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

August 10, 2015

Opinion: Quit Moaning and Fix Thailand’s Problems

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Below is an excerpt from a talk recently given by David Lyman, Chairman & Chief Values Officer at Tilleke & Gibbins, at an event organized by the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand. This excerpt was republished by the Bangkok Post newspaper on August 10, 2015. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Tilleke & Gibbins.

Historically, the U.S. is not thrilled by military coups, particularly those which it does not orchestrate. They are anathema to the U.S. foreign policy dictum of “love only democracies.” Why such coups occur is of minor importance. 

As to the May 22, 2014, Thailand coup, my personal, and probably controversial, view as a long-term American resident in “Amazing Thailand” is that the Thai military did the right thing. Short of an outbreak of civil war, then brewing, there was economic standstill and a dearth of other viable options to untangle the Gordian knot of the Thai political turmoil.

Let’s not further rehash the negatives of the U.S. lambasts directed at Thailand and the Thai reaction of resentment at being lectured by the U.S., coupled with the Thai “loss of face” precipitating the so-called usual Thai denial of responsibility and their blame-someone-else responses/reactions; while the authorities appoint another committee to investigate. Instead, I would like to bring to the forefront the positive ongoing achievements and contributions by both the Thai and the Americans to promote/repair/cement the long standing relationship between the U.S. and Thailand. Given the evidence I am aware of, it is flourishing. That age-old world alliance and partnership does not falter nor fall apart just because of periodic publically announced criticism. In terms of the passage of time, what is happening now is just a hiccup. H.E. the Thai Prime Minister knows this and has reacted accordingly. In this respect he has been level-headed and stabilizing.

While I disagree with a number of the actions of both Thailand and the U.S. emanating from the coup of May 2014 and its aftermath (by the way, that was the 13th coup I have experienced during my sojourn here), and accepting that the Thai economy is lacking, I am supporting the continuing efforts by both sides to build the ideal Thailand world we all hope will arrive.

My advice to all is: Don’t be derailed by the occasional outbursts of critical rhetoric, even if they are not the wisest form of discreet diplomacy. Neither country in this arena is perfect or without their own share of missteps, faults, and failures. Both parties in any relationship have to do what has to be done to achieve legitimate objectives, to revitalize and to reinforce that relationship. They have to get on with it. And, despite opinions to the contrary, that is what is happening between Thailand and America today.

Give Thailand the time and the slack it needs to change for the better, as is the stated policy of this government, to undo the many decades of accumulated abuses, defects, corruption, money politics, and neglect by an endless line of previously democratically elected governments, politicians, civil servants, the business community, the military, and the police.

Get real—substantive instant solutions do not exist. The right end result goal cannot be achieved overnight, or even in a few months or perhaps years. Perfection requires patience to get it right. “Thai-style” democracy, or the perceived abatement thereof, appears to be at the heart of this discourse. Yes, there have been and will be mistakes, back sliding, misdirections, oversights, excesses, and failures along the path of learning the most effective ways to prevail and reach the target, consistent with local and international expectations.

Bear in mind what history has taught us: “… that governments too often do not act or pursue policies which are in their own best interests,” attributed to the American historian Barbara W. Tuchman in her book, The March of Folly.

Since first proposed by President Woodrow Wilson back during World War I, 100 years ago, the U.S. has espoused the foreign policy of “Saving the World for Democracy.” This fundamental policy took hold in the 1930s and guided the U.S. through stopping the spread of Nazism and fascism in the West and Japan’s militancy in the East before and during WWII. The Truman Doctrine of 1946, the Marshall Plan, and Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” counterpolicies set the course of the Cold War for five decades, inclusive of the Korean and Vietnam conflicts—in its simplest synopsis of being democracy/capitalism vs communism. Those were wars of ideology for the hearts and minds of people and nations, as well as wars of economics. Today, a new war of crimes against humanity has emerged and grown against the spread of fundamentalist Islam’s onerous attempts to impose their ideology on others.

As said earlier, in its endeavors to spread democracy around the world, the U.S. has not always been right in all that it says or does, far from it. Hypocrisy and duplicity and just plain ignorance have not been lacking in the U.S. or its government leaders. But let’s not get bogged down on analyzing historical misadventures.

For the past 83 years Thailand has struggled valiantly to find the best form and type of democracy that will suit the needs and aspirations of this country and its people. They are still working at it. The classic democracy form of government, as defined by the ancient Greeks and Romans, i.e. rule by an unfettered majority, did not and does not work. I can elaborate more on that in the Q&A if you would like.

What has worked, to one degree or another, is “Constitutional Democracy.” This is where a constitution reigns as the supreme law of the land and the rights of the minority are protected. The classic example is the U.S.—which is actually a republic, not a democracy.

Some of the key elements of a constitutional democracy are: a comprehensive constitution, an open legal framework, stable political systems, adherence to the rule of law, freedom of expression, limits on the powers of what governments and their leaders can and cannot do, checks and balances on the actions of the basic branches of government—the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary—to prevent abuses by any of them and the people who run them, an informed and responsible electorate—both those in power and those in the opposition—to keep each other honest, and elections by the whole population of responsible and accountable representatives. Former Thai Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun defined it in his 7 Pillars of Sustainable Democracy:  “elections, political tolerance, the rule of law, freedom of expression, accountability and transparency, decentralization, and civil society.” Political activism is a necessary component as well.

The 18 previous Thai constitutions have failed to achieve their desired results. Hence the concerted efforts of current minds to formulate that elusive perfect solution to be embodied in the upcoming next constitution. As to why they have not worked in the past, basically the then-existing Thai constitutional system of checks and balances failed, repeatedly, as the popularly elected majority in power abused and misused their powers for personal gain.

There are two rival theories of constitutional democracy—one founded in England (by John Locke), with which we are familiar, and the other founded in France (by Jean Jacques Rousseau), the country where in the 1920s and 1930s Thailand’s Plaek Phibunsongkhram and Pridi Banomyong were schooled. These men were the leaders of Thailand’s revolution in 1932 which transformed the then-existing absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy. The two approaches, the British and the French, to constitutional government conflict in their definitions of governing. The then Thai leaders adopted the French style of constitutional democracy.

Let’s get back to my main strategy—supporting activities to strengthen the Thai–U.S. relationship. Most, if not all, of the civilians in the current Thai cabinet are U.S.-educated. As are some of the military ministers. They understand where America is coming from, and support the principles which built that nation. They understand the cultural differences yet maintain their Thainess and Thai values.

The U.S. Mission in Thailand is perhaps the second-largest in the world. There are over 70 U.S. government agencies represented here, many with regional as well as Thai responsibilities. As I recall, there are probably about 4,000 U.S. and Thai staff based here, including their families. Many of these agencies and people work quietly behind the scenes to help Thailand achieve its greatness in this world of nations. For instance, extensive and broad training and cooperation of the Thai police and justice officials on catching bad guys is ongoing and all encompassing. American government health and agencies, like AFRAMS and the CDC, work with Thai researchers and medical personnel—as in helping Thailand to develop a vaccine to prevent malaria and dengue fevers and deal with other tropical medicine needs.

A number of these agencies are working to help Thailand with its environmental challenges, such as working to stop the poaching of wildlife, the destruction of forest reserves, and stopping the criminal trafficking of wild flora and fauna. Next to smuggling of drugs, guns and people, such illicit activity is the next largest money generator on this planet for organized crime.

Just recently Thailand opened up U-tapao air base and Sattahip military port for the U.S. and Thailand to provide humanitarian relief and assistance to the earthquake victims in Nepal, helping to save countless lives.

The Peace Corps continues to receive support from both countries. As does the work of the Asia Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Kenan Institute, among others.

The Thai-US Creative Partnership promoting innovative ideas and creative technology research and practices across a wide range of disciplines is flourishing.

Thousands of Thai students are helped here with their educational needs and advice on educational opportunities in American educational institutions. The Fulbright and American Field Service Scholarship programs continue.

America returns to Thailand hundreds of Thai antiques in need of their homeland. Cultural exchanges continue unabated. The U.S. provides financial support for the restoration of Thai religious and ethnic heritage sites. It just supported the Thai teams for the 2015 Special Olympics.

And yes, despite the speculations to the contrary, multilateral security cooperation and Cobra Gold is still up and running.

American private sector businesses have long represented a substantial portion of the foreign investment in Thailand. And more are coming to and being welcomed here. Concurrently, Thai businesses are now investing in the U.S. No relationship tensions here that I am aware of.

On the Thai side, consistent with its reform program, over the past year the government has shepherd through a raft of needed legislation addressing many issues of national significance. To date, about 110 new laws and amendments to existing laws have been adopted since June of last year—83 published in the Government Gazette  and 27 awaiting publication. They deal with the economy, agriculture, human trafficking and exploitation, corruption, energy and the environment, communications, budgeting and taxation, education, domestic and wildlife animals welfare, fishing, migrants, immigration, transportation, water management, regional cooperation (AEC and Asean, for example), plus addressing other problems plaguing Thai society. The next and very crucial step, of course, is to monitor the implementation and enforcement of these and preexisting laws.

Many more laws in the pipeline are in various stages of development. Some have risen to the top because of both local civil society and international pressures—there is an old saying which holds true for many communities, that “It’s the squeaky wheel which gets the grease.” And Thais do hear and respond to threats to their international image and reputation. The U.S. does not react to such threats.

I am running out of time so I will wrap up my remarks. Having lived in Thailand professionally for the past 48 years, plus a few more starting in 1949, some 66 years ago when my parents moved to what my father called “Old Siam,” I have witnessed numerous ups and downs in the U.S.–Thai love affair. Yes, over the years there have been squabbles, bruised egos and some caustic differences, but the fundamental underlying mutual respect and trust between these two nations has never waned or been seriously threatened or been placed in jeopardy of no return.

Look at the fundamentals. While they differ on some of the details, both countries want what they perceive is best for Thailand and its people.

The U.S., by its unappreciated and overbearing condemnations, is not acting out of spite or with malice. Some of its actions are dictated by U.S. domestic law. American foreign policy is obsessed with the concept of elections, though, in my view, not so much with what happens after the elections. The U.S. longstanding guiding principle is that “what’s good for America is good for Thailand—and good for the rest of the world, too.” A little arrogant and naive, probably, to some extent impractical, and while perhaps not sensitive enough to non-American cultural values and differences, the hearts of the vocal American officials, like those of well-meaning Thai officials counterparts, are in the right place.

Let’s calm frayed nerves, assuage quick tempers, ask the players to keep their mouths tightly zipped shut, and get on with the stated objective of supporting Thailand in its quest for the sorely needed reforms to its systems, its infrastructure, its political societies, and in overcoming the barriers to attaining those goals, through a Thai-originated solution. That will be a win-win scenario.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
Carbon markets have moved to the forefront of corporate and regulatory agendas as global attention to climate change and sustainability intensifies. Worldwide, many jurisdictions—including Thailand—are finding carbon markets to be promising tools in their efforts to combat climate-warming emissions and accelerate their net-zero pathways and sustainability commitments. According to the Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization’s (TGO) 2025 Voluntary Carbon Market Survey, approximately 3.29 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent (tCO₂eq) were traded under Thailand’s domestic standard between 2020 and 2024 with a cumulative market value of approximately THB 314.5 million (approximately USD 9.43 million), and 524 projects had been registered under the Thailand Voluntary Emission Reduction Program (T-VER) framework. Carbon Credits in Thailand Thailand’s carbon credit regime is, at present, entirely voluntary. There is not yet any obligation for businesses to purchase or retire carbon credits, although this may change once the draft Climate Change Act is enacted. The draft Climate Change Act, which is currently undergoing legal review before submission to Parliament, is expected to introduce a mandatory emissions trading system (ETS), under which  legal entities in designated sectors will be allocated emissions allowances and will be required to surrender sufficient allowances to cover their verified emissions, with penalties for shortfalls. Rather than imposing a blanket obligation on all businesses to purchase or retire carbon credits, the draft act is expected to allow ETS-covered entities to use eligible carbon credits (for example, those certified under T-VER) to meet only a limited, capped portion of their compliance obligation, with the applicable cap and eligibility criteria to be set out in subordinate regulations and the relevant allocation plan. The principal domestic framework for carbon credits is the T-VER, administered by the TGO. While some project developers in Thailand also operate under international standards such as Verified Carbon Standard or the Gold
August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
August 4, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Vietnam chapter to Fintech 2027, a global guide published by Lexology Panoramic that provides comparative insights into the legal and regulatory frameworks governing fintech businesses across multiple jurisdictions. The Vietnam chapter offers a comprehensive overview of the country’s rapidly evolving fintech landscape, examining both the regulatory environment and practical considerations for businesses operating in or entering the Vietnamese market. Topics covered include: Fintech landscape and initiatives: General innovation climate; government and regulatory support Financial regulation: Regulatory bodies; regulated activities; consumer lending; secondary market loan trading; collective investment schemes; alternative investment funds; peer-to-peer and marketplace lending; crowdfunding; invoice trading; payment services; open banking; robo-advice; insurance products; credit references Cross-border regulation: Passporting; requirement for a local presence Sales and marketing: Restrictions on the promotion and marketing of financial products and services Cryptoassets and tokens: Distributed ledger technology; cryptoassets; token issuance Artificial intelligence: Regulatory framework governing AI systems and AI-enabled financial services Change of control: Notification and consent requirements for regulated businesses Financial crime: Anti-bribery and anti-money laundering procedures; regulatory guidance Data protection and cybersecurity: Data protection obligations; cybersecurity requirements applicable to fintech businesses Outsourcing and cloud computing: Outsourcing of material functions; use of cloud computing in the financial services industry Intellectual property rights: IP protection for software; employee- and contractor-created IP; joint ownership; trade secrets; branding; remedies for infringement Competition: Competition law issues affecting fintech businesses Tax: Incentives for innovation and investment; developments affecting tax and compliance obligations Immigration: Immigration options for recruiting skilled foreign personnel; special measures available through Vietnam’s international financial centers The chapter also examines a number of significant recent developments shaping Vietnam’s fintech sector, including the introduction of the country’s first comprehensive regulatory framework for cryptoassets, the adoption of a dedicated law on artificial intelligence, implementation of the banking regulatory sandbox,
August 4, 2026
Intellectual property (IP) protection sometimes hinges on fame and recognition. However, this alone will not always be sufficient to overcome an IP dispute when it involves contractual obligations or registered rights. Below are five cases from around the world that tackle some of the basic issues in IP registration, ownership, commercialization, and enforcement. 1. USA: Taylor Swift Trademark Application Refused Taylor Swift recently filed a trademark application to register “The Life of a Showgirl,” which is the title of her 12th studio album. When examining a trademark application, the examiner considers various factors before deciding whether it should be registered. One of these factors is whether there is a likelihood of confusion (i.e., would a regular consumer mistake the origin of the trademark). In Taylor Swift’s case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) decided that that there would be a risk of confusion. This decision was based on the existing registered trademark, “Confessions of a Showgirl,” owned by Maren Wade, which was registered in 2015. The USPTO refused Taylor Swift’s application based on the shared key distinctive element “of a showgirl,” the lack of sufficient distinguishing terms, the marks being used in overlapping markets (entertainment and performances), and because consumers may assume a common commercial source. Maren Wade then filed a lawsuit in California against Taylor Swift and her affiliated companies, arguing that Taylor Swfit’s branding is confusingly similar in structure, wording, and overall commercial impression to her registered mark. She is also drawing on the USPTO’s refusal of Taylor Swift’s application to support her argument of a likelihood of confusion. A judgment has not yet been reached in this case, but it serves as an important reminder of the importance of satisfying the essential elements required for IP registration. 2. Australia: Katy Perry v. Katie Perry In