[…] The first thing to notice is that this is not a new account. Well before anyone even thought of using the term “sufficiency economy,” Prawase was making the same points sans the royalism. Look at his chapter in Seri Phongphit and Robert Bennoun’s collection, Turning Point of Thai Farmers, published in 1988, where the same argument is made. It is in a book that includes several studies that examine farmers seeking “self-reliance.” Some of these are now claimed in the literature to have been “sufficiency economy” successes. The book is not readily available now. The only thing that gets close on the Web is here, by Kevin Hewison, and it includes a critique of Prawase back then. Not much seems to have changed. [Related, see Hewison's comments on sufficiency economy at New Mandala.] […]
Who cares about gigantic and incredible wealth when you have ordinary and hard-working Thai citizens rummaging through your garbage bins several times a day in an effort to support themselves and their impoverished families.
[…] He pinpointed “[i]nvestigations into the violent incidents during the protests last April are still on-going with a view to bringing the perpetrators to account.” Few seem to think this is likely in Thailand (see here). […]
All around the world people who see the Western model of “progress” crumbling, or perhaps, like a house of cards, blowing in the wind of reality – seek to go back to the land, self-reliance, agriculture, industry, and manufacturing. The service jobs, the Ponzi-financial schemes, the “business administration” “jobs,” are all ridiculous and unsustainable – and this is what people find “in the city of extravagance.”
Nations with strong agrarian traditions who progress into manufacturing and technology are the ONLY nations today weathering the economic fallout of the West’s monumental failure – a failure people like Walker are still promoting here in Thailand even as it collapses all across Europe and America. America was founded on self-reliance and agrarian tradition. Walking away toward a life of EXTREME extravagance is what is tearing the nation apart. Greed, collectively and individually in America – with complete disregard for any realistic underpinnings regarding food, water, power, and industry is sinking the entire nation into an exponentially expanding mire.
Thailand would be wise to learn from these mistakes, ignore advice from people like Walker, who seems obsessed with empowering people bent on electing demagogic, corrupt, and quite frankly, treasonous foreign-backed sell-outs – and follow models that have throughout time encouraged the greatest amounts of wealth and freedom. These are models based on self-reliance, education, independence, national sovereignty, industry and agrarian tradition.
The King seems to understand this, as do professors, academics, and historians from around the world – who I assure you are not promoting self-sufficiency to keep Thai people in “their place.” Better go check out the work of Neil Gershenfeld of MIT who basically echos the King’s concepts, only jumps straight to using technology to empower people on a grassroots level. Are we to believe all the way in Massachusetts, he is plotting to keep the rural poor of Thailand “in their place?”
Honestly, Walker’s belief that people growing their own food, and expanding their economic activity in a self-reliant manner is “disempowering” is probably the most insulting, most intellectually bankrupt comment I’ve heard in a long time. That going to a city, depending on an employer for your daily subsidence, renting instead of owning property, sounds like a banksters’ dream utopia, not the empowerment of the people.
Excuse my possible ignorance – but is not ALL land in Thailand ultimately owned by The Crown ?
As I understand it there has never been such a thing as ultimate private property in Thailand – no such thing as what Marx cited in the Germany Ideology, as being the Germanic/ Anglo-Saxon system of private property rights independent of The Crown, as further guarranteed in England’s case by Magna Carta.
To the best of my knowledge, ALL land in Siam / Thailand is simply leased to landholders, but there is NO such thing as ultimate title.
Additional information on the King’s own business, for you Nich.
The King or the royal family (the Royal Palace) do have their own business (nothing to do with the Royal Crown Property Bureau) start out from the Royal Projects. Brands and companies such as Suwannachart, Doi Tung and Phu Fah, etc. But certainly not worth as much as you think.
Again, Nich, do your research before quoting or supplying someone elses false information.
Oh come on Nich, stop picking on our King. You know as well as I do that the writer of the article you referred to doesn’t know sh..t about the difference or the distinction between the King’s personal wealth and the Royal Crown Property Bureau.
Please supply the correct information. You know better than this. And don’t imply that my King attained his wealth through sinister means or it was his own personal greed.
The King doesn’t have control of the Royal Crown Property Bureau. It is the Ministry of Finance that direct all the investments and transactions. Blame them for the business success of the Royal Crown Property, not the King.
And you think you are an expert on Thailand. Give me a break Nich.
I present a new equation developed by Crawford’s geniuses to predict potential capital gains (or losses) of the Thai monarchy over time.
тАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАв(HтИЭ-1)тАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАв
╞Т B/V : W ———– N = K
тАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАв(AтИЭ-1)тАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАв
╞Т: Function over time
тИЭ: Modifier
B: Bhumibol
V: Vajiralongkorn
W: Effectiveness of Wealth strategies
H: Happiness
A: Anger
N: Total population
K: Capital
Here is an interesting extract from “How Thailand’s Royals Manage to Own All the Good Stuff” taken from Asia Sentinel 02 March 2007.
This immunity (of the Crown Property Bureau) was most apparent after Singapore-government run Temasek Holdings bought Shin Corp from Thaksin’s family in January 2006. The sale was the tipping point for Thaksin, who responded to mass protests by calling early elections. Months of deadlock ensued before the military, with the backing of the palace, pushed the twice-elected premier from office. Most criticism of the deal centered on the complicated shareholding structure Temasek used to purchase Shin in such a way that it could bypass foreign ownership restrictions.
Although this seems devious, the practice had been standard operating procedure in Thailand for decades before Thaksin’s political opponents seized on the issue.
It turns out that Kularb Kaew, one of the companies in the Temasek-led consortium, was acting as a nominee for Temasek. Shareholders of Kularb Kaew included Pong Sarasin, the brother of Arsa Sarasin, King Bhumibol’s principle private secretary. Kularb Kaew owns part of Cedar Holdings. The other owners of Cedar are Temasek and Siam Commercial Bank, in which the Crown Property Bureau has a controlling stake. SCB also played a crucial role
advising and providing financial support for the deal.
Despite these interlocking interests, public anger was directed solely at Thaksin for “selling off” a valuable Thai national asset to foreigners. SCB and CPB were barely mentioned in the local press, even though they actively helped Temasek allegedly violate the law.
I agree with wildekimf. CU is a big academic community in Thailand and we should not simply stereotype CU as an elite group.
BTW, how can NM miss this? It is a recent seminar organized by Faculty of Political Science, CU. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMm2JP_hQS8
This can be a counterexample for those who believe in elite CU.
Albert Park (#54) spot on! It is always healthy to be skeptical of people or movements who protest ‘for democracy’ the loudest. Both of Thailand’s Yellow and Red movements smell . . . just a question of which of the two are more rotten and/or more dishonest.
At least there are/were a few honest men in Thailand like Chalerm Yubamrung and the late General Kattiya who never wavered in their pronouncements that Pheu Thai Party and the Red Shirts movement are for the service of Thaksin and only Thaksin. Include too Thailand’s current military chief General Prayuth among the “honest” when he declared that the ‘Thai military first (sole) mission is ‘to protect the monarchy’.
Do you think Singapore’s behavior (liberalizing way ahead of others, supporting Myanmar) benefits the poorer people and the least developing countries in ASEAN?
Also, how do we know that what is best for ASEAN member states is also what is best for the people of ASEAN?
It is still strategic, but not by land. It is “land meets sea”. To get “the big picture”, see below and follow to Xi Serpentis (Chinese asterism) and a few other related links.
From a budding Filipino historian’s perspective, I think that ASEAN states should begin to realize that the only way for them to escape being involved in unfair deals with great powers such as the USA, China and India is to foster greater ASEAN integration.
The political, geographical and cultural divides between the states can be bridged over time, if the states focus on what they have in common. First, despite the diverse cultures between and within the states of ASEAN, there are common values between them, such as social harmony, informality of relations, respect for elders and adherence to faiths (yes, ASEAN is home to almost all the major religions, but atheism in ASEAN states has a weak following). Even the most “westernized” countries such as Philippines and Singapore still maintain these values. Second, the ASEAN states harbor contempt towards foreign domination. This is owing to their common experience of colonialism, both by European powers in the 1800s and the USA and Japan in the early 20th century. Thailand only escaped outright colonization because it served a common purpose for France and Britain as a buffer states, but otherwise it had to give concessions to them.
ASEAN states should realize that the only way to avoid unfair deals with great powers is to collectively deal with them.
So is it time for the left top part ways with the pro-Thaksin UDD and form a separate pro-democracy movement? Giles says not but Surachai may feel different. What do those who have supported the UDD on New Mandala now think? Is there a split? I would see that as a positive move, but also as dangerous personally for those outside of Phue Thai umbrella.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thailand’s royal billions
Peter Marshall #6 :
The Revolution will come – make no mistake about this !
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
[…] The first thing to notice is that this is not a new account. Well before anyone even thought of using the term “sufficiency economy,” Prawase was making the same points sans the royalism. Look at his chapter in Seri Phongphit and Robert Bennoun’s collection, Turning Point of Thai Farmers, published in 1988, where the same argument is made. It is in a book that includes several studies that examine farmers seeking “self-reliance.” Some of these are now claimed in the literature to have been “sufficiency economy” successes. The book is not readily available now. The only thing that gets close on the Web is here, by Kevin Hewison, and it includes a critique of Prawase back then. Not much seems to have changed. [Related, see Hewison's comments on sufficiency economy at New Mandala.] […]
Thailand’s royal billions
Who cares about gigantic and incredible wealth when you have ordinary and hard-working Thai citizens rummaging through your garbage bins several times a day in an effort to support themselves and their impoverished families.
Thailand needs to move beyond its human rights rhetoric
Here’s a link to the Political Prisoners Thailand blog well-phrased and detailed post replying to Kasit’s “Human Rights” speech at the UN…….
http://goo.gl/ZLkjU
Thailand needs to move beyond its human rights rhetoric
[…] He pinpointed “[i]nvestigations into the violent incidents during the protests last April are still on-going with a view to bringing the perpetrators to account.” Few seem to think this is likely in Thailand (see here). […]
Thailand needs to move beyond its human rights rhetoric
how much will this expand international knowledge of Thailands terrible human rights record and military impunity from any prosecution?
more importantly how much will it cause international governments to increase their pressure for improvement?
for example, will it reduce US military and CIA funding of training and weapons?
Royal misrepresentation of rural livelihoods
All around the world people who see the Western model of “progress” crumbling, or perhaps, like a house of cards, blowing in the wind of reality – seek to go back to the land, self-reliance, agriculture, industry, and manufacturing. The service jobs, the Ponzi-financial schemes, the “business administration” “jobs,” are all ridiculous and unsustainable – and this is what people find “in the city of extravagance.”
Nations with strong agrarian traditions who progress into manufacturing and technology are the ONLY nations today weathering the economic fallout of the West’s monumental failure – a failure people like Walker are still promoting here in Thailand even as it collapses all across Europe and America. America was founded on self-reliance and agrarian tradition. Walking away toward a life of EXTREME extravagance is what is tearing the nation apart. Greed, collectively and individually in America – with complete disregard for any realistic underpinnings regarding food, water, power, and industry is sinking the entire nation into an exponentially expanding mire.
Thailand would be wise to learn from these mistakes, ignore advice from people like Walker, who seems obsessed with empowering people bent on electing demagogic, corrupt, and quite frankly, treasonous foreign-backed sell-outs – and follow models that have throughout time encouraged the greatest amounts of wealth and freedom. These are models based on self-reliance, education, independence, national sovereignty, industry and agrarian tradition.
The King seems to understand this, as do professors, academics, and historians from around the world – who I assure you are not promoting self-sufficiency to keep Thai people in “their place.” Better go check out the work of Neil Gershenfeld of MIT who basically echos the King’s concepts, only jumps straight to using technology to empower people on a grassroots level. Are we to believe all the way in Massachusetts, he is plotting to keep the rural poor of Thailand “in their place?”
Honestly, Walker’s belief that people growing their own food, and expanding their economic activity in a self-reliant manner is “disempowering” is probably the most insulting, most intellectually bankrupt comment I’ve heard in a long time. That going to a city, depending on an employer for your daily subsidence, renting instead of owning property, sounds like a banksters’ dream utopia, not the empowerment of the people.
Thailand’s royal billions
Excuse my possible ignorance – but is not ALL land in Thailand ultimately owned by The Crown ?
As I understand it there has never been such a thing as ultimate private property in Thailand – no such thing as what Marx cited in the Germany Ideology, as being the Germanic/ Anglo-Saxon system of private property rights independent of The Crown, as further guarranteed in England’s case by Magna Carta.
To the best of my knowledge, ALL land in Siam / Thailand is simply leased to landholders, but there is NO such thing as ultimate title.
Thailand’s royal billions
Additional information on the King’s own business, for you Nich.
The King or the royal family (the Royal Palace) do have their own business (nothing to do with the Royal Crown Property Bureau) start out from the Royal Projects. Brands and companies such as Suwannachart, Doi Tung and Phu Fah, etc. But certainly not worth as much as you think.
Again, Nich, do your research before quoting or supplying someone elses false information.
Thailand’s royal billions
Oh come on Nich, stop picking on our King. You know as well as I do that the writer of the article you referred to doesn’t know sh..t about the difference or the distinction between the King’s personal wealth and the Royal Crown Property Bureau.
Please supply the correct information. You know better than this. And don’t imply that my King attained his wealth through sinister means or it was his own personal greed.
The King doesn’t have control of the Royal Crown Property Bureau. It is the Ministry of Finance that direct all the investments and transactions. Blame them for the business success of the Royal Crown Property, not the King.
And you think you are an expert on Thailand. Give me a break Nich.
Thailand’s royal billions
I present a new equation developed by Crawford’s geniuses to predict potential capital gains (or losses) of the Thai monarchy over time.
тАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАв(HтИЭ-1)тАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАв
╞Т B/V : W ———– N = K
тАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАв(AтИЭ-1)тАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАвтАв
╞Т: Function over time
тИЭ: Modifier
B: Bhumibol
V: Vajiralongkorn
W: Effectiveness of Wealth strategies
H: Happiness
A: Anger
N: Total population
K: Capital
Thailand’s royal billions
Here is an interesting extract from “How Thailand’s Royals Manage to Own All the Good Stuff” taken from Asia Sentinel 02 March 2007.
This immunity (of the Crown Property Bureau) was most apparent after Singapore-government run Temasek Holdings bought Shin Corp from Thaksin’s family in January 2006. The sale was the tipping point for Thaksin, who responded to mass protests by calling early elections. Months of deadlock ensued before the military, with the backing of the palace, pushed the twice-elected premier from office. Most criticism of the deal centered on the complicated shareholding structure Temasek used to purchase Shin in such a way that it could bypass foreign ownership restrictions.
Although this seems devious, the practice had been standard operating procedure in Thailand for decades before Thaksin’s political opponents seized on the issue.
It turns out that Kularb Kaew, one of the companies in the Temasek-led consortium, was acting as a nominee for Temasek. Shareholders of Kularb Kaew included Pong Sarasin, the brother of Arsa Sarasin, King Bhumibol’s principle private secretary. Kularb Kaew owns part of Cedar Holdings. The other owners of Cedar are Temasek and Siam Commercial Bank, in which the Crown Property Bureau has a controlling stake. SCB also played a crucial role
advising and providing financial support for the deal.
Despite these interlocking interests, public anger was directed solely at Thaksin for “selling off” a valuable Thai national asset to foreigners. SCB and CPB were barely mentioned in the local press, even though they actively helped Temasek allegedly violate the law.
University rankings from Chula’s perspective
I agree with wildekimf. CU is a big academic community in Thailand and we should not simply stereotype CU as an elite group.
BTW, how can NM miss this? It is a recent seminar organized by Faculty of Political Science, CU.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMm2JP_hQS8
This can be a counterexample for those who believe in elite CU.
Where to now for the UDD?
Albert Park (#54) spot on! It is always healthy to be skeptical of people or movements who protest ‘for democracy’ the loudest. Both of Thailand’s Yellow and Red movements smell . . . just a question of which of the two are more rotten and/or more dishonest.
At least there are/were a few honest men in Thailand like Chalerm Yubamrung and the late General Kattiya who never wavered in their pronouncements that Pheu Thai Party and the Red Shirts movement are for the service of Thaksin and only Thaksin. Include too Thailand’s current military chief General Prayuth among the “honest” when he declared that the ‘Thai military first (sole) mission is ‘to protect the monarchy’.
Where to now for the UDD?
Vichai N: “(b) the ‘Against Dictatorship’ is superfluous (is there a democracy movement in the world rooting for dictatorship?)”
Yes, the People’s Alliance for Democracy.
ASEAN Divides
Hi Roy,
Do you think Singapore’s behavior (liberalizing way ahead of others, supporting Myanmar) benefits the poorer people and the least developing countries in ASEAN?
Also, how do we know that what is best for ASEAN member states is also what is best for the people of ASEAN?
China and the Mekong region: Beyond the territorial trap
It is still strategic, but not by land. It is “land meets sea”. To get “the big picture”, see below and follow to Xi Serpentis (Chinese asterism) and a few other related links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Sea
Several pages on this need further updating.
Where to now for the UDD?
Where to now UDD?
Time to drop the pretensions superfluous name UNITED FRONT FOR DEMOCRACY AGAINST DICTATORSHIP:
(a) certainly NOT united
(b) the ‘Against Dictatorship’ is superfluous (is there a democracy movement in the world rooting for dictatorship?)
So what we have left is a “FRONT FOR DEMOCRACY’. Sounds more appropriate doesn’t it, comrades?
ASEAN Divides
From a budding Filipino historian’s perspective, I think that ASEAN states should begin to realize that the only way for them to escape being involved in unfair deals with great powers such as the USA, China and India is to foster greater ASEAN integration.
The political, geographical and cultural divides between the states can be bridged over time, if the states focus on what they have in common. First, despite the diverse cultures between and within the states of ASEAN, there are common values between them, such as social harmony, informality of relations, respect for elders and adherence to faiths (yes, ASEAN is home to almost all the major religions, but atheism in ASEAN states has a weak following). Even the most “westernized” countries such as Philippines and Singapore still maintain these values. Second, the ASEAN states harbor contempt towards foreign domination. This is owing to their common experience of colonialism, both by European powers in the 1800s and the USA and Japan in the early 20th century. Thailand only escaped outright colonization because it served a common purpose for France and Britain as a buffer states, but otherwise it had to give concessions to them.
ASEAN states should realize that the only way to avoid unfair deals with great powers is to collectively deal with them.
Where to now for the UDD?
So is it time for the left top part ways with the pro-Thaksin UDD and form a separate pro-democracy movement? Giles says not but Surachai may feel different. What do those who have supported the UDD on New Mandala now think? Is there a split? I would see that as a positive move, but also as dangerous personally for those outside of Phue Thai umbrella.