Myanmar's 'my way' vs Asean norms
Myanmar threatened to derail Timor-Leste's accession if Dili continues to engage with the National Unity Government (NUG), which opposes the State Administration Council (SAC) regime in Myanmar. Timor-Leste is among a dozen countries, mainly in the West, that have allowed the NUG to establish representative offices, both formally and informally.
This move shows Myanmar's preference for a unilateralist approach, let's call it "my way" policy, challenging the long-standing Asean Way, which has underpinned the bloc's consensus-based diplomacy for nearly six decades. At the upcoming three-day Asean Ministerial Meeting (AMM) in Kuala Lumpur beginning tomorrow, the looming question is how to reconcile these divergent demeanours within the bloc that prides itself on unity and non-interference.
At the May summit, during the retreat, Singapore Prime Minister Lawrence Wong strongly supported Timor-Leste and proposed admitting the world's youngest democracy in October. Myanmar's representative, Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs Aung Kyaw Moe, who also attended the previous 44th and 45th summits, was mute. That silence was interpreted as consent, enabling Prime Minister Ibrahim Anwar to conclude that consensus had been reached.
The chairman's statement of the 46th Asean Summit, in particular paragraphs 124-126, confirmed that ministers and senior officials were tasked with finalising the procedural steps for Timor-Leste's admission at the 47th Asean Summit, while expediting key economic negotiations. The leaders encouraged all partners to assist Dili in fulfilling the criteria outlined in the roadmap. The upcoming Asean summit is scheduled for Oct 24-26.
But on June 14, a letter signed by Han Win Aung, Director General and alternate Asean Senior Officials Meeting (SOM) leader, urged Timor-Leste to "refrain from engaging with entities that are explicitly opposed or contrary to the positions of Asean member states". The letter warned that if Timor-Leste "persists in its blatant violation of the principle of non-interference", Asean should reject its membership and suspend all procedural steps until Dili "rectifies its approach".
The tough stance demonstrates how the SAC's "my way" clashes with the Asean Way, which emphasises consensus, restraint, and mutual respect. Since the 2021 coup, Myanmar has half-heartedly cooperated with Asean's Five-Point Consensus, failing to fully implement the bloc's peace plan. Instead, Nay Pyi Taw is pursuing its own five-point roadmap, which shares some common goals, especially in the holding of elections. However, the SAC lacks credibility and inclusiveness to conduct "free and fair" polls that few believe in.
If Myanmar wants to return to Asean's embrace after the election, it must adopt the Asean Way, both in principle and in practice. Obviously, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing is using the elections as an exit strategy, but Asean has leverage. The bloc's eventual recognition of the outcome will be crucial to lend any legitimacy.
Without Asean endorsement, the polls could deepen Myanmar's isolation and further deepen its fragmentation. After the coup and the more recent earthquake, public services have deteriorated and alienated potential voters. Throughout the past four years, the regional bloc has insisted that humanitarian aid and peace must come first to create an atmosphere conducive to allowing Myanmar's people to take part in an inclusive election that is free and fair.
The confrontation between the Asean Way and "my way" is not confined to Myanmar. The recent tensions between Thailand and Cambodia over boundary demarcation and the reopening of border checkpoints have added complexity to Malaysia's chairmanship. Both sides have invoked the principle of non-interference not to seek help from Asean's High Council, under the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation.
Instead, Cambodia has resorted to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Phnom Penh's request to internationalise the bilateral issue could break a precedent if raised within the framework of the Asean annual meeting. Thailand has reiterated that the current dispute should best be settled through established bilateral mechanisms.
This episode is reminiscent of 2006, when the Thaksin administration threatened to boycott the Asean Summit under the Laos chair if Malaysia brought up the Tak Bai incident. Fortunately, diplomacy prevailed. The incident shows how deeply ingrained the Asean Way is. Whenever members have deep disagreements, they avoid internationalising bilateral issues to preserve harmony within the bloc.
Yet, much to the chagrin of Asean watchers, the bloc has also tolerated selective applications of the "my way" approach, especially in economic diplomacy amid the great geopolitical shifts. Most recently, as the bloc collectively responds to US tariff hikes and broader global trade disruptions, Asean leaders have allowed their colleagues to pursue individual negotiations, provided they align with the bloc's broader consensus.
Vietnam's bilateral negotiations with the US over tariffs are a case in point, demonstrating whether national interest and Asean solidarity can coexist. Like the rest of Asean, Hanoi reaffirms its support for a predictable, transparent, free, fair, inclusive, sustainable, and rules-based multilateral trading system with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) at its core. Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, and Cambodia are also taking similar routes.
The Asean Way has long been criticised for relying on the "lowest common denominator" to reach consensus, but has allowed flexibility in practice. Member states quietly pursue their own paths without fracturing the bloc. This dual-track approach allows them to protect national interests without undermining regional unity. The challenge is ensuring that "my way" policies, like Myanmar's obstruction of Timor-Leste's entry, do not sabotage Asean's integrity.
The clash between "my way" and the Asean Way may sound contradictory to some, absurd to others. It is not a zero-sum gambit. With the Asean Way, all members respect shared principles while carving out space for individual agency. Malaysia's chairmanship has an important task to steer this balance.
At the upcoming post-ministerial conferences following the Asean annual conference, the Asean foreign ministers are scheduled to meet with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has confirmed his attendance on Thursday and Friday, following the July 9 deadline of reciprocal tariffs. Asean wants to ensure Washington's long-term commitment to the region. Recently, several flagship US-Asean initiatives, including the Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative, were axed.
On a happier note, Asean's non-binding yet inclusive approach continues to win new converts. The 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC), now has 59 signatories, including all major powers. Algeria and Uruguay will accede to the TAC at the Kuala Lumpur meeting. The Asean model is not perfect, but it is gaining global traction due to its voluntary cooperation, mutual respect, and incremental progress.
For the Asean Way to stay relevant, it must be modernised to counter growing "my way" tendencies with assertive national interests. It must refine its consensus mechanism to accommodate diversity, preventing any single member from holding the entire bloc hostage. Myanmar's obstruction of Timor-Leste's membership is a litmus test.
This week, the world will find out whether the Asean Way can be a driving force in managing internal dissent or torn apart by conflicting "my way" tactics. After all, it has endured for the past 58 years, and it will continue to live on. The challenge is to turn the apparent contradiction between the Asean Way and "my way" into a strength, not a liability.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bangkok Post
16 hours ago
- Bangkok Post
Recalibrating Thai-US ties (once again)
It is about time for Thailand to discard the two-century-old euphemism about enduring Thai-US ties and be brutally realistic. It is about time for a blunt question -- what can Thailand offer to reduce its soaring trade surplus of US$43 billion with the US? If Thai negotiators don't come up with any interesting offers, then the tariff for exported goods from Thailand to the US will be 36% across the board after Aug 1. Currently, negotiations between Washington and the government are progressing. The outcome, expected next month, will have far-reaching impacts beyond trade and the economy. The deal will directly affect the stability of this weak government. From a broader perspective, the tariff figure will serve as a barometer of future Thai-US relations in this era of geopolitical turbulence. It is worth noting that Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Pichai Chunhavajira has instructed related ministries to prepare the Thai agricultural and industrial sectors for the impact of US tariffs, but he has yet to explain why and how. Mr Pichai was quoted as saying that local industry has to upgrade and realign itself with global trends and become more competitive. Mr Pichai revealed that the US plans to require a local content requirement in products sold in the US of as much as 80% to prevent transhipped goods from entering its market under false rules of origin. He reiterated that Thailand must proactively negotiate to protect mutual and sustainable interests, while urgently addressing three key issues. First, Thailand must present concrete and enforceable measures to reduce the trade surplus. Secondly, the country needs to provide broader market access to US goods. Third, Thailand needs to remove non-tariff barriers (NTBs). Among Asean members, Thailand has the toughest sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures and other regulatory frameworks intended to protect consumers, agriculture and the environment. Under the Trump administration, the US is pursuing a unilateral approach under what it calls "US preferential treatment". If countries refuse the terms, they may face steep tariffs and other retaliatory measures. Mr Pichai also admitted that a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) is already in place, limiting the release of some information pertaining to the deals. Amid the secrecy, the finance minister assured the public that negotiations are guided by long-term shared benefits and regional balance. He did not elaborate how. President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs are indeed perceived as a plan to rein in the ripple effect of the China Plus One supply chain model. China Plus One is a supply chain diversification strategy that emerged in 2014 and 2015 due to the escalating cost of labour in China, leading multinational companies to seek alternative manufacturing and sourcing options in other Asian countries. Throughout the Biden administration, the so-called China plus one formula has been beneficial to key Asean members such as Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia, where investors opened their factories after pulling out from China. With Mr Trump's team in charge, Mr Pichai admitted that transhipment, where products are rerouted through third countries to evade tariffs, is the most difficult as it is closely linked to local content rules. Previously, the transhipment threshold was only 40 per cent, but this could rise to 60-80%, forcing countries to redefine what counts as actually Made-in-Thailand materials. According to Mr Pichai, countries with low levels of local manufacturing, such as those with production bases just starting up, will be hardest hit regardless of the tariff rate. For instance, Vietnam, which has low local content, is facing high transhipment tariffs. In the case of Thailand, the country could also suffer due to the downturn in authentic local manufacturers and the influx of investment and transhipments from China. In short, despite Thailand's export volume surging, the share of local manufacturing production in exports remains unchanged. The real challenge for Thai industry is to boost its local capacity and improve the level of local content. If not, Thai exporters will face higher tariffs on transhipped goods. Mr Pichai admitted that the US wants Thailand to open its market and remove NTBs on agricultural products and meat, especially pork and offal. One new feature in the negotiations is in the energy sector. Thailand has offered to purchase natural gas and shale oil from the US, which have a lower price than on the global market. In this respect, Thailand is also considering more energy-related investments in the US. Mr Pichai defended Thailand's offer of zero tariffs for certain US products, as other countries, including China, have already been given the same privileges under existing FTAs. Many Thai exports under existing FTAs are not competitive or undersupplied domestically. "This offer is not being made to just any country-- it is unique to the US," he said, adding the deal could empower farmers and boost Thailand's competitiveness, serving as a platform for national reform. Once the tariff debacle has been concluded, it should be Thailand's turn to renegotiate its strategic relationship with the US. In the post-Cold War era, the US has benefited tremendously from Thailand's strategic values and locations. As an ally, Thailand has hosted the Cobra Gold military exercises nonstop for 44 consecutive years. It remains one of the largest multinational training operations in the world, especially for the American armed forces. More than the US Indo-Pacific Command would like to admit, this annual exercise provides the opportunity for the US to simulate "command and control" operations involving over 30 participating nations. It also promotes interoperability of foreign troops, whose countries procured American weapons. On paper, Cobra Gold positions Thailand as a central node in regional security. But in reality, Thailand has only benefited marginally. It is time to push for a new arrangement that aligns with the country's security needs. At the very least, there should be more Thai-led planning and command roles. Thailand has been a non-Nato treaty ally since 2003, without consequential benefits. The country does not enjoy defence guarantees, robust arms transfers or significant technology sharing. The US side often complains that Thailand is too close to China, which it has denied. Deep down, Washington does not trust Bangkok's alliance. Some glaring evidence is the Royal Thai Air Force's need to purchase Swedish Gripen jets, after the US refused to sell F-35 jet fighters, citing concerns about Thailand's ability to handle such advanced aircraft and its relationship with China. President Trump's new term is a different game. In engaging with Mr Trump, Thailand must be more assertive in demanding greater technological sharing, joint capability building, and access to US strategic platforms. For instance, Thailand should have been a recipient of US space technology and cyber surveillance, which are not forthcoming. The US halted its international military education and training program for Thailand a decade ago. The programme used to be a primer for the person-to-person network among the Thai-US top brass. Now, this bilateral link is waning. In future Thai-US strategic meetings, Thailand must not be shy or submissive. The US has been pressing the rest of the world for its own economic stability at the peril of allies and friends, and Thailand has a track record of yielding to US demands on defence and even made economic concessions. Now it is time for a new red line and a new game for Thailand to redefine its security cooperation with the US, aligning the ties with Thailand's strategic autonomy. Perhaps, the next question is what the Trump administration wants from security engagement with Thailand.
Bangkok Post
4 days ago
- Bangkok Post
A courageous article
Re: "Corrupt monks have lost their way", (Opinion, July 14). I read with interest Santisuda Ekachai's article lamenting the shocking behaviour of some corrupt monks in Thailand. As a foreigner, yes I am shocked by the greed and corruption committed. Personally, my birth country, the USA, is no stranger to outrageous acts of sexual, financial and moral wrongdoing by members of the clergy. Multiple, well-documented cases of illegal acts committed by (Western) religious leaders have left the public somewhat numb, due to the frequency of those despicable acts. Mega churches are led by cult-like figures who have no shame and aggressively defend perks such as private planes to make their travel more "efficient". I think many foreigners wish to believe that all Buddhist monks are somehow more pure and would never engage in the behaviour Ms Santisuda called out in her most recent and excellent Opinion piece. Sadly, all religions, races and countries have both good and bad with respect to the clergy. We are all susceptible to temptation and convincing ourselves that we are entitled to a few perks. After all, we deserve it, don't we? I commend Ms Santiduda for speaking out and calling this despicable behaviour to the public's attention. It's convenient to turn one's head away and "not get involved"; it takes courage to publicly condemn those who flaunt the system and have gotten away with it. Bill Clarke Survey is no good Re: "Poll finds rising economic anxieties", (Business, July 18). I've never seen such a seriously flawed survey -- and the conclusions drawn from it -- than described in "Poll finds rising economic anxieties", on July 18. It is bad enough to conduct such a survey based on only 500 Thai adults aged 16-74; such a small number makes impossible the kind of representative sampling (by age, gender, social-economic status, geographic region, etc) upon which any reasonable conclusions must be based. (Such standard sampling, for example, would likely result in a total cohort of 10 females aged in their 40s, living in the South, and coming from the middle class). Even worse is the author's constant generalising from this sample to the entire population -- as in the first sentence, "Thais fear for the future" and as to percentage results such as "nearly one-third of Thais (28%) are concerned about losing their own jobs" -- in other words, a generalisation based on 140 responses from the sample, a number which would further be reduced by subtracting those too young and too old to have jobs. Sheldon Shaeffer UN corrupt to the core Re: "Asean importance", (PostBag, July 18). Ioan Voicu has hauled out his flowery spray can of fluff stuff and painted his favourite topic of multilateralism on the backsides of the UN and Asean in a hopeless effort to make them look lovely. "Asean's voice and action are expected to consistently support the world organisation's (UN) thesis that global solidarity remains essential to safeguard progress and save lives." The UN is corrupt at its core. Remember their oil-for-food programme that suffered from widespread corruption and abuse? "Save lives"? Right. Since 2015, there have been 209 accusations across all UN peacekeeping missions, according to Al. These involve 346 peacekeepers, both military and civilian personnel, and 388 survivors, including 171 children, according to Al Jazeera's report "Why do some peacekeepers rape?" The full report was released in Aug 10, 2017. Then there is the World Health Organization, which has been trying to usurp the sovereignty of free nations since 2020 with their "pandemic treaties". Contrary to the authoritarian globalist import of Ioan Voicu's letter, Asean member states would be better off staying as far away from UN "doctrine" as possible. Michael Setter Tourism perils Re: "Holiday hazards", (PostBag, July 17). Citing a study by the Every Life insurance company -- which rated Thailand the world's 9th-most dangerous country (PostBag, July 17) -- Paul writes in his PostBag letter dated July 17, arguing that this must be the reason many Chinese tourists are avoiding Thailand. These Chinese tourists are reacting to sensational reports on social media. Calling Thailand "dangerous" is patently ridiculous. Since the study was carried out by an insurance company, Thailand's high rate of traffic accidents is the probable cause for this finding. Just be careful while crossing the street. Frank Scimone Stick to the facts It is quite amazing, to say the least, that the Bangkok Post has published pro-Palestine or anti-Jewish letters, based on lies, lack of knowledge, yet refuses to accept factually presented letters. The continuous hammering of Jews in letters to the editor needs some more perspective. Israel is fighting every day for its existence. The myth of the occupation of Palestinian lands is just like that: a myth. Never ever was there a Palestinian state. In 1948, the Palestinians were offered their own land, but this was not accepted by the Arab countries, causing the wars instigated by these countries. In 2005, they got a second chance from Israel itself, which gave full autonomy to Gaza. Israeli settlers were forcefully removed from Gaza. Instead of developing the economy, they chose war, and Israel reacted. Talking about a real genocide is in the Hamas charter, which states, "kill all Jews". How many terrorist attacks have taken place in Israel on false grounds of occupation? To be clear, I am not a fan of Israel, but the facts speak for themselves. Moreover, is there even one Arab country that offers the Palestinians a domicile? Must be a reason for that. The critics are lopsided in their view on the conflict. They seem to forget Hamas started the war, committing acts not seen in recent times. Moreover, there is no genocide. War crimes don't equal genocide. E L Wout Thailand still amazing Re: "Signs and symptoms of Thai stagnation", (Opinion, July 18) & Safer tourism needed now", (Editorial, July 11). In recent months, the tone surrounding Thailand's tourism economy has shifted, drifting from buoyant optimism to a more cautious outlook. Concerns over softening arrivals have sparked speculation about long-term growth and viability, but for those of us who have observed this sector closely over the decades, the picture is more nuanced. I was quoted in an editorial back in 1996, during my time with Siam Express, saying that "Thailand's tourism industry is facing tough times with consumer choice, internet disruption and geopolitical impact." Jim Reed of Tour East echoed similar concerns at the time. Even then, we were speaking about patterns, waves of popularity, moments of saturation and the inevitable dips that follow. The current downturn, while real, is far from unprecedented. Analysis by the Kasikorn Bank Research Department tracks the decline in visitor arrivals to Thailand in the first half of 2025 and projects total arrivals for the year will reach 34.5 million. That figure is down from 35.5 million in 2024 and still well below the 39.9 million recorded in 2019, the final full year before the pandemic. These numbers reflect a measurable slowdown, but also a reminder that cycles, rather than collapses, define the tourism economy. History offers us perspective. Spain provides a compelling case study of cyclical tourism dynamics. Since 1946, the country has experienced at least two clear "life cycles" of tourism growth, first during the 1960s boom, and again from the mid-1990s into the early 2000s. Each phase of expansion was followed by a contraction, typically linked to wider economic pressures or geopolitical events. Tourism scholar Richard Butler's widely cited TALC model (Tourism Area Life Cycle) captures this rhythm well. His framework outlines six stages a destination typically moves through, from exploration to development, consolidation, stagnation, and ultimately either decline or rejuvenation. It's a theory that maps almost precisely onto Spain's S-shaped curve of international arrivals. In 1950, Spain welcomed fewer than a million overseas visitors. By 1973, that number had soared to 34 million. Following intermittent downturns during the oil crises of the 1970s and the global recession of 2008–09, Spain rebounded spectacularly. In 2024, the country welcomed a record-breaking 94 million international arrivals, generating €126 billion (4.7 trillion baht) and contributing more than 12% to its GDP. Yet this revival has not come without consequence. Overtourism protests have gripped the Balearics, the Canary Islands and Barcelona, with locals demanding restrictions to protect their quality of life and environment. Popularity, as ever, walks a fine line with pressure. Thailand today finds itself in a similar moment of reflection. The recent slowdown in arrivals is shaped by shifting consumer preferences, the appeal of emerging destinations, digital platforms fuelling niche travel, and lingering global uncertainties. But rather than viewing this as a sign of decline, it's more accurately a natural pause, a moment of recalibration in line with Butler's TALC theory. As tourists increasingly seek out less crowded, more meaningful, and more sustainable experiences, destinations everywhere are being forced to evolve. Spain adapted by diversifying its appeal, developing rural escapes, staging cultural festivals, promoting shoulder-season travel, and marketing events beyond the traditional summer crush. Thailand is more than capable of doing the same. The country boasts strong infrastructure, deep cultural roots, a warm sunny climate, rural richness, and a well-established tourism ecosystem. With the right strategy, emphasising sustainability, digital innovation, and more diverse offerings, Thailand's tourism sector can pivot, refresh and thrive anew. This moment is not a crisis, but a call to adapt. As markets recalibrate and the industry innovates, demand will return. Tourists are not abandoning Thailand; they are simply exploring elsewhere for now. But they'll be back.
Bangkok Post
4 days ago
- Bangkok Post
Nation edgy as decision day looms
The new US tariffs are set to have global repercussions and impact various countries unless negotiations for more favourable rates can be achieved prior to Aug 1. The US intends to impose a 36% reciprocal tariff on Thai goods, which could hinder the competitiveness of Thai products in the US market, especially when compared with rival nations such as Vietnam. Aat Pisanwanich, an analyst in international economics and advisor on Asean affairs at Intelligence Research Consultant, recently explored the implications of the policy, its potential impact, and outlined actions that Thailand ought to pursue moving forward. What are the main objectives of the US tariff measures? The primary goal of the American tariffs is to lower deficits with its trading partners. Last year, the US recorded a global trade deficit of US$1.2 trillion. Additionally, the government aims to boost its revenue from the elevated tariffs to make up for declines in corporate and personal income tax receipts. The revenue generated from these tariffs is expected to be dedicated to military spending and managing immigration under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (2025). For the 2025 fiscal year, US tariff revenue is projected to reach $100 billion, based on the implementation of universal tariffs at 10%. Should reciprocal tariffs be introduced on Aug 1, the US will gain even more in tariff revenue and could potentially lure investment back to the nation. What are the principles behind the US tariffs? The US has imposed new tariffs, commonly referred to as the "Trump Tariffs" on nearly all countries due to its significant and prolonged trade deficits. These tariffs fall into two main categories: Universal tariffs: Trump announced a baseline 10% universal tariff on all imports to the US, regardless of whether the US has a trade surplus or deficit with them. These tariffs came into effect on April 5. Reciprocal tariffs: Effective as of Aug 1. The tariffs are calculated based on trade data in 2024, using the following formula: Import Tariff Rate (%) = (US trade deficit with a country ÷ US imports from that country) × 100 ÷ 2 For example, the US trade deficit with Thailand in 2024 was $45 billion, while total US imports from Thailand were valued at $63 billion. By applying the formula (45 ÷ 63) × 100 = 71.4% ÷ 2 = 35.7%, the resulting tariff rate is approximately 36%. The US has also enacted product-specific tariffs as part of its trade policy. Under Section 232, which addresses national security, the Department of Commerce is empowered to impose tariffs aimed at protecting the nation's economic security. These include a 25% tariff on imports of steel, aluminium and auto parts. It plans to impose a 50% tariff on copper and a 200% tariff on pharmaceuticals. Under the Tariff Act 1930, the US has set some extraordinarily high tariffs, such as a tariff of over 3,000% on solar panels from Cambodia and a tariff above 300% on those from Thailand. The US administration has utilised Section 301 to impose tariffs on a wide range of Chinese goods. What are the reciprocal tariff rates the US plans to impose on imports? Starting Aug 1, along with a 10% universal tariff applied to all imports, the US will impose reciprocal tariffs on imported products from various countries, with the rate varying by nation. If no agreements are reached before the deadline, the tariff rates will come into effect (see accompanying graphic). Mr Aat outlined the implications of these reciprocal tariffs on exported goods. For instance, consider Product A from Thailand. Previously priced at $100, the cost in the US will rise to $136 after Aug 1. In contrast, Product A from Vietnam, also previously exported to the US at $100, will see an increase resulting in a final price of $120, or $16 less than the Thai product. Are any Thai industries expected to benefit from the US tariff policy? The imposition of a 36% reciprocal tariff is not expected to favour any Thai industries, and the impact will differ from sector to sector. Last year, the value of Thailand's total exports to the US reached about $63 billion, with 85% industrial goods and 15% agricultural products. About 30% of industrial exports are conducted by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), while larger exporters, both domestic and foreign, account for the remainder. Mr Aat said the most heavily impacted group would be Thai SMEs, due to the higher tariffs, heightened challenges in terms of competitiveness, and limited working capital. At the same time, they are also facing competition from an influx of Chinese products into the Thai market. Which industries will be negatively impacted? Mr Aat's assessment, based on Thailand's trade surplus value with the US last year, suggests several key industrial products are likely to be adversely affected by the new tariffs. These include communication and telecommunication equipment; computers and data processing systems; machinery parts; car tyres; electronic equipment and semiconductors; electric transformers and power supply equipment; motors and engines; rubber products; and electrical appliances. Additionally, agricultural products expected to be affected include rice and rice products; fresh and dried fruits; fruit and vegetable juices; and fresh and processed vegetables. How will Thai consumers be affected by the US tariff measures? According to Mr Aat, Thai consumers could experience a drop in income caused by a decline in exports, which would significantly slow down the economy. Although expenses may remain stable, the rising cost of living could become increasingly burdensome. There is also a high risk of job losses, business closures, and an increase in household debt. What actions should the government take to support affected industries? Mr Aat said the government must raise and allocate funds to stimulate the economy, as Thailand's economic growth could fall below 1% without such a stimulus, or might even face a contraction. Moreover, the government must provide support to farmers and affected SMEs, which could include tax exemptions, establishing compensation funds, exploring alternative markets, subsidising production costs, and offering low-interest loans. How are other countries assisting affected businesses and individuals? Mr Aat said Thailand should consider China's comprehensive measures, which include broad economic stimulus strategies, consumer support initiatives, the modernisation of manufacturing facilities through advanced technology, and fostering innovation via research funding. China is projected to allocate around $1 trillion to these efforts. Meanwhile, Indonesia has announced plans to distribute cash to low-income groups, along with a 30% discount on train fares, targeting about 18 million low-income individuals at a cost of around $1.3 billion.
