Comments

Good to see that Dr. Jim is a pillar of stability in troubled times. He attacks the amaat and their bourgeois lackies while holding up for us all to admire that shining example of a revolutionary in Thaksin Shinawatra.

Tarrin – 4

Of course you are quite right and a farmer could well prefer 10 rai of good land rather than 50 rai of scrub. But then again I’ve never heard a farmer complain about too much land;-) Maybe they do in Sri Saket, Surin and Ubon, but I have never heard it Chaiyaphun, Khon Kaen and Udon.

Mind you if we really wanted to reform the agricultural sector we would have to start by reducing the power of the large agri-industrial companies. That wouldn’t help Andrew’s productivity numbers but could help farm prices at the farm level. Then again the largely Thai-Chinese middle-men have been preying on the northeastern farmers ever since I’ve been here.

Hla Oo – 6

Yes you are right about the sub-division of land between family members. The opening up of the northeastern plateau did soften the problem for a long time. Remember only 50 years ago large forest tracts around Udon were still being cleared by settlers. Now there isn’t really that much more to be brought into production.

This essay is my first ever guest contribution for New Mandala almost three years ago. What I’ve learned over the years about an Uprising is that any uprising appears as a chaotic mob like event but behind it there is always a systematic anti-ruling-class movement/group with enough money and manpower to ignite and to keep the momentum for quite a sometime.

But once the momentum started and the process kept rolling various interest groups started forming inside and fighting to guide the uprising into their own directions. The final results of the uprising then become totally unpredictable as their combined actions and the counter-measures taken by the ruling-class will eventually decide the ultimate outcome.

An apology for neoliberal capitalism, which is crashing resoundingly throughout the rest of the world as it’s proffered.

Anand is always given the job of running this or that ‘reform’ committee because he knows that his job is to make the noises the amaat has specified as acceptable in homage to a token opposition, and then to slip silently beneath the waves after whatever recommendations he’s made are summarily eviscerated. Remember his never-published list of 20 oops! 18 (he took GMOs right off the top!) Toxic Industrial Practices needing EIAs aand HIAs?

This is all political theater, the apologia from neoliberal capitalist Western academe included.

Andrew Walker makes a good point that reforms that seem well meaning and progressive in principle could have counterproductive effects. Farmers themselves know this, of course: http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/220596/farmer-group-pans-proposal-for-land-curbs

All of the proposals seem good in principle and if implemented properly will certainly benefit some people. But I doubt there’s the political will to do it. These things should already be on the agenda of any credible left-wing party, but Thailand doesn’t have such a party. In any case, whilst the reforms will help the neediest few, as Walker notes, the crucial issue for most rural people isn’t land reform, it’s greater access to the county’s wealth in general and this has to come from other means than agriculture.

Jim Taylor’s comments was one of his better ones and the thrust of his argument is that political equality and decentralization of power are higher on the agenda for most red shirts rather than economic equality (although some more left-wing groups amongst the red shirts also focus on the latter, they tend to go hand-in-hand, anyway). This is the point missed by many analysts, and indeed, the Thai government & elites. The red shirts main aim seems to be to achieve symbolic change rather than actual redistribution of wealth etc, to show the amaat that they have the right to make decisions for themselves rather than being treated like simple-minded children by various paternalist elites.

However, I wish Taylor would give more details regarding the “rural reforms” that he credits Thaksin with. Surely he’s making Thaksin sound a lot more radical than he actually was? Also, is it necessary to have Thaksin himself back to continue those reforms, anyway? I don’t think it is, and even if Thaksin were responsible for what Taylor says (which I think is partly true), surely the bad still outweighs the good as a whole? Thaksin may have helped the majority & thrown the rural masses a bone “for the first time” (as Taylor says) but he failed to respect the rights of the minority – whether they be suspected drug dealers, Muslims in the south or voices of dissent in general – and that’s one of the key tenets of democracy, right? I appreciate the ultilitarian argument employed by Thaksin’s advocates, but that’s not the sort of country I’d like to live in, I prefer a noisy democracy where people can voice complaints and dissent without fear. Many red shirts criticize this government (and rightly so) for the same reasons that others criticized Thaksin, it’s a shame that some can’t see the double standards, because if they could it’d do great favours for their argument.

Land reform may have some part to play in this enormous political challenge.

And yet if we look at what’s going in Kachin State (thanks to the New Mandala article) and likewise Laos and Cambodia, limiting landholding sizes could very well be a very good idea. I’m quite sure the amount of land a family has is still the most important thing for a typical northeastern family. A peasant without land is a very sad sight.

Then again rural reformers have died trying to stop the rich grabbing common land, even in the north. I’m old enough to remember stories of a teacher being assassinated protesting about one of the Shinawatra family doing just that, or is that just my imagination?

None of this is covered adequately by the so-called ‘news media’.

Except, of course by Prachatai… which is my personal mainstream, English medium in Thailand.

Even with its woefully overtaxed staff (1 1/2 according to Chiranuch in her interview) they run circles around the dual, harmonious propaganda organs in Bangkok.

And this with their own web editor in the docket herself!

┬бBrava Prachatai!

┬бEl pueblo unido, jam├бs ser├б vencido!

The People United Can Never Be Defeated!

…what do we say in Thai?

the red shirt concern is not about economic disparities/inequalities though this may be part of the problem, but about perceived injustices and moral governance: ex PM Thaksin created rural reforms that for the first time generated wealth at this level with greater expectations for social and political inclusion. The amaat work not for the nation, but in their own interests; they have not yet “awoken” or see with clarity {taa sawaang}; while the masses have moved beyond ritual beneficence and summit handouts being kept down in a “continuing cycle of poverty – ignorance – sickness” (as one RS leader explained to me). Getting rid of Thaksin was thus a means once again of keeping the people down. The amaat underestimate the masses; they want them to stay devoted and blind to their hegemony, maintaining the myth of a higher sacred beneficence – as in the past. Now, because the people are starting to “awaken”, the amaat needs to impose more and more repressive instruments to control society through politics. So it is not about the economics of land distribution, or land reform as such, as this is only the surface…but it is about power, and issues the amaat (like Prawet and Anand, and bourgeois lackies like Ekachai) dont want to face, but will have to sooner or later in the new Thailand.

Thanks, Nick. You are wise and performing a great service to us all to cover what’s in need of coverage rather than what’s covered more nearly adequately by others.

None of this is covered adequately by the so-called ‘news media’.