This feverish economic activity is in stark contrast to the statue of Lenin in a Hanoi park, one of only a few of its kind left in the world after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

No doubt, Lenin would still be proud, in spite of the fact that the Communist Party of Vietnam has strayed towards a free-market economy. Besides, his statue is an attraction for foreign visitors.

As a new member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Vietnam is pushing hard to integrate into the global economy. The country is currently Asia's fastest growing economy after China, and that has been achieved even without WTO benefits.

For the Vietnamese media, WTO membership, achieved this week, is headline news. Shortly before Vietnam's entry was confirmed, I attended a conference in Hanoi, covering international trade policies for Thailand.

One of the Vietnamese reporters asked me, "What was the first story you wrote after Thailand became a member of the WTO?"

I told her to identify the winners and losers on both sides and then tell readers about their plight.

Vietnam today has important parallels with Thailand from 1986 to 1994, when there was an inflow of foreign direct investment from Japan as a result of the Plaza Accord of 1985. A large number of Japanese investors relocated to Southeast Asia because it became far too costly for them to maintain production facilities at home.

Thailand and Vietnam, both Asean members, follow a three-pronged international trade approach through Asean, the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum and now the WTO. Vietnam has not yet entered into bilateral trade agreements, but it will be just a matter of time before it does.

Membership of the WTO won't change things in Hanoi overnight. But Vietnamese reporters were excited about the prospects. Some were sceptical. After all, the Vietnamese economy is set to grow by more than 7 per cent with or without the WTO. Economists at the conference gave them the big picture: Vietnam cannot afford to remain outside an organisation of more than 140 countries working on global trade, and as a new member, Vietnam will attract foreign investors, who feel more comfortable about investing in a country that respects international regulations.

But any trade agreement brings about winners and losers. Some members of the Vietnamese media confided they would face a big challenge in reporting the downside of the government's policy.

The young Vietnamese reporters told me they received most of their information from the government, which at times kept the details of the WTO agreement secret.

"They said the secrecy was for the sake of national security," one of them told me.

Young Vietnamese reporters were surprised when I showed them pictures of Thai protesters who came out on the streets to demonstrate against the WTO and bilateral free-trade talks. Some of the reporters were amused by pictures of protesters wearing masks of President George Bush, waving placards that condemned the WTO as merely a tool of America the superpower.

I showed them pictures of farmers in northern Thailand who rallied against an influx of Chinese fruits and vegetables as a result of trade liberalisation. I told them I did not wholeheartedly agree with some of the protesters, but these were economic stakeholders whose concerns should and deserved to be heard.

One female reporter said she was confused, having listened to all these views. "I don't know what to write. It seems to me that I got mixed messages." This young reporter said Vietnamese government officials kept telling her that WTO membership was good. But then she'd heard a completely different story from staff of Oxfam.

I told her not to worry: mixed messages are better than a one-sided story.

"Do you know the difference between Thai and Vietnamese farmers?" another reporter asked me. "Thai farmers can protest against the government's policy, but it is not the case with the Vietnamese."

The protests against former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's trade liberalisation policies demonstrated how international economic policy can work its way into political issues. Free-trade initiatives were partly the reason for thousands of protesters taking to the streets.

Thaksin might have had good intentions but the people lost faith in him because of his failure to allow public participation in trade negotiations.

In any policy formulation, public participation is the name of the game.

 Jeerawat Na Thalang