Thai business group says US tariffs will deliver hit to economy
BANGKOK :Thailand's economy and exports will grow less than expected this year because of U.S. tariffs, a leading business group said on Wednesday, adding the country could lose market share in the United States if a tariff reduction was not secured.
Southeast Asia's second-largest economy was now expected to grow between 2.0 per cent and 2.2 per cent this year, down from a previous forecast of 2.4 per cent to 2.9 per cent growth, the Joint Standing Committee on Commerce, Industry and Banking said.
And exports, a key economic driver, were seen growing by between 0.3 per cent and 0.9 per cent this year, down from earlier projection of 1.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent growth, while expected tourist arrivals were cut to 36 million to 37 million, down from 39 million to 39.5 million.
Thailand is among the Southeast Asian nations hardest hit by U.S. President Donald Trump's trade policy, facing a 36 per cent tariff on shipments to its biggest export market if a reduction cannot be negotiated before July.
If the tariffs stand, the economy might grow by just 0.7 per cent this year, and lost export revenue over the next decade could be 1.4 trillion baht ($43 billion), said Kriengkrai Theinnukul, chair of the Federation of Thai Industries, part of the group.
There was also a risk that other countries might negotiate better tariff terms and weaken Thai exports to the United States, Kriengkrai said.
The United States took more than 18 per cent of Thai exports last year, worth $55 billion. Washington has put its trade deficit with Thailand at $45.6 billion.
Kriengkrai said business was also worried about the strength of the baht, saying the government should make sure the currency does not appreciate too fast or become too volatile.
The finance ministry last week cut its forecast for economic growth this year to 2.1 per cent from 3 per cent due to the impact of U.S. tariffs and a global slowdown.
Thailand's economy has lagged regional peers since the pandemic, and the group said tariffs added to structural challenges such as high levels of household debt.
($1 = 32.64 baht)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
44 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Iran to present counter-proposal to US, Trump says talks to resume
FILE PHOTO: Iran's and U.S.' flags are seen printed on paper in this illustration taken January 27, 2022. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo Iran to present counter-proposal to US, Trump says talks to resume DUBAI/WASHINGTON - Iran said on Monday it will soon hand a counter-proposal for a nuclear deal to the United States in response to a U.S. offer that Tehran deems "unacceptable," while U.S. President Donald Trump said talks would continue. Trump made clear that the two sides remained at odds over whether the country would be allowed to continue enriching uranium on Iranian soil. "They're just asking for things that you can't do. They don't want to give up what they have to give up," Trump told reporters at the White House. "They seek enrichment. We can't have enrichment." Earlier, Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said Tehran was preparing a counter-offer to the U.S. proposal that was presented in late May. He said there was not yet any detail about the timing of a sixth round of talks. While Trump said the next round of talks would take place on Thursday, a senior Iranian official and a U.S. official said Thursday was unlikely. The U.S. official said the talks, led by U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, could be on Friday or Sunday, possibly in Oman or Oslo. "The U.S. proposal is not acceptable to us. It was not the result of previous rounds of negotiations. We will present our own proposal to the other side via Oman after it is finalised. This proposal is reasonable, logical, and balanced," Baghaei said. "We must ensure before the lifting of sanctions that Iran will effectively benefit economically and that its banking and trade relations with other countries will return to normal." Reuters previously reported that Tehran was drafting a negative response to the U.S. proposal. An Iranian diplomat said the U.S. offer failed to resolve differences over uranium enrichment on Iranian soil, the shipment abroad of Iran's entire stockpile of highly enriched uranium and reliable steps to lift U.S. sanctions. Last week, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dismissed the U.S. proposal as against Iran's interests, pledging to continue enrichment on Iranian soil, which Western powers view as a potential pathway to building nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes. Trump said Iran was the main topic of a phone conversation he had on Monday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu's office said the president had told him talks with Iran would continue at the end of the week. During his first term in 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump ditched a 2015 nuclear pact between Iran and six powers and reimposed sanctions that have crippled Iran's economy. Iran responded by escalating enrichment far beyond that pact's limits. Iran says the West has turned a blind eye to Israel's nuclear programme even while pushing against Iran's. Israel neither confirms nor denies that it has nuclear weapons. Baghaei said sensitive Israeli documents, which Iran has previously promised to unveil, would demonstrate "that parties constantly questioning Iran's peaceful nuclear programme actively work to strengthen Israel's military nuclear programme". The negotiating parties should not allow Israel to disrupt diplomatic processes, he added. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
CNA
44 minutes ago
- CNA
Commentary: Trump and Musk are fighting. It's difficult to pick a side
SINGAPORE: Once inseparable, United States President Donald Trump and the world's richest man, Elon Musk, are now locked in a very public - and very bitter - divorce. In a matter of days, Mr Musk torched Mr Trump's signature "big, beautiful" Bill, condemned his spending plans, threatened to form a new political party and even suggested the president be impeached. Mr Trump retaliated in kind. He called Mr Musk 'a big-time drug addict', threatened to cut his companies off from government contracts and warned of ' serious consequences ' if the billionaire were to finance Democratic Party candidates running against Republicans. "I have no intention of speaking to him," Mr Trump told NBC on Saturday (Jun 7), saying he believed their relationship was over. Unlike most public spats between public figures, this one offers no easy side to take. The two men are, in many ways, cut from the same cloth. They operate with little patience for deliberation and considerable appetite for the spotlight, and are accustomed to getting their own ways. A PERSONAL FIGHT WITH NATIONAL CONSEQUENCES The trouble with breakups is that any fallout doesn't stay between the warring parties. There's always collateral damage. For example, after Mr Trump threatened to pull government deals with Mr Musk's companies, Tesla shares tanked 14 per cent and lost US$150 billion in value. This very public falling-out carries risks for both men. For Mr Trump, the feud with Mr Musk marks the first major rift with a prominent adviser in his second term. It has shattered the 'bromance' that many assumed would continue and could fracture Mr Trump's support among tech leaders and wealthy donors. Mr Musk, who spent nearly US$300 million in last year's elections, was not only Mr Trump's richest backer, but also a key bridge to Silicon Valley. He helped connect Mr Trump to tech investors and gave the pro-business wing of the Republican Party reason to support the president. Now, Mr Musk's defection could undermine Republican unity on Capitol Hill. His vocal criticism of the debt impact has emboldened some Republican fiscal hawks to oppose Mr Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed the US House late last month. The Bill, which combines tax breaks, spending cuts, border security funding and other priorities, is the centrepiece of Mr Trump's domestic policy agenda. Critics, however, have said it could increase the deficit by as much as US$4 trillion over a decade. If it falters in the Senate due to Republican defections, it would be a significant blow to Mr Trump's legislative agenda. Moreover, Mr Musk's talk of a new centrist party and his massive online influence hint at a potential challenge to the two-party status quo, which should alarm Republican strategists. Although an actual third party is a long shot, even the suggestion feeds a narrative that Mr Trump's brand of Republicanism is alienating a segment of his base. A prolonged Trump-Musk feud could make it harder for Republicans to hold Congress in next year's midterms, given Mr Musk's financial clout and devoted following. FEUD SPREADS TO SPACE Mr Trump, for his part, appears eager to show he won't be dictated to by a billionaire ally. A White House official stressed that the administration is 'not beholden to Elon Musk on policy' and that by attacking the Bill, Mr Musk 'has clearly picked a side' against Mr Trump. In the short term, Mr Trump's hardline stance may shore up his image as a president who puts his agenda above any one person, even the world's richest man. His core base, many of whom harbour scepticism toward tech elites, might even cheer him for standing up to Mr Musk. However, Mr Trump's unpredictable retaliatory streak raises questions in Washington and on Wall Street. Would he really cut off federal contracts to SpaceX and Tesla to punish Mr Musk, even if it jeopardises US interests? NASA and the Pentagon rely heavily on SpaceX for America's spaceflight capabilities and military satellite launches. Pulling the plug on SpaceX partnerships could set back crucial programmes (like the International Space Station transport, Moon missions and defence satellite deployments) and force the government to scramble for alternatives. It's an open question how far Mr Trump is willing to go. Even some within Mr Trump's circle may urge caution, given the billions at stake and the fact that SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft is integral to US-led space efforts (NASA has invested roughly US$15 billion in SpaceX projects). So, while the president talks tough, cutting Mr Musk off is not without consequences. Rattled by Mr Musk's initial threat to retire the Dragon spacecraft, NASA and Pentagon officials have contacted at least three competitors - Rocket Lab, Stoke Space and Blue Origin - to assess their rocket development and availability for government missions, according to a report by the Washington Post over the weekend. CAN MUSK AFFORD TO ALIENATE WASHINGTON? For Mr Musk, this episode is a high-stakes gamble that could redefine his role in the tech and political ecosystems. On one hand, Mr Musk has rebranded himself as an independent voice, unafraid to challenge a president he once supported. This could salvage his reputation among moderates or Tesla customers who were uneasy with his closeness to Mr Trump. By distancing himself from Mr Trump, Mr Musk may refocus attention on his companies' innovations rather than partisan politics. He has already said he will curtail political spending going forward, signalling a retreat from the kingmaker role he played in 2024. On the other hand, Mr Musk is now on a collision course with the US government that could have serious business implications. If Mr Trump were to follow through on cancelling contracts, SpaceX stands to lose enormous revenue (an estimated US$22 billion in government deals is now at risk). Mr Musk must also consider the broader impact on Tesla, which until now has benefited from government electric vehicle (EV) incentives and a friendly regulatory environment. If Mr Trump now views Mr Musk as an adversary, Tesla could face a chillier reception in policy areas important to it (such as environmental credits, infrastructure support or foreign trade deals). AN EXPENSIVE BREAKUP What happens next is very much anyone's guess; it could well depend on what either man decides to post next. The Trump-Musk fallout has escalated from a policy disagreement into a personal and political reckoning. Mr Trump is defending his legislative legacy and asserting authority over a defiant former ally. Mr Musk is recasting himself as an independent visionary, willing to challenge power, but at the cost of political access. Whether this fades or hardens, the consequences will be felt well beyond Washington. Ben Chester Cheong is a law lecturer at the Singapore University of Social Sciences, and of counsel at RHTLaw Asia. He is a visiting fellow in law at the University of Reading, and a centre researcher at the University of Cambridge.
Business Times
an hour ago
- Business Times
Can Tim Cook stop Apple going the same way as Nokia?
A YEAR ago, when Apple used a jamboree at its home in Silicon Valley to unveil its artificial-intelligence (AI) strategy, grandly known as Apple Intelligence, it was a banner occasion. The following day the firm's value soared by more than US$200 billion – one of the biggest single-day leaps of any company in American history. The excitement was fuelled by hopes that generative AI would enable Apple to transform the iPhone into a digital assistant – in effect, Siri with a brain – helping to resuscitate flagging phone sales. Twelve months later, that excitement has turned into almost existential dread. It is not just that many of last year's promises have turned out to be vapourware. Siri's overhaul has been indefinitely postponed, and Apple Intelligence is no match for other voice-activated AI assistants, such as Google's Gemini. Meanwhile, Apple's vulnerabilities in China have been exposed by US President Donald Trump's trade war. Moreover, it faces new legal and regulatory challenges to the two biggest parts of its high-margin services business. Its shares, down by almost a fifth this year, have lagged behind its big-tech peers, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta and Microsoft. But those are not the most alarming comparisons. In a new book, Apple in China, Patrick McGee draws an ominous parallel between Tim Cook, Apple's chief executive, and Jack Welch, boss of General Electric from 1981 to 2001. Like Welch, Cook has made a fortune for investors – when Apple's market value first exceeded US$3 trillion, in 2022, it had risen by an average of more than US$700 million per day since he took over from Steve Jobs in 2011. But McGee raises the possibility that, as at GE, Apple's success may obscure serious vulnerabilities. If that is the case, what can Cook do to avoid the sort of fate that befell GE, Nokia and other great companies that suddenly lost their way? The answer is unlikely to emerge during Apple's annual Worldwide Developers Conference that starts on Jun 9. Amid reports of upheaval among executives, it is expected to return to its unflashy roots of announcing software updates for its phones and computers, rather than revealing a refreshed approach to AI. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Many would prefer to see Cook work on a new hardware strategy instead. Craig Moffett of MoffettNathanson, an equity research firm, notes that the greatest moments in Apple's history have come from the reinvention of what techies call 'form factors': the Mac reimagined desktop computing, the iPod transformed personal music habits and the iPhone popularised touchscreen smartphones. AI looks like it will be another such pivot point. (Eddy Cue, Apple's head of services, recently admitted that AI could make the iPhone irrelevant in ten years.) For now, Apple's rivals have been faster to explore new opportunities. Meta and Google are pinning hopes on AI-infused smart glasses, as are Chinese tech firms such as Xiaomi and Baidu. OpenAI, maker of ChatGPT, recently announced a US$6.4 billion deal to buy a firm created by Jony Ive, Apple's former chief designer, to build an AI device. As yet there is only hype to go on, but it has put Apple's lack of AI innovation in the spotlight. Apple's response may seem like dogged incrementalism. Next year it is expected to unveil a foldable phone, following a path blazed previously by the likes of Samsung and Motorola. But Richard Windsor of Radio Free Mobile, a tech research firm, thinks Apple may still have an ace up its sleeve. If smart glasses take off, its investment in the Vision Pro virtual-reality headset, though so far an expensive flop, may be an insurance policy. It could provide Apple with enough expertise in headgear and eyewear to shift quickly to glasses. If so, the company will avoid 'doing a Nokia', he says. Likewise, Apple might make use of this moment of soul-searching to rethink other shibboleths of Cook's tenure, such as the obsession with privacy and the high walls it puts around its family of products. As Ben Thompson of Stratechery, a newsletter, points out, sanctifying the privacy of its users' data has been an easy virtue for Apple to uphold because until recently it did not have much of an advertising business. Yet in the AI era, it has drawbacks. First, Apple's reluctance to scrape customers' individual information makes it harder to train personalised AI models. Apple uses what it calls 'differential privacy' based on aggregate insights, rather than the rich, granular data hoovered up by firms such as Google. Second, privacy has encouraged it to prioritise AI that runs on its own devices, rather than investing in cloud infrastructure. Chatbots have advanced more rapidly in the cloud because the models can be bigger (awkwardly, this led Apple to offer some users of Apple Intelligence an opt-in to ChatGPT). In order to overcome its AI deficiencies, it could splash out on buying a builder of cloud-based large language models (LLMs). But it has left it quite late. OpenAI's deal with Ive makes it less likely to ally with Apple. Anthropic is close to Amazon, which has a big stake in the maker of the Claude family of LLMs. Other options are either Chinese or too small for a company of Apple's heft. Alternatively, it could relax its 'walled garden' ethos of seamless integration, and partner with a variety of third-party LLMs, as Motorola, owned by the Chinese firm Lenovo, has done. Third-party voice-activated chatbots could quickly solve its Siri problem, giving renewed reason for people to upgrade their phones. The likelihood is that Cook will do nothing radical. As Moffett puts it, his tenure has been marked by the steady ascendancy of 'process over product'. Instead of flashy innovations, his hallmark has been metronomic reliability, especially with regard to financial performance. Nor has he any hope of swiftly extricating Apple from China. As McGee points out, even if Apple's final assembly moves to India and elsewhere, the supply chain's roots remain deeply embedded in the Middle Kingdom. Yet this is no time for complacency. Whatever the ups and downs of AI – as Google has recently shown, yesterday's losers can quickly become today's winners – nothing turns investors off quicker than a profits shock. That is what makes the threats to Apple's services business so serious. The most striking risk is that the judge who declared Google a monopolist may order it to suspend payments to Apple that make Google's search engine the default on the iPhone. The payments, which are partly for exclusivity and partly a revenue-sharing arrangement, generate about US$20 billion a year for Apple (last year its services revenue was US$96 billion). David Vogt of UBS Investment Bank says that, if the judge imposes a ban on the exclusivity part of the payments, it could cut Google's revenues by about US$10 billion. 'I'm getting calls every day of, 'What will the market do to Apple stock if that happens?'' he says. Google has vowed to appeal. Another looming threat is to app-store revenues, which are under scrutiny as a result of the European Union's Digital Markets Act, as well as from an antitrust lawsuit brought by Epic, a gaming firm, against Apple in America. Bank of America estimates that app-store commissions generate US$31 billion a year of high-margin services revenue for Apple. If app developers steer customers away from Apple's app store as a result of the rulings, it could clobber the lucrative cash cow. Services have been the brightest spot of Cook's tenure in recent years, helping to mitigate stagnation in iPhone sales. It will certainly be a blow if the line of business suffers. But if it prompts Cook to tear up his own rule book on AI and everything else, it may be worth it in the end. ©2025 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights reserved
