Thanks for this clarification. In the spirit of the self sufficiency theory, and all the furore surrounding Thaksin’s tax avoidance, surely the Royal Family should be required to pay tax on their property sales and income just like everyone else. Why the double-standard?
Judging from their comments, it appears that Nganadeeleg and Vichai N. consider the means to justify the ends – i.e. the overthrow of an elected government by coup d’tat was justified because (1) the elected government was corrupt, incompetent & usurping its powers; (2) constitutional means to remove the government from power failed to work; (3) the country was heading towards a violent crisis.
In fact, this appears to be the view of the majorty of the “millions in yellow shirts” in Bangkok as well. Even the King & his privy council may have taken this view? I think most reasonable people (particularly from countries without an established, mature democratic tradition) would find this view realistic & acceptable.
What is not so clear, however, is whether Nganadeeleg and Vichai N. (and the millions in yellow shirts, and the King himself) believe the coup was a necessary evil, and that Thailand should continue to strive to develop its democratic institutions (including judiaciary), constitutional processes, and fundamental social contract amongst its people, such that coup like this will not be necessary – nor tolerated – in the future.
Otherwise, just point (1) above will be sufficient for these people to call for a coup, time and time again in the future. In fact, those who believe just (1) is sufficient to justify a miliatry coup should drop all pretense and call for a paternallistic dictatorship or even a return to absolute monachy for Thailand. Nganadeeleg & Vichai N., lets clarify your position!
{p.s. I’d call for a response from “the millions in yellows” as well but I doubt this blog site can handle volume! As for the King, I doubt His Majesty will even see & read this comment, let alone respond to it. But even if he did see & read it, he wouldn’t be able to respond openly anyway….but then again maybe he already contributes regularly under a psuedonym?!! — now that’s a thought!!….:)
Nganadirek, why are you presuming that Thaksin is the only possible advocate for the poor? With an unelected government run by academics and government bureaucrats, is it wrong to seriously ask who is going to stand for the little guy? Coup apologists seem to paint the picture of Thailand as Thaksin vs. the King, or Thaksin vs. order, etc. – everything focused on Thaksin. As if any criticism of the junta, legitimate or not, was realy an argument for welcoming Thaksin back. That’s not the case. But the Thaksin era is over. The ball is in the junta’s court, and it’s their job to say how they’re going to manage things better than an elected government.
I’m not sure how to interpret that ILO data on poverty HCR. The figures seem inconsistent with similar data sets from the World Bank study I quoted. I tend to give more weight to the World Bank economic reports because they’re issued annually and therefore they have to be concerned with data consistency.
Vichai and Nganadirek, we can argue forever about who is to blame or praise for economic management. It’s like arguing who deserves praise for the 90’s US boom: Bush for paving the way or Clinton for actually managing it. Or who deserves the blame for the early 2000’s recession: Clinton for paving the way or Bush for mismanaging it. In the end, individual judgements are useless – electorates decide by voting politicians into power or out of power. At least, that’s how things work in electoral democracies…
Vichai, you seem to believe it is hypocritical for a politician to make promises in the hope of receiving support from voters. On the contrary, I think that it is a politician’s primary job to evaluate the needs of his constituents, make tangible promises about how he is going to address those needs, manage programs and policies to deliver those needs, and let the electorate decide in elections whether that politicians deserves a new chance. You might call that hypocritical, divisive, and boring – I call that core of the electoral process.
But I agree that Thaksin screwed up big time in the 90’s. He was quoted as promising to eliminate traffic in 6 months, even though he later denied having made the promises- he famously promised to shoot himself if somebody ever produced an audio-tape of him actually making the promise. But for one reason or another, he failed. And the Phalang Dharma Party collapsed on him in the ’95 and ’96 elections. That’s the democratic way. It is not the democratic way for a politician to deliver on his promises, and then for the military to intervene 3 weeks before elections.
I would disagree that these two takes on the tsunami are reflective of a broad or general idea by people of human dependency on the environment (or that they are needed to make this point, perhaps). In Laos it is a given and some of my travels through Thailand I’d say similar. These examples, Sarinda, would be more usefully drawn on to look at how Laos people conceive of social change and Thailand in a sense of their world view. That actions have consequences and that sometimes consequences come seemingly unattached to obvious actions is enscribed in Laos (and probably Thai) animist belief, a tsunami is going to be seen as part of a cuausal relationship. Spirts and that always taking retribution on humans. That development is seen as emblematic of Thai, and tsunami a result of too much of it says to me “dangerous other” and so nationalist stuff. The state responsibility might be better replaced with ideas of how the state is seen to be weakening in the face of Thai entrepreneurial encroachment into Laos…after all a huge amount of development funds comes from Thailand, as does much TV and it is no secret (and should be made more apparent) that Laos don’t like Thai in the way Thai think they should.
Thaksin was probably Thailand’s most hypocritical leader ever. He was quick to claim credits and promises but does not deliver.
nganadeeleg was correct to point out that Thailand’s poverty improvement during 2001-2005 was not unusual following immediately after the Asian financial crisis. Chuan’s regime had conveniently paved the way for Thailand’s economic resurgence (that meant surge of jobs and income to the villagers . . hence the poverty numbers should have improved) for 2001 onwards which fell, luckily, on Thaksin’s watch.
On pure motives Thaksin exploited and degraded the poor by corrupting them with handouts. The impoverished would be easier and cheaper to buy – – Thaksin would prefer it that way, all his propaganda about poverty eradication was just that, pure propaganda meant for effect rather than substance. I remember Thaksin promising to solve Bangkok’s traffic within six months. Thaksin will promise anybody anything and Patiwat is one guillible who up to now still believes.
patiwat said: “If the Supreme Arbiter says that politics is boring and the most respected academics say that rural politics is divisive, then who is going to be an advocate for the poor?”
Are you seriously proposing that Thaksin should come back?
I’m not saying poverty reduction is bad, just that Thaksin is not really the champion of the poor that he claims to be (particularly when combined with his personal greed, corruption, divisive manipulation, tax avoidance etc)
Even if not a single cent of micro-credit finance was repayed it was still worth it. We’re talking about people earning less than 40B a day, people who couldn’t afford to eat 2,000 calories a day! You can’t teach a man to fish if he’s malnourished. Handouts (and microcredit was not a handout) make sense for in that situation. Besides, the middle class was much worse in repaying their debts.
The pre-1997 boom was concentrated in Bangkok and the industrializing central regions. There was “trickle down” to the poorest areas of Thailand, but it was limited. The provinces were being “hollowed out”, the villages depopulating, and young people moved to the factories of Bangkok. Mean incomes might have increased, but poverty was never reduced by half in 5 years prior to Thaksin or in the 5 years prior to the 1997 “hiccup”.
Don’t give me any bull about how some phantom global economic boom was to blame for economic growth under Thaksin. What happened in 2001? The global investment bubble burst. 9/11. Energy prices skyrocketed world-wide (and they never really stopped rising). Things only began getting better on a global basis in 2004/2005. Yet Thaksin’s economic policies were already making a substantial impact on rural poverty.
And its very typical, but still disgusting, for Bangkokians to look down on northeastern ladies who marry foreigners.
Thaksin’s poverty eradication policies deserved serious debate among the Thai electorate. Should more money have been focused on Bangkok or the provinces? The middle class or the poorest of the poor? What’s the best way to manage microfinance? Skytrains or medicines? That debate was silenced on 19 September.
The junta and bureaucrats might enact some cosmetic reforms, but how much accountability do they have to the poor? Nobody voted them in. They never had to make any promises to an electorate. People expect them to humiliate Thaksin, not to eradicate poverty. If the Supreme Arbiter says that politics is boring and the most respected academics say that rural politics is divisive, then who is going to be an advocate for the poor?
Retire me sooner? I am not even 40 yet. If you had watched TV coverage of the yellow shirts waving to the King on his 79th birthday, you’d have noticed how young (about my age group) they were.
patiwat: What about the debt repyment issues?
Thaksin’s spin machine was always ready to claim the credit for economic performance, when in reality the performance was similar to other countries in the region.
Overall, the rate of poverty reduction appears to have been fairly consistent apart from the hiccup from the 1997 meltdown.
Perhaps a lot of northeast people married foreigners during the same period!
As I have said before, perhaps some good may come from the rise & fall of Thaksin – including firmly putting the rural poor on the agenda with real expectations for performance.
nganadeelek, Thaksin might have fattened his and his supporters pockets, but he also reduced poverty by half.
Some will say he did it with hand-outs, and didn’t enact genuine reform or solve any long-term problems. But if 20% of the Thai population were so poor that they went hungry every day (the formal definition poverty), then I’d say give them hand-outs first and figure out long-term measures later.
Don’t give me any crap about the short-sightedness of “giving a poor man a fish so he eats for a day…” No government in Thai history has ever been able to “teach all the poor to fish.” That’s why in 2000, over 12 million people were still under the poverty line. First you gotta feed them – then teach them to fish.
Some find it “boring” or “divisive” when those millions ended up re-electing the government that delivered that impact. I just call it getting their priorities right.
Johpa: I’m all for transparency in disclosing commercial possessions & dealings (by both the palace and the politicians)
Maybe put it in the constitution!
Bystander: I’m also in favour of the state making available ‘food, medical care, shelter, dignity, longevity of life, security, basic things like that’
That’s more a european model – even the USA system has difficulty delivery those things to all its citizens.
Thaksin was all for redistributing wealth – the only problem was he wanted it redistributed to his family and friends, rather than genuine reform (despite all the ex communists in TRT)
Please enlighten me on your thoughts of ‘whats propping up the Thai economy’. I do have some thoughts on the Thai (& global) economy, but am not sure what your getting at.
I do believe in the sufficiency economy and practice it in my daily life, even though it goes against the tide of what is generally happening here.
A story ran in the Asia Times on Dec 8 on Chinese investments in Cambodia’s remote south-eastern province of Mondolkiri. Appears to implicate Chinese investors in land grabbing, along with social and environmental shenanigans….
The url is: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HL08Ae01.html
I do not find Republican’s criticisms to be filled with spite and malice. He is correct that Handley’s book is the first critical biography of His Majesty and that the western academic Thai studies people, all those sons and daughters of Cornell and their now multitudes of disciples, have conveniently ignored the subject. I mean just what does Benedict Anderson think of HRM? Enquiring minds want to know. If I were a Thai, and I am just an interested and concerned bystander, I too would be fustrated to an unimaginable degree if I were not able to critically discuss or even read criticisms of such a key element of the political scene as the Monarchy.
Nganadeeleg, I fail to understand why it should “unrealistic” to make distinctions between the wealth of the Royal Family and the wealth of private families. Should the revenue from Siam Cement that flows to the extended Palace be different than the wealth that flows to, say, the equally extended CP family group? Better yet, at the very least, would it not be advisable for the Palace members to more clearly list their commercial possessions?
Money is not happiness, that much I agree. But happiness is personal and subjective and fuzzy and spiritual and so hard to define that it is useless to use it as a goal of anything on national scale.
But one thing for sure is that part of what makes people happy is freedom from want and suffering. You know, having food, medical care, shelter, dignity, longevity of life, security, basic things like that. The important things about being prosperous is to lift the standard of living of people in the absolute sense. If the states can achieve that much, it has already done its job. People can go on feeling happy or agonizing about their wretched work hours, or whatever, but it’s all relative from there on. If the state fails to deliver the basics like these, no matter how happy and content the people think they are, that state is a lousy state.
All this euphemism about being happy while poor is BS. It’s basically a smokescreen to hide away the fact that it’s increasingly difficult for Thailand to compete in the modern world.
Thailand is blessed with lots of resources that living is easy enough that complacency is the national mode of thinking (or non-thinking). But we can’t be sufficient at 60 million people.. 15 million maybe, but definitely not 60. Nganadeeleg: if you have a good grasp of the big picture of what’s propping up the Thai economy, which if you have you have done a good job of hiding it, I doubt you will buy into this happiness-sufficiency BS.
Republican you ramble on repeating Handley at every opportunity to denigrate the Thai King. Yet you have not explained your motivations for carrying such deep malice against the Thai monarchy.
To suggest that the Thai King held back Thailand’s economic progress must surely rank as pure blatant lie. You only have to look at Thailand’s GNP numbers during the past decades and compare it with similar sized Republican countries like Philippines to appreciate how exceptionally well Thailand performed . . inspite of coups, civilian governments riddled by corruption, and despite Thaksin’s ignoble run even. Personally I thought the Thai King was/is a true inspiration to the Thais to reach for excellence. And Republican you repeat Andrew Walker’s malicious propaganda that Sufficiency Economy impoverishes the poor, yet both of you won’t articulate or educate on that specific subject.
I suspect your malice and spite was inspired by Thaksin Shinawatra. Because I have yet to encounter a fellow Thai with deep animosity against the King. Republican if you are Thai, you would be second. The first one was Thaksin Shinawatra.
Republican: It’s a bit unrealistic to compare the wealth of a royal family to that of a private individual, although I am sure that Thaksin would like to get his hands on the royal wealth.
So what do you think the palace should do with it’s wealth? (assuming the monarchy wishes to continue)
Your interpretation of history suggests that the palace instigated the coups – another interpretation is that the coups happened and the king dealt with them in a way to provide stability.
I have not read Handley’s book, but I did listen to him on the radio and it was fairly obvious that he has a bias against the palace – I would think his accusations would also help sell his book.
I am not blind to the monarchy-military political alliance and corruption, but I can see some hope for a better future as a result of the rise (& fall) of Thaksin.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
I admit, I am a “free-spirited bookish-type” person
Thanks for this clarification. In the spirit of the self sufficiency theory, and all the furore surrounding Thaksin’s tax avoidance, surely the Royal Family should be required to pay tax on their property sales and income just like everyone else. Why the double-standard?
“Politics is boring”
Judging from their comments, it appears that Nganadeeleg and Vichai N. consider the means to justify the ends – i.e. the overthrow of an elected government by coup d’tat was justified because (1) the elected government was corrupt, incompetent & usurping its powers; (2) constitutional means to remove the government from power failed to work; (3) the country was heading towards a violent crisis.
In fact, this appears to be the view of the majorty of the “millions in yellow shirts” in Bangkok as well. Even the King & his privy council may have taken this view? I think most reasonable people (particularly from countries without an established, mature democratic tradition) would find this view realistic & acceptable.
What is not so clear, however, is whether Nganadeeleg and Vichai N. (and the millions in yellow shirts, and the King himself) believe the coup was a necessary evil, and that Thailand should continue to strive to develop its democratic institutions (including judiaciary), constitutional processes, and fundamental social contract amongst its people, such that coup like this will not be necessary – nor tolerated – in the future.
Otherwise, just point (1) above will be sufficient for these people to call for a coup, time and time again in the future. In fact, those who believe just (1) is sufficient to justify a miliatry coup should drop all pretense and call for a paternallistic dictatorship or even a return to absolute monachy for Thailand. Nganadeeleg & Vichai N., lets clarify your position!
{p.s. I’d call for a response from “the millions in yellows” as well but I doubt this blog site can handle volume! As for the King, I doubt His Majesty will even see & read this comment, let alone respond to it. But even if he did see & read it, he wouldn’t be able to respond openly anyway….but then again maybe he already contributes regularly under a psuedonym?!! — now that’s a thought!!….:)
“Politics is boring”
Nganadirek, why are you presuming that Thaksin is the only possible advocate for the poor? With an unelected government run by academics and government bureaucrats, is it wrong to seriously ask who is going to stand for the little guy? Coup apologists seem to paint the picture of Thailand as Thaksin vs. the King, or Thaksin vs. order, etc. – everything focused on Thaksin. As if any criticism of the junta, legitimate or not, was realy an argument for welcoming Thaksin back. That’s not the case. But the Thaksin era is over. The ball is in the junta’s court, and it’s their job to say how they’re going to manage things better than an elected government.
I’m not sure how to interpret that ILO data on poverty HCR. The figures seem inconsistent with similar data sets from the World Bank study I quoted. I tend to give more weight to the World Bank economic reports because they’re issued annually and therefore they have to be concerned with data consistency.
Vichai and Nganadirek, we can argue forever about who is to blame or praise for economic management. It’s like arguing who deserves praise for the 90’s US boom: Bush for paving the way or Clinton for actually managing it. Or who deserves the blame for the early 2000’s recession: Clinton for paving the way or Bush for mismanaging it. In the end, individual judgements are useless – electorates decide by voting politicians into power or out of power. At least, that’s how things work in electoral democracies…
Vichai, you seem to believe it is hypocritical for a politician to make promises in the hope of receiving support from voters. On the contrary, I think that it is a politician’s primary job to evaluate the needs of his constituents, make tangible promises about how he is going to address those needs, manage programs and policies to deliver those needs, and let the electorate decide in elections whether that politicians deserves a new chance. You might call that hypocritical, divisive, and boring – I call that core of the electoral process.
But I agree that Thaksin screwed up big time in the 90’s. He was quoted as promising to eliminate traffic in 6 months, even though he later denied having made the promises- he famously promised to shoot himself if somebody ever produced an audio-tape of him actually making the promise. But for one reason or another, he failed. And the Phalang Dharma Party collapsed on him in the ’95 and ’96 elections. That’s the democratic way. It is not the democratic way for a politician to deliver on his promises, and then for the military to intervene 3 weeks before elections.
The tsunami and environmental responsibility
Thanks for the comment. Please pass my fond regards to Nirut and your many other friends.
The tsunami and environmental responsibility
I would disagree that these two takes on the tsunami are reflective of a broad or general idea by people of human dependency on the environment (or that they are needed to make this point, perhaps). In Laos it is a given and some of my travels through Thailand I’d say similar. These examples, Sarinda, would be more usefully drawn on to look at how Laos people conceive of social change and Thailand in a sense of their world view. That actions have consequences and that sometimes consequences come seemingly unattached to obvious actions is enscribed in Laos (and probably Thai) animist belief, a tsunami is going to be seen as part of a cuausal relationship. Spirts and that always taking retribution on humans. That development is seen as emblematic of Thai, and tsunami a result of too much of it says to me “dangerous other” and so nationalist stuff. The state responsibility might be better replaced with ideas of how the state is seen to be weakening in the face of Thai entrepreneurial encroachment into Laos…after all a huge amount of development funds comes from Thailand, as does much TV and it is no secret (and should be made more apparent) that Laos don’t like Thai in the way Thai think they should.
What word did she use for retalliate?
“Politics is boring”
Thaksin was probably Thailand’s most hypocritical leader ever. He was quick to claim credits and promises but does not deliver.
nganadeeleg was correct to point out that Thailand’s poverty improvement during 2001-2005 was not unusual following immediately after the Asian financial crisis. Chuan’s regime had conveniently paved the way for Thailand’s economic resurgence (that meant surge of jobs and income to the villagers . . hence the poverty numbers should have improved) for 2001 onwards which fell, luckily, on Thaksin’s watch.
On pure motives Thaksin exploited and degraded the poor by corrupting them with handouts. The impoverished would be easier and cheaper to buy – – Thaksin would prefer it that way, all his propaganda about poverty eradication was just that, pure propaganda meant for effect rather than substance. I remember Thaksin promising to solve Bangkok’s traffic within six months. Thaksin will promise anybody anything and Patiwat is one guillible who up to now still believes.
“Politics is boring”
patiwat said: “If the Supreme Arbiter says that politics is boring and the most respected academics say that rural politics is divisive, then who is going to be an advocate for the poor?”
Are you seriously proposing that Thaksin should come back?
There are numerous references to poverty reduction at similar rates to those under Thaksin:
Here is just one:
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/recon/poverty/download/disc20.pdf
And similar rates have been achieved in many comparable countries.
I’m not saying poverty reduction is bad, just that Thaksin is not really the champion of the poor that he claims to be (particularly when combined with his personal greed, corruption, divisive manipulation, tax avoidance etc)
I admit, I am a “free-spirited bookish-type” person
The personal income of the Thai royal family is exempt from income taxes. Property sales by the royal family are also exempt from taxation.
However, companies owned by the Crown Property Bureau have to pay corporate income taxes just like any other company.
“Politics is boring”
Even if not a single cent of micro-credit finance was repayed it was still worth it. We’re talking about people earning less than 40B a day, people who couldn’t afford to eat 2,000 calories a day! You can’t teach a man to fish if he’s malnourished. Handouts (and microcredit was not a handout) make sense for in that situation. Besides, the middle class was much worse in repaying their debts.
The pre-1997 boom was concentrated in Bangkok and the industrializing central regions. There was “trickle down” to the poorest areas of Thailand, but it was limited. The provinces were being “hollowed out”, the villages depopulating, and young people moved to the factories of Bangkok. Mean incomes might have increased, but poverty was never reduced by half in 5 years prior to Thaksin or in the 5 years prior to the 1997 “hiccup”.
Don’t give me any bull about how some phantom global economic boom was to blame for economic growth under Thaksin. What happened in 2001? The global investment bubble burst. 9/11. Energy prices skyrocketed world-wide (and they never really stopped rising). Things only began getting better on a global basis in 2004/2005. Yet Thaksin’s economic policies were already making a substantial impact on rural poverty.
And its very typical, but still disgusting, for Bangkokians to look down on northeastern ladies who marry foreigners.
Thaksin’s poverty eradication policies deserved serious debate among the Thai electorate. Should more money have been focused on Bangkok or the provinces? The middle class or the poorest of the poor? What’s the best way to manage microfinance? Skytrains or medicines? That debate was silenced on 19 September.
The junta and bureaucrats might enact some cosmetic reforms, but how much accountability do they have to the poor? Nobody voted them in. They never had to make any promises to an electorate. People expect them to humiliate Thaksin, not to eradicate poverty. If the Supreme Arbiter says that politics is boring and the most respected academics say that rural politics is divisive, then who is going to be an advocate for the poor?
New species of military democracy discovered in the Pacific!
Retire me sooner? I am not even 40 yet. If you had watched TV coverage of the yellow shirts waving to the King on his 79th birthday, you’d have noticed how young (about my age group) they were.
“Politics is boring”
patiwat: What about the debt repyment issues?
Thaksin’s spin machine was always ready to claim the credit for economic performance, when in reality the performance was similar to other countries in the region.
Overall, the rate of poverty reduction appears to have been fairly consistent apart from the hiccup from the 1997 meltdown.
Perhaps a lot of northeast people married foreigners during the same period!
As I have said before, perhaps some good may come from the rise & fall of Thaksin – including firmly putting the rural poor on the agenda with real expectations for performance.
“Politics is boring”
nganadeelek, Thaksin might have fattened his and his supporters pockets, but he also reduced poverty by half.
Some will say he did it with hand-outs, and didn’t enact genuine reform or solve any long-term problems. But if 20% of the Thai population were so poor that they went hungry every day (the formal definition poverty), then I’d say give them hand-outs first and figure out long-term measures later.
Don’t give me any crap about the short-sightedness of “giving a poor man a fish so he eats for a day…” No government in Thai history has ever been able to “teach all the poor to fish.” That’s why in 2000, over 12 million people were still under the poverty line. First you gotta feed them – then teach them to fish.
Some find it “boring” or “divisive” when those millions ended up re-electing the government that delivered that impact. I just call it getting their priorities right.
I admit, I am a “free-spirited bookish-type” person
It You have a bit sense you can feel that there’s something absolutly wrong.
I’m so tired when I’m hear the gozzip about royal family.
because Its so much much much in Thailand.555
“Politics is boring”
Johpa: I’m all for transparency in disclosing commercial possessions & dealings (by both the palace and the politicians)
Maybe put it in the constitution!
Bystander: I’m also in favour of the state making available ‘food, medical care, shelter, dignity, longevity of life, security, basic things like that’
That’s more a european model – even the USA system has difficulty delivery those things to all its citizens.
Thaksin was all for redistributing wealth – the only problem was he wanted it redistributed to his family and friends, rather than genuine reform (despite all the ex communists in TRT)
Please enlighten me on your thoughts of ‘whats propping up the Thai economy’. I do have some thoughts on the Thai (& global) economy, but am not sure what your getting at.
I do believe in the sufficiency economy and practice it in my daily life, even though it goes against the tide of what is generally happening here.
“Politics is boring”
nganadeeleg, the Southern border provinces see innocent people being murdered on a daily basis, yet it has the happiest people in Thailand. See here: http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/11/06/national/national_30018161.php But at least they got rid of Thaksin!
Maybe that’s the model the junta should be working on 🙂
Displaced
A story ran in the Asia Times on Dec 8 on Chinese investments in Cambodia’s remote south-eastern province of Mondolkiri. Appears to implicate Chinese investors in land grabbing, along with social and environmental shenanigans….
The url is:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HL08Ae01.html
“Politics is boring”
I do not find Republican’s criticisms to be filled with spite and malice. He is correct that Handley’s book is the first critical biography of His Majesty and that the western academic Thai studies people, all those sons and daughters of Cornell and their now multitudes of disciples, have conveniently ignored the subject. I mean just what does Benedict Anderson think of HRM? Enquiring minds want to know. If I were a Thai, and I am just an interested and concerned bystander, I too would be fustrated to an unimaginable degree if I were not able to critically discuss or even read criticisms of such a key element of the political scene as the Monarchy.
Nganadeeleg, I fail to understand why it should “unrealistic” to make distinctions between the wealth of the Royal Family and the wealth of private families. Should the revenue from Siam Cement that flows to the extended Palace be different than the wealth that flows to, say, the equally extended CP family group? Better yet, at the very least, would it not be advisable for the Palace members to more clearly list their commercial possessions?
“Politics is boring”
Money is not happiness, that much I agree. But happiness is personal and subjective and fuzzy and spiritual and so hard to define that it is useless to use it as a goal of anything on national scale.
But one thing for sure is that part of what makes people happy is freedom from want and suffering. You know, having food, medical care, shelter, dignity, longevity of life, security, basic things like that. The important things about being prosperous is to lift the standard of living of people in the absolute sense. If the states can achieve that much, it has already done its job. People can go on feeling happy or agonizing about their wretched work hours, or whatever, but it’s all relative from there on. If the state fails to deliver the basics like these, no matter how happy and content the people think they are, that state is a lousy state.
All this euphemism about being happy while poor is BS. It’s basically a smokescreen to hide away the fact that it’s increasingly difficult for Thailand to compete in the modern world.
Thailand is blessed with lots of resources that living is easy enough that complacency is the national mode of thinking (or non-thinking). But we can’t be sufficient at 60 million people.. 15 million maybe, but definitely not 60. Nganadeeleg: if you have a good grasp of the big picture of what’s propping up the Thai economy, which if you have you have done a good job of hiding it, I doubt you will buy into this happiness-sufficiency BS.
“Politics is boring”
Republican you ramble on repeating Handley at every opportunity to denigrate the Thai King. Yet you have not explained your motivations for carrying such deep malice against the Thai monarchy.
To suggest that the Thai King held back Thailand’s economic progress must surely rank as pure blatant lie. You only have to look at Thailand’s GNP numbers during the past decades and compare it with similar sized Republican countries like Philippines to appreciate how exceptionally well Thailand performed . . inspite of coups, civilian governments riddled by corruption, and despite Thaksin’s ignoble run even. Personally I thought the Thai King was/is a true inspiration to the Thais to reach for excellence. And Republican you repeat Andrew Walker’s malicious propaganda that Sufficiency Economy impoverishes the poor, yet both of you won’t articulate or educate on that specific subject.
I suspect your malice and spite was inspired by Thaksin Shinawatra. Because I have yet to encounter a fellow Thai with deep animosity against the King. Republican if you are Thai, you would be second. The first one was Thaksin Shinawatra.
“Politics is boring”
Republican: It’s a bit unrealistic to compare the wealth of a royal family to that of a private individual, although I am sure that Thaksin would like to get his hands on the royal wealth.
So what do you think the palace should do with it’s wealth? (assuming the monarchy wishes to continue)
Your interpretation of history suggests that the palace instigated the coups – another interpretation is that the coups happened and the king dealt with them in a way to provide stability.
I have not read Handley’s book, but I did listen to him on the radio and it was fairly obvious that he has a bias against the palace – I would think his accusations would also help sell his book.
I am not blind to the monarchy-military political alliance and corruption, but I can see some hope for a better future as a result of the rise (& fall) of Thaksin.