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?

[BjornAgain]

21 hours ago, khaolakguy said:

...The idea of re-staging touring musicals, inevitably sub standard compared to the originals...

The key issue is logistics, designing the set for a West End or Broadway production is heavily determined by that venue, plus sets would be built / ensembled specifically for and at that venue. 

Put the show on tour, then your set and associated production has to be built / collapsible / transportable depending on the varying limitations on stage height (flying scenary in & out between acts as in a big production theatre, or having to compromise with static scenery as stage flexibility is limited), stage truck access, loading bay access, orchestra pit size (if any), stage size, stage angle, power availability, auditorium size and levels, audience view of the stage, ability to fly touring lights / PA or being forced to use the House system, plus whatever local 'Elf & Safety regulations you are limited by etc, etc, for whatever venues you're visiting. 

The other factor which disappoints audiences are the performers, run a big production in The West End or Broadway and you'll get the stars, as most likely they live or can live locally. Put on a touring production and most named performers won't do it, so the audience enthusiasm for the show is diminished some what.

So any touring production of an award winning West End / Broadway show will be different to the original show.

[khaolakguy]

I would say that it is generally a consensus in the entertainment industry that international touring shows do not usually match the standard of the originals for the following reasons. Limitations on Casting/Performers caused by the travel, lower profile and status of touring shows, which also limits the appeal to the best directors, choreographers etc. Set Design and Construction are limited by the need to be made flat packable for transport between venues. The variety of lay outs in different theatres is a negative against creating the staging and audio for a specific theatre and its acoustics etc. etc.

Perhaps the shows you saw at the Rajadalai were the exceptions that prove the rule but I doubt it. And no I didn't see those shows either in Bangkok or anywhere else. Not my idea of an evening out.

While I am sure that expats attended these shows the contention that the availability of touring versions of such shows will attract middle management to relocate to another country is laughable. Although you state that Singapore and Hong Kong have invested heavily in theatres and travelling shows for just such specific purpose. 

I can imagine the conversation now:

Him "Darling my company want to relocate me to Hong Kong"

Her "Do we really have to go?"

Him "It will be great, if we go we can get tickets for The Lion King"

Her "In that case let's pack our bags now!"

 

 

[PeterRS]

8 hours ago, BjornAgain said:

The key issue is logistics, designing the set for a West End or Broadway production is heavily determined by that venue, plus sets would be built / ensembled specifically for and at that venue. 

Put the show on tour, then your set and associated production has to be built / collapsible / transportable depending on the varying limitations on stage height (flying scenary in & out between acts as in a big production theatre, or having to compromise with static scenery as stage flexibility is limited), stage truck access, loading bay access, orchestra pit size (if any), stage size, stage angle, power availability, auditorium size and levels, audience view of the stage, ability to fly touring lights / PA or being forced to use the House system, plus whatever local 'Elf & Safety regulations you are limited by etc, etc, for whatever venues you're visiting . . . So any touring production of an award winning West End / Broadway show will be different to the original show.

Like @khaolakguy it seems your comments with respect are based largely on assumptions. Unlike @khaolakguy though, much of what you write could be technically true even with the errors. But then when did you last see a touring production in Asia? When Phantom of the Opera played in Asia for the first time all of 30 years ago, it required chartering 3 - yes 3 - 747 freighters to fly in the scenery, equipment (including specialist lighting and sound) and costumes. The physical production actually came out of Toronto. In each city it required 10 days technical time on stage before it could open. It then gave four months of performances. Do you seriously believe that two of the most powerful producers of the final quarter of last century, Sir Cameron Mackintosh and Lord Lloyd Webber, would permit third-rate productions of their shows in such a key part of the world? Both also opened offices in Asia in Hong Kong and Singapore.

When CATS had earlier been performed, it was the production out of Sydney but again, with the show's much smaller scenery, required just one full 747 freighter. 

Your comments about casting are also wide of the mark. But then you are clearly not aware that those playing the major roles in Phantom had all earlier appeared in the London or Broadway productions in exactly the same roles (the musical had opened in 1986 and so there had been several cast changes since then - indeed, it is rare for any top cast member to remain in any musical for more than about two years; they are then replaced, and replaced again . . . and so on). So to suggest the touring production was "different to the original show" is hardly fact.

For your information, I am responding at length mainly because in the 1990s I worked variously for the Hong Kong Tourist Association, the Singapore Tourism Board and even more crucially the Singapore Economic Development Board. "Events" were and remain a key strategy, especially in Singapore, in the overall plan to drive both attractiveness to foreign corporations to base themselves in the city - and driving tourism. @khaolakguy was clearly happy to take me on by stating an untruth on just one element of several I mentioned. I also added "and other entertainments." Two I failed to mention are, for example, sport and pop concerts. Why for close to two decades has Singapore spent tens of millions of $$s each year to run Formula 1's first night race? Apart from the fact that over three days it builds a Festival around the week-end and makes much of that cash back by drawing in crowds of over 200,000 made up of locals, local expats and tourists, for many days the promotions and then the 'live' television pictures are beamed to many (probably most now) countries around the world. These give Singapore massive international exposure as a major international city, exposure that otherwise would be financially virtually incalculable. The same is true of longer-established events like the Hong Kong Rugby Sevens - a mix of great rugby with global teams and a massive week-end Festival.

Let's also not forget. On Taylor Swift's most recent Eras tour, where did she perform in S. E. Asia? Hong Kong? Taipei? Bangkok? Kuala Lumpur? Manila? None, even though she had indeed performed in some of those cities on earlier tours. An exclusive deal was done with the SIngapore government whereby large sums were paid to her management to present all six of her concerts exclusively in Singapore. This did not happen by accident. It was all part of the much larger national strategy. As its Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said in his 1999 National Day Rally speech -  

“It is talent that counts. We can be neither a first-world economy nor a world-class home without talent. We have to supplement our talent from abroad.”

Talent in that sense naturally meant business talent which would base itself in Singapore rather than isolated one-off events. But couple the two together and it is this overall strategy that Thailand has largely avoided. I am certain the ousted leader Pita Limjaroenkul with his extensive international exposure will be perfectly well aware of this. If he can ever knock the old guard off its perch and gain power, I would be much more certain of Thailand's present half-hearted initiatives being revamped and upgraded for the benefit of all Thais.

[PeterRS]

On 11/12/2025 at 12:37 AM, khaolakguy said:

no I didn't see those shows either in Bangkok or anywhere else. Not my idea of an evening out.

So why do you comment on them - with personal views that are not accurate?

[vinapu]

are those shows hidden industry that runs Thailand as per thread tittle ?