Amata Chairman Sounds Alarm on Middle East Tensions while Urging Bangkok to be Bolder on Investment Policy

 

 

 

Vikrom Kromadit warns that geopolitical uncertainty in the Middle East clouds an otherwise promising FDI outlook — and says Thailand must do far more to compete with Vietnam for industrial investment.

 

 

Even as foreign investment continues to flow into South-East Asia at a record pace, Vikrom Kromadit, the founder and chairman of Amata Corporation PCL, is keeping a wary eye on the Middle East.

 

Speaking at a press conference in Bangkok on Monday, the industrial estate developer said that the unresolved conflict in the region represented the single biggest cloud over what is otherwise an unusually favourable investment climate.

 

“How the crisis in the Middle East evolves remains uncertain, and we need to closely monitor the events in coming weeks,” Vikrom told reporters, delivering a note of caution that sat in pointed contrast to the broadly optimistic tone of the morning’s results presentation.

 

The remarks came as Amata announced a record consolidated net profit of 3.15 billion baht for 2025, a 28 per cent increase on the previous year, and unveiled plans to sell 2,800 rai of industrial land across Thailand, Vietnam and Laos in 2026.

 

Yet even with the company riding a wave of demand driven by global supply-chain diversification and the US–China trade tensions that have pushed manufacturers to seek production bases outside China, Vikrom was clearly unwilling to assume the good times were guaranteed.
 

 

 

 

A stable region with a volatile neighbourhood

The Middle East concern is not purely abstract for a company in Amata’s business. Industrial investment decisions are long-horizon commitments, and energy markets — still closely tied to Gulf stability — remain a critical input cost for manufacturing.

 

Any sustained escalation in the region risks unsettling the very confidence that has been driving capital towards ASEAN.

 

Vikrom has long positioned Thailand as a geopolitically safe destination for investment, pointing to its near-900-year history of diplomatic neutrality and its positive relations with the United States, China and Russia simultaneously.

 

Thailand’s geography — shielded from the typhoons and seismic risks that affect other parts of the region — adds to that appeal. But he was candid that external shocks, particularly from the Middle East, are beyond any government’s or developer’s ability to insulate against entirely.

 

 

 

 

Thailand’s policy gap — and the Vietnam comparison

On domestic policy, Vikrom was equally direct, and his message to the Thai government was not wholly comfortable. While he praised Thailand’s natural advantages, he made clear that goodwill and geography alone will not be sufficient to keep pace with the region’s most aggressive investment competitor.
 

 

 

 

 

The chairman pointed to Vietnam as the benchmark Thailand has so far failed to match.

 

Hanoi is currently targeting GDP growth of 10 per cent and has backed that ambition with industrial policy to match: Vietnam now boasts close to 500 designated industrial estates, compared with just 70 in Thailand.

 

That gap, Vikrom suggested, is not accidental — it is the direct result of policy choices.

 

The implicit critique is pointed. Thailand’s Board of Investment has in recent years sought to attract higher-value industries through targeted incentive packages, and the Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC) — a flagship government initiative — has attracted notable commitments in sectors such as electric vehicles, semiconductors and data centres.

 

But critics – Vikrom’s comments suggest he counts himself among them, argue that the pace of policy delivery has not matched the urgency of the competitive environment.

 

For Amata, which is targeting 1,650 rai of land sales in Thailand this year — the largest share of its 2026 target — the stakes are immediate. The company is betting that demand for high-tech and digital supply-chain facilities within the EEC will underpin that target. But Vikrom’s tone made clear that he regards the government as a partner whose full potential has yet to be unlocked.

 

 

 

The broader context: an ASEAN window that may not stay open

What lends Vikrom’s critique its particular edge is the broader context he himself articulated. ASEAN, he said, is at an inflection point.

 

The combination of US tariff pressure on Chinese-origin goods, the restructuring of global supply chains, and the growing appetite among multinationals for geographically diversified manufacturing bases has produced a window of opportunity for the region that is real — but not permanent.

 

“ASEAN is emerging as a new investment hub, especially for high-tech, digital, and future industries,” he said. “We are also seeing more companies coming to us to set up R&D as well as manufacturing as they make strategic decisions to diversify their footprint.”

 

The message for Bangkok, implicit but unmistakeable, is that seizing that opportunity requires more than waiting for investors to arrive. Vietnam has already demonstrated what aggressive policy can deliver.

 

With Middle East uncertainty adding a further layer of risk to the global investment climate, Vikrom appeared to be urging the Thai government to move faster — while there is still time to do so.