ตั้งข้อสังเกต ‘เปิด 8 ธุรกิจต่างชาติลงทุนได้ ไม่ต้องขออนุญาต’ ไทยได้อะไร | THE STANDARD WEALTH

The recent decision to lift the lockdown in Thailand and amend the business law to allow foreign investment without requiring permits for eight specific businesses has sparked considerable debate regarding its potential benefits and risks. This move is seen as a strategic step by the Thai government, possibly influenced by ongoing negotiations with the United States concerning trade tariffs under Section 301, which targets unfair trade practices. By opening up, Thailand might aim to ease these negotiations and improve its trade relations. Dr. Nontarit Phisarabutra, a senior academic staff member at the Thailand International Development Agency (TDI), suggests that while such measures can stimulate competition, the government must also implement strong support systems for domestic businesses. He emphasizes that sustainable competition requires a balanced environment where Thai businesses can compete effectively against well-resourced foreign entities, particularly in terms of technology and financial capital. Dr. Nontarit warns against a rapid liberalization that could lead to monopolies if Thai businesses are unable to compete and disappear, leaving the market in foreign hands without genuine competition. He provides two distinct examples: the telecommunications sector and the financial sector. For telecommunications, with only two major players, opening up to foreign competition could foster better long-term competitiveness. However, for the financial sector, which demands high investment and faces global financial groups, Dr. Nontarit recommends reserving rights to prevent Thai businesses from being overwhelmed. He stresses the importance of preventing monopolies and ensuring that competition is sustainable, not just a short-term influx that ultimately eliminates local players. Legal experts, as discussed with The Standard, point out various aspects of this deregulation. While some view it as a positive step, such as allowing foreign companies to guarantee debts of subsidiaries, there are concerns about the broadness of the liberalization, especially for service-type businesses. The lack of specific conditions attached to these services is particularly worrying, as services differ from manufacturing industries and may require different protective measures for nascent Thai businesses. A particular focus is on the telecommunications business, historically dominated by large corporations and previously heavily protected. The sudden, unconditional unlocking without prior discussion raises questions about external pressures, potentially from the United States or the European Union, which might be looking to support the expansion of businesses like data centers. In contrast, Dr. Pojnaram Watthanan, Chairman of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, supports the Cabinet's decision, aligning it with international free trade frameworks. He believes it will aid in negotiating Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and will not negatively impact domestic businesses. Dr. Poj argues that this move will help reduce monopolies and stimulate genuine competition, noting that foreign investors have long sought such openness. Mr. Pichet Sitthiporn, President of the Association of Thai Securities Companies, also commented, stating that the securities business in Thailand is already quite open to foreign investment, with foreigners able to own 100% of brokerages. He views the current changes as a relaxation of conditions and a streamlining of processes, rather than a complete overhaul, especially since permits are still required, albeit standard licenses. Professor Sarinee Achawanantakul, an independent scholar in sustainable business and finance, initially found the news confusing but later clarified that the amendments target the Foreign Business Act of 1999. She generally views this as a positive development, as it eliminates redundancy. Many of the eight exempted businesses already have clear regulatory bodies—such as the NBTC for telecommunications, the Bank of Thailand for money management, and the SEC for securities and stock markets. The professor believes that removing the need for an additional permit under the Foreign Business Act simplifies the process for foreigners who already seek permission from these specialized agencies. However, Professor Sarinee highlights a specific concern regarding business category number 8, which pertains to service businesses like traders, consultants, or fund managers of futures contracts. The wording exempts products or reference variables not covered under the Futures Trading Signals Act of 2003, which she finds ambiguous. This raises questions about which authority would then regulate these specific activities if they fall outside the SEC's purview. Regarding the risks, Professor Sarinee states that the success of this liberalization hinges on the effectiveness of governance and the relevant regulatory agencies. If there is a lack of trust in these agencies to effectively direct and supervise businesses, then concerns about unchecked foreign influence and potential exploitation are valid. The Foreign Business Act served as a "second lock," providing a record of foreign applicants and a mechanism to detect nominee arrangements. The question now is whether this second lock is truly unnecessary given the complexities it adds to market entry. From a national interest perspective, Professor Sarinee believes that removing redundant permit requirements will enhance Thailand's competitiveness and improve its ranking in the Ease of Doing Business index. This could also positively impact Thailand's application for OECD membership, as ease of doing business is a major factor for the organization. The professor urges society to closely monitor the eight exempted businesses and the performance of their regulatory bodies. She emphasizes that these agencies must ensure effective supervision for all, including Thai businesses, to maintain a controlled and effective state. Areas of particular concern include payment processing, debt guarantees, and money management centers, which might be unfamiliar to the general public. The issue of nominee usage and money laundering remains a concern across all businesses. Professor Sarinee notes that the Ministry of Commerce has been making efforts to upgrade detection levels, utilizing AI and technology to identify illegal activities linked to nominees. Ultimately, while the unlocking of these sectors may intensify competition, particularly in areas like telecommunications or financial services where monopolies might have existed, the true impact will depend on the confidence in the governance of regulatory agencies. For example, even if foreign mobile phone manufacturers are allowed to operate independently, the NBTC remains the regulatory body, suggesting that sudden, uncontrolled changes are unlikely. In conclusion, the lifting of the lockdown and the amendment of the Foreign Business Act are generally viewed as positive steps to reduce redundancy and improve Thailand's investment climate and international standing. However, careful monitoring of the regulatory agencies' effectiveness and the specific conditions of each exempted business, particularly concerning potential monopolies and nominee arrangements, is crucial to ensure sustainable economic growth and protect national interests.