“A group of Chinese labourers who attempted to sneak into Laos were much less lucky. They were caught by Chinese police, beaten mercilessly (in full public view) and then made to stand for hours in the burning sun. I have no idea what happened next.”
Good example of why one needs a powerful protector when moving through the social spaces of many cultures (traditional patron client relations, cultural fixture for hundreds of years, abstract rights being irrelevant) as Matthew McDaniel’s work often shows, you can be shot in the head, dumped in the river, and then have the level of local “karuna” regarding your plight be something like: “som nam na” (just deserts), being an idealist: transparency, media penetration, democratic feedback, leading to appearance equals reality, is the only way forward from these horrible hidden histories/transcripts (cf James Scotts book), believe me there are a lot worse incidents than this that never see the light of day
It still seems as though our attempts to colonize the Siamese people are still thwarted by love of this dastardly King.
One wonders when the revolution will come? … Or really how the revolution should be induced? Historical ‘evaluations’ suggest that we must get amongst the farmers, the foundation of their infrastructure and lambaste the King. Maybe an edited version of “Animal Farm” that replaces “Boxer the horse” with “Kiet the Buffalo” and “Snowball the pig” with “Niran the boar” should be made available to those developed enough to read?
Rather than antagonize Vichai and cohorts further, I will admit that maybe farming is no longer a foundation for Thai infrastructure. Surely now it is tourism. Tourism that is promoted with the quaint idea of a King that is loved by his people, who is educated and moralistic enough to swallow his own sufficient economy of kindness and not build a palace over the Akha, to limit his motorcade of Mercedes to only 20 (which he travels to all these projects of his in), and to placard the streets of Bangkok with images of his family!
As Nietszche said “Only the boldest utopians would dream of the economy of kindness.” Yes the monarchy and its tourists are indeed living in a utopia!
Therefore, surely us foreign devils prefer it this way? It satisfies the Hegelian ego and ensures that when the Baht crashes again, Thai people are kept poor and we are treated well.
A startling revelation! If we don’t continue discussing development, we can keep doing what we are historically guilty of! Surely our masters will be impressed!
Andrew notes, “Most rural communities in Thailand probably derive more income off farm than they do in the agricultural sector. In other words local agriculture frequently exists, and persists, on a foundation of external social and economic linkages…. The notion that external linkages should only be developed once there is a foundation in local sufficiency is simply not consistent with the economically diversified livelihood strategies pursued by rural people in contemporary Thailand. It is an agrarian vision from the past.”
I do not agree. It is inconsistent with actual improvements in poverty alleviation over the past 5 years. Poverty fell substantially since 2000, especially in the poorest region: the Northeast. The number of people living below the poverty line in the Northeast fell by half from 2000 to 2004. Was that improvement due to the “economically diversified livelihood strategies” suggested by Andrew? No – a double-digit p.a. rise in agricultural income was the major factor in the reduction of poverty. From 2000 to 2004, agricultural incomes rose by 40% – much higher than any other income sources. Most of this increase in income wasn’t from increases in output, but from increases in value-added. Most of this data is from the World Bank and NESDB, see here.
Thus it appears that, at least during the Thaksin administration, the largest increases in rural income came from the local agricultural sector, rather than from non-agricultural sources like labor export. This isn’t to say that villages became self-sufficient – far from it. Higher value-added “exports” of agricultural products, in the form of OTOP and other policies, probably played an important role in raising incomes.
The irony of this situation is that Thaksin’s village-oriented agricultural development policies (micro-credit, OTOP, etc.) actually delivered a lot of the benefits of self-sufficiency, even though the junta and its apologists would have you believe that Thaksin-policies and self-sufficiency are contradictory.
[…] This is my third post on the 2007 Human Development Report for Thailand. Regular New Mandala reader Vichai reflects on my motivation for writing these pieces: Either you are being stupid or you are merely being malicious. Or your master has given you instruct[ions] to pursue this nonsense or you won’t get paid. […]
It’s those lese majeste laws again – it seems everyone wants to use them to get what they want – politicians, media barons, supporters of the palace, and surprise surprise, even critics of the palace system.
Pundit: Do you seriously think that rational criticism of the sufficiency economy theory will be taken to be lese majeste?
In any case, there is no need to worry about lese majeste on this site – I’m sure the palace and the junta will not be able to find any Anon, Republican or Bangkok Pundit in the phone book, so feel free to provide constructive criticism of the sufficiency economy theory.
Most of the criticism I have seen has been concern about possible manipulation & abuse by bureaucrats etc, rather than real criticism of the concept.
Anon: I cant help it if your sarcasm rings true!
It is apparent that many posters on this site have very fixed views about the Thai political situation, and it is a shame that the level of debate cannot seem to rise above those existing biases.
I am quite happy to declare my position:- I believe the country is better to have HMK offering advice and a steadying influence than it would be if the politicians were left to their own devices (or vices).
Also, I am not so na├пve as to think that there are no behind the scene relationships involving some people close to the palace. Rather, I accept that those types of relationships exist virtually everywhere, including in western democracies that are supposed to be our salvation (Halliburton etc)
Such relationships existed before, during and after Thaksin, and the only thing that changes is who is in and who is out at a certain point in time.
[…] Further to my post about Boten, in the far north of Laos, Warren Mayes has provided these great shots from early 2006. The first shows Boten on the Lao side of the border. […]
Your article was insightful on the real problem of UXO here in Lao PDR. I am currently working as an advisor to UXO Lao and we, the team here, deeply appreciate your efforts to make the problem known in Australia.
We would appreciate it if you could tell more people about the problem.
Please feel free to contact me should you need further information on UXO Lao and our activities.
Why can you not just say it straight Fall: “Thaksin was wrong, criminally wrong, when he carried out that senseless slaughter of Y2003 defenseless and poor villagers during his anti-yaa baa madness.”
Once you find your ‘puke threshold’ Fall, you will be Free.
Fall – Now repeat after me – “Thaksin was . . . . .”
Vichai – Now this is a good statement. Decent Thai will NOT accept murderer to be their leader. As in, will not accept a military commander, who does not order his soldier to STOP shooting civilian-student or directly insult a man cause him to commit suicide, to become PM?
Or as in, will not accept someone whose regime approve anti-immigrant policy, which cause people cargo being dump over board in ocean?
Scream something out really loud, get a well known opposition party to sit in, combine with some half-known academia. Wa-lah! Perfect recipe for manipulating middle-class. Work like a charm, every coup.
It is easier for critics of the junta or the ‘palace system’ to score points if the sufficiency economy is seen to be prescriptive/formulatic, and it appears the junta is playing right into their hands.
I see the sufficiency economy theory as guidance from HMK for people to think about the way they live, and to apply some moderation in their business and personal activities.
Your talk of the junta and the Surayud government and its use of sufficiency economy is what concerns me. Any policy of Thaksins they don’t like is labelled as not being in accordance with sufficiency economy, but then relabelled and extra money spent money and suddenly it is in accordance with sufficiency economy. Crispin touched on this in October when he said:
“There is a definite risk that Thai bureaucrats may overplay the sufficiency concept in expression of their loyalty and affection for the monarch. There is a concurrent risk that the royal philosophy will be twisted by less scrupulous government officials as an opportunity to abuse their authority for rent-seeking and extortion, particularly among foreign-invested concerns.”
Thai TV is now riddled with vague references to sufficiency economy (ie doing x is not in accordance with sufficiency economy). The principle behind sufficiency economy of living within one means is so vague that it is easily subject to abuse. The new measures of capital controls and amendments to the Foreign Business Act have one large beneficiary rich Thais, particularly those with local monopolies.
The second problem I have with sufficiency economy is, as I believe Republican pointed out in another post, that analysing the concept is very difficult because of lese majeste. You can’t criticise the concept only in Thai society without risking bringing trouble to yourself.
Finally, HM the King is not just suggesting a model on how people should live their personal lives, it is about changing the economy with fewer exports and an economy which is 25% self-sufficient.
btw, HM the King has given one of few explanations I have seen of the “share game” which is extremely prevalent in Thai society. I lived in Thailand a while before I heard anything about this.
nganadeeleg, don’t you know sarcasm when you see it? 🙂
I was trying to say that “sufficiency economy” is like “ariyasaj 4” – it sounds nice and is undoubtedly true. But it shouldn’t be used as the basis for ruling a populace or managing an economy.
(Dr Chris Baker is the principal writer and editor of the United Nations Development Programme’s “Thailand Human Development Report 2007: Sufficiency Economy and Human Development”)
Unfortunately, there is a tendency to treat the King’s ideas as some sort of prescriptive formula for the economy.
It is easier for critics of the junta or the ‘palace system’ to score points if the sufficiency economy is seen to be prescriptive/formulatic, and it appears the junta is playing right into their hands.
I see the sufficiency economy theory as guidance from HMK for people to think about the way they live, and to apply some moderation in their business and personal activities.
(I also agree with comment #5 above by anon – very well said)
Pundit: I’m sure we can all find examples of excesses that appear to show particular individuals are not practising ‘sufficiency economy’.
An alternative way of looking at it would be like followers of the Buddhist religion – they all believe in the religions ideals, but various individuals are further along the Buddhist path than others. Some (or most) may never get there in this lifetime, but they can still be on the path to enlightenment.
[…] Read this in the context of another interesting comment from The Nation’s Kavi Chongkittavorn: Some legislators and officials have already spoken of “sufficiency democracy” as part and parcel of the sufficiency economy. In Thai pracha thippatai poh peang might sound pleasing and reassuring but in English it is an antonym to freedom. Thai bureaucrats and developers have already treated the two concepts as mutually inclusive, which is extremely dangerous. Conservatives and royalists might want that to happen, citing the sufficiency economy as the bedrock for all blueprints. […]
Case studies would be more useful than a bunch of statistics. Look at newspapers on Japanese funded Easy Buy in which the debtor can opt not to pay and the debt grows and grows. or the motorcycle dealerships that rake in cash by selling easily on credit in provincial villages and then repossessing with the help of the local mafia.
This all has nothing to do with His Majesty the King who sets an example. Of course some people won’t follow it. But it is a lot better than places that have no example at all like Burma.
“…the less human developed provinces tend to have lower debt levels.”
Here is another place where appearance does not meet reality. Have you ever heard of “Len Hun” ? There are extensive informal debt networks. I doubt whether they enter the stats.
Many years ago I saw IQ test results that reported a substantial fraction of northerners were mental retarded. The test was given in central Thai and there are a lot of hill tribes and Kham Meuang speakers. Statistical studies like this should be taken with a grain of salt.
Thank you Nganadeeled for the link. I find the following interesting:
“This sufficiency means to have enough to live on. Sufficiency means to lead a reasonably comfortable life, without excess, or overindulgence in luxury, but enough. Some things may seem to be extravagant, but if it brings happiness, it is permissible as long as it is within the means of the individual. This is another interpretation of the sufficiency economy or system.”
So if Surayud’s couple of a million baht in foreign watches brings him happiness it is ok. Now, if I understand correctly, if I have 10 billion baht and want to buy myself a fleet of Ferraris, it is ok within the sufficiency economy system as long as it is makes me happy and is within my means of the individual (I don’t borrow excessively?).
I don’t really see any limits to this sufficiency economy idea,* but then again as I have previously stated I don’t really see sufficiency economy meaning anything apart from being a rhetorical device.
Are there any examples of people who have not been in accordance with the sufficiency economy. Surely, Thaksin who brought debt down from around 57% of GDP to 41% of GDP didn’t break the sufficiency economy idea.
*How does one determine whether money borrowed is within the means of an individual? Is the government going to do this or just banks in accordance with normal lending criteria? If banks, what is going to change then?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Border contrasts
“A group of Chinese labourers who attempted to sneak into Laos were much less lucky. They were caught by Chinese police, beaten mercilessly (in full public view) and then made to stand for hours in the burning sun. I have no idea what happened next.”
Good example of why one needs a powerful protector when moving through the social spaces of many cultures (traditional patron client relations, cultural fixture for hundreds of years, abstract rights being irrelevant) as Matthew McDaniel’s work often shows, you can be shot in the head, dumped in the river, and then have the level of local “karuna” regarding your plight be something like: “som nam na” (just deserts), being an idealist: transparency, media penetration, democratic feedback, leading to appearance equals reality, is the only way forward from these horrible hidden histories/transcripts (cf James Scotts book), believe me there are a lot worse incidents than this that never see the light of day
A royal project
Dearest Andrew,
It still seems as though our attempts to colonize the Siamese people are still thwarted by love of this dastardly King.
One wonders when the revolution will come? … Or really how the revolution should be induced? Historical ‘evaluations’ suggest that we must get amongst the farmers, the foundation of their infrastructure and lambaste the King. Maybe an edited version of “Animal Farm” that replaces “Boxer the horse” with “Kiet the Buffalo” and “Snowball the pig” with “Niran the boar” should be made available to those developed enough to read?
Rather than antagonize Vichai and cohorts further, I will admit that maybe farming is no longer a foundation for Thai infrastructure. Surely now it is tourism. Tourism that is promoted with the quaint idea of a King that is loved by his people, who is educated and moralistic enough to swallow his own sufficient economy of kindness and not build a palace over the Akha, to limit his motorcade of Mercedes to only 20 (which he travels to all these projects of his in), and to placard the streets of Bangkok with images of his family!
As Nietszche said “Only the boldest utopians would dream of the economy of kindness.” Yes the monarchy and its tourists are indeed living in a utopia!
Therefore, surely us foreign devils prefer it this way? It satisfies the Hegelian ego and ensures that when the Baht crashes again, Thai people are kept poor and we are treated well.
A startling revelation! If we don’t continue discussing development, we can keep doing what we are historically guilty of! Surely our masters will be impressed!
love,
Supreme Foreign Devil ~
White Elephant
A royal project
Andrew notes, “Most rural communities in Thailand probably derive more income off farm than they do in the agricultural sector. In other words local agriculture frequently exists, and persists, on a foundation of external social and economic linkages…. The notion that external linkages should only be developed once there is a foundation in local sufficiency is simply not consistent with the economically diversified livelihood strategies pursued by rural people in contemporary Thailand. It is an agrarian vision from the past.”
I do not agree. It is inconsistent with actual improvements in poverty alleviation over the past 5 years. Poverty fell substantially since 2000, especially in the poorest region: the Northeast. The number of people living below the poverty line in the Northeast fell by half from 2000 to 2004. Was that improvement due to the “economically diversified livelihood strategies” suggested by Andrew? No – a double-digit p.a. rise in agricultural income was the major factor in the reduction of poverty. From 2000 to 2004, agricultural incomes rose by 40% – much higher than any other income sources. Most of this increase in income wasn’t from increases in output, but from increases in value-added. Most of this data is from the World Bank and NESDB, see here.
Thus it appears that, at least during the Thaksin administration, the largest increases in rural income came from the local agricultural sector, rather than from non-agricultural sources like labor export. This isn’t to say that villages became self-sufficient – far from it. Higher value-added “exports” of agricultural products, in the form of OTOP and other policies, probably played an important role in raising incomes.
The irony of this situation is that Thaksin’s village-oriented agricultural development policies (micro-credit, OTOP, etc.) actually delivered a lot of the benefits of self-sufficiency, even though the junta and its apologists would have you believe that Thaksin-policies and self-sufficiency are contradictory.
Sufficiency economy = poverty?
[…] This is my third post on the 2007 Human Development Report for Thailand. Regular New Mandala reader Vichai reflects on my motivation for writing these pieces: Either you are being stupid or you are merely being malicious. Or your master has given you instruct[ions] to pursue this nonsense or you won’t get paid. […]
Sufficiency economy = poverty?
It’s those lese majeste laws again – it seems everyone wants to use them to get what they want – politicians, media barons, supporters of the palace, and surprise surprise, even critics of the palace system.
Pundit: Do you seriously think that rational criticism of the sufficiency economy theory will be taken to be lese majeste?
In any case, there is no need to worry about lese majeste on this site – I’m sure the palace and the junta will not be able to find any Anon, Republican or Bangkok Pundit in the phone book, so feel free to provide constructive criticism of the sufficiency economy theory.
Most of the criticism I have seen has been concern about possible manipulation & abuse by bureaucrats etc, rather than real criticism of the concept.
Anon: I cant help it if your sarcasm rings true!
It is apparent that many posters on this site have very fixed views about the Thai political situation, and it is a shame that the level of debate cannot seem to rise above those existing biases.
I am quite happy to declare my position:- I believe the country is better to have HMK offering advice and a steadying influence than it would be if the politicians were left to their own devices (or vices).
Also, I am not so na├пve as to think that there are no behind the scene relationships involving some people close to the palace. Rather, I accept that those types of relationships exist virtually everywhere, including in western democracies that are supposed to be our salvation (Halliburton etc)
Such relationships existed before, during and after Thaksin, and the only thing that changes is who is in and who is out at a certain point in time.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan …
[…] Further to my post about Boten, in the far north of Laos, Warren Mayes has provided these great shots from early 2006. The first shows Boten on the Lao side of the border. […]
Sufficiency economy = poverty?
Anon why don’t you go ahead and complete your innuendos about Mae Chamoy and the King.
If you don’t I am certain Andrew Walker or Republican will gladly do the work for you.
Violent landscape
Dear Holly,
Your article was insightful on the real problem of UXO here in Lao PDR. I am currently working as an advisor to UXO Lao and we, the team here, deeply appreciate your efforts to make the problem known in Australia.
We would appreciate it if you could tell more people about the problem.
Please feel free to contact me should you need further information on UXO Lao and our activities.
Best,
Edwin
Classify, define, require
[…] [Holly’s previous post.] […]
Sufficiency economy = poverty?
The King’s in-depth knowledge of “share” schemes is probably due to his wife’s involvement in “Mae Chamoy’s” share scheme.
But the King is a brilliant man, and his family didn’t loose a single Baht in that scandal. He is truly a genius!
“The educated middle class vs democracy”
Now you gibber Fall.
Why can you not just say it straight Fall: “Thaksin was wrong, criminally wrong, when he carried out that senseless slaughter of Y2003 defenseless and poor villagers during his anti-yaa baa madness.”
Once you find your ‘puke threshold’ Fall, you will be Free.
Fall – Now repeat after me – “Thaksin was . . . . .”
Sufficiency economy = poverty?
In an article in today’s The Nation, Chris Baker refers to himself as the main writer and editor of the UNDP’s “sufficiency economy” report. The link is http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/01/11/opinion/opinion_30023814.php
His article makes one wonder whether there are actually two Chris Bakers in Bangkok.
“The educated middle class vs democracy”
Vichai – Now this is a good statement. Decent Thai will NOT accept murderer to be their leader. As in, will not accept a military commander, who does not order his soldier to STOP shooting civilian-student or directly insult a man cause him to commit suicide, to become PM?
Or as in, will not accept someone whose regime approve anti-immigrant policy, which cause people cargo being dump over board in ocean?
Scream something out really loud, get a well known opposition party to sit in, combine with some half-known academia. Wa-lah! Perfect recipe for manipulating middle-class. Work like a charm, every coup.
Sufficiency economy = poverty?
It is easier for critics of the junta or the ‘palace system’ to score points if the sufficiency economy is seen to be prescriptive/formulatic, and it appears the junta is playing right into their hands.
I see the sufficiency economy theory as guidance from HMK for people to think about the way they live, and to apply some moderation in their business and personal activities.
Your talk of the junta and the Surayud government and its use of sufficiency economy is what concerns me. Any policy of Thaksins they don’t like is labelled as not being in accordance with sufficiency economy, but then relabelled and extra money spent money and suddenly it is in accordance with sufficiency economy. Crispin touched on this in October when he said:
“There is a definite risk that Thai bureaucrats may overplay the sufficiency concept in expression of their loyalty and affection for the monarch. There is a concurrent risk that the royal philosophy will be twisted by less scrupulous government officials as an opportunity to abuse their authority for rent-seeking and extortion, particularly among foreign-invested concerns.”
Thai TV is now riddled with vague references to sufficiency economy (ie doing x is not in accordance with sufficiency economy). The principle behind sufficiency economy of living within one means is so vague that it is easily subject to abuse. The new measures of capital controls and amendments to the Foreign Business Act have one large beneficiary rich Thais, particularly those with local monopolies.
The second problem I have with sufficiency economy is, as I believe Republican pointed out in another post, that analysing the concept is very difficult because of lese majeste. You can’t criticise the concept only in Thai society without risking bringing trouble to yourself.
Finally, HM the King is not just suggesting a model on how people should live their personal lives, it is about changing the economy with fewer exports and an economy which is 25% self-sufficient.
btw, HM the King has given one of few explanations I have seen of the “share game” which is extremely prevalent in Thai society. I lived in Thailand a while before I heard anything about this.
Sufficiency economy = poverty?
nganadeeleg, don’t you know sarcasm when you see it? 🙂
I was trying to say that “sufficiency economy” is like “ariyasaj 4” – it sounds nice and is undoubtedly true. But it shouldn’t be used as the basis for ruling a populace or managing an economy.
Sufficiency economy = poverty?
This overview in The Nation by Dr Chris Baker might also be helpful in understanding the thinking behind sufficiency economy:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/01/11/opinion/opinion_30023814.php
(Dr Chris Baker is the principal writer and editor of the United Nations Development Programme’s “Thailand Human Development Report 2007: Sufficiency Economy and Human Development”)
Sufficiency economy = poverty?
Unfortunately, there is a tendency to treat the King’s ideas as some sort of prescriptive formula for the economy.
It is easier for critics of the junta or the ‘palace system’ to score points if the sufficiency economy is seen to be prescriptive/formulatic, and it appears the junta is playing right into their hands.
I see the sufficiency economy theory as guidance from HMK for people to think about the way they live, and to apply some moderation in their business and personal activities.
(I also agree with comment #5 above by anon – very well said)
Pundit: I’m sure we can all find examples of excesses that appear to show particular individuals are not practising ‘sufficiency economy’.
An alternative way of looking at it would be like followers of the Buddhist religion – they all believe in the religions ideals, but various individuals are further along the Buddhist path than others. Some (or most) may never get there in this lifetime, but they can still be on the path to enlightenment.
Sufficiency democracy – you read it here first!
[…] Read this in the context of another interesting comment from The Nation’s Kavi Chongkittavorn: Some legislators and officials have already spoken of “sufficiency democracy” as part and parcel of the sufficiency economy. In Thai pracha thippatai poh peang might sound pleasing and reassuring but in English it is an antonym to freedom. Thai bureaucrats and developers have already treated the two concepts as mutually inclusive, which is extremely dangerous. Conservatives and royalists might want that to happen, citing the sufficiency economy as the bedrock for all blueprints. […]
Sufficiency economy = poverty?
Case studies would be more useful than a bunch of statistics. Look at newspapers on Japanese funded Easy Buy in which the debtor can opt not to pay and the debt grows and grows. or the motorcycle dealerships that rake in cash by selling easily on credit in provincial villages and then repossessing with the help of the local mafia.
This all has nothing to do with His Majesty the King who sets an example. Of course some people won’t follow it. But it is a lot better than places that have no example at all like Burma.
“…the less human developed provinces tend to have lower debt levels.”
Here is another place where appearance does not meet reality. Have you ever heard of “Len Hun” ? There are extensive informal debt networks. I doubt whether they enter the stats.
Many years ago I saw IQ test results that reported a substantial fraction of northerners were mental retarded. The test was given in central Thai and there are a lot of hill tribes and Kham Meuang speakers. Statistical studies like this should be taken with a grain of salt.
Sufficiency economy = poverty?
Thank you Nganadeeled for the link. I find the following interesting:
“This sufficiency means to have enough to live on. Sufficiency means to lead a reasonably comfortable life, without excess, or overindulgence in luxury, but enough. Some things may seem to be extravagant, but if it brings happiness, it is permissible as long as it is within the means of the individual. This is another interpretation of the sufficiency economy or system.”
So if Surayud’s couple of a million baht in foreign watches brings him happiness it is ok. Now, if I understand correctly, if I have 10 billion baht and want to buy myself a fleet of Ferraris, it is ok within the sufficiency economy system as long as it is makes me happy and is within my means of the individual (I don’t borrow excessively?).
I don’t really see any limits to this sufficiency economy idea,* but then again as I have previously stated I don’t really see sufficiency economy meaning anything apart from being a rhetorical device.
Are there any examples of people who have not been in accordance with the sufficiency economy. Surely, Thaksin who brought debt down from around 57% of GDP to 41% of GDP didn’t break the sufficiency economy idea.
*How does one determine whether money borrowed is within the means of an individual? Is the government going to do this or just banks in accordance with normal lending criteria? If banks, what is going to change then?