The worldwide average for leukemia deaths per year is 8 persons per 100,000. So if 7 persons out of 11,000 have died of leukemia in Bukit Merah in the last 30 years, it means the town of Bhukit Merah is 3 times healthier than the world’s average. Mr. Albrey, do you know that the most successful cure for leukemia is extreme radiation of the spine to kill the marrow followed by a compatible bone marrow graft? It is obvious to me that the malaysian green movement fabricates lies about radiation and cancer to fan more fear to get more political power.
[…] Since an Australian mining company may have a hand in this, perhaps it is time that the Australian media started to look at this story more closely. – New Mandala […]
“Certainly the opposition has made great headway on the back of the Lynas issue” LOL – Fuziah Salleh and the PKR guys CREATED the “Lynas issue” issue and then ‘backed’ the resulting protesters!! LOL again!! the poor trusting protesters were force-fed MISinformation supplied to them by “others” (PKR/PR and their ‘shills’). Everyone used their tonnes of rare earth enabled digital A/V equipment – rare earth sourced from stinky ancient carelessly toxic and polluting Chinese factories to protest. Protest against the reality of a modern state-of- the- art responsibly managed and yes! well monitored plant like LAMP which uses unique Mt Weld ULTRA LOW rad ore (not monazite!) and where peoples safety has been designed into it from the ground up as a top priority! It ain’t no Bukit Merah – humans and their processes DO evolve you know! btw apart from from that ambitious ego-tripping Fuziah Salleh, YOU were one of the misinformants that scared and stressed the young and old “rakyat” of Kuantan sleepless with your Youtubed lies and ERSATZ “facts”/science. Congrats, it’s gonna be fun to watch the HAVOC!! you’ve definitely helped cause . ps my Malysian Insider comment on your political rant is rather neutered cuz as you probably know your beloved ‘M.I’ consistently and repeatedly REFUSES TO POST any dissenting opinions or positive SCIENTIFIC FACTS ON LYNAS! (and not just from me) – but hey, that would be real cool with you wouldn’t it? Nice ideology you subscribe to.
I love people like Ryan who just love complaining about their iPhone bills on twitter, making YouTube vids, blogs like this one on their computers, making animations apparently as a job………………… hes one of the biggest rare earth users you will ever meet.
BTW I’m not even going to comment about the lack of real facts in the article itself.
syabas!
a clear and concise explanation about Lynas and why Australians should care about this issue for the sake of both countries.
but given how many Australians support mining billionaires and their spokesmen like Tony Abbott, who cares what happens in Malaysia when cheap Bali holidays are still on tap?
Alamanach, I am sure you are right, at least to some extent, I am afraid, however, that you are also showing some symptoms of a very contagious and common malady particularly prevalent in Thailand. It is called “so good so good”.
A poll of 40 of the commentariat closed in Yangon this afternoon. Predictions of the number of seats that will be won by the USDP range from 1 to 17. Either a clueless commentariat or a very hard-to-call event.
Interestingly, those based outside the country are all at the low end of USDP numbers, and those based inside are at the high end.
Both major parties have very high expectations and tt is clear that one of them will fall well short of its own bottom-line. The reaction of the “failing” party may be as significant as the actual results.
Your point has been made repeatedly and is fully understood. You don’t like my work, and unfortunately such is life. I can’t please everyone.
Caroline…
Thank you for your comments here, they are very much appreciated. I never felt slighted about my work not being cited. I found it odd that Maylee had gone to your work to make a point about my own, and given your engagement with neoliberalism I simply found it curious that some of my own writing had not been incorporated into your recent work as obviously Cambodian studies is a small circle of people and those writing about neoliberalism in Cambodia are even fewer. No hard feelings whatsoever, and thanks for taking the time to clarify here. I think Keith Barney’s suggestion that I was somehow “berating” you was extremely unfair as I have a great deal of respect and admiration for your work. In terms of adopting elements of my argument, my only meaning was that we share similar views on the contemporary political economy of Cambodia, and your incorporation of neoliberal concerns into your more recent work parallels my own. I clearly should have worded this more carefully.
With regards to your passage…
“The promotion of the neoliberal peace offers an array of opportunities to different local actors, but it can also function as a political straitjacket that limits the potential for the emergence of a national public sphere that can provide a setting for deliberation and accommodation.”
…I would actually disagree with the wording you have chosen here as to me it is too suggestive of constraint with respect to the contestation of public space/sphere, when really – as we have both recognized elsewhere in our work – there has been significant resistance among Cambodians, including numerous public protests. You reuse this idea of a “political straitjacket” on page 45 of your book where you suggest East Timor was “confined within a straitjacket on neoliberal policy development”, which sounds like there is no way out. This seems to rub up against the “monolithic neoliberalism” arguments I find so problematic, because of course another world, and another Cambodia, are in fact possible… despite the “there is no alternative” mantra that continues to circulate even as it is being actively undone by things like the Occupy Movement. So it is this particular “straitjacket” turn of phrase that I’m uncomfortable with, as the way you have described this process here in your post is, as you say, something I would very much agree with. And of course you are right, the notion of ‘neoliberalization’ does not undo the similarities between Cambodia and East Timor, which is precisely why neoliberalism remains a useful analytical construct. In another recent paper called ‘Neoliberalism and Geography: Expansions, Variegations, Formations’, I contend that “The current moment of global capitalism, variegated, hybridized, protean, and processual as it may be under neoliberalism, remains the same heartless brute it has always been. So while neoliberalism as a ‘radical theoretical slogan’ (Peck 2004: 403) undoubtedly comes with limitations… [we can nonetheless] engage it as a reference point in building solidarity and uniting diverse struggles against the disciplining, exploitative, and dominating structures of capitalism”. This is precisely why it troubles me that Maylee and others so adamantly refuse to concede that employing this ‘radical theoretical slogan’ within the context of studying Cambodia’s contemporary political economy may actually have not only some explanatory potential, but more importantly, some emancipatory potential.
In terms of where neoliberalism ends and other forms of development begin, this is something I do actually attempt to answer in my recent paper “Neoliberalism as discourse: between Foucauldian political economy and Marxian poststructuralism”, which Alex Martin provides a link to above. See specifically page 142, but of course this is not going to satisfy my detractors and those with an anti-poststructuralist mindset.
And as for your last point on the historical and current state of Cambodian studies, I’m in complete agreement with you here too. I’m also fully willing to admit that in my original entry, I was probably a little too hard on Maylee.
Aung San Suu Kyi will get in this parliament thing allright. Even if she is dead. What particular crap she would become is pure academic.
Hard to say about NLD. People are sick of being told what to do and what to think by others and NLD is no different to USDP or PQRST or any other. Just some familiar faces.
No one really ask what people want any way. They simply give their own version of what is good for you.
Aung San Suu Kyi thing is simple “faith”. Like Christianity or Buddhism or Islam. People put blind faith in her and her alone. That’s all. There is NOTHING to show what difference she has made in the last year except inviting in all the pigs to the trough.
Her naivety, elitist attitude and poor understanding or at least poor showing of the understanding of the real issues of the people thus far, there is likely to be backlash than a real progress.
Esoteric high school essay things can take one only thus far in real world where lands are daily confiscated, girls are daily raped, people are daily tortured and all sorts of foreigners are seen to be prospering while the Burmese are finding hard to eat a meal a day.
With all the dominant news outlets and “political Parties’ all for the fake election and fake constitution ignoring the daily grime of the people, no one would know how much built up pressure is there already.
People in the street will have no faith in the government with or without Aung San Suu Kyi. Immediate onslaught of money people coming in with slave jobs will simply give fodder for ignition.
Concerned: “Insisting on neoliberalism as a framing is a discursive/theoretical straitjacket in itself. The one size fits all problem here is not so much Maylee’s understanding of neoliberalism, but your insistence that neoliberalism explains every little twist.”
Exactly. “Neoliberalism” , “Amat” are polemical chameleon bogeyman terms with ultraflexible definitions applied to any or every target of criticism.
The disciplines of history and journalism at least put the actual details of the events of exploitation first, for all to see and sympathize with. even “neoliberalists” (or those caught up in the system, most of us) who have sympathy for landless Cambodians and their plight and would support action to improve their situation. This whole thread is almost a case study of how academics make themselves obscure and irrelevant to society as a whole.
[that is given the definition: “Neoliberalism is a contemporary political movement advocating economic liberalizations, free trade and open markets. Neoliberalism supports the privatization of nationalized industries, deregulation, and enhancing the role of the private sector in modern society.” Source: Wikipedia]
I recently found this discussion, and I have found it fascinating. I think Simon and Maylee should both be congratulated for sparking such a spirited debate, and for the contribution both have made to Cambodian studies with their work in this field. Readers might also want to look at Erik Davis’s blog, where he writes about primitive accumulation/accumulation by dispossession in the context of Cambodia.
Seeing myself both cited and slated in the above, I wanted to make a couple of comments on my own position.
First, I am slightly surprised, Simon, that in our correspondence over the years you have never mentioned to me any perceived slight that I have not cited your work. The only piece of yours I had read when I completed the manuscript for my 2009 book in 2007 was your MA dissertation, which I had looked at a year or two earlier. I very much enjoyed reading your dissertation, but I didn’t and don’t regard my 2009 book as owing any intellectual debt to it: that’s why I didn’t cite it. I don’t believe I have adopted elements of your position, unless you think that my greater interest in my 2009 book, as compared to my earlier work, in neoliberal donor policies is down to your MA dissertation. It isn’t – it is because the 2009 book is a comparative study of two countries that there is a greater emphasis on the neoliberal policies urged by donors, which were similar in both Cambodia and East Timor, although the government response to and/or cooptation of these was of course very different, which is of course an aspect of the issue in contention here.
Second, I think you have misrepresented my position somewhat. The full sentence you cite above reads, “The promotion of the neoliberal peace offers an array of opportunities to different local actors, but it can also function as a political straitjacket that limits the potential for the emergence of a national public sphere that can provide a setting for deliberation and accommodation.” I don’t really see what you would disagree with in that. Indeed, your point, as I understand it, follows David Harvey ad others in suggesting that neoliberalism as a political project is capable of taking on a variety of guises, even ones that conflict quite fundamentally with its own ideological dictates, let alone with democracy, because its ultimate end is neither free markets nor democratic citizenship but the domination of one class by another. I think this is great stuff but the question of where, then, neoliberalism ends and other forms of development begin is one that I don’t think you have answered (I’m sure you will correct me if I’m wrong in that). And the proposition that neoliberalisations can take different forms doesn’t alter the fact that donor policies towards post-conflict reconstruction in Cambodia and East Timor were in key respects rather similar.
One final remark: Cambodian Studies has a long history of conducting academic debates in an ill-natured manner, in which points of intellectual disagreement are shackled together with personal slurs. That seemed to have died away somewhat over the past few years, and it would be a shame if it came back. I am sure we are all committed to the same thing – a better understanding of contemporary Cambodia and the prospects for an end to the new depradations being visited on the Cambodian poor.
I’m not sure its really possible to continue to engage with Springer on the issue of whether or not the concept of Neoliberalism/neoliberalisation represents the dominant organizational mode of power in Cambodia, or the most useful way to understand Cambodia’s political economy.
If you follow the argument, in the paper listed above, Neoliberalism as Discourse, Simon Springer would be required to agree that neoliberalisation exists in Cambodia at least in part because Simon Springer writes about neoliberalisation and neoliberal representations in Cambodia.
Some years back, I taught in the program for one term, and had to listen to the complaints of the students about how the program was run, lack of preparation and proper knowledge on (some of) the lecturers , etc. Maybe, they have improved since then.
#1. They will let her in and a ministerial position already earmarked for her to highlight this as ‘power sharing’ to the rest of the world . It will be a high profile but toothless portfolio with a good potential to fail like health or education, perhaps even industry to get her on side against the workers in all these SEZs. So there you go including #s 2, 3 and 4.
It dawned on the generals rather belatedly as their own crisis deepened that she’s the ace in the deck in this game, so what was once politically untenable – lifting the sanctions – now becomes the right thing to do as clamoured for so long by the business class, domestic, expat and international.
She may not fall for it hook, line and sinker. But it will be very tempting. They are bound to make it so.
#5. It was a bold move on her part to declare she wishes to talk to the KIO. But yes, she must question the reason behind their decision not to poll in Kachin State and push for reinstating the ballot.
April Fool’s polls will see her into parliament. Not sure about the rest of the NLD candidates unless they let the international observers do what they are supposed to do unhindered. Even that may happen since they have wised up, back in the game and indeed seem to be on a roll. You could hear them sing, “Everything’s going our way”.
It can help to draw some important distinctions. First, are we talking undergraduate education or post-graduate? The dean (or perhaps it was the president– in any case, some top muckety-muck) of a certain prestigious school that always seems to rank #1 in the world on all these lists once admittedly, in a veiled way, that if you wanted to attend one of his university’s graduate schools, you’d probably be better off if you go get your undergraduate degree somewhere else– because their undergraduate program actually wasn’t all that great. So in the case of Chula, which level of education are we talking about?
The second distinction is between the student and the school. A smart, motivated student at a weak school will come away with a far better education than will a lazy student at a great school. A great school can’t save a bad student.
I’ve been to Northwestern, I’ve been to University of Chicago, I’ve been to some more obscure schools, and right now I’m getting a master’s degree at Chula in Southeast Asian Studies. Of the schools I’ve attended, I rank this place second only to U of C. The professors here are people with things to say worth listening to (though some of them could work in their speaking skills), the assigned readings are top-notch, the various assignments are excellent, and they do an incredible job of exploiting their geographical advantage. (There’s nothing like doing area studies inside the area of interest.) I’ve met academics in this same field from other universities, and I wouldn’t trade my education for theirs for anything. Students at Cornell get to read about Angkor Wat; I went there one weekend and did original research. It’s an insurmountable advantage.
Chula also, more than any other school I know, opens all kinds of opportunities for its students. One of my term papers is getting published next year, another was presented at an international conference this year, and a third is going to be forwarded to, among other people, the current ASEAN Secretary General, because it contains analysis he’s going to want to read. If I wasn’t at Chula, these things wouldn’t be happening.
Many of the Chula undergrads may be hopelessly lazy due to their privileged social positions (or then again, maybe that’s just a groundless stereotype), but a person can get an absolutely first-rate education here. If you come here, either as a student or as an international professor (of which they do, in fact, have several), take this place seriously and work hard.
Poltical scientists, above all those with connections to North America, still find addressing the question of “democratization” a worthwhile use of their time? Astonishing. Why not start by unpacking the concept in its Southeast Asian context with some serious research? Just a modest proposal . . .
If the conversations I’ve had with Kachins recently are any indication “the conumdrums presented by ethnic politics” is putting it mildly; they were less than happy with her. I wonder why Aung San Suu Kyi isn’t making the delay of voting in the Kachin State more of an issue. Maybe Lintner is right, and she’s getting advice from the Western powers. If Tony Abbott is advising her, that would explain a lot: http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/26/10239774-australias-gillard-dragged-away-from-aboriginal-rights-protest.
[…] on New Mandala, Nicholas Farrelly makes some important points about Aung San Suu Kyi’s campaign for a parliamentary seat in the April 1 Burmese by-elections. Most notably, he writes that “it is […]
Finally an article that unequivocally illustrate the false hood of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi as anything else, but supported by majority within Myanmar.
The repeated lies of US and EU media that make DASSK as nothing less than the inimitable icon of democracy, will be tested soon, with predictable result.
Not to worry she will be elected, given the Generals/Thein Sein assistance here:
Those interested in this thread should consider reading the article that Simon mentioned in his January post, entitled ‘Neoliberalism as discourse: between Foucauldian political economy and Marxian poststructuralism’, which can be found here:
It seems to me that the disagreement on this thread stems from the failure (inflammatory as that word will surely prove) of some commenters to truly grasp a few fundamental points of Simon’s argument. There is a reason for all the claims that his detractors are in fact substantiating his view, but I cannot explain it without repeating what he has said numerous times…
Neoliberalisation plays out differently in every country that practices a measure of it. The same can be said for so much else, and a good example – one which Simon provides – is colonialism. Therefore, to confer upon a country the identity of either a practitioner or eschewer of neoliberal policies and governmentalities (while treating those identities as mutually exclusive) based on the resemblance of that country’s society and economy to an imagined “pure” or “paradigmatic” incarnation of neoliberalism is quite crude. It is this desire to embed sub-national realities in a preconceived ideal form of neoliberalism that Simon’s detractors on this thread appear reluctant to let go of. He, on the other hand, has let go of it, and in this too he is in good company: as Philip Cerny (2008) writes:
“neoliberalism is not a seamless web doctrinally and discursively. It is not only a contested concept in theoretical terms but also a highly internally differentiated concept, made up of a range of linked but discrete subcategories and dimensions. These subcategories and dimensions […] can be manipulated and orchestrated in different ways by political actors, leading to a much larger spectrum of strategic options, policy prescriptions and de facto practices than the original conservative version of neoliberalism would suggest […] Neoliberalism is increasingly what actors make of it.”
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Lynas Corporation for dummies (and Australians)
The worldwide average for leukemia deaths per year is 8 persons per 100,000. So if 7 persons out of 11,000 have died of leukemia in Bukit Merah in the last 30 years, it means the town of Bhukit Merah is 3 times healthier than the world’s average. Mr. Albrey, do you know that the most successful cure for leukemia is extreme radiation of the spine to kill the marrow followed by a compatible bone marrow graft? It is obvious to me that the malaysian green movement fabricates lies about radiation and cancer to fan more fear to get more political power.
Lynas Corporation for dummies (and Australians)
[…] Since an Australian mining company may have a hand in this, perhaps it is time that the Australian media started to look at this story more closely. – New Mandala […]
Lynas Corporation for dummies (and Australians)
“Certainly the opposition has made great headway on the back of the Lynas issue” LOL – Fuziah Salleh and the PKR guys CREATED the “Lynas issue” issue and then ‘backed’ the resulting protesters!! LOL again!! the poor trusting protesters were force-fed MISinformation supplied to them by “others” (PKR/PR and their ‘shills’). Everyone used their tonnes of rare earth enabled digital A/V equipment – rare earth sourced from stinky ancient carelessly toxic and polluting Chinese factories to protest. Protest against the reality of a modern state-of- the- art responsibly managed and yes! well monitored plant like LAMP which uses unique Mt Weld ULTRA LOW rad ore (not monazite!) and where peoples safety has been designed into it from the ground up as a top priority! It ain’t no Bukit Merah – humans and their processes DO evolve you know! btw apart from from that ambitious ego-tripping Fuziah Salleh, YOU were one of the misinformants that scared and stressed the young and old “rakyat” of Kuantan sleepless with your Youtubed lies and ERSATZ “facts”/science. Congrats, it’s gonna be fun to watch the HAVOC!! you’ve definitely helped cause . ps my Malysian Insider comment on your political rant is rather neutered cuz as you probably know your beloved ‘M.I’ consistently and repeatedly REFUSES TO POST any dissenting opinions or positive SCIENTIFIC FACTS ON LYNAS! (and not just from me) – but hey, that would be real cool with you wouldn’t it? Nice ideology you subscribe to.
Lynas Corporation for dummies (and Australians)
I love people like Ryan who just love complaining about their iPhone bills on twitter, making YouTube vids, blogs like this one on their computers, making animations apparently as a job………………… hes one of the biggest rare earth users you will ever meet.
BTW I’m not even going to comment about the lack of real facts in the article itself.
Lynas Corporation for dummies (and Australians)
syabas!
a clear and concise explanation about Lynas and why Australians should care about this issue for the sake of both countries.
but given how many Australians support mining billionaires and their spokesmen like Tony Abbott, who cares what happens in Malaysia when cheap Bali holidays are still on tap?
University rankings from Chula’s perspective
Alamanach, I am sure you are right, at least to some extent, I am afraid, however, that you are also showing some symptoms of a very contagious and common malady particularly prevalent in Thailand. It is called “so good so good”.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s election
A poll of 40 of the commentariat closed in Yangon this afternoon. Predictions of the number of seats that will be won by the USDP range from 1 to 17. Either a clueless commentariat or a very hard-to-call event.
Interestingly, those based outside the country are all at the low end of USDP numbers, and those based inside are at the high end.
Both major parties have very high expectations and tt is clear that one of them will fall well short of its own bottom-line. The reaction of the “failing” party may be as significant as the actual results.
The straw man critique of neoliberalism in Cambodia
Keith…
Your point has been made repeatedly and is fully understood. You don’t like my work, and unfortunately such is life. I can’t please everyone.
Caroline…
Thank you for your comments here, they are very much appreciated. I never felt slighted about my work not being cited. I found it odd that Maylee had gone to your work to make a point about my own, and given your engagement with neoliberalism I simply found it curious that some of my own writing had not been incorporated into your recent work as obviously Cambodian studies is a small circle of people and those writing about neoliberalism in Cambodia are even fewer. No hard feelings whatsoever, and thanks for taking the time to clarify here. I think Keith Barney’s suggestion that I was somehow “berating” you was extremely unfair as I have a great deal of respect and admiration for your work. In terms of adopting elements of my argument, my only meaning was that we share similar views on the contemporary political economy of Cambodia, and your incorporation of neoliberal concerns into your more recent work parallels my own. I clearly should have worded this more carefully.
With regards to your passage…
“The promotion of the neoliberal peace offers an array of opportunities to different local actors, but it can also function as a political straitjacket that limits the potential for the emergence of a national public sphere that can provide a setting for deliberation and accommodation.”
…I would actually disagree with the wording you have chosen here as to me it is too suggestive of constraint with respect to the contestation of public space/sphere, when really – as we have both recognized elsewhere in our work – there has been significant resistance among Cambodians, including numerous public protests. You reuse this idea of a “political straitjacket” on page 45 of your book where you suggest East Timor was “confined within a straitjacket on neoliberal policy development”, which sounds like there is no way out. This seems to rub up against the “monolithic neoliberalism” arguments I find so problematic, because of course another world, and another Cambodia, are in fact possible… despite the “there is no alternative” mantra that continues to circulate even as it is being actively undone by things like the Occupy Movement. So it is this particular “straitjacket” turn of phrase that I’m uncomfortable with, as the way you have described this process here in your post is, as you say, something I would very much agree with. And of course you are right, the notion of ‘neoliberalization’ does not undo the similarities between Cambodia and East Timor, which is precisely why neoliberalism remains a useful analytical construct. In another recent paper called ‘Neoliberalism and Geography: Expansions, Variegations, Formations’, I contend that “The current moment of global capitalism, variegated, hybridized, protean, and processual as it may be under neoliberalism, remains the same heartless brute it has always been. So while neoliberalism as a ‘radical theoretical slogan’ (Peck 2004: 403) undoubtedly comes with limitations… [we can nonetheless] engage it as a reference point in building solidarity and uniting diverse struggles against the disciplining, exploitative, and dominating structures of capitalism”. This is precisely why it troubles me that Maylee and others so adamantly refuse to concede that employing this ‘radical theoretical slogan’ within the context of studying Cambodia’s contemporary political economy may actually have not only some explanatory potential, but more importantly, some emancipatory potential.
In terms of where neoliberalism ends and other forms of development begin, this is something I do actually attempt to answer in my recent paper “Neoliberalism as discourse: between Foucauldian political economy and Marxian poststructuralism”, which Alex Martin provides a link to above. See specifically page 142, but of course this is not going to satisfy my detractors and those with an anti-poststructuralist mindset.
And as for your last point on the historical and current state of Cambodian studies, I’m in complete agreement with you here too. I’m also fully willing to admit that in my original entry, I was probably a little too hard on Maylee.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s election
Aung San Suu Kyi will get in this parliament thing allright. Even if she is dead. What particular crap she would become is pure academic.
Hard to say about NLD. People are sick of being told what to do and what to think by others and NLD is no different to USDP or PQRST or any other. Just some familiar faces.
No one really ask what people want any way. They simply give their own version of what is good for you.
Aung San Suu Kyi thing is simple “faith”. Like Christianity or Buddhism or Islam. People put blind faith in her and her alone. That’s all. There is NOTHING to show what difference she has made in the last year except inviting in all the pigs to the trough.
Her naivety, elitist attitude and poor understanding or at least poor showing of the understanding of the real issues of the people thus far, there is likely to be backlash than a real progress.
Esoteric high school essay things can take one only thus far in real world where lands are daily confiscated, girls are daily raped, people are daily tortured and all sorts of foreigners are seen to be prospering while the Burmese are finding hard to eat a meal a day.
With all the dominant news outlets and “political Parties’ all for the fake election and fake constitution ignoring the daily grime of the people, no one would know how much built up pressure is there already.
People in the street will have no faith in the government with or without Aung San Suu Kyi. Immediate onslaught of money people coming in with slave jobs will simply give fodder for ignition.
The straw man critique of neoliberalism in Cambodia
Concerned: “Insisting on neoliberalism as a framing is a discursive/theoretical straitjacket in itself. The one size fits all problem here is not so much Maylee’s understanding of neoliberalism, but your insistence that neoliberalism explains every little twist.”
Exactly. “Neoliberalism” , “Amat” are polemical chameleon bogeyman terms with ultraflexible definitions applied to any or every target of criticism.
The disciplines of history and journalism at least put the actual details of the events of exploitation first, for all to see and sympathize with. even “neoliberalists” (or those caught up in the system, most of us) who have sympathy for landless Cambodians and their plight and would support action to improve their situation. This whole thread is almost a case study of how academics make themselves obscure and irrelevant to society as a whole.
[that is given the definition: “Neoliberalism is a contemporary political movement advocating economic liberalizations, free trade and open markets. Neoliberalism supports the privatization of nationalized industries, deregulation, and enhancing the role of the private sector in modern society.” Source: Wikipedia]
The straw man critique of neoliberalism in Cambodia
I recently found this discussion, and I have found it fascinating. I think Simon and Maylee should both be congratulated for sparking such a spirited debate, and for the contribution both have made to Cambodian studies with their work in this field. Readers might also want to look at Erik Davis’s blog, where he writes about primitive accumulation/accumulation by dispossession in the context of Cambodia.
Seeing myself both cited and slated in the above, I wanted to make a couple of comments on my own position.
First, I am slightly surprised, Simon, that in our correspondence over the years you have never mentioned to me any perceived slight that I have not cited your work. The only piece of yours I had read when I completed the manuscript for my 2009 book in 2007 was your MA dissertation, which I had looked at a year or two earlier. I very much enjoyed reading your dissertation, but I didn’t and don’t regard my 2009 book as owing any intellectual debt to it: that’s why I didn’t cite it. I don’t believe I have adopted elements of your position, unless you think that my greater interest in my 2009 book, as compared to my earlier work, in neoliberal donor policies is down to your MA dissertation. It isn’t – it is because the 2009 book is a comparative study of two countries that there is a greater emphasis on the neoliberal policies urged by donors, which were similar in both Cambodia and East Timor, although the government response to and/or cooptation of these was of course very different, which is of course an aspect of the issue in contention here.
Second, I think you have misrepresented my position somewhat. The full sentence you cite above reads, “The promotion of the neoliberal peace offers an array of opportunities to different local actors, but it can also function as a political straitjacket that limits the potential for the emergence of a national public sphere that can provide a setting for deliberation and accommodation.” I don’t really see what you would disagree with in that. Indeed, your point, as I understand it, follows David Harvey ad others in suggesting that neoliberalism as a political project is capable of taking on a variety of guises, even ones that conflict quite fundamentally with its own ideological dictates, let alone with democracy, because its ultimate end is neither free markets nor democratic citizenship but the domination of one class by another. I think this is great stuff but the question of where, then, neoliberalism ends and other forms of development begin is one that I don’t think you have answered (I’m sure you will correct me if I’m wrong in that). And the proposition that neoliberalisations can take different forms doesn’t alter the fact that donor policies towards post-conflict reconstruction in Cambodia and East Timor were in key respects rather similar.
One final remark: Cambodian Studies has a long history of conducting academic debates in an ill-natured manner, in which points of intellectual disagreement are shackled together with personal slurs. That seemed to have died away somewhat over the past few years, and it would be a shame if it came back. I am sure we are all committed to the same thing – a better understanding of contemporary Cambodia and the prospects for an end to the new depradations being visited on the Cambodian poor.
The straw man critique of neoliberalism in Cambodia
Hi there:
I’m not sure its really possible to continue to engage with Springer on the issue of whether or not the concept of Neoliberalism/neoliberalisation represents the dominant organizational mode of power in Cambodia, or the most useful way to understand Cambodia’s political economy.
If you follow the argument, in the paper listed above, Neoliberalism as Discourse, Simon Springer would be required to agree that neoliberalisation exists in Cambodia at least in part because Simon Springer writes about neoliberalisation and neoliberal representations in Cambodia.
University rankings from Chula’s perspective
Some years back, I taught in the program for one term, and had to listen to the complaints of the students about how the program was run, lack of preparation and proper knowledge on (some of) the lecturers , etc. Maybe, they have improved since then.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s election
Nich,
#1. They will let her in and a ministerial position already earmarked for her to highlight this as ‘power sharing’ to the rest of the world . It will be a high profile but toothless portfolio with a good potential to fail like health or education, perhaps even industry to get her on side against the workers in all these SEZs. So there you go including #s 2, 3 and 4.
It dawned on the generals rather belatedly as their own crisis deepened that she’s the ace in the deck in this game, so what was once politically untenable – lifting the sanctions – now becomes the right thing to do as clamoured for so long by the business class, domestic, expat and international.
She may not fall for it hook, line and sinker. But it will be very tempting. They are bound to make it so.
#5. It was a bold move on her part to declare she wishes to talk to the KIO. But yes, she must question the reason behind their decision not to poll in Kachin State and push for reinstating the ballot.
April Fool’s polls will see her into parliament. Not sure about the rest of the NLD candidates unless they let the international observers do what they are supposed to do unhindered. Even that may happen since they have wised up, back in the game and indeed seem to be on a roll. You could hear them sing, “Everything’s going our way”.
plan B,
Give over and get over it.
University rankings from Chula’s perspective
It can help to draw some important distinctions. First, are we talking undergraduate education or post-graduate? The dean (or perhaps it was the president– in any case, some top muckety-muck) of a certain prestigious school that always seems to rank #1 in the world on all these lists once admittedly, in a veiled way, that if you wanted to attend one of his university’s graduate schools, you’d probably be better off if you go get your undergraduate degree somewhere else– because their undergraduate program actually wasn’t all that great. So in the case of Chula, which level of education are we talking about?
The second distinction is between the student and the school. A smart, motivated student at a weak school will come away with a far better education than will a lazy student at a great school. A great school can’t save a bad student.
I’ve been to Northwestern, I’ve been to University of Chicago, I’ve been to some more obscure schools, and right now I’m getting a master’s degree at Chula in Southeast Asian Studies. Of the schools I’ve attended, I rank this place second only to U of C. The professors here are people with things to say worth listening to (though some of them could work in their speaking skills), the assigned readings are top-notch, the various assignments are excellent, and they do an incredible job of exploiting their geographical advantage. (There’s nothing like doing area studies inside the area of interest.) I’ve met academics in this same field from other universities, and I wouldn’t trade my education for theirs for anything. Students at Cornell get to read about Angkor Wat; I went there one weekend and did original research. It’s an insurmountable advantage.
Chula also, more than any other school I know, opens all kinds of opportunities for its students. One of my term papers is getting published next year, another was presented at an international conference this year, and a third is going to be forwarded to, among other people, the current ASEAN Secretary General, because it contains analysis he’s going to want to read. If I wasn’t at Chula, these things wouldn’t be happening.
Many of the Chula undergrads may be hopelessly lazy due to their privileged social positions (or then again, maybe that’s just a groundless stereotype), but a person can get an absolutely first-rate education here. If you come here, either as a student or as an international professor (of which they do, in fact, have several), take this place seriously and work hard.
Democracy in Southeast Asia: A new generation’s take
Poltical scientists, above all those with connections to North America, still find addressing the question of “democratization” a worthwhile use of their time? Astonishing. Why not start by unpacking the concept in its Southeast Asian context with some serious research? Just a modest proposal . . .
Aung San Suu Kyi’s election
If the conversations I’ve had with Kachins recently are any indication “the conumdrums presented by ethnic politics” is putting it mildly; they were less than happy with her. I wonder why Aung San Suu Kyi isn’t making the delay of voting in the Kachin State more of an issue. Maybe Lintner is right, and she’s getting advice from the Western powers. If Tony Abbott is advising her, that would explain a lot: http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/26/10239774-australias-gillard-dragged-away-from-aboriginal-rights-protest.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s election
[…] on New Mandala, Nicholas Farrelly makes some important points about Aung San Suu Kyi’s campaign for a parliamentary seat in the April 1 Burmese by-elections. Most notably, he writes that “it is […]
Aung San Suu Kyi’s election
Finally an article that unequivocally illustrate the false hood of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi as anything else, but supported by majority within Myanmar.
The repeated lies of US and EU media that make DASSK as nothing less than the inimitable icon of democracy, will be tested soon, with predictable result.
Not to worry she will be elected, given the Generals/Thein Sein assistance here:
http://www.mizzima.com/news/inside-burma/6810-anti-suu-kyi-leaflets-in-kawhmu-focus-on-her-support-of-sanctions.html
To silence the truth enabling an NLD shoo-in.
One might hope she will have a thick skin specially not fessing up to her advocacy that brought on the useless careless policy of the West.
The straw man critique of neoliberalism in Cambodia
Those interested in this thread should consider reading the article that Simon mentioned in his January post, entitled ‘Neoliberalism as discourse: between Foucauldian political economy and Marxian poststructuralism’, which can be found here:
http://otago.academia.edu/SpringerSimon/Papers/595924/Neoliberalism_as_discourse_between_Foucauldian_political_economy_and_Marxian_poststructuralism
It seems to me that the disagreement on this thread stems from the failure (inflammatory as that word will surely prove) of some commenters to truly grasp a few fundamental points of Simon’s argument. There is a reason for all the claims that his detractors are in fact substantiating his view, but I cannot explain it without repeating what he has said numerous times…
Neoliberalisation plays out differently in every country that practices a measure of it. The same can be said for so much else, and a good example – one which Simon provides – is colonialism. Therefore, to confer upon a country the identity of either a practitioner or eschewer of neoliberal policies and governmentalities (while treating those identities as mutually exclusive) based on the resemblance of that country’s society and economy to an imagined “pure” or “paradigmatic” incarnation of neoliberalism is quite crude. It is this desire to embed sub-national realities in a preconceived ideal form of neoliberalism that Simon’s detractors on this thread appear reluctant to let go of. He, on the other hand, has let go of it, and in this too he is in good company: as Philip Cerny (2008) writes:
“neoliberalism is not a seamless web doctrinally and discursively. It is not only a contested concept in theoretical terms but also a highly internally differentiated concept, made up of a range of linked but discrete subcategories and dimensions. These subcategories and dimensions […] can be manipulated and orchestrated in different ways by political actors, leading to a much larger spectrum of strategic options, policy prescriptions and de facto practices than the original conservative version of neoliberalism would suggest […] Neoliberalism is increasingly what actors make of it.”