Asian boss (youtube): The hidden industry that runs Thailand

[macaroni21]

This is an excellent review and analysis of mass tourism in Thailand from its early beginnings around 1960 to the latest funk in 2025. The issues discussed here are definitely not what any Thai government would want to hear, because the two booming side industries featured (property investment via nominee companies and sex tourism) can only exist and thrive through hypocritical non-enforcement of laws, which the narrator minces no words about. I especially like his mention of how the whole sex industry has become a social safety net for large swathes of the Thai population, juxtaposing it with the relatively poor record of "formal" tourism filtering down to benefit working people (as opposed to the elites).

 

[PeterRS]

I find a number of issues raised the the video somewhat concerning. I do suggest that the history of Thai tourism is definitely not linked to just one Prime Minister and his efforts at the start of the 1960s. Almost a decade earlier, as the vdo points out, much of the world had become transfixed by an interest in Thailand linked to the 1951 musical The King and I with its popular songs being regularly played in much of the world. That the Jim Thomson company had provided all the silks for the production and the Queen had been photgraphed with its star Yul Brynner certainly helped raise awareness. Perhaps all this was not in a tourism sense, but definitely it terms of curiosity value. This was then increased very considerably by the 1956 movie. Incidentally, though, Jim Thomson arrived in Thailand in 1946, not 1948.

Vacation travel to Asia in the 1950s, as the vdo rightly points out, almost in general and Thailand in particular was on the minds of very few people. How many anywhere in what we term the west even considered intercontinental tourism to Asia in those days? Very few, as evidenced by the small number of flights linking Europe/America and Asia. One of my earliest memories of the early 60s is of passing the windows of travel companies with their large posters of the new Thai airline in its exotic purple colours, so much more attractive and enticing that those of most other airlines! 

The narrator's comments about the number of Americans based in Thailand during the wars in Indo China (not just Vietnam!) can give the impression of being more than a little off the mark. He states "from 1962 and 1976, 50,000 Amercan troops were stationed in Thailand." The implication is that 50,000 were here throughout every year of this period. In 1962 there were 6,500 US servicemen based in Thailand to fight the Pathet Lao in Laos. It is generally agreed that 50,000 troops were stationed only at the height of the Vietnam conflict in 1968. Initially some selected Bangkok for R&R, but Bangkok had very few hotels in the early 1960s. Increasingly, with the US Air Force using Utapao Air Base, thanks to Thai entrepreneurs Pattaya quickly developed into a much nearer and even cheaper place to find the girls and the booze for the R&R breaks - or as some preferred to call them I&I breaks, Intoxication and Intercourse. And as rightly noted, more and more military personnel on R&R gravitated to the sin cities like Pattaya in Thailand and around Clark Air Base in The Philippines.  

But I find it really hard to believe his comment that "Basically Thailand used the war to build a tourism machine that would outlast the war itself." This may have been the result, but then no one in Thailand - or just about anywhere else, for that matter - knew that such a massive war would be the result of the initial fighting against the Pathet Lao. So the infrastructure for R&R was definitely not a deliberate policy. It was a policy that gradually emerged over a period of years. Also, no one anywhere knew when that war would end and the GIs depart. So what was being built were temporary facilities that had to start finding other "residents" once the USA started drawing down its forces from 1969. 

The narrator also fails to mention that Thailand had become a key part of the hippy trail in the 1960s, when hip young guys and gels from western countries sought a different vacation experience, mostly cheap backpackers on much longer vacations in countries like Thailand and Nepal. Naturally they spent overall far less than the short-term GIs. But, as Australian travel began to develop with family reunions between Australia/New Zealand and Europe made possible as a result of long distance flights replacing multi-week sea voyages, Bangkok along with Singapore became major stopovers on the kangaroo route. Over time, a considerable number of passengers used the stopovers literally to "stop-over" for a few days. This, I bellieve, more than anything helped with the development of, shall I say, middle class hotels.

The narrator then virtually jumps from the Vietnam War to the years just before the Asian Economic Crisis on July 2 1997. Yet Thailand had used the 1980s to develop its economy in a big way. But he is absolutely wrong in saying Thailand was the hub of South East Asia by the 1990s. Singapore and Hong Kong were vastly ahead of Thailand, as was Japan even though that decade witnessed the country's own massive recession as a result of the economic bubble of the 1980s. I am also concerned about the "investment tourism" comments. He again omits to mention that Thailand was a victim of its own crony capitalism as the 1990s progressed. Thai companies owned by Thai managements were increasingly encouraged by the government. But as so often happens in Thailand, one arms does not always know what the other is doing. With the government desperate to keep the Thai baht pegged at 25 to US$1, its economy was tanking. Property companies sprang up by the many hundreds and new banks opened. Expansion was the name of the game. A large asset bubble developed along with unthinkable and unsustainable amounts of debt. But members of the government were also major players in the private sector. Changing the status quo was unthinkable.

Inevitably the baht was overvalued. To maintain its US$ peg, local interest rates had to rise - and then keep on rising. Companies found it was far cheaper to borrow large amounts of dollars or Swiss francs where the interest payments were far lower. In the first month of 1997, the international speculators saw their opportunity. Anticipating a collapse of the baht, they sold massive amounts of the currency. To defend the peg, the Thai government spent $24 billion - virtually 70% of its entire foreign currency reserve. The defence worked, but when the speculators returned at the start of July, the cupboard was bare. Thailand had no choice but to devalue and then suffer a major recession. Thai companies suffered massive losses and many collapsed. By the end of the year the baht had lost half its value.

What he says about the sex industry readers of this forum have known for decades. In this respect the vdo could in fact have been made years ago. We all know that as a result of economic developments and the rapidly falling birth rate the number of young Thai men working in the sex industry has fallen rapidly. They have been replaced by young guys from neighbouring countries. Yet, while he goes on about Thailand's sex industry, he fails to mention that it is a small fry compared to the sex industry in a country like Japan, for example. The difference is that some other countries have far better regulation and official ways of generating sizeable income from it.

Where the vdo is 100% accurate is its description of "the emotional narrative of Thailand as unsafe has stuck." His views on overcharging and the general higher cost of living are also true. And so Thailand is losing out quite considerably to other South East Asian countries. The question: can tourism ever increase through the present soft-power government initiatives aimed at much wealthier tourists is one which definitely requires an answer. The problem is that no one really has any clue if it can. In the corporate sector, my view is that it can only do so if it changes its laws and permits greater ownership for foreign companies. It also has to offer far more than just great food, nice apartments, fashion and film. Both Singapore and Hong Kong long ago accepted that foreign companies need more to make living here for even middle-level managers from overseas more similar to working in their home markets. So they have invested heavily in theatres with top class touring Broadway musicals, orchestras, dance companies and other entertainments that employees could see in London, Zurich, New York, Sydney etc. The main Japanese and South Korean cities are similar. But I am certain successive Thai governments have never even thought of this!

[khaolakguy]

3 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Both Singapore and Hong Kong long ago accepted that foreign companies need more to make living here for even middle-level managers from overseas more similar to working in their home markets. So they have invested heavily in theatres with top class touring Broadway musicals, orchestras, dance companies and other entertainments that employees could see in London, Zurich, New York, Sydney etc. The main Japanese and South Korean cities are similar. But I am certain successive Thai governments have never even thought of this!

This seems a debatable conclusion. I would have thought that making an overseas contract more attractive for mid level managers requires the destination to be more attractive/exciting than their home market. If it is so similar why would they want to relocate? 

The idea of re-staging touring musicals, inevitably sub standard compared to the originals, seems unlikely to be attractive to expats who could see the originals. More likely to be attractive to locals who didn't have the opportunity to see the originals. I can't imagine that it would be a draw to bring an expat to a different country, although they might go and be reminded of what they are missing!

[PeterRS]

6 hours ago, khaolakguy said:

This seems a debatable conclusion. I would have thought that making an overseas contract more attractive for mid level managers requires the destination to be more attractive/exciting than their home market. If it is so similar why would they want to relocate? 

The idea of re-staging touring musicals, inevitably sub standard compared to the originals, seems unlikely to be attractive to expats who could see the originals. More likely to be attractive to locals who didn't have the opportunity to see the originals. I can't imagine that it would be a draw to bring an expat to a different country, although they might go and be reminded of what they are missing!

Debatable - agreed. But the governments in both Singapore and Hong Kong have spent billions in attracting international business corporations to base themselves in their cities because that is where the big taxation profits will eventually accrue (although Singapore has reduced taxation in the first years of relocation to the city state). Equally their Tourism Associations have spent more billions in providing some of the things expatriate managers - middle level and above - will miss if they are relocated to their Asian offices. Often managers just do not want to move, to relocate families, find schooling for their kids, and live in a part of the world they know little about.

To suggest that musicals which tour to those cities - and indeed now to cities like Taipei, Shanghai, Beijing and others - are sub-standard is simply untrue! The quality is extraordinarily high, even given the demands and the costs of touring compared to having a show sit in London or New York for years. Besides, they provide a major tourism draw. I was on a contract for the Hong Kong Tourist Authority when Phantom of the Opera first visited for a 16-week run exactly three decades ago. It was only also performing in Singapore and Seoul that year. Just one travel agent in Taipei sold 10,000 3-night Phantom packages offering three different levels of Hong Kong hotel including the 5-star Peninsula. Others in Taiwan and  especially The Philippines sold many more. The producers of most touring musicals aim to give Asian audiences an experience virtually as similar to those originally produced.

As far as squality is concerned, perhaps @khaolakguy will inform us if he saw CATS, The Lion King or the handful of other imported touring musicals which have visited Bangkok and played in the excellent 1,500 seat Rajadalai Theatre. Did he regard the quality as sub-standard or is that just an impression? Please tell us. I saw them, and the quality was not in the slightest sub-standard. Singapore has additionallly had hugely successful runs of Mamma Mia (I took friends three times to see it in Singapore on its first run of several months there), WIcked, Sweeny Todd, Miss Saigon, Les Miserables, Beauty and the Beast, The Sound of Music, Hamilton and a host of others. Indeed, as reported in the Straits Times, a Broadway aficionado, Mr Jian Yang, the managing partner at integrated communications company Distilleri, who used to travel to Broadway and London to watch his favourite musicals is among many Singaporeans who merely stay at home to see the plethora of internationally renowned musicals now performed there.

https://www.straitstimes.com/life/entertainment/curtains-up-musicals-enjoying-post-pandemic-boom-in-singapore

[khaolakguy]

I thought your point was:

17 hours ago, PeterRS said:

So they have invested heavily in theatres

 to attract expats(not tourists).

My point was that expats would probably prefer to see the original rather than touring versions of these shows, and as such they would hardly be a draw to relocate to Singapore or Hong Kong. It's not like saying moving to London/New York  gives you access to the variety of London's Theatreland or Broadway and shows with their original casts.

 

 

[PeterRS]

54 minutes ago, khaolakguy said:

I thought your point was:

 to attract expats(not tourists).

My point was that expats would probably prefer to see the original rather than touring versions of these shows, and as such they would hardly be a draw to relocate to Singapore or Hong Kong. It's not like saying moving to London/New York  gives you access to the variety of London's Theatreland or Broadway and shows with their original casts.

 

 

But you miss the point. How many expats can get in to see a London or New York musical? Theatres in which they are performed have seating capacities of somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 with most at the lower end. Plus the chance of your getting tickets for the top grossing shows is exceedingly limited and usually have to be booked months in advance. If you work outside of these cities in the UK, the chance of your seeing musicals is extremely limited unless you make an expensive trip to London and stay overnight. In the USA, the major cities usually get touring versions. The fact is that quality touring musicals in Asia attract expats, locals and tourists and can generate a lot of revenue. Thailand has seen very few because the TAT, unlike its Singapore and Hong Kong counterparts, has not even considered their value.

And you have still not answered my question. You stated clearly that touring versions are "inevitably sub-standard." That is totally untrue. I asked if you had been to CATS or The Lion King when they toured to the Rajadalai Theatre in Bangkok and were therefore giving an accurate personal assessment. Yes? No? If not, then on what basis did you make your claim?