Having been alerted to the debate on relocation and resettlement taking place on New Mandala, I find it hard to resist adding my two bits. In this regard there are several points that I would like to make.
First, I was of the opinion that the relation of involuntary relocation (in the name of land reform, village consolidation, swidden eradication, opium eradication and plantation concessions – that is, leaving aside for the moment the issue of resettlement related to infrastructure projects) to increased mortality (and suicide) rates, to physical and psychological trauma, to drug addiction, to prostitution, to outmigration, and to poverty was not in question. It has been demonstrated clearly in PPA 2000, and now in PPA 2006, in the studies by Ian and Bruce, in the studies by ACF, in the WB-EC PSIA, and I am sure elsewhere. So to start to question, and to muddle the issue, now seems to me counterproductive. Wouldn’t it be better to focus on what can be done to alleviate and set right the tragedies that have been occurring in the name of this approach to development.
Second, these same studies have shown that the victims of relocation policies are upland (non-Lao-Tai) ethnic groups whose languages and cultures vary significantly from lowland Tai or Lao speaking ethnic groups, and whose social systems are for the most part poorly understood, least of all by the planners and developers. Furthermore, these ethnic groups are very different from each other, so even at this level generalization is risky. Responses to relocation or to any other issue can only be truly understood in an ethnic specific context. The Hmong, for example, as I believe one of the contributors alluded to, are in fact the least typical of upland ethnic groups in terms of the relation of the social system to the environment, to the degree where ethnic Hmong usually fare well regardless of the location (upland, lowland, U.S., France, etc.). As Ian pointed out, for Holly to use an ethnic Lao village and a Hmong one as representative just doesn’t wash.
Thirdly, taking Ian’s example of the Brao one step further, in order to separate data gathered by brief forays or interactions from data that more closely represents the thinking of various relocated groups, I think that from the outset we should require that contributors to the debate use as evidence only information that was provided in the mother tongue of the resettlers to anthropological researchers (or those from related disciplines) who understand that language and have some basic understanding of the social system and the historical setting. This may seem too stringent a requirement, but given that the evidence to date overwhelmingly details the negative impacts of involuntary relocation, the onus is on those who would challenge or muddle these findings to provide incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
First of all, the only reason I am “going back and forth” is because you both seem to be unwilling to answer my points and what is salient in my argument. No one has been able to tell me where I’ve gone wrong with facts or otherwise, instead, in all the rebuttals I have read, and answered, it is simply summed up as “different viewpoints.” And we cannot agree to disagree because in my viewpoint, you are wrong. Dickie much less so because at least you are able to concede some points to me and answer me directly. But why you consider HMK to be worthy of rachasap is still beyond me while Sidh continues to dodge it all. At least tell me where I am wrong, because, let me reiterate, I have been through where you have been and probably know the anecdotes you were going to recite by heart as well.
So let me be pointed: have you read the King Never Smiles? What is your opinion of his involvement in politics, especially how his coterie has often manipulated him for their own wishes and how he himself allowed and at times took part in that sort of thing. Clearly involved, too. These things are documented.
Dickie, you say the King could have lived a life of luxury and leisure: has he not been building yachts, playing his saxophone, composing music, translating novels, writing epics, sailing, painting, sitting in lovely cream coloured Maybachs and photographing everything with expensive cameras? You also acknowledge that yes the Palace is oftentimes looking out for itself rather than for the country. Then, you acknowledge that most of what you hear is propaganda. But why still the reverence? Why do you still judge him as a capable, wise, deserving man when the only valid reason of you holding him in high esteem is “because of his role model image,” which is just that, an image. A reasonable and logically consistent man would say, I respect the King, but not to the point where I am dust under his feet. I do respect the King for his endurance and the fact that he does unity Thai people, but I still think he is “keystone” in many unforgivable atrocities.
And before you fall into the myths Thai people love saying about how the King could have simply done nothing, think about what other monarchs do that is simply not publicized as insanely as in Thailand. What about Prince Charles’ environmental projects? Here is a man who need not work to live a very privileged life, who is the richest man in Thailand, and has no real job description in his inherited role, would he at least not dab into some philanthropic issues? For goodness’ sake, he dabbled in them with government officials, government money, and received all the image and took no responsibility for failures (gosh, I feel like I’ve said this before, why does no one ever tell me where I go wrong? Or is it that I’ve always been right?) For all my opinions about politics, if I had the resources, I would try my best to better the country. Does that suddenly make me as praise-worthy as HMK? (Here I am, using Sidh morality, only as an attempt to expose what I believe is a fault in Dickie’s reasoning, of course! As I don’t actually believe in it. I believe some more technical minded people can call it arguing to absurdity.)
As for Sidh, I still await your reply to my points. It seems you all have conveniently forgotten to absolutely and vehemently deny my points. Or is it a case of convenient oversight? Pigs and pearls? Or is it too logically vigorous to argue? Too much fact-bending (sorry, interpretation) for you to do?
But before that, I shall give you a sample of Sidh’s defense, if he chooses to ever come close to the points I raise:
You have to look at it relatively. PM Thaksin believed that Singaporeans were more capable of managing Shin Corp than he was. Perhaps he was misguided, but the Singaporeans did have a good track record of management, what with SingTel. Had Shin Corp been better run, it would have been a great benefit to the country both in terms of market competition and innovation. The end consumer wins! In any case, when Shin Corp changed hands, Thaksin also did not want to burden the Revenue Department with his complicated shareholding (which was a result of his older, more thievish days which he has since renounced, like the honourable PM Surayud). After all, this is the man who has devoted all of his premiership to helping the poor: finding them capital, promoting local produce via OTOP, straightforwardly trying to fight poverty, tried his best to take out the “Influential Persons.” And above all, he tried to eliminate those evil drug dealers from our society, something which our Most Beloved Monarch (MBM) approvingly praised in his birthday speech going so far as to brush aside human rights issues. Such a loyal man did not deserve the betrayal of those damned soldiers.*
*disclaimer for Sidh: this is not what I actually believe. But hey! its all about viewpoints isn’t it?
If you somehow read my post above in particular this paragraph:
“Anyway, before getting back to the 6 points above, let me finish by saying, HMK should be the last monarch we work with rachasap (royal language). As a society, we are definitely lagging behind other world countries in development. I like monarchies, provided they stay in limit to their constitutional role (I don’t think I could ‘accept’ another Royal stretching their power as I have with HMK) and live the life expected for citizens to be proud of them: ie, they should publicly portray that traits of ‘every good’ of the Thai people. This is a burden and a very heave responsibility.”
As I have been reading NM and find myself sometimes enamored by your answers and statements (though I disagree with your conclusions many times)
I would like to know your opinion on my opinion on a monarchic role in Thai society, ie: do you think it would work?
I never meant to call you ‘hot head’ if I did, I apologize. I simply was referring to the point by Teth, and since I can’t speak for you (ie: I don’t know if you always give priority to HMK’s statements) I could only answer for myself. Any negative meaning from there would have been totally accidental.
Teth: since we are arguing semantics and going back and forth, I find that our difference comes down to the way we look at the monarchy, in particular your statement/question:
“I still don’t understand how you hold him in such high esteem even when you realize he isn’t what the propaganda tells us he is.”
I do because of many reasons. The first perhaps being the one repeated by most. That he could’ve easily lived a life of privilege within palace compounds, but he ‘chose’ not to, and went around working hard in social and infrastructural development. As such, the philanthropic endeavors were not all successful, and I would definitely prefer that society didn’t pretend it was so. Having said that, it is my view that the ‘role model’ image is much more positive than negative. Hence the high regard. I could write long and long stories to prove the point (from my perspective) but would rather not bore anyone.
The second is that I view he takes his job very seriously. I think HMK is burdened by the problems facing the nation, and always has. I wouldn’t consider it a privilege to be so high up with burden.
I could list more, but I think I’d only be preaching to the choir…
Anyway, before getting back to the 6 points above, let me finish by saying, HMK should be the last monarch we work with rachasap (royal language). As a society, we are definitely lagging behind other world countries in development. I like monarchies, provided they stay in limit to their constitutional role (I don’t think I could ‘accept’ another Royal stretching their power as I have with HMK) and live the life expected for citizens to be proud of them: ie, they should publicly portray that traits of ‘every good’ of the Thai people. This is a burden and a very heave responsibility.
Back to your 6 points.
1. In theory, does a monarch have the rights to talk about purchases of anything? The answer is no. The monarch reserves the right to be “commander in chief” of the armed forces, but it is governments that do the purchasing. At most, they can mention in their position as commander in chief that there is no adequate support for the military to protect us, etc., and not really get into the hardware type debates.
2. I still believe the King was right into the unity speech, and did the right thing by not talking about what steps needed to be made and what compromises were required.
3. Still think that Thaksin should’ve gotten the hint and backed off for a few months. I really don’t like this all or nothing game that has left the country hanging in the balance. Yes, I still think Thaksin should shoulder ‘most’ of the blame. Had Thaksin done just this 1 compromise, PAD and Sonthi would never have gained notoriety.
4. We both agree there should be some type of punishment for the coup makers. We only disagree on the severity of such, as I believe it should be a ‘slap on the wrist’ type thing done by HMK himself, calling them guilty, then ‘forgiving’ them by saying it was for the security of the nation, but using them as an example that coups are not accepted.
5. There is a major major difference between hard power and soft power. In this case (again) I find Thaksin more ‘wrong’, and would fear a Thaksin-govt going unchecked at the rate it was. This argument I make based on the ‘soft’ powers obsession with image, something recent history proves that ‘hard’ powers dont really care about.
6. Like you, I sleep through half the speeches. Unlike you, I understand I’m not the audience of the speech…
I hope I answered your question and gave a better understanding of ‘where I come from’ when discussing these matters.
Assuming that Thailand is one big happy family, then Thaksin might be diagnosed in this video as passive-aggressive:
“A personality disorder characterized by an indirect resistance to demands for adequate social and occupational performance; anger and opposition to authority and the expectations of others that is expressed covertly by obstructionism, procrastination, stubbornness, dawdling, forgetfulness, and intentional inefficiency [populist programmes]. (Dorland, 27th ed)” (Source: ICD)
“When the behaviors are part of a person’s disorder or personality style, repercussions are usually not immediate, but instead accumulate over time as the individuals affected by the person come to recognize the disavowed aggression coming from that person. [Thai middle class as per Anek Laothamatas two democracies model] People with this personality style are often quite unconscious of their impact on others, and thus may be genuinely dismayed when held to account for the inconvenience or discomfort caused by their passive-aggressive behaviors. In that context, there is a failure to see how they might have provoked a negative response, so they feel misunderstood, held to unreasonable standards, and/or put upon.” (Source: Wikipedia)
Thanks for making me the ‘hot head’ Dickie (but I’d concede ‘cool head’ to you for sure)!
And thanks for providing insights into your thinking Teth. ‘Propaganda’ can have the extreme opposite effects, if perceived to be ‘totally untrue’ – as we’ve learnt from your case. That is also the point of difference between my position and yours. Having had an American Vietnam veteran as a history teacher, I’ve learnt at a young age that much of what we hear (not just in Thailand he stressed) may be propoganda (personally, he is one of the best teachers I’ve had, one person who predicted since 1987 that GenChavalit will become PM. I suspect now he was thinking of a coup or direct succession to PMPrem…). Maybe because of that, I have been differentiating between ‘truths’, ‘half-truths’, ‘possibilities’, ‘advertising’ etc…etc… everytime I watch the Thai evening news.
Our contrasting experience is thus quite interesting and I would like to deconstruct this further. You went from ‘love’ to ‘hate’ as you learnt the ‘facts’ – my ‘love’ grew as I learnt and assimilated the ‘facts’… I’ve heard many commentators say one of the weak points of Thai democracy is the penchant for ‘heroes’. Possibly it is a historical weakpoint too and we have cults around various Kings of the past up to HMK and even PMThaksin. We know that, with careful study, the success or failure of any society depends on multiple, complex factors. If a society is ‘successful’, we should expect that there are many heroes (celebrated, uncelebrated, unknown). For instance, most Thais may credit King Mongkut and King Chulalongkorn with negotiating Siam from being colonized – but in fact, many noblemen particularly from the Bunnag family also played very critical roles. This is also why I also credit King Prajadhipok as well as AjarnPridi and FM Pibul (and others) equally with initiating democracy in Thailand (while it must be noted ‘facism’ and ‘communism’ were becoming the flavor of the month in Europe and our neighbours were still under colonial dictatorships). This is not to discredit the great work of King Juan Carlos, of course, but the strong flavor of the month in Europe in the 1970s, 1980s was democracy (and the setting up of a democratic EU) – Socialist-Communism were clearly losing currency already by then (while violently gaining favor in SEAsia).
At the end of the day we are ‘victims’, ‘products’ of histories. If Thailand is not considered a ‘failed state’ as yet, there must be many factors why that is so. Some may sing praises, others may harshly criticize which reflects a functioning, generally open society (even with LM). In my view, it is actually always both collective ‘achievements’ and collective ‘failures’ of society, never one or another. Any society are always on cross-roads (and cycles?), we here may wish it to go certain directions – but it never does, despite the most researched predictions. Like you and Dickie, I can only (frustratingly) hope for the best on 23rd December and beyond…
Sorry, never heard this rumor.
I cannot see any possibility of the Princess Mother’s involvement in the shooting whatsoever.
The original members of the People’s Party and the Princess Mother were exact contemporary. Pridi, for instance, was born the same year (1900) as the Princess. During Prince Songkhla’s stay in Europe in the 1920s, it’s reported that he actually visited one of the ‘student camps’ Pridi and his friends set up during summer holidays with the veiled aim of stimulating political awareness among fellow students, and was quite impressed with the students’ solidarity, patrioticsim, etc. But I don’t know of any connection, relationship between the People’s Party and the Mahidol Family (and I don’t think there was any), apart from that in their respective official capacities.
A superb interview in which nicely posed questions provoke a series of honest, energetic and stimulating replies. The interview is a marvelous introduction to Biff Keyes for people whi don’t know him, and an appealing tour of his exemplary professional life for people like myself who have been friends of his for many years.
Ask Ajarn Somsak
(If you do not want to answer just skip it.)
I have heard some rumours (but I cannot remember whoever told me) that “King Anan’s Death Case” is the cooperative plan by King’s mom and Ka-Na-Raat-Sa-Dorn, together.
I’m not sure that I can believe this rumour or not, but if it’s true. For me, it really make sense for this case. I do not think it was “an accident” but R9 WAS just a naive boy at that time. Hence, in my view, it should be some kind of order/demand from some one that cannot reject.
By the way, I didn’t mean that King’s mom demand directly but use some “sense of mother way” to order.
What I want to ask Ajarn is:
– Is this rumour has a chance to be true?
– I also have heard that Ka-Na-Raat-Sa-Dorn and Mom-Sangwal were fellows. Is it the truth?
R9R9R9R9R9R9R9R9R9
With Respect.
Kritdikorn Wongswangpanich
ps. As I have already said; I am sorry if my English annoy you. (I am really not good at it, unlike Sa-Hai-Dork-Ya)
1. I still stand by my point. You are right that I was being intentionally misleading, but I intended to do so simply to show how absurd the King’s statements usually are without the necessary refinement of interpretation that you grant to it. Dickie, I still don’t understand how you hold him in such high esteem even when you realize he isn’t what the propaganda tells us he is. I would at least like to know why you think he is essentially benevolent because I see him as the wife-beating alcoholic father, figuratively, of course. But then again, breaking down the analogy, he did not give me life like my real father, he did not establish the country, and I do not owe to him anything. Call it blinding hate or whatever, but it really is more of an antithesis to the blinding love there is out there. I will take a step back from this stance if you royalists will take a step back and start to admit some things as truth as well. Like I said, dogmatically defending this position is tiring as it is also wrong, but I had hoped that it would at least extract some concessions from the other side. Now I think that if I stopped the Braveheart speeches, maybe Sidh will be less defensive.
2. Yes, Kings should have the democratic ability to express their opinions as long as those opinions can be criticized and as long as it remains a unifying figure for the country (but who defines this “unification” and what is to be done if the monarch steps out of bounds). And Sidh, for you to say that its a basic, democratic right for monarchs to express their opinion just shows the farce that is constitutional monarchy: how can one man, by merit of birth (or is it divine right), inherit political power over “subjects” with no virtue whatsoever? This man is also denied his basic democratic rights as a human being as well because, apparently, with power comes responsibility!
Monarchies are an oddity in political thinking: much like Ptolemic ideas of the solar system. Forever royalists will be adjusting the orbits of planets to fit in with reality, but the truth remains that monarchy essentially is in disagreement with democracy.
Dickie, your defense of monarchy in Thailand is essential one of the only arguments FOR monarchy: pragmatism. I contend that that is a valid point, but it still is not in line with democracy. In any case, Presidents also have to live up to their image.
3. Sidh, I raise my point by point questions in the hopes of attacking your arguments in several different hypothetical approaches. On one hand, I was asking based on different assumptions of “If he wants to meddle and if he’s as good as the propaganda why did he not do this…” and on another, “Why is he contradicting his own propaganda and public image?” Surely you understand that by doing that, I had hoped to bring in the inconsistencies that are clearly on display with regards to the monarchy.
My preferred hypothetical solution to the anti-Thaksin crisis (a la Britain’s monarchical advising) was outlined in my post above, point number 3. The apolitical arbiter in bold bit, one in which you gladly tiptoed from. Surely the all-wise Bhumibol could come up with a solution like that?
4. Its still my opinion, Sidh, that you are looking out to protect the monarchy instead of checking the facts. I also realize that I am looking out to the opposite, but that after being in the same camp as you for so long, I should be able to realize the folly of it.
5. Like I said, what is the difference between Thaksin’s acts and the King’s? Stop preaching to me about Thaksin’s evils, you’re preaching to the converted.
HMK’s unquestioned authority (aura) is evident everywhere. The yellow shirted throngs who prostrate when the royal motorcade passes by.
As for Dickie’s point regarding Marcos, Suharto, or Mahathir, his point is so wide ranging that I would rather not argue it. How all of these three men are even grouped into the same group is already startling. Malaysia, for instance, is doing much better than we are and surely Lee Kuan Yew is a suitable candidate for that short list as well? Seeing as the only common trait seems to be authoritarianism and I don’t think you, Sidh, can argue that in whatever time frame Singapore has done badly. Hope this addresses your point.
Here’s a practical solution, Sidh, appoint a Republican-minded member of the royal family (back in those days) as figurehead President for life until you deem Thailand is “ready” to elect her own Head of State. In the present, we could always appoint the various members of the royal family as figurehead President, Vice Presidents, etc, whose roles will be clearly dictated by the Constitution and whose positions will not be hereditary. No bloodshed there.
6. Sorry, but I don’t have to respect anybody’s point of view and surely that is my democratic right? Not that I don’t respect yours because you’ve typed all of that up, but the fact remains that I consider myself to have been in your shoes and as any zealous convert is, that is how I tend to come off as in the argument.
Once again, you do not answer my question but pile it on “point of view.” If you believe the propaganda surrounding HMK, then you would have believed he is our “Saviour” if only we returned to absolute monarchy. As a child, I always advocated absolute monarchy because every King, especially the present one, just seems so talented and wise and much more capable of ruling the country. And I always got angry that the politicians didn’t just return all their power back to the King.
Like I said, its the blinding propaganda I wanted to be an antithesis to. It is, of course, always wrong to blame a single man, but sometimes if that man is the keystone, you surely understand why those viewpoints would arise.
Sidh, don’t take my comments about your age personally as I am usually just so frustrated by Thailand’s political situation that I need somewhere to bring it all out on, especially THAT keystone. Accept my apologies for any inappropriate words used.
I understand #199 is meant as a joke, right? Unfortunately it’s a bad one.
…because he made a vow when his older brother was killed by an accidental gun shot (possibly shot by the King himself)…sticking to his vow, that shows another side of the merit of this great person in history.
the King Anan’s Death Case (as it’s common called) caused 3 innocent lives besides that of Anan himself (and not to mention other negative impacts). If it were true as #199 says, one can hardly talk of ‘great person in history’ here.
(btw. I’ve never read this joke-tale about the ‘vow’)
The King never smiles because he made a vow when his older brother was killed by an accidental gun shot (possibly shot by the King himself) that he would never smile as long as he lived. I believe he may have softened that vow to allow himself to smile in private but I have actually only seen one picture of him purporting to be smiling. That picture is when he looking down at an old Thai lady and saying something to her. I personally don’t think it’s a smile but the point is that if he is honoring his vow to his brother who was king before him and sticking to his vow, that shows another side of the merit of this great person in history. Many Thais do not know about this vow and some refuse to believe he ever made it but it has been published in histories of the King and in at least two public newspapers I have read about him while living here in Thailand.
There are three forms of resettlement going on in Vilabouly District, Savanakhet, where the Sepon Mine is located. 1. Involuntary: In 2001, 23 households (five Makhong households and 18 Phou Tai) were resettled, with some success, to make way for mining operations; it is relevant that these families had settled in their locations between 1995 and 1998 against the advice of the District Government because it was known when they moved to those sites that if a mine proceeded those sites would be needed for mining purposes (government doesn’t always get its way). Since then, no similar resettlement has been necessary for mining purposes. 2. Voluntary resettlement: the improvement of roads in the District and provision (along some roads) of electricity in recent years has led to several (maybe six?) to move to roads where these run through their village lands. 3. Planned-by-government internal resettlement: The 105 villages in Vilabouly District are, according to District Government plans, in the (slow) process of being amalgamated into 19 clusters each grouped around a ‘service village’ – a sort of miniaturized version of Perroux-style ‘poles de croissance’.
It will be of interest to see in Vilabouly whether type 2 wins out over type 3.
Of course, the exact nature of resettlement in Vilabouly must not, and I do not do so, be taken as typical of Lao experience elsewhere partly because mining is present and partly because of the area’s own history and mix of peoples; in the 1960s and early 70s most villages in the area were abandoned altogether and when villages reformed after the war they seemed to have relocated rather frequently. The Vilabouly situation is clearly not the same as those described by Holly High’s examples (even if her comments apply fairly well to the internal resettlement in Vilabouly to date) , those used by Baird and Shoemaker or the situation which Keith Barney examined. Each resettlement also has rather different sets of motivations among participants – resettlement of certain Hmong groups in the 1980s is unlikely to have had the same thinking behind it as resettlement in Pakse twenty years later or for the resettlement about to take place as a result of the extensions of the Nam Ngum Basin scheme ( – now there’s a case where John Hall’s use of the adjective ‘massive’ would be appropriate).
The details of resettlement always vary from one site to another even within Laos, but whatever the motivations, types of resettlement or details of individual instances, the same general issues arise world-wide. My own observations at Sepon are coloured by my observation (and occasional involvement) in resettlement elsewhere – in Guinea or its Pacific namesake- and by my having worked as a so-called resettlement specialist for lending agencies.
It is self-evident to me that, overall, any form of resettlement that isn’t initiated by the people involved themselves is something that in normal circumstances to be avoided (and even voluntary resettlement is often problematic) ; most involuntary resettlement schemes world-wide have had poor outcomes for the resettled;but that occasionally and with proper care and consultation they can improve people’s lives.This is not much of a conclusion (certainly not a novel one) and probably too vague for John Hall’s liking.
(I was not previously aware that simply by making a positive remark to an author on a site such as this, one was in danger of being called to account by a third party. I shall therefore be far more circumspect in future and never again congratulate any author appearing on New Mandala)
Ok, if Richard Jackson has observed the type of internal resettlement discussed by Baird and Shoemaker elsewhere in Laos (that is, not project-related resettlement like what he has observed in relation to the Xepon mine), it would be useful if he could provide us with details of where he observed that resettlement, and in what context he observed it. Right now, his vagueness about this matter seems to suggest that my original comments were appropriate, but I could be wrong, and I would be happy if Richard Jackson could show that he does have relevant experiences.
A moment’s thought on John Hall’s part might have suggested to him that working at Sepon does not automatically mean that I cannot have observed the sort of internal resettlement under discussion (even if, in some circles, such an association is thought to disqualify me from being allowed to make any comment) ; and would perhaps have restrained him from positively hurling himself into a set of inaccurate conclusions. My original comment stands: a very interesting article which parallels what I have observed.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Internal resettlement in Laos: a response
Having been alerted to the debate on relocation and resettlement taking place on New Mandala, I find it hard to resist adding my two bits. In this regard there are several points that I would like to make.
First, I was of the opinion that the relation of involuntary relocation (in the name of land reform, village consolidation, swidden eradication, opium eradication and plantation concessions – that is, leaving aside for the moment the issue of resettlement related to infrastructure projects) to increased mortality (and suicide) rates, to physical and psychological trauma, to drug addiction, to prostitution, to outmigration, and to poverty was not in question. It has been demonstrated clearly in PPA 2000, and now in PPA 2006, in the studies by Ian and Bruce, in the studies by ACF, in the WB-EC PSIA, and I am sure elsewhere. So to start to question, and to muddle the issue, now seems to me counterproductive. Wouldn’t it be better to focus on what can be done to alleviate and set right the tragedies that have been occurring in the name of this approach to development.
Second, these same studies have shown that the victims of relocation policies are upland (non-Lao-Tai) ethnic groups whose languages and cultures vary significantly from lowland Tai or Lao speaking ethnic groups, and whose social systems are for the most part poorly understood, least of all by the planners and developers. Furthermore, these ethnic groups are very different from each other, so even at this level generalization is risky. Responses to relocation or to any other issue can only be truly understood in an ethnic specific context. The Hmong, for example, as I believe one of the contributors alluded to, are in fact the least typical of upland ethnic groups in terms of the relation of the social system to the environment, to the degree where ethnic Hmong usually fare well regardless of the location (upland, lowland, U.S., France, etc.). As Ian pointed out, for Holly to use an ethnic Lao village and a Hmong one as representative just doesn’t wash.
Thirdly, taking Ian’s example of the Brao one step further, in order to separate data gathered by brief forays or interactions from data that more closely represents the thinking of various relocated groups, I think that from the outset we should require that contributors to the debate use as evidence only information that was provided in the mother tongue of the resettlers to anthropological researchers (or those from related disciplines) who understand that language and have some basic understanding of the social system and the historical setting. This may seem too stringent a requirement, but given that the evidence to date overwhelmingly details the negative impacts of involuntary relocation, the onus is on those who would challenge or muddle these findings to provide incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
Jim C.
Military sufficiency
Dearest Dickie and Sidh,
First of all, the only reason I am “going back and forth” is because you both seem to be unwilling to answer my points and what is salient in my argument. No one has been able to tell me where I’ve gone wrong with facts or otherwise, instead, in all the rebuttals I have read, and answered, it is simply summed up as “different viewpoints.” And we cannot agree to disagree because in my viewpoint, you are wrong. Dickie much less so because at least you are able to concede some points to me and answer me directly. But why you consider HMK to be worthy of rachasap is still beyond me while Sidh continues to dodge it all. At least tell me where I am wrong, because, let me reiterate, I have been through where you have been and probably know the anecdotes you were going to recite by heart as well.
So let me be pointed: have you read the King Never Smiles? What is your opinion of his involvement in politics, especially how his coterie has often manipulated him for their own wishes and how he himself allowed and at times took part in that sort of thing. Clearly involved, too. These things are documented.
Dickie, you say the King could have lived a life of luxury and leisure: has he not been building yachts, playing his saxophone, composing music, translating novels, writing epics, sailing, painting, sitting in lovely cream coloured Maybachs and photographing everything with expensive cameras? You also acknowledge that yes the Palace is oftentimes looking out for itself rather than for the country. Then, you acknowledge that most of what you hear is propaganda. But why still the reverence? Why do you still judge him as a capable, wise, deserving man when the only valid reason of you holding him in high esteem is “because of his role model image,” which is just that, an image. A reasonable and logically consistent man would say, I respect the King, but not to the point where I am dust under his feet. I do respect the King for his endurance and the fact that he does unity Thai people, but I still think he is “keystone” in many unforgivable atrocities.
And before you fall into the myths Thai people love saying about how the King could have simply done nothing, think about what other monarchs do that is simply not publicized as insanely as in Thailand. What about Prince Charles’ environmental projects? Here is a man who need not work to live a very privileged life, who is the richest man in Thailand, and has no real job description in his inherited role, would he at least not dab into some philanthropic issues? For goodness’ sake, he dabbled in them with government officials, government money, and received all the image and took no responsibility for failures (gosh, I feel like I’ve said this before, why does no one ever tell me where I go wrong? Or is it that I’ve always been right?) For all my opinions about politics, if I had the resources, I would try my best to better the country. Does that suddenly make me as praise-worthy as HMK? (Here I am, using Sidh morality, only as an attempt to expose what I believe is a fault in Dickie’s reasoning, of course! As I don’t actually believe in it. I believe some more technical minded people can call it arguing to absurdity.)
As for Sidh, I still await your reply to my points. It seems you all have conveniently forgotten to absolutely and vehemently deny my points. Or is it a case of convenient oversight? Pigs and pearls? Or is it too logically vigorous to argue? Too much fact-bending (sorry, interpretation) for you to do?
But before that, I shall give you a sample of Sidh’s defense, if he chooses to ever come close to the points I raise:
You have to look at it relatively. PM Thaksin believed that Singaporeans were more capable of managing Shin Corp than he was. Perhaps he was misguided, but the Singaporeans did have a good track record of management, what with SingTel. Had Shin Corp been better run, it would have been a great benefit to the country both in terms of market competition and innovation. The end consumer wins! In any case, when Shin Corp changed hands, Thaksin also did not want to burden the Revenue Department with his complicated shareholding (which was a result of his older, more thievish days which he has since renounced, like the honourable PM Surayud). After all, this is the man who has devoted all of his premiership to helping the poor: finding them capital, promoting local produce via OTOP, straightforwardly trying to fight poverty, tried his best to take out the “Influential Persons.” And above all, he tried to eliminate those evil drug dealers from our society, something which our Most Beloved Monarch (MBM) approvingly praised in his birthday speech going so far as to brush aside human rights issues. Such a loyal man did not deserve the betrayal of those damned soldiers.*
*disclaimer for Sidh: this is not what I actually believe. But hey! its all about viewpoints isn’t it?
The Lao resettlement controversy
Please check our response to Holly High, which has been posted on New Mandala as a separating article, dated December 14.
Military sufficiency
Ajarn Somsak,
If you somehow read my post above in particular this paragraph:
“Anyway, before getting back to the 6 points above, let me finish by saying, HMK should be the last monarch we work with rachasap (royal language). As a society, we are definitely lagging behind other world countries in development. I like monarchies, provided they stay in limit to their constitutional role (I don’t think I could ‘accept’ another Royal stretching their power as I have with HMK) and live the life expected for citizens to be proud of them: ie, they should publicly portray that traits of ‘every good’ of the Thai people. This is a burden and a very heave responsibility.”
As I have been reading NM and find myself sometimes enamored by your answers and statements (though I disagree with your conclusions many times)
I would like to know your opinion on my opinion on a monarchic role in Thai society, ie: do you think it would work?
Military sufficiency
Sidh,
I never meant to call you ‘hot head’ if I did, I apologize. I simply was referring to the point by Teth, and since I can’t speak for you (ie: I don’t know if you always give priority to HMK’s statements) I could only answer for myself. Any negative meaning from there would have been totally accidental.
Teth: since we are arguing semantics and going back and forth, I find that our difference comes down to the way we look at the monarchy, in particular your statement/question:
“I still don’t understand how you hold him in such high esteem even when you realize he isn’t what the propaganda tells us he is.”
I do because of many reasons. The first perhaps being the one repeated by most. That he could’ve easily lived a life of privilege within palace compounds, but he ‘chose’ not to, and went around working hard in social and infrastructural development. As such, the philanthropic endeavors were not all successful, and I would definitely prefer that society didn’t pretend it was so. Having said that, it is my view that the ‘role model’ image is much more positive than negative. Hence the high regard. I could write long and long stories to prove the point (from my perspective) but would rather not bore anyone.
The second is that I view he takes his job very seriously. I think HMK is burdened by the problems facing the nation, and always has. I wouldn’t consider it a privilege to be so high up with burden.
I could list more, but I think I’d only be preaching to the choir…
Anyway, before getting back to the 6 points above, let me finish by saying, HMK should be the last monarch we work with rachasap (royal language). As a society, we are definitely lagging behind other world countries in development. I like monarchies, provided they stay in limit to their constitutional role (I don’t think I could ‘accept’ another Royal stretching their power as I have with HMK) and live the life expected for citizens to be proud of them: ie, they should publicly portray that traits of ‘every good’ of the Thai people. This is a burden and a very heave responsibility.
Back to your 6 points.
1. In theory, does a monarch have the rights to talk about purchases of anything? The answer is no. The monarch reserves the right to be “commander in chief” of the armed forces, but it is governments that do the purchasing. At most, they can mention in their position as commander in chief that there is no adequate support for the military to protect us, etc., and not really get into the hardware type debates.
2. I still believe the King was right into the unity speech, and did the right thing by not talking about what steps needed to be made and what compromises were required.
3. Still think that Thaksin should’ve gotten the hint and backed off for a few months. I really don’t like this all or nothing game that has left the country hanging in the balance. Yes, I still think Thaksin should shoulder ‘most’ of the blame. Had Thaksin done just this 1 compromise, PAD and Sonthi would never have gained notoriety.
4. We both agree there should be some type of punishment for the coup makers. We only disagree on the severity of such, as I believe it should be a ‘slap on the wrist’ type thing done by HMK himself, calling them guilty, then ‘forgiving’ them by saying it was for the security of the nation, but using them as an example that coups are not accepted.
5. There is a major major difference between hard power and soft power. In this case (again) I find Thaksin more ‘wrong’, and would fear a Thaksin-govt going unchecked at the rate it was. This argument I make based on the ‘soft’ powers obsession with image, something recent history proves that ‘hard’ powers dont really care about.
6. Like you, I sleep through half the speeches. Unlike you, I understand I’m not the audience of the speech…
I hope I answered your question and gave a better understanding of ‘where I come from’ when discussing these matters.
The King Never Smiles?
For anyone who understand Thai language.
The strongest arguement against monarchy I have ever heard. By “Ajarn Cheep Chuchai” (I am not sure for the spelling of his name in English).
Download from this link:
http://www.uploadtoday.com/download/?4b17df2b28c01befd164810aa3027303
“Caution” : It is really really strong, indeed.
With Respect.
Kritdikorn Wongswangpanich
ps. There are a lot of his arguements that I do not agree, but many of them also really interesting.
Thailand’s ‘‘Good Coup’’: the Fall of Thaksin, the Military and Democracy
[…] night the special issue of the Journal of Contemporary Asia on the coup was launched at the Foreign Correspondent’s […]
Very naughty video!
Assuming that Thailand is one big happy family, then Thaksin might be diagnosed in this video as passive-aggressive:
“A personality disorder characterized by an indirect resistance to demands for adequate social and occupational performance; anger and opposition to authority and the expectations of others that is expressed covertly by obstructionism, procrastination, stubbornness, dawdling, forgetfulness, and intentional inefficiency [populist programmes]. (Dorland, 27th ed)” (Source: ICD)
“When the behaviors are part of a person’s disorder or personality style, repercussions are usually not immediate, but instead accumulate over time as the individuals affected by the person come to recognize the disavowed aggression coming from that person. [Thai middle class as per Anek Laothamatas two democracies model] People with this personality style are often quite unconscious of their impact on others, and thus may be genuinely dismayed when held to account for the inconvenience or discomfort caused by their passive-aggressive behaviors. In that context, there is a failure to see how they might have provoked a negative response, so they feel misunderstood, held to unreasonable standards, and/or put upon.” (Source: Wikipedia)
Obviously diagnose would vary with doctor.
Military sufficiency
Thanks for making me the ‘hot head’ Dickie (but I’d concede ‘cool head’ to you for sure)!
And thanks for providing insights into your thinking Teth. ‘Propaganda’ can have the extreme opposite effects, if perceived to be ‘totally untrue’ – as we’ve learnt from your case. That is also the point of difference between my position and yours. Having had an American Vietnam veteran as a history teacher, I’ve learnt at a young age that much of what we hear (not just in Thailand he stressed) may be propoganda (personally, he is one of the best teachers I’ve had, one person who predicted since 1987 that GenChavalit will become PM. I suspect now he was thinking of a coup or direct succession to PMPrem…). Maybe because of that, I have been differentiating between ‘truths’, ‘half-truths’, ‘possibilities’, ‘advertising’ etc…etc… everytime I watch the Thai evening news.
Our contrasting experience is thus quite interesting and I would like to deconstruct this further. You went from ‘love’ to ‘hate’ as you learnt the ‘facts’ – my ‘love’ grew as I learnt and assimilated the ‘facts’… I’ve heard many commentators say one of the weak points of Thai democracy is the penchant for ‘heroes’. Possibly it is a historical weakpoint too and we have cults around various Kings of the past up to HMK and even PMThaksin. We know that, with careful study, the success or failure of any society depends on multiple, complex factors. If a society is ‘successful’, we should expect that there are many heroes (celebrated, uncelebrated, unknown). For instance, most Thais may credit King Mongkut and King Chulalongkorn with negotiating Siam from being colonized – but in fact, many noblemen particularly from the Bunnag family also played very critical roles. This is also why I also credit King Prajadhipok as well as AjarnPridi and FM Pibul (and others) equally with initiating democracy in Thailand (while it must be noted ‘facism’ and ‘communism’ were becoming the flavor of the month in Europe and our neighbours were still under colonial dictatorships). This is not to discredit the great work of King Juan Carlos, of course, but the strong flavor of the month in Europe in the 1970s, 1980s was democracy (and the setting up of a democratic EU) – Socialist-Communism were clearly losing currency already by then (while violently gaining favor in SEAsia).
At the end of the day we are ‘victims’, ‘products’ of histories. If Thailand is not considered a ‘failed state’ as yet, there must be many factors why that is so. Some may sing praises, others may harshly criticize which reflects a functioning, generally open society (even with LM). In my view, it is actually always both collective ‘achievements’ and collective ‘failures’ of society, never one or another. Any society are always on cross-roads (and cycles?), we here may wish it to go certain directions – but it never does, despite the most researched predictions. Like you and Dickie, I can only (frustratingly) hope for the best on 23rd December and beyond…
The King Never Smiles?
Sorry, never heard this rumor.
I cannot see any possibility of the Princess Mother’s involvement in the shooting whatsoever.
The original members of the People’s Party and the Princess Mother were exact contemporary. Pridi, for instance, was born the same year (1900) as the Princess. During Prince Songkhla’s stay in Europe in the 1920s, it’s reported that he actually visited one of the ‘student camps’ Pridi and his friends set up during summer holidays with the veiled aim of stimulating political awareness among fellow students, and was quite impressed with the students’ solidarity, patrioticsim, etc. But I don’t know of any connection, relationship between the People’s Party and the Mahidol Family (and I don’t think there was any), apart from that in their respective official capacities.
Interview with Professor Charles Keyes
A superb interview in which nicely posed questions provoke a series of honest, energetic and stimulating replies. The interview is a marvelous introduction to Biff Keyes for people whi don’t know him, and an appealing tour of his exemplary professional life for people like myself who have been friends of his for many years.
The King Never Smiles?
What’s HMK got to smile about?
(other than a Yim sao smile)
The Lao resettlement controversy
OK John Hall– seems like it’s your turn to weigh in.
I’ve tried googling you but with no success, unless you are the John Hall on the web that has been ‘serving Arizona real estate since 1974’?!
Keith
The King Never Smiles?
Ask Ajarn Somsak
(If you do not want to answer just skip it.)
I have heard some rumours (but I cannot remember whoever told me) that “King Anan’s Death Case” is the cooperative plan by King’s mom and Ka-Na-Raat-Sa-Dorn, together.
I’m not sure that I can believe this rumour or not, but if it’s true. For me, it really make sense for this case. I do not think it was “an accident” but R9 WAS just a naive boy at that time. Hence, in my view, it should be some kind of order/demand from some one that cannot reject.
By the way, I didn’t mean that King’s mom demand directly but use some “sense of mother way” to order.
What I want to ask Ajarn is:
– Is this rumour has a chance to be true?
– I also have heard that Ka-Na-Raat-Sa-Dorn and Mom-Sangwal were fellows. Is it the truth?
R9R9R9R9R9R9R9R9R9
With Respect.
Kritdikorn Wongswangpanich
ps. As I have already said; I am sorry if my English annoy you. (I am really not good at it, unlike Sa-Hai-Dork-Ya)
Military sufficiency
1. I still stand by my point. You are right that I was being intentionally misleading, but I intended to do so simply to show how absurd the King’s statements usually are without the necessary refinement of interpretation that you grant to it. Dickie, I still don’t understand how you hold him in such high esteem even when you realize he isn’t what the propaganda tells us he is. I would at least like to know why you think he is essentially benevolent because I see him as the wife-beating alcoholic father, figuratively, of course. But then again, breaking down the analogy, he did not give me life like my real father, he did not establish the country, and I do not owe to him anything. Call it blinding hate or whatever, but it really is more of an antithesis to the blinding love there is out there. I will take a step back from this stance if you royalists will take a step back and start to admit some things as truth as well. Like I said, dogmatically defending this position is tiring as it is also wrong, but I had hoped that it would at least extract some concessions from the other side. Now I think that if I stopped the Braveheart speeches, maybe Sidh will be less defensive.
2. Yes, Kings should have the democratic ability to express their opinions as long as those opinions can be criticized and as long as it remains a unifying figure for the country (but who defines this “unification” and what is to be done if the monarch steps out of bounds). And Sidh, for you to say that its a basic, democratic right for monarchs to express their opinion just shows the farce that is constitutional monarchy: how can one man, by merit of birth (or is it divine right), inherit political power over “subjects” with no virtue whatsoever? This man is also denied his basic democratic rights as a human being as well because, apparently, with power comes responsibility!
Monarchies are an oddity in political thinking: much like Ptolemic ideas of the solar system. Forever royalists will be adjusting the orbits of planets to fit in with reality, but the truth remains that monarchy essentially is in disagreement with democracy.
Dickie, your defense of monarchy in Thailand is essential one of the only arguments FOR monarchy: pragmatism. I contend that that is a valid point, but it still is not in line with democracy. In any case, Presidents also have to live up to their image.
3. Sidh, I raise my point by point questions in the hopes of attacking your arguments in several different hypothetical approaches. On one hand, I was asking based on different assumptions of “If he wants to meddle and if he’s as good as the propaganda why did he not do this…” and on another, “Why is he contradicting his own propaganda and public image?” Surely you understand that by doing that, I had hoped to bring in the inconsistencies that are clearly on display with regards to the monarchy.
My preferred hypothetical solution to the anti-Thaksin crisis (a la Britain’s monarchical advising) was outlined in my post above, point number 3. The apolitical arbiter in bold bit, one in which you gladly tiptoed from. Surely the all-wise Bhumibol could come up with a solution like that?
4. Its still my opinion, Sidh, that you are looking out to protect the monarchy instead of checking the facts. I also realize that I am looking out to the opposite, but that after being in the same camp as you for so long, I should be able to realize the folly of it.
5. Like I said, what is the difference between Thaksin’s acts and the King’s? Stop preaching to me about Thaksin’s evils, you’re preaching to the converted.
HMK’s unquestioned authority (aura) is evident everywhere. The yellow shirted throngs who prostrate when the royal motorcade passes by.
As for Dickie’s point regarding Marcos, Suharto, or Mahathir, his point is so wide ranging that I would rather not argue it. How all of these three men are even grouped into the same group is already startling. Malaysia, for instance, is doing much better than we are and surely Lee Kuan Yew is a suitable candidate for that short list as well? Seeing as the only common trait seems to be authoritarianism and I don’t think you, Sidh, can argue that in whatever time frame Singapore has done badly. Hope this addresses your point.
Here’s a practical solution, Sidh, appoint a Republican-minded member of the royal family (back in those days) as figurehead President for life until you deem Thailand is “ready” to elect her own Head of State. In the present, we could always appoint the various members of the royal family as figurehead President, Vice Presidents, etc, whose roles will be clearly dictated by the Constitution and whose positions will not be hereditary. No bloodshed there.
6. Sorry, but I don’t have to respect anybody’s point of view and surely that is my democratic right? Not that I don’t respect yours because you’ve typed all of that up, but the fact remains that I consider myself to have been in your shoes and as any zealous convert is, that is how I tend to come off as in the argument.
Once again, you do not answer my question but pile it on “point of view.” If you believe the propaganda surrounding HMK, then you would have believed he is our “Saviour” if only we returned to absolute monarchy. As a child, I always advocated absolute monarchy because every King, especially the present one, just seems so talented and wise and much more capable of ruling the country. And I always got angry that the politicians didn’t just return all their power back to the King.
Like I said, its the blinding propaganda I wanted to be an antithesis to. It is, of course, always wrong to blame a single man, but sometimes if that man is the keystone, you surely understand why those viewpoints would arise.
Sidh, don’t take my comments about your age personally as I am usually just so frustrated by Thailand’s political situation that I need somewhere to bring it all out on, especially THAT keystone. Accept my apologies for any inappropriate words used.
The King Never Smiles?
I understand #199 is meant as a joke, right? Unfortunately it’s a bad one.
…because he made a vow when his older brother was killed by an accidental gun shot (possibly shot by the King himself)…sticking to his vow, that shows another side of the merit of this great person in history.
the King Anan’s Death Case (as it’s common called) caused 3 innocent lives besides that of Anan himself (and not to mention other negative impacts). If it were true as #199 says, one can hardly talk of ‘great person in history’ here.
(btw. I’ve never read this joke-tale about the ‘vow’)
The King Never Smiles?
The King never smiles because he made a vow when his older brother was killed by an accidental gun shot (possibly shot by the King himself) that he would never smile as long as he lived. I believe he may have softened that vow to allow himself to smile in private but I have actually only seen one picture of him purporting to be smiling. That picture is when he looking down at an old Thai lady and saying something to her. I personally don’t think it’s a smile but the point is that if he is honoring his vow to his brother who was king before him and sticking to his vow, that shows another side of the merit of this great person in history. Many Thais do not know about this vow and some refuse to believe he ever made it but it has been published in histories of the King and in at least two public newspapers I have read about him while living here in Thailand.
The Lao resettlement controversy
There are three forms of resettlement going on in Vilabouly District, Savanakhet, where the Sepon Mine is located. 1. Involuntary: In 2001, 23 households (five Makhong households and 18 Phou Tai) were resettled, with some success, to make way for mining operations; it is relevant that these families had settled in their locations between 1995 and 1998 against the advice of the District Government because it was known when they moved to those sites that if a mine proceeded those sites would be needed for mining purposes (government doesn’t always get its way). Since then, no similar resettlement has been necessary for mining purposes. 2. Voluntary resettlement: the improvement of roads in the District and provision (along some roads) of electricity in recent years has led to several (maybe six?) to move to roads where these run through their village lands. 3. Planned-by-government internal resettlement: The 105 villages in Vilabouly District are, according to District Government plans, in the (slow) process of being amalgamated into 19 clusters each grouped around a ‘service village’ – a sort of miniaturized version of Perroux-style ‘poles de croissance’.
It will be of interest to see in Vilabouly whether type 2 wins out over type 3.
Of course, the exact nature of resettlement in Vilabouly must not, and I do not do so, be taken as typical of Lao experience elsewhere partly because mining is present and partly because of the area’s own history and mix of peoples; in the 1960s and early 70s most villages in the area were abandoned altogether and when villages reformed after the war they seemed to have relocated rather frequently. The Vilabouly situation is clearly not the same as those described by Holly High’s examples (even if her comments apply fairly well to the internal resettlement in Vilabouly to date) , those used by Baird and Shoemaker or the situation which Keith Barney examined. Each resettlement also has rather different sets of motivations among participants – resettlement of certain Hmong groups in the 1980s is unlikely to have had the same thinking behind it as resettlement in Pakse twenty years later or for the resettlement about to take place as a result of the extensions of the Nam Ngum Basin scheme ( – now there’s a case where John Hall’s use of the adjective ‘massive’ would be appropriate).
The details of resettlement always vary from one site to another even within Laos, but whatever the motivations, types of resettlement or details of individual instances, the same general issues arise world-wide. My own observations at Sepon are coloured by my observation (and occasional involvement) in resettlement elsewhere – in Guinea or its Pacific namesake- and by my having worked as a so-called resettlement specialist for lending agencies.
It is self-evident to me that, overall, any form of resettlement that isn’t initiated by the people involved themselves is something that in normal circumstances to be avoided (and even voluntary resettlement is often problematic) ; most involuntary resettlement schemes world-wide have had poor outcomes for the resettled;but that occasionally and with proper care and consultation they can improve people’s lives.This is not much of a conclusion (certainly not a novel one) and probably too vague for John Hall’s liking.
(I was not previously aware that simply by making a positive remark to an author on a site such as this, one was in danger of being called to account by a third party. I shall therefore be far more circumspect in future and never again congratulate any author appearing on New Mandala)
The Lao resettlement controversy
Ok, if Richard Jackson has observed the type of internal resettlement discussed by Baird and Shoemaker elsewhere in Laos (that is, not project-related resettlement like what he has observed in relation to the Xepon mine), it would be useful if he could provide us with details of where he observed that resettlement, and in what context he observed it. Right now, his vagueness about this matter seems to suggest that my original comments were appropriate, but I could be wrong, and I would be happy if Richard Jackson could show that he does have relevant experiences.
The Lao resettlement controversy
A moment’s thought on John Hall’s part might have suggested to him that working at Sepon does not automatically mean that I cannot have observed the sort of internal resettlement under discussion (even if, in some circles, such an association is thought to disqualify me from being allowed to make any comment) ; and would perhaps have restrained him from positively hurling himself into a set of inaccurate conclusions. My original comment stands: a very interesting article which parallels what I have observed.