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

December 30, 2014

New Law Puts Public-Private Partnerships on Solid Ground

Subscribe to Updates
Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

There was much fanfare last year about the enactment of the Private Investment in State Undertaking Act of 2013. Many commentators forecasted an era of renewed vigor for public-private partnerships (PPPs) in Thailand.

In reality, the Act made only incremental changes relative to the older Public Participation in State Undertaking Act of 1992, at least in terms of approval procedures. However, it did set out a much stronger framework for comprehensive planning and quality of public-private ventures. This was evident in sections calling for a PPP Policy Committee, a PPP Fund, and a PPP Strategic Plan, as well as regulations on the use of experts and consultants.

The PPP Policy Committee in particular has broad authority, from preparing the PPP Strategic Plan for cabinet approval to approving projects, proposing measures to support PPPs, considering approval of no-bid selection processes, and issuing a variety of regulatory notifications.

The PPP Strategic Plan will be the main driver of PPP policy, identifying sectors appropriate for PPPs, setting priorities, identifying areas where investment is urgent, and setting targets and time frames. A new plan is to be produced every five years, with evaluations in the interim.

To ensure the plan reflects public needs, the PPP Policy Committee must hold hearings to obtain input from state agencies and members of the public. Prior to each hearing, the State Enterprise Policy Office (Sepo), as the secretariat, will prepare a framework setting out the draft strategic plan, goals, target audience, and other details for the approval of the committee. This will help it to produce an effective PPP Strategic Plan for submission to the cabinet.

The PPP Fund, meanwhile, is envisaged to be used for developing the strategic plan, hiring consultants, and helping state agencies to develop PPPs consistent with the plan. The money will come from state budget appropriations as well as fees charged to bidders. A PPP Fund Committee, separate from the policy panel, set out rules for the fund’s operation and expenditure earlier this year.

The new law also sets out clearer guidelines for the use of experts and consultants. By law, a state agency pursuing a PPP must appoint a selection committee to address tendering and a supervisory committee to handle oversight. Each is required to include some experts with knowledge, expertise, and experience that would be directly beneficial to consideration or oversight of a project. With the necessary regulations having been promulgated, Sepo has already begun compiling a list of approved experts.

As for consultants, the law envisages they will have various roles. At the very least, government agencies are required to hire consultants to produce reports about particular projects they wish to pursue. In addition, consultants can help to prepare tendering documents, analyze and propose solutions to manage risks, analyze and propose solutions to implementation problems, and/or advise on contract amendments.

Given the important role of consultants, the law requires the PPP Policy Committee to promulgate regulations on their qualifications. These regulations were promulgated early this year and address both individual consultants and firms. Among the requirements, a consultant must have at least three years’ experience and consulted on at least three projects, although these requirements can be reduced in the event of necessity with prescribed approvals.

Among the prohibited characteristics, the regulations exclude those who have specified conflicts of interest, abandoned work or been bankrupt, dismissed for malpractice, or sentenced to imprisonment, except for offenses committed through negligence or petty offenses.

A government agency pursuing a project must hire a consultant to prepare a project appraisal report, which must meet the requirements set out by the PPP Policy Committee. The regulations require the appraisal report to comprise a study and analysis addressing such matters as technical benefits, operating costs, estimated gains, a comparison of costs, and cost-effectiveness of different budget alternatives; alternative models for private sector investment; impacts of the project and means of mitigating negative impacts (environmental, national security, legal compliance, and others); results of the required hearings; identification of risks and their management; and the financial status and other relevant information on the agency pursuing the project.

Once the appraisal report is done, the government agency must submit it to the responsible minister for consideration and approval and then to Sepo, after which consideration will continue in accordance with the procedure specified in law.

With a solid legal foundation laid, the success of PPPs in Thailand will depend on both project champions within the government and private-sector operators that have the flexibility to meet the requirements of their public-sector counterparts. If both of these come together, PPPs can be an excellent solution for Thailand’s infrastructure needs.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Energy

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 8, 2021
On March 24, 2021, the Prime Minister of Vietnam issued Decision No. 12/2021/QD-TTg issuing regulations on oil spill response. One of the more notable changes is the introduction of templates for oil spill response plans.
Read More
February 23, 2021
As many are already aware, following the change of government in Myanmar on February 1, 2021, a draft Cyber Security Law was proposed which attracted widespread criticism. However, less attention has been paid to significant amendments to two existing laws, some of which have a similar effect to parts of the draft Cyber Security Law. In other words, while the draft Cyber Security Law has not progressed further and is under public scrutiny, significant elements of it have found their way into law in Myanmar by other routes. Because these amendments are already law, it is very important that individuals and businesses in Myanmar understand their implications. Amendments to the Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens The Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens (2017), or the “Privacy Law,” was amended on February 13, 2021, less than two weeks after the military government came into power. These amendments chiefly address the power of the government to conduct searches, seizures, and arrests; to extend detention without judicial oversight; and to carry out broad surveillance and investigation activities that could intrude on individual privacy. The amendments accomplish this by suspending various sections of the Privacy Law for as long as the State Administration Council (the military body now governing Myanmar) is in power. The suspended sections include the following: Section 5: Search, seizure, and arrest without civilian observation The relevant part of Section 5 of the Privacy Law states, “The responsible authorities shall … when acting in accordance with existing law, not enter into a person’s residence or a room used as a residence, or a building, compound or building in a compound, for the purpose of search, seizure, or arrest, unless accompanied by minimum of two witnesses who should comprise Ward or Village Tract Administrators…”. The suspension
Read More
February 22, 2021
Following the recent imposition of sanctions on Myanmar individuals and companies by the US, the UK and Canada have now imposed new sanctions. As with the US sanctions, these new measures impact UK and Canadian citizens and companies, and non-UK and non-Canadian companies and citizens with interests in those jurisdictions. The EU has indicated that it is planning to issue similar sanctions in the near future. New UK Sanctions In addition to the 16 individuals already sanctioned by the UK government, on February 18, 2021, the UK government announced that three individuals have been sanctioned for serious human rights violations and are now subject to asset freezes and travel bans. The full list of Myanmar individuals and companies sanctioned by the UK is available on the website of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. Breaches of UK financial sanctions are criminal offences punishable in the UK by up to 7 years imprisonment and heavy fines. New Canadian Sanctions Also on February 18, timed to coincide with the UK sanctions, new Canadian sanctions were imposed on nine individuals. As with the UK, Canada already had a number of individuals in the Myanmar military on its sanctions list, and the new additions bring the total number of individuals sanctioned by Canada to 54. All assets of these individuals in Canada are now frozen, and they are banned from travelling to Canada. Canadian businesses or entities may not do business with any of the 54 individuals. Full details of the impact of the sanctions are available on the Government of Canada’s website, as is a database of the Myanmar individuals and companies subject to them. Breach of Canadian sanctions carries with it up to 5 years’ imprisonment in Canada and/or a large fine. Other Countries The EU is reportedly drawing up sanctions
Read More
February 18, 2021
As you will no doubt know, on February 1, 2021, the Myanmar military declared a state of emergency in Myanmar for a period of one year. State Counsellor Daw Aung Sang Su Kyi was detained, as were the president and various significant political and civil leaders. Min Aung Hlaing, commander-in-chief of the Tatmadaw (Myanmar armed forces) has installed himself as chairman of the State Administration Council, the current administration. New sanctions The reaction of the Biden administration has been swift. On February 10, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14014, which provides bases to impose sanctions on individuals and companies deemed by the US to, among other things: operate in the defense sector of Myanmar; be responsible for policies that undermine democratic processes in Myanmar; have taken actions to undermine democratic processes or institutions, or prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of free speech, in Myanmar; or be a spouse or child of the foregoing. On the next day, February 11, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), imposed sanctions under the new executive order on ten individuals—including General Min Aung Hlaing—and three companies, including Cancri Gems & Jewelry Co, Myanmar Imperial Jade Co, and Myanmar Ruby Enterprise.  All such individuals and companies have now been designated on the US list of specially designated nationals (SDNs). Effect of sanctions As a result of such sanctions, the property of these individuals or companies that is located in the US or is under the possession or control of US companies and citizens is frozen, and US companies and citizens are generally prohibited from dealing deal with any such property.  Reportedly, roughly USD 1 billion of funds belonging to the individuals and companies blocked on February 11 are located in the US and thus now frozen. The SDN list As many
Read More