support the idea in the first paragrah. The second para is a usual Thanong's rethotic, on which posters usually concentrates their criticism. I think discussing the first para is more constructive. For example, how about the Brazil's attempt to displace the oil with bio diesel? How successful was it?
comment 21
Thanong date : 04/10/2009 time : 10.35
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/thanong

Massein:
I don't have to be a farmer to support the idea of agricultural farming. Given a chance, I would be happy to work in the field to get the experience and the knowledge.
comment 20
Thanong date : 04/10/2009 time : 10.32
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/thanong

Thailand is importing oil and energy equivalent to 8-9 per cent of GDP, one of the highest rate in the region. This amounts to 800-900 billion baht a year. How about setting a target that we will terminate oil import within 10 years? During which time we explore and develop renewable energy such as biofuels, wind and solar energy and other sources. Then we would have created new light industries without having to do the heavy industries that destroy our environment. And we would have saved Bt1 trillion a year, which then can become another engine of economic growth and sustainability.

China, India and Vietnam are going to the same path of destruction, like Japan, through heavy industrialisation. In the end, what will be left to them are bricks and buildings and factories which will be worthless and a burden to everyone.
comment 19
massein date : 04/10/2009 time : 09.56
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/massein

C18 For once i agree with you 100% In my villege I observe this everyday, The farmers
feel they have no chose. Yesterday my wife sold
her corn for 3ß a k. all the farmers are getting that price in this area, why they don't form cooruptives i do not understand. They are afraid to buck the system and go somewhere else
comment 18
expresso date : 04/10/2009 time : 01.15
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/expresso

All in all, I believe it's striking a balance like netapit said in her c12. What Thailand needs is not like some who push industrialization at the expense of agriculture. For the agricultural sector, improving efficiency and productivity and develop further on commercial farming and packaging are important. But the most important of all is to rid the corrupt processes of the middlemen and the politicians.
comment 17
massein date : 03/10/2009 time : 16.58
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/massein

Thanong, The USA is already in a position to take a lead in rice production, Thai methods of farming need revamping to be competive. In my home area farmers or already paid not to grow rice
comment 16
wch date : 03/10/2009 time : 12.35
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/wch

Agriculturization can replace industrialization ?.
What about this, Agriculture Revolution instead of Industrial Revolution ?.
What means 'Industry' ?.
as Petrochemical industry, Bangking industry and moreover Agriculture industry ?.

For agriculture revolution, there is a science sector called 'AGRONOMY'.
Agronomy is to study on seed quality, soil, irrigation, productivity per a acre, weed removal, insect control,,, modernday is to include environment effect such as methane gas release,,
Agro-mechanization is another term that revolutes plowing method in the state of scarce man-power.

4000 years ago Banchang in Udon province, the farmers sowed same rice as are modernday Thai rice farmers, not much different except chemical fertilizer or pesticide.

There is no stain of agriculturization or agronomics nor mechanization.

If Thai scare of petrochemical pollution, industrialize agriculture and make global people eat only Thai rice then Thailand will be the last winner.
comment 15
massein date : 03/10/2009 time : 10.47
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/massein

Thanong,I am curious , since you are big on farming as the way for Thailand , have you every worked in a rice field up to you knees with water, leeches, smoltering sun. Not a critizem just a ?
comment 14
lurker date : 03/10/2009 time : 08.24
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/lurker

By the way, I just took a look over at the business section.

There was an article on "cool roofs."

Thais are very creative and entrepreneurial when given the chance.

I think that is the home grown light industrial technology Thanong is talking about and I agree that this type of creativity should be nurtured.
comment 13
lurker date : 03/10/2009 time : 07.50
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/lurker

In a sense, I actually agree with Thanong, except for his nostalgic and romantic misplaced dependence on the agricultural sector.

The international trend, especially for agriculture countries, is locally grown food. Currently, Thailand has a competitive advantage in a few areas, but probably not for long. In the processed food sector, Thailand could be doing much better, but the evidence I have seen is that Thai international marketing managers aren't really doing that great of a job there. Even if they did, that won't make Thai people wealthy or raise their standard of living.

The fact remains that most of Thailand is 3rd world. If the puu yai weren't so happy to keep people poor and destitute in order to sustain a servant class, what they should do is invest in clean water, proper sanitation and sewage systems, schools, infrastructure, upgrading buildings, sustainable energy, environmental protection, which would create jobs, keep money locally, and would be an investment in the future.

There is a lot of potential in the IT sector, but Thailand refuses to invest for itself in that area.

Thanong is right that going hat in hand to the farang and Japanese and Chinese to invest in industries that destroy the environment is a losing strategy. It might create jobs and profits for local industrialists in the short-term, but down the road probably not in the best interests for the health and welfare of the people.
comment 12
netnapit date : 03/10/2009 time : 06.08
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/netnapit

Heavy industry may not be the path for Thailand, but while we still don't have a determined path about what 'light' industry we are going to promote, I think that backtracking on the country's sunken investment as has been committed to the Eastern Seaboard bodes poorly for investment confidence of any kind.

Globalization and technology has drastically changed the face of industrialization. What was once heavy industry may no longer be 'heavy industry' in the traditional sense. Certain capital intensive investments we will want to avoid, but some, such as cement, we definitely don't want to rely solely on imports.

I think the petrochemical industries grew out of an advantage we discovered we had, gas. In my opinion, the fact that Thailand doesn't have abundant oil and gas means that we can cautiously find (having had relatively good experience ) a balancing point between over reliance on imported raw material and developing potential exports.

In the end, considering our limited geographical size, there is a natural limit to how much agricultural production can grow and be the engine of the economy.

As in the case of Japan, reliance on international trade could be the only way for Thailand to grow. Don't forget, Ayudhya and Bangkok grew out of trade. If we didn't export our food, (actually, if exports of rice didn't jump start our modern economy), we would probably be the back waters of the world's economy. A moderately growing economy is what we should aim for, not booms and busts. For that we would need to have some level of industrial activity, without which crucial advantages of trade (such as logistics) would not occur. We mustn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

It's about finding a balanced choice. That balanced choice would still have to rely on exports (and imports) to a certain degree, and for that we still need a seaport. Our port structures and some other logistics are sadly in need of reinvestments. Killing the Eastern Seaboard, would be like blowing all the light out of those investments.
comment 11
expresso date : 03/10/2009 time : 02.14
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/expresso

Thanong may be saying that for each country it has to evaluate itself as to what are most appropriate for a country with respect to its resources. On Thailand, I agree with Thanong. We should explore and expand on what we have.
comment 10
expresso date : 03/10/2009 time : 02.10
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/expresso

The world is inter-dependent. As such, each country needs to develop its strong area. The Western concept of forever increasing the GDP to define a country of advancement may be wrong!

I have had asked several time before: If all countries become industrialized using our available natural resources, what are we going to eat in the future?

What is progress without food anyway?
comment 9
lonewolf date : 02/10/2009 time : 21.00

Many of the countries in the industrialized world have become more concerned (perhaps obsessed) with immediate results and returns that they have failed to continue with the long-range planning that made them successful. You have mentioned Japan as an example of impending failure, and they do have significant challenges, yet they have a resilience that gives them a potential for recovery that Thailand does not possess. This resilience can also be seen in North America, Australia, New Zealand and Western Europe (and perhaps in Singapore and South Korea as well)…that is superb systems of higher education.

If Thailand wants to/needs to revert to a more agrarian society it will need an educated populace who will enable this long-range transition with a well-thought plan, with new agricultural technologies and an understanding of the new economy. In the early 1960’s JFK announced that the US in 8 years would touch the moon…and it did. But it took a massive educational movement to train engineers and scientists and an assorted number of affiliated professions to fulfill the mission. Such a mission/transition does not happen without advancement in education. Thailand at this moment in history suffers from an inadequate higher educational delivery system. This could be and should be changed as the first goal of the new economic order.
comment 8
Ian date : 02/10/2009 time : 18.46
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Just what is heavy industry, can you do without it? Well smelting iron was once a cottage industry, but to make steel you need a Bessemer converter .... and that is very heavy industry. For aluminium you need massive amounts of electricity. Concrete, bricks, tiles, glass, steel, plastic, all are produced by medium to heavy industries. If you limit these you have to import these items, so will it become rice for steel?
I guess Thailand can always scrap a few tanks and turn them into tin cans, and the baby aircraft carrier should be good for quite a few aluminium saucepans.
comment 7
Thanong date : 02/10/2009 time : 13.51
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/thanong

It all depends on your assessment of the economic prospects ahead. If you believe that the downturn will continue over the next 10 years, you have to try to keep afloat rather than pouring in fresh investment so that your manufactured goods become dead stock.
I am a pessimist!
comment 6
Thanong date : 02/10/2009 time : 13.45
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/thanong

Plaadip:
Yes, we can't apply survival strategy for one country with another. I only give you my rough assessment of what has gone wrong with Japan. It is industrialisation that has brought Japan to this tragic end.
comment 5
Thanong date : 02/10/2009 time : 13.43
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/thanong

Anthony:
At this point, I am against heavy industries. Please read my predictions for next year in the previous blog.
comment 4
Plaadip date : 02/10/2009 time : 13.21

Thanog, I am not against the stricter environmenatl & health regulations in Thailand, I'm saying that the government should create a new guide line based on the new constitution even though they sacrifice some oppotunities for the foreign investment in consequence.

Japan Inc. may be going to bust, or has already busted. But the indsurtialization & the trade oriented economy was the only way for us to survive. I think we will pursue the same course though there would be some addjustments by the new government, because we know there will be no other choice for us. Japan is not like Thailand where people could increse its agricultural producation by extending the outer boundary of the agricultural land until not long ago. You cannot apply the same survival strategy of one country to another which has huge differences in its histrical, economical and natural conditions.
comment 3
anthonyford date : 02/10/2009 time : 13.13
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anthonyford
The Truth is Freedom

Thanong, taming industrialisation and promoting agriculture and renewable energy instead is similar to throwing cold water on a hot plate while you are trying to fry a steak.

Agriculture and manufacturing industries are going to be linked more closely in the future of Industry than we have seen ever before. With the looming un-viability of oil due to scarcity, large shifts towards reliance on resources from the agricultural sector will evolve.

To promote self reliance would it be better to supply the fuel and the technology; the agricultural resources and the value adding activity?

Your writings seem to doubt the ability of this nation to generate technology and compete with other nations in the industrial sector. The competition is tough, true. Giving up on competing in industry is what Karl Marx promoted and so far that philosophy has not proved to good in terms of improving people’s living standard.
comment 2
Thanong date : 02/10/2009 time : 12.39
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/thanong

Plaadip: My position is firm. The mistake of Japan is that it goes 100 per cent industrialisation, crossing the sufficiency line by far. To industrialise, you have to import. Without demand, you can't sell. Now you get stuck. If you import, your raw materials will become dead stock, including your processed or manufactured goods. If you don't do anything, you GDP will shrink to create further unemployment. I think Japan Inc is going bust.
comment 1
Plaadip date : 02/10/2009 time : 12.20

Thanong, you seems to have soften your position, I guess.

No action is the worst option. They should create the new guide line that the investers can work on as soon as possible. The arcilce will not be on adenda for constitutional change, so they should be aware that they will keep facing the same problem in the court as far as the clause's in there, even if they can keep ignoring the residents' demand. In consequene of the new guideline, if some investers scared away, it cannot be helped, not all of them will leave here.
Comment

  "If you are not member, please register to comment.
It take only a few steps."

  |  
name :  
email :  
website :  
comment :  
   
   

back top