Phuket Deputy Minister: PPPs Must Benefit Public, Attract Investment.
The recent news from Phuket, specifically Deputy Finance Minister Paopoom Rojanasakul’s inspection of key development projects alongside Treasury Department officials, offers a microcosm of a larger, and often fraught, debate: How can governments effectively leverage private investment to build vital infrastructure and stimulate economic growth without sacrificing public benefit and long-term fiscal stability? The visit, documented by the Phuket News, highlights two specific case studies: the redevelopment of the Phuket Deep Sea Port and a nearby land development project, both examples of public-private partnerships (PPPs) designed to unlock the economic potential of state-owned land.
These projects, at their core, represent an attempt to address several intertwined challenges facing Thailand. First, there’s the need to modernize infrastructure to accommodate the demands of a growing tourism sector and evolving global supply chains. Second, there’s the pressure to generate revenue for the state through effective land management. And third, there’s the ever-present balancing act between attracting private investment and ensuring that these ventures genuinely serve the public good over the long term.
The Phuket Deep Sea Port redevelopment, initiated with a public bidding process in 2016, exemplifies the complexities of this balancing act. While Phuket Deep Sea Port Co Ltd ultimately secured the project by offering a total concession fee of B345 million and a development value of B132.86 million, the bidding requirements themselves—a minimum project value of B116.89 million and a minimum concession fee of B139.5 million over 30 years—raise questions about the incentives at play. Are these minimum thresholds sufficient to ensure robust competition and truly maximize the value for the state? Are they inadvertently favoring certain types of bidders or projects over others?
The land development project in Ratsada, awarded in 2005 to Baan Jaisai Co Ltd, offers a slightly different lens. The extended construction timeline and revised plans, while presented as an adjustment to better suit the intended use, also highlight the potential pitfalls of long-term contracts and the challenges of adapting to changing market conditions. The fact that construction, according to this news report, stood at 87.5% complete as of April 2025, with an extension granted until June 30, 2025, underscores the importance of robust oversight and contract enforcement to prevent delays and ensure project completion.
To fully understand the implications of these projects, it’s crucial to consider several key factors:
- Transparency and Accountability: Are the bidding processes truly transparent, ensuring fair competition and preventing undue influence?
- Long-Term Value Creation: Do the concession fees and projected returns adequately reflect the true value of the land and the potential benefits to the private developers?
- Community Impact: How are these projects impacting local communities, both positively and negatively? Are there adequate mechanisms in place to address potential displacement or environmental concerns?
- Resilience: Are the projects designed to withstand future shocks, such as economic downturns or climate change impacts?
Maximizing the utility of state-owned land isn’t just about revenue generation; it’s about strategically deploying public assets to build a more resilient, equitable, and sustainable future. The success of these projects in Phuket, and others like them across Thailand, will ultimately hinge on the government’s ability to navigate the complex trade-offs inherent in public-private partnerships and ensure that the long-term interests of the public are prioritized above all else.
The broader context is that, as demonstrated in Phuket, leveraging state assets effectively requires navigating inherent tensions. Deputy Minister Paopoom’s assertion that these developments “not only generate revenue for the state but also contribute to public benefit” sounds good, but the devil, as always, is in the details—specifically, in the details of the contracts, the oversight mechanisms, and the long-term vision guiding these partnerships.
