Investors in Myanmar
It may be a familiar thing by now on this blog: once again I am preparing to speak at an event, this time about the Rohingya exodus from Myanmar, and I am putting together some notes to share (relatively briefly this time) before I head off to do this. For a reminder, this (see map) is the part of the world we are talking about.
No offense meant by including that map above. You may know more about Myanmar than me. But even as a non-Myanmar-specialist I will risk saying that in general people in the West know very little about the place. Many are not really sure if Myanmar should be Burma rather, because everyone heard of the military junta (so who knows if using one or the other name in reference to the country is appropriate or not). Many may have heard that there was some kind of "democratic" change but in pictures appearing in the media about the country generals in military uniform and military uniforms in general still proliferate. And there are those names for the different groups of people involved in recent events, like the Rohingya and the Rakhine and... how are you supposed to pronounce them, some may be asking themselves. And before I forget, there is that one person most people will have heard of, Aung San Suu Kyi (how do you pronounce that name?), and she is supposed to be a nice person but now there is this exodus so maybe she is no longer a nice person given that she is supposed to be in charge? Confusing!
To answer the questions above in a nutshell: Myanmar has basically the same meaning but is not as colonial and more formal to use than Burma; on the other hand it is indeed associated to some extent with the military junta that changed the official name of the country in 1989. The democratic change resulted in Princess Leia coming to "power," yes, except that she is not in control of the security forces, so please don't focus on her person alone and please don't think of that past Nobel Peace Prize of hers as the real policy issue behind what's happening. People's lives are more important. Really.
As for the names of the different ethnic groups and some background to recent events, watch at least these two clips to familiarise yourself further with the events and the actors, from 2013 (al-Jazeera, a documentary) and 2017 (Sky News, reporting), respectively.
Below, I'm interested (merely with an academic interest in collecting data) in seeing which corporations have taken the decision to invest in the country so far. A non-risk-free decision at that.
Apparantly, many are not sure now what the economic prospects are, and there is economic slowdown since 2016 as a result of all the uncertainty regarding future economic policy (a slowdown, partly because the uncertainty keeps additional investors away).
Some basic statistics from the article just referenced above:
The Dutch interest (not incomprehensible given the legacy of colonial ties to Southeast Asia) is noteworthy given that it comes from a country often showing an interest in a humanitarian/ethical foreign policy. Also because it stands out in a sea of investment from mostly Asian countries.
Of course, against the backdrop of the present Rohingya crisis, Western companies are now especially hesitant about investing in the country. "State Counsellor" Aung San Su Kyi does not get many cards to play: her best option to do anything visible for the country's economy remains basically with China (no wonder her first major international visit was to Beijing).
The Chinese are keen to take up the opportunity:
Given the profile of some of the firms there I assume that many are involved in trade primarily but there certainly are cases of significant direct investment as well.
Some examples from the datasheet, by country, to conclude with (a non-comprehensive list, I emphasise -- really just examples):
If you see some recurring elements, it's not your fault. Oil/gas, extractive industry (minerals), clothing/textile, etc.
So there is some major investment already in place that is bound to come under some degree of scrutiny from pressure groups in some of the countries concerned at least (very unevenly of course).
And I really don't mean this is a simple issue so my interest in the data above is purely academic, you might be forgiven (by me) for saying.
No offense meant by including that map above. You may know more about Myanmar than me. But even as a non-Myanmar-specialist I will risk saying that in general people in the West know very little about the place. Many are not really sure if Myanmar should be Burma rather, because everyone heard of the military junta (so who knows if using one or the other name in reference to the country is appropriate or not). Many may have heard that there was some kind of "democratic" change but in pictures appearing in the media about the country generals in military uniform and military uniforms in general still proliferate. And there are those names for the different groups of people involved in recent events, like the Rohingya and the Rakhine and... how are you supposed to pronounce them, some may be asking themselves. And before I forget, there is that one person most people will have heard of, Aung San Suu Kyi (how do you pronounce that name?), and she is supposed to be a nice person but now there is this exodus so maybe she is no longer a nice person given that she is supposed to be in charge? Confusing!
To answer the questions above in a nutshell: Myanmar has basically the same meaning but is not as colonial and more formal to use than Burma; on the other hand it is indeed associated to some extent with the military junta that changed the official name of the country in 1989. The democratic change resulted in Princess Leia coming to "power," yes, except that she is not in control of the security forces, so please don't focus on her person alone and please don't think of that past Nobel Peace Prize of hers as the real policy issue behind what's happening. People's lives are more important. Really.
As for the names of the different ethnic groups and some background to recent events, watch at least these two clips to familiarise yourself further with the events and the actors, from 2013 (al-Jazeera, a documentary) and 2017 (Sky News, reporting), respectively.
Below, I'm interested (merely with an academic interest in collecting data) in seeing which corporations have taken the decision to invest in the country so far. A non-risk-free decision at that.
Apparantly, many are not sure now what the economic prospects are, and there is economic slowdown since 2016 as a result of all the uncertainty regarding future economic policy (a slowdown, partly because the uncertainty keeps additional investors away).
Some basic statistics from the article just referenced above:
The Dutch interest (not incomprehensible given the legacy of colonial ties to Southeast Asia) is noteworthy given that it comes from a country often showing an interest in a humanitarian/ethical foreign policy. Also because it stands out in a sea of investment from mostly Asian countries.
Of course, against the backdrop of the present Rohingya crisis, Western companies are now especially hesitant about investing in the country. "State Counsellor" Aung San Su Kyi does not get many cards to play: her best option to do anything visible for the country's economy remains basically with China (no wonder her first major international visit was to Beijing).
The Chinese are keen to take up the opportunity:
"A Chinese-led consortium is planning to build the nearly $10 billion Kyaukpyu special economic zone in Rakhine state, which includes an industrial park and a deep-sea port, providing China with critical access to the Indian Ocean. Middle East and African oil shipped to the port will be carried by a Chinese-backed $2.45 billion pipeline across Myanmar to southwest China, eliminating the need to transport crude via the Malacca Straits."With that, here's a useful resource to see who's investing in Myanmar. In the Excel datasheet available via the link you find a total of 186 companies, as of 27 April 2015 (see the list 'including uncontacted companies').
Given the profile of some of the firms there I assume that many are involved in trade primarily but there certainly are cases of significant direct investment as well.
Some examples from the datasheet, by country, to conclude with (a non-comprehensive list, I emphasise -- really just examples):
- The Netherlands: Shell, Philips, Heineken, ING
- US: ConocoPhillips, Coca Cola, Chevron, Calvin Klein
- China: CNPC, China Power Investment, Industrial & Commercial Bank of China, Offshore Oil Engineering
- India: ONGC Videsh, Oil India, Oilmax, Reliance Industries (manufacturing)
- Italy: Eni
- Ireland: Apex Geoservices (construction)
- UK: PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ophir Energy, Primark (clothing/textile)
- Belgium: Total
- France: Lafarge (construction)
- Switzerland: Kempinski Hotels
- Austria: Andritz Hydro (dam construction)
- Australia: Tap Oil, Transcontinental Group (oil/gas),
- Canada: Centurion Minerals
- Denmark: Carlsberg
- Sweden: Ericsson, H&M
- Japan: Nippon Yusen (shipping), Mitsubishi, Suzuki, JGC (construction)
- South Korea: Samsung
- Indonesia: PT Timah (extractive industry)
- Singapore: Pacific Hunt Energy, United Overseas Bank, Wilmar (agriculture)
- Malaysia: Petronas, Malayan Banking
- Thailand: Petroleum Authority of Thailand Exploration and Production (PTTEP), Siam Commercial Bank, ThaiBev (food and beverage)
- Pakistan: Petroleum Exploration PVT
- Vietnam: Petrovietnam Exploration Production
- Taiwan: Taiwan Electrical and Electronic Manufactures Association
- Qatar: Ooredoo (telecom)
- Germany: Jack Wolfskin (clothing/textile), Adidas
- France: AST Modular (part of Schneider Electric)
- Russia: Bashneft JSOC (oil/gas)
- Spain: Mango (clothing/textile)
- Norway: Statoil
If you see some recurring elements, it's not your fault. Oil/gas, extractive industry (minerals), clothing/textile, etc.
So there is some major investment already in place that is bound to come under some degree of scrutiny from pressure groups in some of the countries concerned at least (very unevenly of course).
And I really don't mean this is a simple issue so my interest in the data above is purely academic, you might be forgiven (by me) for saying.
Comments
Post a Comment