BANGKOK, 18 August 2026 — BFI Thailand, or the Boiling Frog Institute, has begun its work as an independent think tank focused on addressing Thailand’s long-term structural challenges before they develop into deeper economic and social crises. The institute was founded by Dr. Suthikorn Kingkaew, who pioneered the use of the “Boiling Frog Crisis” metaphor to describe Thailand’s economic challenges in March 2017. At the time, Dr. Suthikorn warned that the country’s greatest risk might not come from a sudden financial collapse, but from the gradual erosion of competitiveness across industries while the deterioration remained largely unnoticed. Contemporary reporting from March 2017 recorded his concerns over Thai manufacturing, including automobiles, textiles and hard-disk drives, and his warning that Thailand risked becoming like a frog failing to notice steadily rising water temperature. Nearly a decade later, BFI Thailand has been established around the principles of “Bridging, Framework, Impact” — bringing different sectors together, developing practical frameworks for complex problems, and translating ideas into meaningful change.
As one of its first major activities, BFI Thailand hosted an Exclusive Roundtable Discussion, “From India to Thailand: Rethinking Technological Sovereignty,” bringing together senior representatives from government, diplomacy, business and academia for an exclusive exchange with Indian author and strategic thinker Pranjal Sharma. Participants included Dr. Kanok Wongtrangarn, Advisor to the Minister of Industry; Navodit Verma, Head of Chancery at the Embassy of India in Thailand; and Veena Upadhya, a business leader, alongside other invited experts and practitioners. The central question was deliberately practical: Which technologies must Thailand own, which should it co-develop, and which can safely be sourced through trusted global partners? Rather than advocating technological self-sufficiency, the discussion focused on how countries can preserve strategic choices, strengthen domestic capabilities and remain connected to the global economy.
This event reflects a collaboration between BFI Thailand and the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), one of India’s leading think tanks, aimed at deepening the exchange of ideas, policy perspectives, and strategic thinking between Thailand and India. Both Dr. Suthikorn Kingkaew and Pranjal Sharma are ORF Fellows, providing a strong intellectual foundation for continued dialogue and closer cooperation between the two countries.
Pranjal’s latest book, India Innovates: Technological Sovereignty in a Weaponized World, provided the starting point for the discussion. Published in 2026, the book examines India’s attempt to reduce excessive dependence on foreign technologies that could become strategic vulnerabilities in periods of geopolitical tension. Importantly, its definition of technological sovereignty extends far beyond artificial intelligence. The book considers data, computing, digital infrastructure, rare earths, navigation and space, defense and national security, manufacturing, agriculture and other strategic capabilities. The underlying argument is not that every country should produce everything domestically, but that no country should allow excessive dependence on a single external supplier to undermine its ability to make independent economic and security decisions.
That issue has become increasingly important as US–China strategic competition reshapes the global economic landscape. Technology, semiconductors, critical minerals, cloud and data infrastructure, digital platforms and industrial supply chains are no longer purely commercial matters. They have become instruments of geopolitical power. The roundtable discussed how countries caught between major powers should avoid choosing dependence on one side over dependence on another. Instead, they should diversify technology partners, suppliers, energy sources and trade relationships while simultaneously developing selected domestic capabilities.
India was discussed as an important case study. Its approach combines foreign investment with policies aimed at creating domestic production capacity and technological capability. These include outcome-linked manufacturing incentives, efforts to develop local alternatives in strategically important digital sectors, support for electronics and semiconductor manufacturing, and targeted development in areas ranging from electric vehicles to defense and space. Participants stressed, however, that the most relevant lesson for Thailand is not to copy India’s policies, but to recognize that foreign investment should leave capabilities behind — skilled workers, local suppliers, manufacturing know-how, research capacity and eventually some degree of technological ownership.
For Thailand, this raises a fundamental question about the country’s industrial strategy. Attracting foreign direct investment remains important, but investment value alone cannot be the final measure of success. Thailand needs to determine which sectors are strategically important to the next stage of its development, where the country already possesses competitive advantages, and where new capabilities must be deliberately built. Participants argued that Thailand should negotiate more systematically for technology transfer, local supplier development, workforce upgrading and research collaboration, while ensuring that manufacturing does not continue to decline as a share of the economy without being replaced by higher-value activities.
Human capital emerged as one of the most urgent constraints. Technological sovereignty cannot be achieved simply by constructing factories or purchasing advanced machines. Thailand needs technicians, engineers, robot operators, automation specialists, programmers, and skilled industrial workers capable of operating, maintaining, integrating, and improving new technologies. As robotics and automation become central to advanced manufacturing, competitiveness will increasingly depend not only on access to machines, but also on the domestic capability to design, program, deploy, and service automated production systems. Participants therefore called for renewed attention to vocational and technical education, stronger industry-based training, and closer collaboration between schools, universities, and manufacturers. They also cautioned against an education system that treats university degrees as the only pathway to economic advancement. Building a modern industrial economy requires both advanced researchers and a much larger base of highly competent technical workers who can support robotics, automation, AI-enabled manufacturing, and the factories of the future.
The discussion also identified several areas where India and Thailand could build more practical cooperation, including electronics and semiconductors, automotive technologies and EVs, agricultural and food processing technologies, digital infrastructure, logistics, tourism and workforce development. One less conventional opportunity discussed was the modernisation of traditional medicine. India and Thailand both possess substantial knowledge in herbal and traditional healthcare. Stronger scientific research, modern regulation, hospital integration, joint manufacturing and product development could potentially transform cultural knowledge into new economic and health-related industries.
The roundtable concluded with several possible next steps, including the preparation of a joint policy paper on technological sovereignty for Thailand, the identification of a limited number of priority sectors, structured industry and skills exchanges, and further engagement between Thai and Indian companies, research institutions and policymakers.
For BFI Thailand, the technological sovereignty roundtable also reflects a broader agenda. The institute plans to continue convening experts and stakeholders around issues that may not always produce immediate crises but have the potential to gradually weaken Thailand’s competitiveness — from industrial transformation and education to government reform, technology, productivity and the country’s future growth model.
The purpose, Dr. Suthikorn argues, is not simply to point out that the water is getting warmer.
It is to create a space where Thailand can recognize structural problems early, debate them openly, develop workable solutions — and act before it is too late.