To me, this theory of a palace + Thaksin alliance seems highly implausible without a clear motivation both groups would need for this to happen. I simply cannot think of one. Not to mention that a part of Thaksins support base is anti-palace anti-112, and he would risk alienating it.
When the time comes, the next in line will no longer offer the credibility needed for a passionate nationalistic rallying cry. I suspect a power vacuum in the inner royalist circles with in-fighting and temporary factional divisions. In the mean time, unopposed, the democratic bureaucracy will likely and permanently fill that vacuum. It will be the final death knell signally that the good ol’ days are gone.
Maratip’s enigmatic comment will keep us all on the edge of our seats. Teflon Don may be reconciled? It would be the perfect “Thai solution” to the Mexican Standoff we have been watching.
That there has been significant behind-the-scenes movement is hardly a guess needing to be made. The big issue is how to handle the PAD’s iconic loyalties, but even that is easily “put into framework.”
The total workforce expanded from about 23 million in 1980 to more than 39 million in 2010, employment in services expanded from 4.3 million to 15.1 million, with a more modest increase from 2.3 million to 7.1 million in industry over the same period. Agriculture went from just over 16 million to 16.8 million (NSO).
…”He will not want to miss an opportunity to pay his final respects to…”…
Has any information missed here? Where the “final” is on, the side of the payer or the payee, or both?
I have heard somewhere that a man wishes to live to 120!
Thanks Chris, some quick figures from my data (downloaded from World Bank a couple of years ago):
Between 1998 and 2007 the agricultural labour force declined by 1.3 million; the industrial labour force increased by 2.2 million; and the services labour force increased by 3.4 million. So that’s about 5.6 million non-agricultural jobs over 10 years. If there is the same growth in the non-agricultural labour force over the next 10 years and it is all supplied from the agricultural sector (rather than population growth) then the percentage of the labour force in agriculture will decline from 41% to 27%. If the same thing happens for another 10 years after that agriculture would account for 12% of the labour force. So your calculations are not far off. The Democrats just have to be patient!
To see the full picture of Thailand’s workforce transformation you also need to take the change in population into account.
Since the early 60’s Thailand’s population has grown from about 30 million to 70 million today. Although the share of workers in agriculture has declined from ~80% to ~40%, the absolute number is still pretty much the same, approx. 15 million people. The growth of jobs in manufacturing and services has basically only been enough to offset the increasing size of the labor force.
With the population leveling out and with an ageing population, the labor force will remain the same or even shrink. Thus the future should look different than the past, and the transition out of agriculture should become more rapid. All new jobs added in manufacture and services will be jobs taken out of agriculture.
Keeping this in mind, I think it’s possible that the share of agricultural workers will go down to as low as 10% over the next 15 years. This will require ~800,000 new jobs to be created annually. If someone can dig up the number of non-agricultural jobs Thailand has added annually in the past 10 years, it should be possible to see if this is reasonable prediction.
Sorry . . . I really nearly ‘lost it’ after reading Nostitz (you Nostitz and not Jessee were on overdrive with this poster).
And sincere apologies to Nostitz for making light of his impassioned Darwinian reminder that ‘we were after all from monkeys or tadpoles evolved’. Keep an open mind Nostitz.
If we evolved from monkeys but . . . how did we ‘evolve’ our humanity and the human spiritual ‘soul’ Nostitz?
But I am digressing.
What I really wanted to know is, and considering how close the ‘rapport’ of Nostitz and the Red Shirts . . . and considering many Red Shirts were so enraged by the ‘buffalo’ slur (and other things) as to rampage and torch Bangkok to the ground . . . were the Reds offended by Nostitz ‘you-are-from-monkeys-descent-too-you-Reds’ unifying universal peace message?
(That’s how I am certain JohnH (#80) is NOT a Red!)
Indeed … A little bit… Apart from getting my ‘East’s’ and ‘Wests’ mixed up my minor point was that the birth of the modern geographical area that is now the Kingdom of Thailand was not one only of peaceful aquisition as implied by one contributor. The Siam-Laos conflict of 1826-1828 resulted in the forcible (and by implication violent or unpleasant) re-location of the Lao peoples east of the Mekong to the Korat Plateau. It wasn’t all beatific and willing absorption. Much of the rest of it was defined by argy bargy and deals with both the Brits and the French (including the carving up of Lao areas subsequent to the Franco-Siamese conflict of 1893). The provinces of Sisaket and Surin are still regarded by many Khmers as an aspect of ‘kampuchea Khrom’. The drive to ‘Thainess’ in many, many parts of the modern Thai state is only a century old. The supplementary point was on the cultural and ethnical richness that modern Thailand is made up of. This is not just about Thainess and indeed ‘Isan’ is not really North East Thailand culturally speaking. It is ‘Central Lao’…. Having said that, none of this affects Thai peoples’ justified pride in a winning athlete, from whatever region of the Kingdom it might be – Satun, Mae Hong Son, Mukdahan or indeed Bangkok….
With some of his roots in the anti-clerical French left, Ho may have been playing the Protestants off against the Catholics whom he saw as more reactionary and more deeply entangled with the Colonial rulers.
You are right to say that, in Chatterjee’s own conceptual scheme (based on what he says in his article made available by Andrew Walker), “political society” and “civil society” (or urban middle classes) are opposites. But does this set-up make things any better? Both of them are merely derivative concepts, stemming from Chatterjee’s initial distinction of two separate economic spheres, the formal, and the informal sector. Having come up with this dichotomy, and using the normative-philosophical concept of civil society to label people working in the formal sector, he probably felt the need for an equivalently designed concept to label all those people who work in the informal sector. His solution was to assume a high number of strongly organized interest groups in the (probably: Indian) informal sector, and call their activities “political,” which then led to “political society” (makes one wonder whether people in “civil society” are unpolitical).
However, the Thai informal sector is not only not highly organized (as far as I know). Crucially, it can also not be said that people in this sector “are not regarded by the state as proper citizens.” If the branch manager of a bank has his or her lunch at a road-side eatery on Silom Road, and if the manager and the owner of that place both have citizens ID cards, drivers licenses, official addresses, send their kids to state schools (the daughter of the owner of the noodle stall in my soi has just graduated from the faculty of arts of Chulalongkorn University), go to see doctors in state hospitals, and vote in elections, then nothing substantial in citizenship terms distinguishes them. Besides, chances are that many people working in the informal sector are (lower) middle class people themselves. Moreover, far from wanting to get rid of the “messy” informal sector, urban middle class people are its most fervent customers.
Finally, three of Chatterjee’s four characteristics of a changed political role of the peasantry merely reflect what has long been described for the equivalent period of European history as “politicization” (the classic text here is Stein Rokkan. 1970. Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Processes of Development. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget). This process, in turn, has its equivalents in the other function systems of society (education, the economy, medicine, mass media, law). However, to see this, one needs an appropriate theory of society.
(1) First Pavin Chachavalpongpun voiced his embarrassment that Thai silver medalist Pimsiri Sirikaew proud hoisting of HMK’s photo during her medals awarding ceremony (suggesting even that her medal could be “snatched” because of this breach of Olympics ethiquette).
(2) Then Andrew MacGreggor Marshall chided the “Thai authorities that this rather pathetic tradition (hoisting HMK’s photo on such momentous Thai international events) needs to end.”
(3) Andrew MacGreggor Marshall followed with his strong suggestion “hoisting Thaksin’s photo” (on such occasions) could NOT be inappropriate. Certainly not said Tom Hoy hinting that would be beautiful (‘in the eyes of the beholder’) indeed.
(4) But in between were the more lively exchanges by Chanida, Torrance, Tarrin and then Nick Nostitz who overreached even himself with his poster insulting just about everyone by suggesting we are all from ‘monkeys’ descent.
(And my wife almost called the doctor because I could not control my shake-and-rattle convulsions after reading Nostitz!)
Reading NM blogs is better than any comic section of any newspaper, don’t you all think so?
These two paragraphs sum up what I have been arguing during the past 15 years. However, it looks like this message has not been able to penetrate very far into the society full of conventional (plus recently made) myths on our proud agricultural heritage.
OWWB , good observations, agrees with my own reading and understanding. By the way, we have strayed way off of the original topic, but a good discussion, even pushed some buttons and drew in some of the regular trolls to express their views, it is good to hear them , reminds one of their point of view. This family I married into, we have some of the rising thirty-somethings in Bangkok and have some rather interesting discussions when they are up visiting.
I think the other key adjective to keep in mind with regard to Chaterjee’s ‘political society’ is ‘civil’.
Chaterjee characterizes political society as the realm of “tenuously, and even then only ambiguously and contextually, rights bearing citizens” and contrasts it with a “bougeois” civil society in which only a small segment of the population has the privilage of participating. Members of political society come to be seen by the state as “convenient instruments for the administration of welfare”, as Prefoessor Walker suggests. According to Chaterjee, the actions of political society often include breaking the law even in the process of making demands on the basis of rights.
Thus, political society doesn’t just denote a different set of political attitudes, but a different mode of state-society interaction.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thaksin and the palace
To me, this theory of a palace + Thaksin alliance seems highly implausible without a clear motivation both groups would need for this to happen. I simply cannot think of one. Not to mention that a part of Thaksins support base is anti-palace anti-112, and he would risk alienating it.
When the time comes, the next in line will no longer offer the credibility needed for a passionate nationalistic rallying cry. I suspect a power vacuum in the inner royalist circles with in-fighting and temporary factional divisions. In the mean time, unopposed, the democratic bureaucracy will likely and permanently fill that vacuum. It will be the final death knell signally that the good ol’ days are gone.
At least, that’s my theory . . .
Thaksin and the palace
Maratip’s enigmatic comment will keep us all on the edge of our seats. Teflon Don may be reconciled? It would be the perfect “Thai solution” to the Mexican Standoff we have been watching.
That there has been significant behind-the-scenes movement is hardly a guess needing to be made. The big issue is how to handle the PAD’s iconic loyalties, but even that is easily “put into framework.”
Peasants and productivity
The total workforce expanded from about 23 million in 1980 to more than 39 million in 2010, employment in services expanded from 4.3 million to 15.1 million, with a more modest increase from 2.3 million to 7.1 million in industry over the same period. Agriculture went from just over 16 million to 16.8 million (NSO).
Thaksin and the palace
The issue is not whether or not Thaksin is on the side of the monarchy.
There will be an interesting turn of events soon. An ironic turn of events…
Thaksin and the palace
…”He will not want to miss an opportunity to pay his final respects to…”…
Has any information missed here? Where the “final” is on, the side of the payer or the payee, or both?
I have heard somewhere that a man wishes to live to 120!
Peasants and productivity
Thanks Chris, some quick figures from my data (downloaded from World Bank a couple of years ago):
Between 1998 and 2007 the agricultural labour force declined by 1.3 million; the industrial labour force increased by 2.2 million; and the services labour force increased by 3.4 million. So that’s about 5.6 million non-agricultural jobs over 10 years. If there is the same growth in the non-agricultural labour force over the next 10 years and it is all supplied from the agricultural sector (rather than population growth) then the percentage of the labour force in agriculture will decline from 41% to 27%. If the same thing happens for another 10 years after that agriculture would account for 12% of the labour force. So your calculations are not far off. The Democrats just have to be patient!
Peasant political society
BTW, the expression “political civil society” has also been used, as in the following source:
Thayer, Carlyle A. 2009. “Vietnam and the Challenge of Political Civil Society.” Contemporary Southeast Asia 31 (1):1-27.
Ho Chi Minh’s surprise letter
If the Vietnamese rulers want to honor their “Uncle Ho,” they should follow this example:
Myanmar lifts censorship on all publications
Deutsche Presse Agentur August 20, 2012 1:50 pm
http://nationmultimedia.com/aec/Myanmar-lifts-censorship-on-all-publications-30188668.html
Thailand’s silver snatched?
Vichai #79
I cannot see in which way Nick’s reference to a simple fact–evolution–can be in any way insulting.
“And my wife almost called the doctor because I could not control my shake-and-rattle convulsions after reading Nostitz!”
If this is really true, you do need to consult a doctor. Do not postpone it…
Peasants and productivity
To see the full picture of Thailand’s workforce transformation you also need to take the change in population into account.
Since the early 60’s Thailand’s population has grown from about 30 million to 70 million today. Although the share of workers in agriculture has declined from ~80% to ~40%, the absolute number is still pretty much the same, approx. 15 million people. The growth of jobs in manufacturing and services has basically only been enough to offset the increasing size of the labor force.
With the population leveling out and with an ageing population, the labor force will remain the same or even shrink. Thus the future should look different than the past, and the transition out of agriculture should become more rapid. All new jobs added in manufacture and services will be jobs taken out of agriculture.
Keeping this in mind, I think it’s possible that the share of agricultural workers will go down to as low as 10% over the next 15 years. This will require ~800,000 new jobs to be created annually. If someone can dig up the number of non-agricultural jobs Thailand has added annually in the past 10 years, it should be possible to see if this is reasonable prediction.
Thailand’s silver snatched?
“JohnH”:
I think Vichai N. was kidding there 🙂
Thailand’s silver snatched?
Sorry . . . I really nearly ‘lost it’ after reading Nostitz (you Nostitz and not Jessee were on overdrive with this poster).
And sincere apologies to Nostitz for making light of his impassioned Darwinian reminder that ‘we were after all from monkeys or tadpoles evolved’. Keep an open mind Nostitz.
If we evolved from monkeys but . . . how did we ‘evolve’ our humanity and the human spiritual ‘soul’ Nostitz?
But I am digressing.
What I really wanted to know is, and considering how close the ‘rapport’ of Nostitz and the Red Shirts . . . and considering many Red Shirts were so enraged by the ‘buffalo’ slur (and other things) as to rampage and torch Bangkok to the ground . . . were the Reds offended by Nostitz ‘you-are-from-monkeys-descent-too-you-Reds’ unifying universal peace message?
(That’s how I am certain JohnH (#80) is NOT a Red!)
Thailand’s silver snatched?
#78 Ron
“we have strayed way off of the original topic”
Indeed … A little bit… Apart from getting my ‘East’s’ and ‘Wests’ mixed up my minor point was that the birth of the modern geographical area that is now the Kingdom of Thailand was not one only of peaceful aquisition as implied by one contributor. The Siam-Laos conflict of 1826-1828 resulted in the forcible (and by implication violent or unpleasant) re-location of the Lao peoples east of the Mekong to the Korat Plateau. It wasn’t all beatific and willing absorption. Much of the rest of it was defined by argy bargy and deals with both the Brits and the French (including the carving up of Lao areas subsequent to the Franco-Siamese conflict of 1893). The provinces of Sisaket and Surin are still regarded by many Khmers as an aspect of ‘kampuchea Khrom’. The drive to ‘Thainess’ in many, many parts of the modern Thai state is only a century old. The supplementary point was on the cultural and ethnical richness that modern Thailand is made up of. This is not just about Thainess and indeed ‘Isan’ is not really North East Thailand culturally speaking. It is ‘Central Lao’…. Having said that, none of this affects Thai peoples’ justified pride in a winning athlete, from whatever region of the Kingdom it might be – Satun, Mae Hong Son, Mukdahan or indeed Bangkok….
Thailand’s silver snatched?
Hi Vichai
You write that Nick’s comment on evolution is insulting to ‘almost everyone’.
For the record, it’s not to me.
Ho Chi Minh’s surprise letter
With some of his roots in the anti-clerical French left, Ho may have been playing the Protestants off against the Catholics whom he saw as more reactionary and more deeply entangled with the Colonial rulers.
Peasant political society
Doug,
You are right to say that, in Chatterjee’s own conceptual scheme (based on what he says in his article made available by Andrew Walker), “political society” and “civil society” (or urban middle classes) are opposites. But does this set-up make things any better? Both of them are merely derivative concepts, stemming from Chatterjee’s initial distinction of two separate economic spheres, the formal, and the informal sector. Having come up with this dichotomy, and using the normative-philosophical concept of civil society to label people working in the formal sector, he probably felt the need for an equivalently designed concept to label all those people who work in the informal sector. His solution was to assume a high number of strongly organized interest groups in the (probably: Indian) informal sector, and call their activities “political,” which then led to “political society” (makes one wonder whether people in “civil society” are unpolitical).
However, the Thai informal sector is not only not highly organized (as far as I know). Crucially, it can also not be said that people in this sector “are not regarded by the state as proper citizens.” If the branch manager of a bank has his or her lunch at a road-side eatery on Silom Road, and if the manager and the owner of that place both have citizens ID cards, drivers licenses, official addresses, send their kids to state schools (the daughter of the owner of the noodle stall in my soi has just graduated from the faculty of arts of Chulalongkorn University), go to see doctors in state hospitals, and vote in elections, then nothing substantial in citizenship terms distinguishes them. Besides, chances are that many people working in the informal sector are (lower) middle class people themselves. Moreover, far from wanting to get rid of the “messy” informal sector, urban middle class people are its most fervent customers.
Finally, three of Chatterjee’s four characteristics of a changed political role of the peasantry merely reflect what has long been described for the equivalent period of European history as “politicization” (the classic text here is Stein Rokkan. 1970. Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Processes of Development. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget). This process, in turn, has its equivalents in the other function systems of society (education, the economy, medicine, mass media, law). However, to see this, one needs an appropriate theory of society.
Thailand’s silver snatched?
(1) First Pavin Chachavalpongpun voiced his embarrassment that Thai silver medalist Pimsiri Sirikaew proud hoisting of HMK’s photo during her medals awarding ceremony (suggesting even that her medal could be “snatched” because of this breach of Olympics ethiquette).
(2) Then Andrew MacGreggor Marshall chided the “Thai authorities that this rather pathetic tradition (hoisting HMK’s photo on such momentous Thai international events) needs to end.”
(3) Andrew MacGreggor Marshall followed with his strong suggestion “hoisting Thaksin’s photo” (on such occasions) could NOT be inappropriate. Certainly not said Tom Hoy hinting that would be beautiful (‘in the eyes of the beholder’) indeed.
(4) But in between were the more lively exchanges by Chanida, Torrance, Tarrin and then Nick Nostitz who overreached even himself with his poster insulting just about everyone by suggesting we are all from ‘monkeys’ descent.
(And my wife almost called the doctor because I could not control my shake-and-rattle convulsions after reading Nostitz!)
Reading NM blogs is better than any comic section of any newspaper, don’t you all think so?
Peasants and productivity
These two paragraphs sum up what I have been arguing during the past 15 years. However, it looks like this message has not been able to penetrate very far into the society full of conventional (plus recently made) myths on our proud agricultural heritage.
Thailand’s silver snatched?
OWWB , good observations, agrees with my own reading and understanding. By the way, we have strayed way off of the original topic, but a good discussion, even pushed some buttons and drew in some of the regular trolls to express their views, it is good to hear them , reminds one of their point of view. This family I married into, we have some of the rising thirty-somethings in Bangkok and have some rather interesting discussions when they are up visiting.
Peasant political society
Srithanknchai #2
I think the other key adjective to keep in mind with regard to Chaterjee’s ‘political society’ is ‘civil’.
Chaterjee characterizes political society as the realm of “tenuously, and even then only ambiguously and contextually, rights bearing citizens” and contrasts it with a “bougeois” civil society in which only a small segment of the population has the privilage of participating. Members of political society come to be seen by the state as “convenient instruments for the administration of welfare”, as Prefoessor Walker suggests. According to Chaterjee, the actions of political society often include breaking the law even in the process of making demands on the basis of rights.
Thus, political society doesn’t just denote a different set of political attitudes, but a different mode of state-society interaction.