In De Miguel’s article, a basis on Fukuda Doctrine which has been the core political and economic regime between Japan and Thailand, the common interests have been boosting up through the shifting of the roles between these two. Accordingly, the author noted that despite the Japanese occupation during the world war II in Southeast Asia, Japan was permitted to reconstruct trustworthy among its allies to escalate an opportunity in a future trade. So Japan assisted aids to Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand, listed as economic assistance, not as compensation for damages done during II World War. The image of Japan from 40 years ago appeared to be as the “Imperialist”(De Miguel, 2013: 101) in Thailand which led to criticism and anti-Japan movement. In the 1970s after the announcement of Fukuda doctrine and the increase of FDI inflow in Thailand, Japan was “led to a deepening of the economic linkages with S.E.A. Asia so that by the early 90’s Japan was the main economic partner of the region” (2013:104). Despite Japan cannot manage to remain the role as being the second biggest world economy exercising the so-called soft-power in the beginning of 21th Century, Japan was an economic development model for Asian countries (2013:104) and ready to be an international stage. Together with Thailand, Japan was instrumental to convince the Khmer rouge to accept the 1991 Paris Peace Agreement(2013:106). However, the author suggested that the act of Japan was to reduce tensions between its members and promote friendly relations with and between the great powers(2013:107). On the other hand, Simon Tay’s represented a change of the roles in the 21st Century. Japan has changed from the suppressive actor exploiting resources and market in Thailand to the two-way partner because “major manufacturing dealings with Japan, with automakers having their regional base in Thailand”(Simon,2013:14). Also in De Miguel’s article, Japan issued new plans for Southeast Asia underlying a change of Japan’s role play to Japan and ASEAN in East Asia- A Sincere and Open Partnership (Simon,2013:14).Furthermore, Kaneo and Tono projected that Japan’s direct overseas investments, with the support from the Japanese government, Thailand was ranked third behind China in Asia region.(Kaneo and Tono,2011:26). According to the statistic from the Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO), since 2004 Japan’s outward FDI has increased respectively. The investment in Thailand has been soaring up respectively from 1,867 US million dollars in 2004 to 4,064 US million dollars in 2016(JETRO,2017:3). However, Simon also emphasized that the trade and investment model contained a fundamental diversification in the economic and political relationship in which Japan bounded with Southeast Asia. In a meantime when China has been rising the business capacity against Southeast Asia, Japan encouraged more advanced economy composition toward Asian and the MNCs from Japan moved to invest in this region as a production base (Simon,2013:14): for example, Toyota and the plants in Thailand. On the other hand, the extension of capital leakage involved with direct foreign investment related to international trade heavily and regional natural and human resources become security zone for Japanese business. Japan’s manufacturers have been diversified to Southeast Asia for a few decades due to a regime which cuts their exposure to rising costs and anti-Japanese sentiment in China, and Foreign investment is also encouraging the exporters’ profits. Nevertheless, business and industrial sectors in Southeast Asia and Thailand rely greatly on the investment from Japan which could be considered as an unequal exchange between the host country and the economically advanced nation.