You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

January 21, 2026

Growing Canadian Investment in Southeast Asia: An Interview with Andrew Stoutley, COO of Tilleke & Gibbins

Thai-Canadian Chamber of Commerce

Spurred by global geopolitics and Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, which aims to forge deeper ties with ASEAN, Canadian companies have been showing growing interest in Thailand and Southeast Asia in recent years. To understand the opportunities offered by the region, we sat down with Andrew Stoutley, a Toronto native and the chief operating officer of Tilleke & Gibbins, a leading Southeast Asian regional law firm with over 130 years of history in Thailand.

Q: Why are Canadian companies looking at Thailand and Southeast Asia right now?

A: Two reasons stand out. First, diversification has moved up the agenda. Many Canadian companies want options outside North America due to tariff volatility and policy uncertainty in the United States, as well as questions around the next Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement mandatory joint review. At the same time, the shift of global production from China to Southeast Asia is accelerating, driven by rising costs, geopolitics, and the need to avoid overreliance on a single market. As a result, Canadian companies are looking for a second production base or a regional hub, and Thailand and its neighbors are natural choices given their manufacturing depth, location, and established supply chains.

Second, Canada’s own efforts in the region are gaining traction. The Indo-Pacific Strategy has led to more on-the-ground support, including larger trade missions, upgraded diplomatic posts, and new financing options. Export Development Canada (EDC) now has a presence in Bangkok, giving Canadian companies a direct line to financing and insurance in Thailand. There’s also steady progress on trade frameworks like the recently signed Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (which will come into effect pending domestic procedures), ongoing negotiations of a Canada–ASEAN FTA, and the exciting announcement about the launch of negotiations of a Canada–Thailand FTA. Together, these developments have the potential to make it much easier for Canadian businesses to enter and operate in the region.

Q: What makes Thailand a good base for a regional strategy?

A: Thailand combines a strong industrial base with reliable infrastructure and a skilled workforce, with lower costs than Singapore or Hong Kong, making Bangkok a practical and affordable hub for managing operations across Southeast Asia. The Thai Board of Investment offers incentives for targeted sectors, which can make a real difference in the early years of a project. And Thailand’s comparatively stable business and legal environment—marked by predictable regulation, established licensing routes, and reliable dispute resolution—underpins regional planning and execution.

To take advantage of all that Thailand has to offer, however, planning is key. Early on, companies should check whether available incentives fit their plans, make sure they fully understand foreign ownership limits and the local regulatory environment, and build relationships on the ground. When eyeing a regional strategy, it’s also important to remember that Southeast Asia isn’t one market. A plan that fits Thailand may need to be reworked in Vietnam or Cambodia, as each country has different approvals, data rules, local director requirements, and employment norms. The right mindset is to build a regional model that can be localized, not a single template you try to force everywhere.

Q: What sectors are you seeing the most interest in from Canadian companies?

A: Advanced manufacturing and the EV ecosystem are attracting significant interest. Clean energy and energy efficiency are busy as more climate finance becomes available. Digital services and fintech are very active. We’re also seeing a lot of interest in agribusiness, healthcare and life sciences, logistics and supply chain, education, and tourism and hospitality. The common thread is that Canada’s priorities and Thailand’s policy goals are lining up, which makes it easier to build projects both sides want to see succeed.

Q: For companies entering Thailand or Southeast Asia, what should they look for in a legal partner?

A: Look for two things: an international service mindset and real local depth. If you’re a multinational, you need a firm that has worked with foreign companies and understands how your in-house team operates, what your timelines look like, and how you measure risk. At the same time, you need advisors who know how the law is applied day to day—what works with regulators, what commercial terms are consistent with market norms, and what issues are likely to arise. When those two elements come together, you gain the confidence of clear, reliable guidance that helps you navigate complex markets with minimal disruption.

Track record matters too. Tilleke & Gibbins has acted for inbound investors in Thailand for more than a century and, in recent years, across the rest of Southeast Asia. Most of our clients are multinational companies, so our approach to service is built around their expectations, backed by local judgment and relationships.

Q: As COO of Tilleke & Gibbins, how do you make sure your operations actually translate into better outcomes for clients?

A: I think about the COO role as creating the conditions for great client work. For us, that starts with making a regional firm feel seamless to a client running a project across Thailand, Vietnam, and beyond. Our team members have spent years working closely together across offices and practice areas so the quality is consistent, while still reflecting the realities on the ground in each jurisdiction. By working as one team across borders and disciplines, we’re able to support clients with the full range of services they need to succeed in Southeast Asia’s dynamic markets.

I’ve been with Tilleke & Gibbins for nearly 20 years, and what keeps me here is the culture. It’s collaborative. When a client brings us a complex mandate—say, a cross-border investment that cuts across regulatory matters, employment, data, and tax—we can quickly assemble a team that’s technically strong and commercially minded.

Innovation helps too. We use secure generative AI tools to accelerate routine work—first drafts, clause comparisons, issue spotting—so our lawyers can focus on strategy and judgment. Everything goes through human review by our lawyers, with strict confidentiality and approval guardrails. The result is faster turnaround, clearer documents, and better consistency in the work we’re delivering to clients.

Q: Any final advice for Canadian executives who are thinking about setting up in Thailand?

A: Start with a plan that can scale across the region, but don’t skip the country-by-country details. Lean on the Canadian institutions here to help, like the EDC, the Trade Commissioner Service, and CanCham’s great network. Track progress on the Canada–ASEAN and Canada–Thailand FTAs, and use these tools to design supply chains that reduce exposure to U.S. policy swings. Combine that support with good local advice, and Thailand provides a strong base for long-term growth.

 

This interview was originally published in issue 1/2026 of Voyageur, the magazine of CanCham Thailand (Thai-Canadian Chamber of Commerce).

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

September 11, 2026
Thailand’s National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) has published a new five-year master plan that will bring significant regulatory changes to the broadcasting and digital media sectors, including formal licensing requirements for internet-based audiovisual services. The Master Plan for Broadcasting and Television, 3rd Edition (B.E. 2569–2573/2026–2030) was published in the Government Gazette on September 1, 2026, and will affect OTT platforms, internet-based audiovisual service providers, and traditional broadcasters. Licensing Reform The NBTC will develop new licensing frameworks ahead of existing digital television license expirations, which are slated to occur between 2028 and 2030. This creates both uncertainty and opportunity for incumbents and new market entrants. New licensing criteria will also be developed for audiovisual services delivered over the internet, meaning previously unregulated internet-based providers may face licensing, fee, and content obligations for the first time. The plan also calls for a new law to govern converged communications services. OTT Regulation and Content Oversight The plan explicitly acknowledges and aims to lessen the regulatory asymmetry between traditional broadcasters—which are subject to licensing, fees, and content regulation—and internet-based services that currently face fewer obligations. The NBTC intends to develop regulatory frameworks to bring internet-based audiovisual services, including OTT platforms, streaming services, and user-generated content platforms, under content, consumer protection, and licensing requirements. Consumer Protection and Digital Rights The NBTC will strengthen its oversight of broadcasting, television, and telecommunications operators to ensure compliance with consumer protection and personal data protection requirements. This includes updating relevant notifications and orders and more strictly enforcing rules against practices that unfairly exploit consumers. These measures may layer NBTC-specific requirements on top of Thailand’s existing Personal Data Protection Act obligations. Stricter enforcement against practices that exploit consumers is a priority, with particular scrutiny on advertising practices. The NBTC will modernize complaint resolution processes, meaning service providers should
September 9, 2026
On August 5, 2026, the Consumer Case Division of Thailand’s Civil Court rendered a judgment in a case involving a beauty clinic that advertised acne scar treatments using claims that the clinic was operated by a specialist physician and that the treatment, allegedly involving stem cell technology, could permanently remove acne scars. The plaintiff brought a claim against both the physician-owner and the clinic company, alleging that the advertisements were false and induced her to purchase the treatment. The court found that the clinic was liable for the false representations and that the physician-owner, as both the authorized director of the company and the medical practitioner who provided treatment, was jointly responsible. Although the plaintiff could not fully prove all damages claimed, the court awarded compensation of THB 20,000, together with interest. While the judgment arose from a consumer protection dispute, it serves as a valuable reminder that medical facility advertisements in Thailand are regulated and may expose clinics and healthcare providers not only to regulatory enforcement but also to civil liability from patients who rely on misleading promotional claims. Regulatory Framework Governing Medical Facility Advertisements Medical facility advertising in Thailand is governed by the Medical Facility Act B.E. 2541 (1998), as amended by the Medical Facility Act (No. 4) B.E. 2559 (2016). The principal secondary legislation is the Department of Health Service Support (DoHSS) Notification Re: Rules, Procedures, Conditions, and Fees for an Advertisement or Publication Concerning a Medical Facility, which came into force on November 25, 2019. Under this notification, “advertising” includes any act, by any means, that causes members of the public to see, hear, or otherwise become aware of a message, sound, or image for the commercial benefit of a medical facility. This broad definition covers not only traditional media but also clinic websites, social
September 9, 2026
On June 30, 2026, Indonesia’s National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) issued BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 on Food Packaging, which expands the list of approved food-contact substances and recognizes a broader range of permissible functions for those substances. The new regulation, which revokes BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, reflects developments in packaging technology and materials science. Although the new regulation provides more advantages to business actors by adding more food contact substances to the approved list for use in food packaging, there are more stringent rules and restrictions for testing. One of the most significant changes is a comprehensive migration-testing framework that sets out requirements for packaging materials, testing conditions, food simulants, and specific migration limits. Overall and Specific Migration Under BPOM Regulation No. 20 of 2019, migration requirements were primarily set out within the lists of approved food-contact substances and packaging materials. BPOM Regulation No. 11 of 2026 instead expressly requires packaging materials that come into direct contact with food to meet both overall and specific migration limits. These are defined as follows: Overall migration: The total quantity of all substances that migrate from the packaging, regardless of whether the substances are hazardous or nonhazardous to health. Specific migration: The quantity of a particular identified substance known to be hazardous to health that migrates from the packaging. Stricter Limits on Heavy Metals The overall migration limit for plastic packaging remains unchanged under both regulations at 60 mg/kg or 10 mg/dm². However, the new regulation introduces significant changes to the regulation of heavy metals. Under the 2019 regulation, four heavy metals—lead, cadmium, chromium VI, and mercury—were subject to a single combined limit of 1 mg/kg. The 2026 regulation, however, requires each heavy metal to meet its own individual specific migration limit, adds arsenic as
September 7, 2026
On September 4, 2026, Thailand’s prime minister convened the first meeting of the Data Center Business Policy Committee. The committee endorsed a draft policy framework for the data center industry and tasked four subcommittees with developing the standards that would sit beneath it, shifting away from fragmented, agency-by-agency approvals toward a unified national strategy aiming to maximize economic value while managing environmental and infrastructure concerns. Proposed Scope and Pillars of the National Data Center Policy Framework The proposed framework would cover all types of data centers, including internal or captive facilities operated within a company or its affiliates, rather than only commercial third-party providers. If adopted in this form, companies running private data centers purely for internal purposes would also become subject to regulatory oversight. Minimum safety and operational standards would be established, with uniform enforcement across all categories. The committee endorsed a draft policy framework with four key pillars: Industrial classification: Data centers exceeding 2 MW would be classified as industrial operations, which may require factory licenses and environmental impact assessments under the Factory Act. Resource pricing: Utility rates would be structured to reflect both direct and indirect costs, supporting green energy and green data center standards. Centralized screening: A centralized review would evaluate project suitability and resource allocation. Operators may be required to submit proposals through periodic “pitching” rounds, where projects are competitively assessed on their potential economic and strategic benefits to Thailand. Digital ecosystem: The framework would prioritize data sovereignty, tax incentives, and conditions promoting domestic digital businesses, AI, and cloud infrastructure. Multidimensional Evaluation Criteria and Subcommittees Four subcommittees will be established to develop standards responsible for the following dimensions: Economic: Criteria for assessing the economic viability of data center projects, for use in prioritizing data centers based on infrastructure readiness, demand type (including AI factories),