Cambodia’s tourism cooperation was signed with Trip.com headquarters, not with Trip.com Thailand. Yet the public statement announcing the suspension came from a country-level unit that was not the contracting party. This misalignment between contractual authority and communication authority is the core issue.
Here is the insight.
Trip.com operates through a bureaucratic and hierarchical structure, consisting of headquarters, a regional office in Singapore, and country-level units such as Trip.com Thailand. In such a structure, decisions related to cross-border cooperation normally sit at headquarters or, at minimum, regional level. When a country-level unit communicates on an agreement outside its scope, public understanding can quickly become blurred.
The wording used by Trip.com Thailand — “เราได้รับทราบถึงความกังวลของผู้ใช้บริการ” (“we have taken note of users’ concerns”) — frames the action as a response to public sentiment. While this language is common in reputational risk management, its use in this context creates the impression that Trip.com as a whole has taken a definitive position. This is particularly so when the statement also addresses issues such as data exchange and privacy, matters typically handled at headquarters level.
The effect of this communication is significant. By speaking publicly on an agreement it did not sign, the Thailand unit shifts attention and frustration toward Trip.com headquarters, rather than toward the local market context in which the statement originated. As a result, the issue moves away from tourism promotion and toward perceived corporate alignment, generating unnecessary tension driven by perception rather than substance. As of now, what it can be concluded is the clear stand of Thailand’s trip.com, they gave up the concept of tourism that suppose to people-to-people exchange, cultural diplomacy, and an economic stabiliser during crises, but express the pressure of Thai people.
The insight is straightforward: when a country-level platform communicates beyond its functional scope, communication itself can become a source of confusion. In this case, the statement functions less as clarification and more as a catalyst—reshaping public reactions toward Trip.com as a whole, even though the cooperation in question was neither political nor managed at the local level.
Author: PanhaCHEZDA