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

April 7, 2015

Positively Private: Thailand’s Infrastructure Strategic Plan for 2015–2019

Subscribe to Updates
Southeast Asia Infrastructure

When the Thai government enacted the Private Investments in State Undertakings Act B.E. 2556 (2013) (PISUA)—a new law regulating public-private partnerships (PPPs) that was designed to streamline and clarify the PPP process and thereby boost private investment, especially in the infrastructure sector—measures were introduced to increase the effectiveness and transparency of the PPP process, something previously unseen in PISUA’s predecessor, the Private Participation in State Undertakings Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (PPSUA).

The provisions of the old PPSUA, which were in effect from 1992 until 2013, were written in a way that allowed for a variety of legal interpretations, thus providing for uncertainty as to which projects were captured within the scope of the law. Although regulations had been issued under the old law which addressed the selection process, many investors still perceived difficulties, which ultimately discouraged them from pursuing participation in PPPs in Thailand. Additionally, the old PPSUA lacked any provisions that would specifically guide the development of PPPs in Thailand, as it did not determine which sectors PPPs would benefit the public and should therefore be promoted.

While the new PISUA—which applies to all projects (except petroleum and mining concessions) with a value of THB one billion (approximately USD 30.5 million) or more—made only incremental changes relative to the older PPSUA in terms of approval procedures, it did set out a much stronger framework for comprehensive planning and quality of public-private ventures. This was evident in the stipulation of regulations on the use of qualified experts and consultants for preparing an independent project appraisal report, as well as sections calling for a PPP Policy Committee, a PPP Fund, and, as a main driver and guideline of PPP policy, a PPP Strategic Plan.

The new law has also established a PPP Development Fund, which is to be used for developing the PPP Strategic Plan, hiring consultants, and helping agencies develop PPPs that are consistent with the plan. Among other matters, the Strategic Plan identifies sectors and specific projects in which PPPs would be of benefit to Thailand, the priority of each, a target for private investment, and a timeframe for implementation. Five-year Strategic Plans are, from now on, to be prepared on a roll-on basis to provide for continual guidance.

The PPP Committee, which is chaired by the Prime Minister and vice-chaired by the Minister of Finance, is now required to work with the State Enterprise Policy Office (SEPO) to prepare a five-year Strategic Plan for PPPs for the Cabinet’s consideration. The SEPO, acting as the secretariat, has the duty to prepare a framework setting out the draft Strategic Plan, goals, target audience, and other details for approval of the PPP Committee. To ensure the plan reflects public needs, the PPP Policy Committee must also hold hearings to obtain input from state agencies and members of the public.

Once the hearings have been held and the Committee has then approved the draft Strategic Plan under consideration of the input from these hearings, it will submit the plan to the Cabinet for approval and promulgation.

In addition, once the Strategic Plan has been published in the Government Gazette, it is binding on state agencies regarding the preparation and approval of projects that fall under the Strategic Plan. Even the Cabinet and the PPP Committee are required to principally adhere to the Strategic Plan when they are making their decision regarding the approval of a project. However, if the Cabinet finds it expedient to revise a Strategic Plan that is already in effect, it does have the right to approve revisions suggested by the PPP Committee, and in such a case, the newly revised Strategic Plan would again have to be published in the Government Gazette to replace the previous one.

The current draft of the Strategic Plan for 2015-2019, which marks the first time such a Strategic Plan for PPPs in Thailand has ever been submitted, completed the public hearing stage in March 2015 and is currently awaiting approval by the Committee to be submitted to the Cabinet. In this draft, it has been stipulated that projects have to be conducted as PPPs in the following six fields: urban mass rail systems, urban toll roads, commercial ports, high-speed rail systems, telecommunication networks, and high-speed Internet systems.

For 15 other fields, the current draft Strategic Plan recommends that the government encourage the participation of private investors, but in these fields, private participation is not mandatory and the relevant state agencies have the right to decide whether they want to use a PPP or whether they would prefer to fund the project entirely by the use of the state budget or the state agency’s budget. In this group are fields such as inter-urban toll roads, solid waste disposal systems, airport management, terminals for transportation, packing, sorting, and distribution of goods, as well as administration, management, and maintenance of common ticketing systems. (For the full list of these 15 fields under group 2, please see “Table 1: PPP Implementation Timeframe” in the attached PDF.)

The current draft Strategic Plan also sets out the timeframes of implementation for most of the PPP fields (for details, please see “Table 1: PPP Implementation Timeframe” in the attached PDF), as well as the estimated investment amount for each field (for details, please see “Table 2: Estimated investment amounts under the Strategic Plan for 2015-2019” in the attached PDF). It now remains to be seen whether this Strategic Plan, once enacted, will indeed become a driving force for increased private investment in Thailand’s state undertakings.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Energy

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