David Feeny: “As noted above, Larsson’s heavy emphasis on the role of securitization inhibits his ability to provide a more informed and comprehensive synthesis of the factors influencing the development of land rights in Thailand, and more broadly political and economic change inThailand.”
Great review. This statement really captures what is wrong with so much scholarship on Southeast Asia. One day in the future adequate funding for graduate students may miraculously appear and then some historian will do the hard slog work of gathering and sorting out primary sources which will most likely show that the development of land rights inThailand was influenced by many factors (multifactorial causation) and this will also provide the data needed to challenge and qualify the unicausal security thesis. The primary sources uncovered by the historian will feature real flesh and blood people making real decisions (human agency) albeit suboptimal from the perfect foresight of the future (path dependency) and with no one theory being a perfect fit (multifactorial causation).
How many times has this “put the theoretical cart before the horse of historical data” pattern been repeated in Southeast Asian Studies? (In Burma Studies witness Callahan’s Poli Sci work on the Burmese military, done before an adequate critical history of the Tatmadaw existed, witness the debate between Lieberman and Aung-Thwin in the Journal of Southeast Asian Studies (c. 1980) over the role of a resource absorbing Sangha in Pagan state collapse, Lieberman’s point being that causation is multifactorial which seems reasonable. Nice debate, but no subsequent scholar has ever followed it up and provided a definitive answer perhaps because the historical data cited in the debate was never made public).
Excessive theorizing and the shackles of the intellectual past seem to haunt so much work done on Southeast Asia along with the intellectual constructs employed: notions of colonialism, that “Thailand was never colonized”, what is and is not Southeast Asia e.g. is the premodern region of Tai statelets running along the periphery and including much of Yunnan part of Burma studies, Thai studies, Lao studies or none of the above?, the notion that premodern history has anything to do with modern nation states; overfixation on the intellectual contructs/fantasies of superstar intellectuals e.g. mandalas, galactic polities, geobodies, imagined communities, Scott’s Xomia etc etc … Also wasn’t the dissertation that is the basis for this book “embargoed” meaning that the public did not have access to it for several years? In summary, prioritizing the search for primary sources coupled with open source sharing of those sources with the public might liven the field up a bit and get it moving forward again.
[…] reforms in Malaysia have been more symbolic than substantive. You can read about the criticisms here and here. That’s why apparent liberalization in Malaysia alone will not have a rippling effect […]
The antics of Thaksin’s party do get more amusing and comic as their desperation grows . . . because the Thaksin amnesty could not that easily be done. Not content with a political party by, of and only for Thaksin, they are now bent on rewriting the Thai constitution by, or and only for Thaksin.
As per Mac:
– “It is their constitution after all.”….Not according to the coupists. Post-their 2006 coup, they tampered with it for purely self-serving reasons. Focussed on Thaksin at that time, they now have the temerity to accuse the PTP for being Thaksin focussed in their attempt to undo the post-coup damage.
-“But any rewrite or amendment must be ratified by a national referendum”……Agreed, but after the fact. The election enabled the current constitution amendment process. A coup did not give pre-emptive authority for constitution revision .
-“………that disgraced very suspicious figutive leader”……..Winning elections does not a disgraced fugitive leader make. Coupists cannot disgrace him, coming from their pre-eminent disgraceful roots. They also cannot create a fugitive…A political exile, but not a fugitive. That term merely serves the goal of legitimizing their power-grab.
-“……….have every right to do as they please with the Thai constitution. That’s preposterous!”………Electoral legitimacy is not preposterous. Coupist illegitimate constitutional tampering is preposterous.
It is always a challange for any government to balance between meritocracy and social stability, and that is where AA comes in.
There is a different between affirmative action (AA) and racism. Affirmative action is taken to restore diversity in society and the workplace where previous discrimination policies excluded it, thus AA is associated with social justice and fairness (Coetzee & Bezuidenhout, 2011). AA is not only restricted to Malaysia alone, but is practiced in countries such as South Africa and even in Singapore, Malaysia’s closest neighbour.
In the context of Singapore, AA has been adopted for a particular minority group who is lacking economically and educationally. In post independent Singapore, this minority group was given access to free education so that they could develop and be on par with other races, thus creating an environment for inter-racial stability to take place. In the case of South Africa, AA has been pushed through by Mandela to redress social and economic inequalities, which if allow to exist, will cause social disharmony and security instability.
To equate AA to racism is to simplify a complex issue, which has to be viewed from historical, economic and security perspectives. AA has been extensively studied by researchers such as Walker, Field, Giles, Bernerth and Jones-Farmer (2006) and Kravitz (2008). However while AA has good intention, it can be subjected to abuses by interested parties if not implemented properly.
I do not support any attempt by any race to superimpose itself on others. The globalised world has move beyond race and religion, and has no place for those clinging to the bygone post-colonial era of divide and conquer along racial line. Most Malaysians recognise this and you can see Malays joining hand with the Chinese, Indian and other groups in Bersih rally.
I am sorry but I do not know what is monster cookie. The only Monster Cookie I know was from Sesame Street.
As sophisticated as the term may sound, “Race Based Affirmative Action” is really a thin veil for institutionalized / politicized discrimination and racism. No matter how it is implemented, that kind of thinking along racial lines cannot be justified. Affirmative action for marginalized communities, economically or otherwise, irrespective of race or religion may have been better. This is critical, given Malaysia’s multi-racial demographic, to ensure that racism never becomes an issue because one race is favored over another.
My response to your comment was focused on the merit of your argument but I pointed to your ethnicity to indicate that perhaps your argument was biased since you apparently support affirmative action for the ethnic group you belong to. I think it is a pathetic state of affairs that in the 21st century, an affirmative action government policy is based on a citizen’s ethnicity and religion rather than on the merit of equitable social and economic criteria.
I think Malaysians are capable of creating an equitable social, economic and political environment in a multi-cultural society without the manipulative and divisive nature of race based politics and policies. Rahman, I am glad you responded to my criticism with candor and I would as soon chat with you as is the amicable Malaysian way… but spare me monster cookies please :-).
This comment only serves to show that the concept of “colonialism” as an analytical tool is outdated, just as in the subtitle “Traces of the Colonial in Thailand” (Harrison/Jackson).
For any constitutional rewrite or major change, it seems to be that the Thai people must be involved in the process. It is their constitution after all. Lawmakers could propose to amend or rewrite the constitution. But any rewrite or amendment must be ratified by a national referendum.
I still don’t get what Mr. John Francis Lee is so fired up and why he insists that the party of Thaksin (that disgraced very suspicious figutive leader) have every right to do as they please with the Thai constitution. That’s preposterous!
“That is worth a thousand social science theories restating the obvious, that suck the life out and dampen the flame of real lived human experience and history.”
Thank you; my old mum surely will like your statement. As a son, I might add, I value the picture of my mum as a symbol of gratefulness, a way of producing individual “drops of meaning” as well as feelings. However, as the sociologist that I also am, I still prefer Durkheim, Weber, Luhmann, or even John W. Meyer (none of whom “stated the obvious”) over my small personal “human experience.” Besides, medical doctors, too, do not have much attention for the “flame of real lived human experience” of their patients, but they can surely be quite helpful treating you as just one body amongst innumerable others, and not as the singular personality referred to as “Jon Fernquest.”
Greg (27). A suggestion for a definition of culture: a major set of human behaviours (memes) that has evolved more rapidly than would be possible for genetic evolution alone. Cultures can be defined broadly or narrowly, and almost always overlap. Some cultures are limited geographically. Some are not. Science is a culture that overlaps many (all?) national cultures.
Capitalism is a culture that has been selected because it is a game highly competitive people can play for money instead of cutting each others’ throats. In addition to promoting peace (though not as effectively as one would like) it also has the benefit of driving down prices, thus allowing even half-hearted players to also survive comfortably. It’s possible to rank national cultures according to how well they adapt to capitalism, and better to do so without any moral connotation. A typically chauvinistic capitalist would rank them morally, but that is narrow-minded, and unfortunately gives rise to a situation where it seems necessary to muddy the water so as not to give offence to the people of cultures where capitalism has not done so well. It would be better to face up to a cultural deficiency that if made good, would improve the lives of individual members.
Democracy? How about: A game everybody gets to play with equal status, by which the government is determined. It operates only when the vast majority of the population play by the rules. If a significant proportion does not, and resorts to violence, then democracy is not possible and government falls into the hands of those who manage violence most effectively. When people elect representative law-makers, they are more likely to get laws that they can live by without resentment. They get that feeling of “freedom”. The more educated the electorate, the more conscientious their representatives need to be in order to hold down that job.
Sorry for the verbiage.
When I hear the oft-repeated phrase “Thailand was never colonized”, it does strike me that this is not actually a true statement.
One, it could be said that geographic Thailand 2012 is actually a collection of different groups and peoples who have been almost completely colonized in the cultural, ideological and economic sense by an elite group of Central Thais & descendents of Chinese immigrants residing in Bangkok, and/or,
Two, it could also be said that Thailand has been almost completely colonized in the financial and economic sense by the various immigrant groups from southern and southwest China who arrived in Thailand 2 to 3 generations ago and who now own almost all significant aspects of the Thailand economic structure.
One more point is that, as far as the Thai reactionary ‘elite’ are concerned, it is ‘ethical and legal’ to have members of the Khana Nitirat, for instance, beaten up as a ‘warning’ not to pursue a dialog on political issues. Two years ago the RAT/Democrat alliance did more than beat people up.
It is certainly very important for those in Thailand who actually do embrace, or who at least wish to embrace, an ethical and legal approach to the political organization of Thailand do what it takes to protect the Khana Nitirat and others who do speak up from the traditional, brutal violence of the RTA/Democrat amalgam.
‘ But the fact remains the current Thai constitution was approved by a national referendum. There is no changing that fact. ‘
The Army’s charter was approved on the basis of ‘it’s this one or a possibly (probably!) worse one of our choosing’. Criticism of the charter was disallowed in the run-up to the referendum, and the Army counted the votes afterwards. It was a post-requisite. It’s prerequisite was the forceful overthrow of the elected government.
‘ If PTP wishes to do a major constitutional rewrite or any significant constitutional amendments, a national referendum will be prerequisite on ethical and legal grounds. ‘
This is the RTA/Democrat ‘argument’. Besides the absurdity of hearing exhortations based upon ‘ethical and legal grounds’ from the mutineers, it is a shell game … trying to make a referendum, which can only logically happen when there is a Constitution to refer, a prerequisite to the proposed constitution’s own creation.
The only valid – ‘ethical and legal’ – prerequisite to a Constitutional rewrite remains, in the eyes of the RTA/Democrat faction, the forceful, criminal overthrow of the elected government and the criminal destruction of the existing constitution along with it and the criminal absolution given themselves by the mutineers in the wake of their serial crimes.
Srithanonchai: “I merely think that these “small drops” are not of great scholarly interest, even for an anthropologist.”
Wow, they should be. Particularly if they want to connect to more people and increase their relevance, as opposed to writing books that fulfill tenure track requirements but gather dust on shelves or the remainder heap.
“I can tell you that I have placed a picture of my old mum, to whom I am deeply grateful, on the top of one of my filing cabinets.”
That is worth a thousand social science theories restating the obvious, that suck the life out and dampen the flame of real lived human experience and history. 🙂
“part of your Buddhist worship includes offerings to the ancestors”
maybe there is a better phrase like “Buddhist practice”
“a person worships his beloved dog”
this definitely has a connotation of elevation to the status of a god, “worship a god” or “the god” being the most frequent collocate (word pair) (N.B. don’t say this to your Filipina gf in online chat).
anyway, you certainly made me think about the use of words to describe everyday religious practice, thanks 🙂
(1) I was thinking of Weber’s Protestant Ethics or Al-Attas Myth of the Lazy Native when I had meant culture had been discredited.
Perhaps we should start by defining culture? (Your right that culture overlaps and makes analysis difficult)
Also, its important to note that the poorest people in Malaysia are not the Malays. It is the indigenous peoples of Malaysia – the Orang Asal/Asli of Peninsular Malaysia (who are not classified as Bumiputeras) and several indigenous communities in Sabah and Sarawak (who are classified as Bumiputeras). Malays on the Peninsular are poor especially in the East Coast. The reasons for their poverty range from the lack of property rights, geographical conditions that are not conducive for economic growth, poor human capital development, corruption, etc. Culture can be one of the reason but not the main reason, I would think.
Statistically, the main reason the Malay economic performance is driven downward is because it is conflated with other Bumiputeras. Concentration of wealth at the top 1-3% makes it worse. There are also poor Chinese, poor Indians, etc. In fact 80 per cent of Malaysians are relatively poor.
If culture is defined as traditional practices, I’m not sure one can attribute Malay under-performance to “Malay culture”. Since the 70s, as you must be aware, and particularly under Mahathir, the state has sought to modernise the Malays and have provided ample social, political and economic opportunities.
To blame culture is the easy way out I think.
I’m more inclined to the economic history/institutional argument rather than Malay culture for Malay under performance. Essentially, the incentive structures in Malaysia, past and present, undermined/s the Malay community’s dynamism (in general, as the Malay community is not monolithic).
I’ll be interested to hear how you define culture. We maybe talking about the same thing.
(2) Interesting views on democracy. Instead of using the U.S. State Dept’s loaded term, are there certain principles that defines a democracy. In your view what would those principles be?
I think if the Malay community, and Malaysians understood democracy better, their economic outcomes would be vastly improved.
Great start, but disappointing ending. I am totally not persuaded by the two measures the author suggested, but the author’s mention of ‘envy, greed, and racialism’ is a real put-off. Too pathos-arousing for my taste.
“Developing a trustworthy and professional journalist culture” is more of a wish than a measure. As for how to develop the culture, the author does not seem to care to mention. Also, to keep the citizens informed is one thing, and to create “the sense of ownership in governing the country” is another. Professional journalists should strive to deliver impartial information to the citizens, but should they also aim at creating an active citizenry? How can journalism “create the sense of ownership in governing the country” while maintaining their political disinterest?
Second in the author’s wishlist, to bring back to the centre stage of policy making experts and intellectuals through the creation of institutions. If the experts and intellectuals need to be brought back, should we probably first find out why they disappeared from the centre stage in the first place? Is it really the lack of institutions that caused them to flee or is there something else that prevent them from coming back? Or have they ever been in the centre of policy making at all?
I do not think Rahman’s argument is perfectly “rational and intellectual”, but John’s consistent use of ‘Tu quoque’ attack is perfectly childish. I am not too sure why it is important whether Rahman’s name is Malay, Aztec, or Aryan, and to point out that his arguments are contradictory (not self-contradictory as they are from different arguments). “If smoking is bad for one person, why is it not bad for another person?” does not contradict with “Cigarette is more harmful to some people than others.” It would be more constructive to explain the difference between each presented case than just to say “you say this and then you say that. your argument are self-contradictory.”
“…………it (Thailand) was the only country in Southeast Asiato escape being formally colonized”
Some knowledgable Thai’s will argue that pride engendered by the above is lacking insight.
The price of avoiding such colonization was self-serving by those Thai’s who facilitated it. It protected the interests of an elite few, at the price of diminishing the Nation as a whole.
They will also argue that Thai’s development would have been enhanced considerably through the influences colonizers.
The above opinions are enhanced when in hindsight, history showed that the colonizers ‘shelf-life’ was limited anyway.
Although to be fair, this limited ‘shelf-life’ of colonizers was not apparent at the time these few elite were primarily motivated to protect their own narrow interests.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Review of Land and Loyalty
David Feeny: “As noted above, Larsson’s heavy emphasis on the role of securitization inhibits his ability to provide a more informed and comprehensive synthesis of the factors influencing the development of land rights in Thailand, and more broadly political and economic change inThailand.”
Great review. This statement really captures what is wrong with so much scholarship on Southeast Asia. One day in the future adequate funding for graduate students may miraculously appear and then some historian will do the hard slog work of gathering and sorting out primary sources which will most likely show that the development of land rights inThailand was influenced by many factors (multifactorial causation) and this will also provide the data needed to challenge and qualify the unicausal security thesis. The primary sources uncovered by the historian will feature real flesh and blood people making real decisions (human agency) albeit suboptimal from the perfect foresight of the future (path dependency) and with no one theory being a perfect fit (multifactorial causation).
How many times has this “put the theoretical cart before the horse of historical data” pattern been repeated in Southeast Asian Studies? (In Burma Studies witness Callahan’s Poli Sci work on the Burmese military, done before an adequate critical history of the Tatmadaw existed, witness the debate between Lieberman and Aung-Thwin in the Journal of Southeast Asian Studies (c. 1980) over the role of a resource absorbing Sangha in Pagan state collapse, Lieberman’s point being that causation is multifactorial which seems reasonable. Nice debate, but no subsequent scholar has ever followed it up and provided a definitive answer perhaps because the historical data cited in the debate was never made public).
Excessive theorizing and the shackles of the intellectual past seem to haunt so much work done on Southeast Asia along with the intellectual constructs employed: notions of colonialism, that “Thailand was never colonized”, what is and is not Southeast Asia e.g. is the premodern region of Tai statelets running along the periphery and including much of Yunnan part of Burma studies, Thai studies, Lao studies or none of the above?, the notion that premodern history has anything to do with modern nation states; overfixation on the intellectual contructs/fantasies of superstar intellectuals e.g. mandalas, galactic polities, geobodies, imagined communities, Scott’s Xomia etc etc … Also wasn’t the dissertation that is the basis for this book “embargoed” meaning that the public did not have access to it for several years? In summary, prioritizing the search for primary sources coupled with open source sharing of those sources with the public might liven the field up a bit and get it moving forward again.
Malaysia – Assembling the Peaceful Assembly Act
[…] reforms in Malaysia have been more symbolic than substantive. You can read about the criticisms here and here. That’s why apparent liberalization in Malaysia alone will not have a rippling effect […]
Constitutional court or national advisor?
The antics of Thaksin’s party do get more amusing and comic as their desperation grows . . . because the Thaksin amnesty could not that easily be done. Not content with a political party by, of and only for Thaksin, they are now bent on rewriting the Thai constitution by, or and only for Thaksin.
Constitutional court or national advisor?
As per Mac:
– “It is their constitution after all.”….Not according to the coupists. Post-their 2006 coup, they tampered with it for purely self-serving reasons. Focussed on Thaksin at that time, they now have the temerity to accuse the PTP for being Thaksin focussed in their attempt to undo the post-coup damage.
-“But any rewrite or amendment must be ratified by a national referendum”……Agreed, but after the fact. The election enabled the current constitution amendment process. A coup did not give pre-emptive authority for constitution revision .
-“………that disgraced very suspicious figutive leader”……..Winning elections does not a disgraced fugitive leader make. Coupists cannot disgrace him, coming from their pre-eminent disgraceful roots. They also cannot create a fugitive…A political exile, but not a fugitive. That term merely serves the goal of legitimizing their power-grab.
-“……….have every right to do as they please with the Thai constitution. That’s preposterous!”………Electoral legitimacy is not preposterous. Coupist illegitimate constitutional tampering is preposterous.
Malaysia after regime change – Ooi Kee Beng
Dear John,
It is always a challange for any government to balance between meritocracy and social stability, and that is where AA comes in.
There is a different between affirmative action (AA) and racism. Affirmative action is taken to restore diversity in society and the workplace where previous discrimination policies excluded it, thus AA is associated with social justice and fairness (Coetzee & Bezuidenhout, 2011). AA is not only restricted to Malaysia alone, but is practiced in countries such as South Africa and even in Singapore, Malaysia’s closest neighbour.
In the context of Singapore, AA has been adopted for a particular minority group who is lacking economically and educationally. In post independent Singapore, this minority group was given access to free education so that they could develop and be on par with other races, thus creating an environment for inter-racial stability to take place. In the case of South Africa, AA has been pushed through by Mandela to redress social and economic inequalities, which if allow to exist, will cause social disharmony and security instability.
To equate AA to racism is to simplify a complex issue, which has to be viewed from historical, economic and security perspectives. AA has been extensively studied by researchers such as Walker, Field, Giles, Bernerth and Jones-Farmer (2006) and Kravitz (2008). However while AA has good intention, it can be subjected to abuses by interested parties if not implemented properly.
I do not support any attempt by any race to superimpose itself on others. The globalised world has move beyond race and religion, and has no place for those clinging to the bygone post-colonial era of divide and conquer along racial line. Most Malaysians recognise this and you can see Malays joining hand with the Chinese, Indian and other groups in Bersih rally.
I am sorry but I do not know what is monster cookie. The only Monster Cookie I know was from Sesame Street.
Race-based ideology and Islam: The Malaysian enigma
This is not verbiage R.N. England. This is an interesting take on something as old as humans.
Thanks very much for this. It is a new definition (at least to me) and will need some time to digest it.
Malaysia after regime change – Ooi Kee Beng
Dear Rahman,
As sophisticated as the term may sound, “Race Based Affirmative Action” is really a thin veil for institutionalized / politicized discrimination and racism. No matter how it is implemented, that kind of thinking along racial lines cannot be justified. Affirmative action for marginalized communities, economically or otherwise, irrespective of race or religion may have been better. This is critical, given Malaysia’s multi-racial demographic, to ensure that racism never becomes an issue because one race is favored over another.
My response to your comment was focused on the merit of your argument but I pointed to your ethnicity to indicate that perhaps your argument was biased since you apparently support affirmative action for the ethnic group you belong to. I think it is a pathetic state of affairs that in the 21st century, an affirmative action government policy is based on a citizen’s ethnicity and religion rather than on the merit of equitable social and economic criteria.
I think Malaysians are capable of creating an equitable social, economic and political environment in a multi-cultural society without the manipulative and divisive nature of race based politics and policies. Rahman, I am glad you responded to my criticism with candor and I would as soon chat with you as is the amicable Malaysian way… but spare me monster cookies please :-).
Constitutional court or national advisor?
Put the Coup Constitution up against the 1997 one and let the electorate vote on which one to use.
Review of Land and Loyalty
#2
This comment only serves to show that the concept of “colonialism” as an analytical tool is outdated, just as in the subtitle “Traces of the Colonial in Thailand” (Harrison/Jackson).
Constitutional court or national advisor?
For any constitutional rewrite or major change, it seems to be that the Thai people must be involved in the process. It is their constitution after all. Lawmakers could propose to amend or rewrite the constitution. But any rewrite or amendment must be ratified by a national referendum.
I still don’t get what Mr. John Francis Lee is so fired up and why he insists that the party of Thaksin (that disgraced very suspicious figutive leader) have every right to do as they please with the Thai constitution. That’s preposterous!
Review of The Lovelorn Ghost and the Magical Monk
Jon:
“That is worth a thousand social science theories restating the obvious, that suck the life out and dampen the flame of real lived human experience and history.”
Thank you; my old mum surely will like your statement. As a son, I might add, I value the picture of my mum as a symbol of gratefulness, a way of producing individual “drops of meaning” as well as feelings. However, as the sociologist that I also am, I still prefer Durkheim, Weber, Luhmann, or even John W. Meyer (none of whom “stated the obvious”) over my small personal “human experience.” Besides, medical doctors, too, do not have much attention for the “flame of real lived human experience” of their patients, but they can surely be quite helpful treating you as just one body amongst innumerable others, and not as the singular personality referred to as “Jon Fernquest.”
🙂
Race-based ideology and Islam: The Malaysian enigma
Greg (27). A suggestion for a definition of culture: a major set of human behaviours (memes) that has evolved more rapidly than would be possible for genetic evolution alone. Cultures can be defined broadly or narrowly, and almost always overlap. Some cultures are limited geographically. Some are not. Science is a culture that overlaps many (all?) national cultures.
Capitalism is a culture that has been selected because it is a game highly competitive people can play for money instead of cutting each others’ throats. In addition to promoting peace (though not as effectively as one would like) it also has the benefit of driving down prices, thus allowing even half-hearted players to also survive comfortably. It’s possible to rank national cultures according to how well they adapt to capitalism, and better to do so without any moral connotation. A typically chauvinistic capitalist would rank them morally, but that is narrow-minded, and unfortunately gives rise to a situation where it seems necessary to muddy the water so as not to give offence to the people of cultures where capitalism has not done so well. It would be better to face up to a cultural deficiency that if made good, would improve the lives of individual members.
Democracy? How about: A game everybody gets to play with equal status, by which the government is determined. It operates only when the vast majority of the population play by the rules. If a significant proportion does not, and resorts to violence, then democracy is not possible and government falls into the hands of those who manage violence most effectively. When people elect representative law-makers, they are more likely to get laws that they can live by without resentment. They get that feeling of “freedom”. The more educated the electorate, the more conscientious their representatives need to be in order to hold down that job.
Sorry for the verbiage.
Review of Land and Loyalty
When I hear the oft-repeated phrase “Thailand was never colonized”, it does strike me that this is not actually a true statement.
One, it could be said that geographic Thailand 2012 is actually a collection of different groups and peoples who have been almost completely colonized in the cultural, ideological and economic sense by an elite group of Central Thais & descendents of Chinese immigrants residing in Bangkok, and/or,
Two, it could also be said that Thailand has been almost completely colonized in the financial and economic sense by the various immigrant groups from southern and southwest China who arrived in Thailand 2 to 3 generations ago and who now own almost all significant aspects of the Thailand economic structure.
Constitutional court or national advisor?
One more point is that, as far as the Thai reactionary ‘elite’ are concerned, it is ‘ethical and legal’ to have members of the Khana Nitirat, for instance, beaten up as a ‘warning’ not to pursue a dialog on political issues. Two years ago the RAT/Democrat alliance did more than beat people up.
It is certainly very important for those in Thailand who actually do embrace, or who at least wish to embrace, an ethical and legal approach to the political organization of Thailand do what it takes to protect the Khana Nitirat and others who do speak up from the traditional, brutal violence of the RTA/Democrat amalgam.
Constitutional court or national advisor?
‘ But the fact remains the current Thai constitution was approved by a national referendum. There is no changing that fact. ‘
The Army’s charter was approved on the basis of ‘it’s this one or a possibly (probably!) worse one of our choosing’. Criticism of the charter was disallowed in the run-up to the referendum, and the Army counted the votes afterwards. It was a post-requisite. It’s prerequisite was the forceful overthrow of the elected government.
‘ If PTP wishes to do a major constitutional rewrite or any significant constitutional amendments, a national referendum will be prerequisite on ethical and legal grounds. ‘
This is the RTA/Democrat ‘argument’. Besides the absurdity of hearing exhortations based upon ‘ethical and legal grounds’ from the mutineers, it is a shell game … trying to make a referendum, which can only logically happen when there is a Constitution to refer, a prerequisite to the proposed constitution’s own creation.
The only valid – ‘ethical and legal’ – prerequisite to a Constitutional rewrite remains, in the eyes of the RTA/Democrat faction, the forceful, criminal overthrow of the elected government and the criminal destruction of the existing constitution along with it and the criminal absolution given themselves by the mutineers in the wake of their serial crimes.
Review of The Lovelorn Ghost and the Magical Monk
Srithanonchai: “I merely think that these “small drops” are not of great scholarly interest, even for an anthropologist.”
Wow, they should be. Particularly if they want to connect to more people and increase their relevance, as opposed to writing books that fulfill tenure track requirements but gather dust on shelves or the remainder heap.
“I can tell you that I have placed a picture of my old mum, to whom I am deeply grateful, on the top of one of my filing cabinets.”
That is worth a thousand social science theories restating the obvious, that suck the life out and dampen the flame of real lived human experience and history. 🙂
“part of your Buddhist worship includes offerings to the ancestors”
maybe there is a better phrase like “Buddhist practice”
“a person worships his beloved dog”
this definitely has a connotation of elevation to the status of a god, “worship a god” or “the god” being the most frequent collocate (word pair) (N.B. don’t say this to your Filipina gf in online chat).
anyway, you certainly made me think about the use of words to describe everyday religious practice, thanks 🙂
Factionalism in Vietnam
[…] Cain thinks that the economic woes faced by Vietnam can be partly attributed to the “rotten politics and […]
Race-based ideology and Islam: The Malaysian enigma
R.N. England #26
(1) I was thinking of Weber’s Protestant Ethics or Al-Attas Myth of the Lazy Native when I had meant culture had been discredited.
Perhaps we should start by defining culture? (Your right that culture overlaps and makes analysis difficult)
Also, its important to note that the poorest people in Malaysia are not the Malays. It is the indigenous peoples of Malaysia – the Orang Asal/Asli of Peninsular Malaysia (who are not classified as Bumiputeras) and several indigenous communities in Sabah and Sarawak (who are classified as Bumiputeras). Malays on the Peninsular are poor especially in the East Coast. The reasons for their poverty range from the lack of property rights, geographical conditions that are not conducive for economic growth, poor human capital development, corruption, etc. Culture can be one of the reason but not the main reason, I would think.
Statistically, the main reason the Malay economic performance is driven downward is because it is conflated with other Bumiputeras. Concentration of wealth at the top 1-3% makes it worse. There are also poor Chinese, poor Indians, etc. In fact 80 per cent of Malaysians are relatively poor.
If culture is defined as traditional practices, I’m not sure one can attribute Malay under-performance to “Malay culture”. Since the 70s, as you must be aware, and particularly under Mahathir, the state has sought to modernise the Malays and have provided ample social, political and economic opportunities.
To blame culture is the easy way out I think.
I’m more inclined to the economic history/institutional argument rather than Malay culture for Malay under performance. Essentially, the incentive structures in Malaysia, past and present, undermined/s the Malay community’s dynamism (in general, as the Malay community is not monolithic).
I’ll be interested to hear how you define culture. We maybe talking about the same thing.
(2) Interesting views on democracy. Instead of using the U.S. State Dept’s loaded term, are there certain principles that defines a democracy. In your view what would those principles be?
I think if the Malay community, and Malaysians understood democracy better, their economic outcomes would be vastly improved.
Malaysia after regime change – Ooi Kee Beng
Great start, but disappointing ending. I am totally not persuaded by the two measures the author suggested, but the author’s mention of ‘envy, greed, and racialism’ is a real put-off. Too pathos-arousing for my taste.
“Developing a trustworthy and professional journalist culture” is more of a wish than a measure. As for how to develop the culture, the author does not seem to care to mention. Also, to keep the citizens informed is one thing, and to create “the sense of ownership in governing the country” is another. Professional journalists should strive to deliver impartial information to the citizens, but should they also aim at creating an active citizenry? How can journalism “create the sense of ownership in governing the country” while maintaining their political disinterest?
Second in the author’s wishlist, to bring back to the centre stage of policy making experts and intellectuals through the creation of institutions. If the experts and intellectuals need to be brought back, should we probably first find out why they disappeared from the centre stage in the first place? Is it really the lack of institutions that caused them to flee or is there something else that prevent them from coming back? Or have they ever been in the centre of policy making at all?
I do not think Rahman’s argument is perfectly “rational and intellectual”, but John’s consistent use of ‘Tu quoque’ attack is perfectly childish. I am not too sure why it is important whether Rahman’s name is Malay, Aztec, or Aryan, and to point out that his arguments are contradictory (not self-contradictory as they are from different arguments). “If smoking is bad for one person, why is it not bad for another person?” does not contradict with “Cigarette is more harmful to some people than others.” It would be more constructive to explain the difference between each presented case than just to say “you say this and then you say that. your argument are self-contradictory.”
Review of Land and Loyalty
“…………it (Thailand) was the only country in Southeast Asiato escape being formally colonized”
Some knowledgable Thai’s will argue that pride engendered by the above is lacking insight.
The price of avoiding such colonization was self-serving by those Thai’s who facilitated it. It protected the interests of an elite few, at the price of diminishing the Nation as a whole.
They will also argue that Thai’s development would have been enhanced considerably through the influences colonizers.
The above opinions are enhanced when in hindsight, history showed that the colonizers ‘shelf-life’ was limited anyway.
Although to be fair, this limited ‘shelf-life’ of colonizers was not apparent at the time these few elite were primarily motivated to protect their own narrow interests.