Of course, ignorance is not a bliss. Yet I prefer going fishing to reading the book. By the way, should it be “non” of us, or “none” of us? I’m no longer certain how the word is spelled. I believe, however, that I understand what you mean. Furthermore, when I said “pretending to be an intellectual,” I was referring to myself, certainly not anyone else. So there is no need for defence.
Restorationist : From Republican 105 above: “Republican 1, Thongchai-Royalists 0.” Might not say he’s royalist, but the implication is clear.
р╣МNot quite sure why you think “the implication is clear”? That Republican called Thongchai “royalist”?
For me the quote actually says that Thongchai ‘s position in this case is similar to the royalists (and that theirs lost).
Since I must confess I didn’t read much of the royalists’ posting here (the above included), I cannot say for sure if Thongchai’s position in his defense of the article is similar to theirs defense of his.
But in the article itself, as I maintain above, Thongchai’s argument is indeed similar to the position a liberal royalist like Sulak would be happy to use.
I’m amazed that Thongchai or others could think that the original criticism of Republican says Thongchai is royalist. Republican put the matter in the clearest possible way : either your reasoning is invalid or you’re a royalist.
Meaning: since you’re not a royalist, why on earth did you use argument similar to theirs, or in their favour?
or : From a non- or anti- royalist standpoint, your argument is invalid.
Regarding the speech, it would be interesting to have a complete translation in english.
The reporting in BKK Post, TNA and Nation was absolutly awfull. Like always…
Translation issues… truncated quotes… different versions…
At that point, if you don’t read thai, it’s impossible to understand what really the King said…
Just a few comments, from the all the above sources :
-he spoke a lot about… weapons
-apparently he sent some “piques” to the military, especially on the submarine issue.
-but meanwhile, he gave some advice about which submarine would be better to buy !
“As for submarines, a Russian one may cost just half the price of a German-made or a US-made one, but if we bought one from Russia, the US, for instance, might be upset. However, Russian submarines are very good” (from Nation)
-was it… extreme irony… or for real ?
-and what to think about this other quote: “As for the planes from Sweden [the Air Force is planning to buy the Gripen], they might be outdated when delivered in the next two years. The Army is also planning to buy outdated tanks, but Thailand probably cannot use more advanced tanks because they’re too heavy for local soil.”
My impression : it’s extremely confusing !
Tell me if I’m wrong but I’ve got the feeling that often the King uses a “chinese style” in his speeches, with sentences that can have double or triple meanings…
Anyway. If some people could help us to understand….
Thanks, it was really interesting to hear more about your fieldsite and the situation with the history of landlessness in Siiphandone. And yes, as I think about it, my statement suggesting the landlessness is ‘not a typical situation in Laos’ cannot be justified- especially it would seem in the places you know best, where landlessness apparently has been an issue for over 30 years.
On the other hand, it does seem like your research example of a resettlement scheme involving landless individuals from a lowland Lao wet rice village on an island in the Mekong, moving to a mainland site which is close to a road, and which has low quality but available land, does not really serve as a useful comparison or basis for critique of Baird and Shoemaker’s criticism of state-backed resettlement policies involving moving ethnic minorities located in the uplands down to the lowlands.
As you know, state-backed, resettlement in these sites is justified by an ideology of swidden eradication, which is a long standing concern of authorities across Se Asia, but which holds little intellectual justification– especially in Laos. The resettlement schemes Baird and Shoemaker are critiquing also involve policies which have a strong undercurrent of integrating ethnic minorities into mainstream lowland Lao culture. These are also sites where the basis of rural poverty can be much more strongly linked to Chamberlain’s “new poverty” or policy-induced poverty, than is the case in Siiphandone.
So while it is very interesting to learn about your example of a state-backed resettlement effort in southern Laos, using this an a basis for critiquing Baird and Shoemaker seems something of a stretch.
It’s is a bit like comparing mangos and papayas it seems to me, if not something of a “furphy” [Which I had to google by the way- happy to have learnt a new Australianism!]
Of course part of the issue is that Laos is such an amazingly complex and varied place that one always faces the potential problem of over-extending one’s research and analysis when applying it to the country as a whole, or to (really complex) national policy questions. It’s a question of both the advantages and the limits of ethnographic research, I suppose. It’s something I am also working through with respect to my research in the Hinboun valley in Khammouane.
Anyway, I’d be interested in your thoughts. Resettlement in Laos is a really important and pressing debate, and I’m pleased to see this being identified on New Mandala.
In case you ever want to see Samak slurping over a bowl of Yen Tow Faa, stop by the famous noodle shop on Aree Phaholyothin Soi 7. He eats there about twice a week. I even ordered his special, too bad I think Yen Tow Faa tastes rotten though.
As the global economy, as it now exists defined by the petrol dollar, teeters on collapse, watch vested interests attempt to spend or reallocate their assets sooner rather than later. The military leaders want to get in their contracts f0r military hardware now, not for the sake of the nation, (Chaiyo!) but to get their 20% commission in hand and into a safe asset while the Baat is relatively strong.
This book sounds interesting and I look forward to reading it. It would also be interesting to compare this situation to the Islamization of Malay world. Back to the library for me!
I am a Thai, and I haven’t read Paul Handley’s book about my king. Actually, I don’t think I will. I may be ignorant, but there are lots of better things for me to do. I’d rather go fishing. It’s simply more enjoyable than pretending to be an intellectual who knows all.
Has any of you ever been to a restaurant with the “Samak Aroy” (‘Samak Delicious’) sign? Well I had my lunch in one such restaurant today. The restaurant was at Mahachai (too bad my favorite Khun Toom restaurant was not open which forced me to try my luck, or my bad luck, elsewhere). The food was expensive, the crab was NOT fresh and lousy, and the rice was terrible! Only the fish was passable but fails my standard for Thai cuisine.
This is the first I had tried a “Samak Aroy” recommended restaurant (I did not notice until too late at the Cashier’s counter) and I was sorely disappointed. And scared too! Because Samak could very well be Thailand’s next PM, and judging by his culinary standard, I can predict the Kingdom’s governance too, under him, will be just as disappointing or worse.
Refering to Ngandeeleg’s comment on another topic, it is quite amusing and so sad too that three weeks from one of the most important elections (maybe in Thai democratic history!), the hottest topic in NM, occupying all these amazing intellectual minds, is ‘lese majeste’ laws.
If we just turned on Thai TV (or internetTV) over the past few days, what is being discussed here is ‘of the past’… If HM the King was ever directly influential in the country’s political directions, it was during the eight years of PMPrem’s government. If we believe the assumption that HMK and PMPrem are inseparable (which I actually don’t subscribe to), then they both retired in 1988 and for most of the past two decades, Thailand was ‘on her own’ with the paternalistic figures watching in the background, engaged mainly in their favourite hobbies (like most people past their 60s). On the 4th, like every 4th Dec before, Thais of all backgrounds pay their visit and respects to their Father. “You are fighting” he admonished, “just don’t burn the house down” he warns… But like every other time, Father’s good intentions is forgotten the following week (so much for ‘soft power’)…
This coming election and Thailand’s present and future democracy is all down to one man, still wielding great influence from London, Hong Kong or whereever he is (modern technology makes him omni-present). Contrary to HMK and PMPrem, now both in the 80s – he is still in his 50s – young, strapping and ultra-ambitious (rubbing shoulders with his rich mates in Europe and Asia just vets his appetite for more) and has a very long career ahead of him. Sooner or later he will be back to take the reins. The rules of the game has been changed, he will have to give more to get less – but his sharp, fast mind has already spotted the weak points, with plans ready to exploit it… We in NM might be missing the scoop here!
All these talks of deluded Thais under royalist propoganda pales in the face of “hard power” in the form of hard currency and slick, modern marketing. We are talking ‘Ngarn Wat’ (temple fairs) while missing the preludes to the ‘Mega-Party’ at Suvarnabhumi (the theme of “Thaksin, the Return”)…
Thanks Nganadeleg.
“Amusing” yet “so sad”, it does reminds me of Pen-ek’s film “Monrak Transistor”. I’ve only seen it once (even if it is one of my favorite movies), but that’s the feeling I always get just thinking of it. Whatever happens next, the story of Thai democracy is ‘bittersweet’ – as it has always been. We’ll come out the other end ‘damaged’ but ‘wiser’ – and ‘hopeful’ (at least that’s what I hope).
Bak Falang – thanks for the interesting story. I had a similar experience in Vieng Say when interviewing a Land’s Office official. He was extremely proud of the policy that allowed poor people to move on to land that was “unused” by other people. I think that “helping poor people” is an extremely important ideology among many officials in Laos. While we may question the efficacy of their policies, it is not so easy to question their intentions.
Richard Jackson – thanks for your comment too: I am sure that many New Mandala readers would be interested to hear some of your experiences, if you have a moment to write them down.
Keith, thanks for your interest, kind words, and provocations: they are truly helpful. I will deal with some of your questions one by one below.
First, the issue of landlessness. My experience in the southern lowlands is that landlessness is a problem and has been for the last thirty years. People can’t just go and clear new rice fields: every piece of land in the area has its owner, either farmers or the state. The last people who did clear new fields on the mainland are now in their fifties (perhaps there was a rush to clear new fields when the regulations started to be enforced, but I only know of one family comprising of several households in the village who did this). These people paid tax on their cleared fields each year, even if they were not using them. After paying tax, they received a receipt which served as their proof of ownership – and this could then be sold or rented. Some people are thus able to hand over such unused but “reserved” (cong wai) fields to their children as they mature into their twenties.
But for most people, this is not an option. The island itself where I was living is fully cultivated. There are forested areas on other islands and on the mainland, but people are very well aware that clearing these lands is illegal. They say that even the sound of a chainsaw will attract a fine, though obviously this is an exaggeration. The typical response is for one of the mature siblings to stay on the family plot with the parents and any immature children, while the others find work in factories, in the Boloven Plateau commercial agriculture industry, or in Thailand.
It should be noted that “the family plot” is not as stable as it sounds. Often what is seen as “the family plot” is composed of fields inherited by both the male and the female line, with all of their children technically having an equal claim on inheritance (although if the fields were divided in this way in reality, the plots would be unproductively small). I have seen disputes over inheritance emerge decades after the death of the person concerned, because although it is usually the youngest daughter who lives with aging parents and cultivating their land, this does not mean that she, upon her own death, is able to pass the land on only to her children. Instead, one or more of her siblings may emerge and demand that some of the land go to their children as well, particularly if they live in the area and are poor.
Keith, regarding your second question: yes, I agree that there is a combination of policies at play here. But I suggest that we acknowledge that these policies are responding to a situation of poverty. They are not “making” poverty in any simple sense, because poverty has many causes, and in many ways the nature and effects of these polices are shaped by this larger context of poverty. Most of the causes of poverty are well beyond the control of the Lao state. I would include among them the regimes of citizenship in nation-states that attempt to control the mobility of people, especially poor people (much more closely than they control the mobility of finance or goods). I would also include the effects of the most concerted aerial bombardment ever seen, with perhaps the exception of the bombardment of Vietnam. I also believe that the warped incentives of the medical industry are causing poverty: all jokes about Viagra aside, there are people dying of malaria, TB and dysentery in Laos. Why, as a species, are we so poor at working out a fair distribution of our medical talents? There is also the hoary old problem of debt: Laos is one of the most heavily indebted countries in the world, and much of this debt has gone towards financing the development industry. I am also moved to reflect on how our trouble-laden development industry provides a very poor second to what would be a more sincere response to poverty, premised on a global right to health care, food and shelter. Given this big picture, and these very big problems, a focus purely on the policies of land allocation and resettlement would appear as a bit of a furphy.
Finally, Keith, your point regards the idea of “anchoring”. Thanks for putting the whole paragraph up for people to consider. As I read over it again, I was still struck by the positive, even “optimistic” tones in which B&S write of this particular project. Compare it to the very critical analysis they give to projects that have supported resettlement. I think that this paragraph is an argument for a very particular response from the development industry to resettlement. And, yes, it is a response that aims itself at “anchoring”. I take your point that I have perhaps emphasized this point more clearly that B&S did, but this is the business of being an anthropologist: examining the “structures of feeling” that go so often unexamined in daily life. What I am trying to prompt here is a critical re-evaluation of the sometimes unacknowledged categories that we apply when negotiating the intercultural domain of policy and poverty.
Too much energy, emotion and perhaps goodwill has been spent by many on this thread criticising or defending each other’s anti-royalist credentials or logical reasoning on LM. It is very frustruating that much discussion by people who otherwise have much to contribute to the debate still involves looking in the rear vision mirror (what happened, what should have happended, who should or shouldn’t have done or said what), rather than looking out the windscreen to debate positively about what should or could be done in anticipation of (or even shape) future events.
In my humble opinion, LM is a red herring. Debating too much about it is a waste of time. Whilst I rarely agree with what the Colonel says, his #155 reflects the faith/belief of the overwhelming majority of Thais which is unlikely to change anytime soon – even if LM is abolished tomorrow – and will likely outlive Bhumipol himself. Anti-royalists (of all shades of radicalism) may not like it, but they have to stop banging their heads against this particular wall. The Reward/Effort ratio is well below 1.00 and they might want to ask themselves if there’re more important issues to debate/expose.
I’m not arguing that LM does not matter or should not be abolished. But I really believe it is a second order issue. Rama IX has outgrown his need for LM, and while Rama X may crave to have LM permanently in the constitution, it won’t really protect him for any length of time – unless, of couse, you believe that the Thai people (urgan and rural) are stupid and easily fooled all of the time.
I guess that submarines and the aircraft carrier can be used quite well in fighting the southern insurgency… Something is strange here–when Thaksin spent money on policies, it was said that Thailand was poor and could not afford all those expenses. Now, it is said that the country is rich and should spend its money. Maybe, I have missed something here.
Chiming in on nganadeeleg’s: “Don’t bother with comebacks about the royal wealth and how they don’t pay tax, because I believe a case can be made that much of the royal wealth is state wealth and not personal wealth.”
You can make that case, but is the administration of it strong enough to keep it that way? In the hands of the next sovereign, will it be run for the state or his/her person? Will the soveriegn choose who runs Siam Cement or Siam Commercial Bank, or will someone else? (That doesn’t mean I believe the finance ministry necessarily does a great job.) The fact is, the administrative structure does not ensure it is the state’s. Like Queen Elizabeth II’s Mansion burning with million’s worth of paintings: who takes the loss? Who was responsible?
As long as it is not clear, and based on the 1997 bailout, I think you have to say, it is the palace’s asset and the state’s liability.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The King Never Smiles?
Teth,
Of course, ignorance is not a bliss. Yet I prefer going fishing to reading the book. By the way, should it be “non” of us, or “none” of us? I’m no longer certain how the word is spelled. I believe, however, that I understand what you mean. Furthermore, when I said “pretending to be an intellectual,” I was referring to myself, certainly not anyone else. So there is no need for defence.
Military sufficiency
I think if the king was serious about military sufficiency, he would be calling for the entire restructuring of the armed forces.
But then, he would be upsetting the Praetorian Guard who sustain his power.
The King Never Smiles?
Restorationist : From Republican 105 above: “Republican 1, Thongchai-Royalists 0.” Might not say he’s royalist, but the implication is clear.
р╣МNot quite sure why you think “the implication is clear”? That Republican called Thongchai “royalist”?
For me the quote actually says that Thongchai ‘s position in this case is similar to the royalists (and that theirs lost).
Since I must confess I didn’t read much of the royalists’ posting here (the above included), I cannot say for sure if Thongchai’s position in his defense of the article is similar to theirs defense of his.
But in the article itself, as I maintain above, Thongchai’s argument is indeed similar to the position a liberal royalist like Sulak would be happy to use.
I’m amazed that Thongchai or others could think that the original criticism of Republican says Thongchai is royalist. Republican put the matter in the clearest possible way : either your reasoning is invalid or you’re a royalist.
Meaning: since you’re not a royalist, why on earth did you use argument similar to theirs, or in their favour?
or : From a non- or anti- royalist standpoint, your argument is invalid.
Military sufficiency
Regarding the speech, it would be interesting to have a complete translation in english.
The reporting in BKK Post, TNA and Nation was absolutly awfull. Like always…
Translation issues… truncated quotes… different versions…
At that point, if you don’t read thai, it’s impossible to understand what really the King said…
Just a few comments, from the all the above sources :
-he spoke a lot about… weapons
-apparently he sent some “piques” to the military, especially on the submarine issue.
-but meanwhile, he gave some advice about which submarine would be better to buy !
“As for submarines, a Russian one may cost just half the price of a German-made or a US-made one, but if we bought one from Russia, the US, for instance, might be upset. However, Russian submarines are very good” (from Nation)
-was it… extreme irony… or for real ?
-and what to think about this other quote: “As for the planes from Sweden [the Air Force is planning to buy the Gripen], they might be outdated when delivered in the next two years. The Army is also planning to buy outdated tanks, but Thailand probably cannot use more advanced tanks because they’re too heavy for local soil.”
My impression : it’s extremely confusing !
Tell me if I’m wrong but I’ve got the feeling that often the King uses a “chinese style” in his speeches, with sentences that can have double or triple meanings…
Anyway. If some people could help us to understand….
The Lao resettlement controversy
Hi again Holly:
Thanks, it was really interesting to hear more about your fieldsite and the situation with the history of landlessness in Siiphandone. And yes, as I think about it, my statement suggesting the landlessness is ‘not a typical situation in Laos’ cannot be justified- especially it would seem in the places you know best, where landlessness apparently has been an issue for over 30 years.
On the other hand, it does seem like your research example of a resettlement scheme involving landless individuals from a lowland Lao wet rice village on an island in the Mekong, moving to a mainland site which is close to a road, and which has low quality but available land, does not really serve as a useful comparison or basis for critique of Baird and Shoemaker’s criticism of state-backed resettlement policies involving moving ethnic minorities located in the uplands down to the lowlands.
As you know, state-backed, resettlement in these sites is justified by an ideology of swidden eradication, which is a long standing concern of authorities across Se Asia, but which holds little intellectual justification– especially in Laos. The resettlement schemes Baird and Shoemaker are critiquing also involve policies which have a strong undercurrent of integrating ethnic minorities into mainstream lowland Lao culture. These are also sites where the basis of rural poverty can be much more strongly linked to Chamberlain’s “new poverty” or policy-induced poverty, than is the case in Siiphandone.
So while it is very interesting to learn about your example of a state-backed resettlement effort in southern Laos, using this an a basis for critiquing Baird and Shoemaker seems something of a stretch.
It’s is a bit like comparing mangos and papayas it seems to me, if not something of a “furphy” [Which I had to google by the way- happy to have learnt a new Australianism!]
Of course part of the issue is that Laos is such an amazingly complex and varied place that one always faces the potential problem of over-extending one’s research and analysis when applying it to the country as a whole, or to (really complex) national policy questions. It’s a question of both the advantages and the limits of ethnographic research, I suppose. It’s something I am also working through with respect to my research in the Hinboun valley in Khammouane.
Anyway, I’d be interested in your thoughts. Resettlement in Laos is a really important and pressing debate, and I’m pleased to see this being identified on New Mandala.
cheers,
Keith
The King Never Smiles?
One more thing, I love how the delusional come on here to insist they aren’t bothered when they actually are.
Some would rather not wake up from their royal matrix, which is a real shame.
Thinking like a Thai Army general
Sidh: I like most of Pen-ek’s films, and “Monrak Transistor” is one of my favorites (I have it on VCD).
Amusing, but sad, and it would only have taken a few changes in thought & actions for things to have been much better.
FWIW, my all time favorite Thai movie, to date, is Wisit Sasanatieng’s “Citizen Dog”.
Thinking like a Thai Army general
In case you ever want to see Samak slurping over a bowl of Yen Tow Faa, stop by the famous noodle shop on Aree Phaholyothin Soi 7. He eats there about twice a week. I even ordered his special, too bad I think Yen Tow Faa tastes rotten though.
Military sufficiency
As the global economy, as it now exists defined by the petrol dollar, teeters on collapse, watch vested interests attempt to spend or reallocate their assets sooner rather than later. The military leaders want to get in their contracts f0r military hardware now, not for the sake of the nation, (Chaiyo!) but to get their 20% commission in hand and into a safe asset while the Baat is relatively strong.
Education in Burma: where some are more equal than others
This book sounds interesting and I look forward to reading it. It would also be interesting to compare this situation to the Islamization of Malay world. Back to the library for me!
The King Never Smiles?
“Now Thongchai isn’t a royalist. … Nor did Republican, as far as I ever read his writings.”
From Republican 105 above: “Republican 1, Thongchai-Royalists 0.” Might not say he’s royalist, but the implication is clear.
The King Never Smiles?
Ignorance is bliss, eh? And non of us here “pretend” to be intellectuals. In fact, I admit that I am not one.
The King Never Smiles?
I am a Thai, and I haven’t read Paul Handley’s book about my king. Actually, I don’t think I will. I may be ignorant, but there are lots of better things for me to do. I’d rather go fishing. It’s simply more enjoyable than pretending to be an intellectual who knows all.
Joe
Thinking like a Thai Army general
Has any of you ever been to a restaurant with the “Samak Aroy” (‘Samak Delicious’) sign? Well I had my lunch in one such restaurant today. The restaurant was at Mahachai (too bad my favorite Khun Toom restaurant was not open which forced me to try my luck, or my bad luck, elsewhere). The food was expensive, the crab was NOT fresh and lousy, and the rice was terrible! Only the fish was passable but fails my standard for Thai cuisine.
This is the first I had tried a “Samak Aroy” recommended restaurant (I did not notice until too late at the Cashier’s counter) and I was sorely disappointed. And scared too! Because Samak could very well be Thailand’s next PM, and judging by his culinary standard, I can predict the Kingdom’s governance too, under him, will be just as disappointing or worse.
The King Never Smiles?
Refering to Ngandeeleg’s comment on another topic, it is quite amusing and so sad too that three weeks from one of the most important elections (maybe in Thai democratic history!), the hottest topic in NM, occupying all these amazing intellectual minds, is ‘lese majeste’ laws.
If we just turned on Thai TV (or internetTV) over the past few days, what is being discussed here is ‘of the past’… If HM the King was ever directly influential in the country’s political directions, it was during the eight years of PMPrem’s government. If we believe the assumption that HMK and PMPrem are inseparable (which I actually don’t subscribe to), then they both retired in 1988 and for most of the past two decades, Thailand was ‘on her own’ with the paternalistic figures watching in the background, engaged mainly in their favourite hobbies (like most people past their 60s). On the 4th, like every 4th Dec before, Thais of all backgrounds pay their visit and respects to their Father. “You are fighting” he admonished, “just don’t burn the house down” he warns… But like every other time, Father’s good intentions is forgotten the following week (so much for ‘soft power’)…
This coming election and Thailand’s present and future democracy is all down to one man, still wielding great influence from London, Hong Kong or whereever he is (modern technology makes him omni-present). Contrary to HMK and PMPrem, now both in the 80s – he is still in his 50s – young, strapping and ultra-ambitious (rubbing shoulders with his rich mates in Europe and Asia just vets his appetite for more) and has a very long career ahead of him. Sooner or later he will be back to take the reins. The rules of the game has been changed, he will have to give more to get less – but his sharp, fast mind has already spotted the weak points, with plans ready to exploit it… We in NM might be missing the scoop here!
All these talks of deluded Thais under royalist propoganda pales in the face of “hard power” in the form of hard currency and slick, modern marketing. We are talking ‘Ngarn Wat’ (temple fairs) while missing the preludes to the ‘Mega-Party’ at Suvarnabhumi (the theme of “Thaksin, the Return”)…
Thinking like a Thai Army general
Thanks Nganadeleg.
“Amusing” yet “so sad”, it does reminds me of Pen-ek’s film “Monrak Transistor”. I’ve only seen it once (even if it is one of my favorite movies), but that’s the feeling I always get just thinking of it. Whatever happens next, the story of Thai democracy is ‘bittersweet’ – as it has always been. We’ll come out the other end ‘damaged’ but ‘wiser’ – and ‘hopeful’ (at least that’s what I hope).
The Lao resettlement controversy
Bak Falang – thanks for the interesting story. I had a similar experience in Vieng Say when interviewing a Land’s Office official. He was extremely proud of the policy that allowed poor people to move on to land that was “unused” by other people. I think that “helping poor people” is an extremely important ideology among many officials in Laos. While we may question the efficacy of their policies, it is not so easy to question their intentions.
Richard Jackson – thanks for your comment too: I am sure that many New Mandala readers would be interested to hear some of your experiences, if you have a moment to write them down.
Keith, thanks for your interest, kind words, and provocations: they are truly helpful. I will deal with some of your questions one by one below.
First, the issue of landlessness. My experience in the southern lowlands is that landlessness is a problem and has been for the last thirty years. People can’t just go and clear new rice fields: every piece of land in the area has its owner, either farmers or the state. The last people who did clear new fields on the mainland are now in their fifties (perhaps there was a rush to clear new fields when the regulations started to be enforced, but I only know of one family comprising of several households in the village who did this). These people paid tax on their cleared fields each year, even if they were not using them. After paying tax, they received a receipt which served as their proof of ownership – and this could then be sold or rented. Some people are thus able to hand over such unused but “reserved” (cong wai) fields to their children as they mature into their twenties.
But for most people, this is not an option. The island itself where I was living is fully cultivated. There are forested areas on other islands and on the mainland, but people are very well aware that clearing these lands is illegal. They say that even the sound of a chainsaw will attract a fine, though obviously this is an exaggeration. The typical response is for one of the mature siblings to stay on the family plot with the parents and any immature children, while the others find work in factories, in the Boloven Plateau commercial agriculture industry, or in Thailand.
It should be noted that “the family plot” is not as stable as it sounds. Often what is seen as “the family plot” is composed of fields inherited by both the male and the female line, with all of their children technically having an equal claim on inheritance (although if the fields were divided in this way in reality, the plots would be unproductively small). I have seen disputes over inheritance emerge decades after the death of the person concerned, because although it is usually the youngest daughter who lives with aging parents and cultivating their land, this does not mean that she, upon her own death, is able to pass the land on only to her children. Instead, one or more of her siblings may emerge and demand that some of the land go to their children as well, particularly if they live in the area and are poor.
Keith, regarding your second question: yes, I agree that there is a combination of policies at play here. But I suggest that we acknowledge that these policies are responding to a situation of poverty. They are not “making” poverty in any simple sense, because poverty has many causes, and in many ways the nature and effects of these polices are shaped by this larger context of poverty. Most of the causes of poverty are well beyond the control of the Lao state. I would include among them the regimes of citizenship in nation-states that attempt to control the mobility of people, especially poor people (much more closely than they control the mobility of finance or goods). I would also include the effects of the most concerted aerial bombardment ever seen, with perhaps the exception of the bombardment of Vietnam. I also believe that the warped incentives of the medical industry are causing poverty: all jokes about Viagra aside, there are people dying of malaria, TB and dysentery in Laos. Why, as a species, are we so poor at working out a fair distribution of our medical talents? There is also the hoary old problem of debt: Laos is one of the most heavily indebted countries in the world, and much of this debt has gone towards financing the development industry. I am also moved to reflect on how our trouble-laden development industry provides a very poor second to what would be a more sincere response to poverty, premised on a global right to health care, food and shelter. Given this big picture, and these very big problems, a focus purely on the policies of land allocation and resettlement would appear as a bit of a furphy.
Finally, Keith, your point regards the idea of “anchoring”. Thanks for putting the whole paragraph up for people to consider. As I read over it again, I was still struck by the positive, even “optimistic” tones in which B&S write of this particular project. Compare it to the very critical analysis they give to projects that have supported resettlement. I think that this paragraph is an argument for a very particular response from the development industry to resettlement. And, yes, it is a response that aims itself at “anchoring”. I take your point that I have perhaps emphasized this point more clearly that B&S did, but this is the business of being an anthropologist: examining the “structures of feeling” that go so often unexamined in daily life. What I am trying to prompt here is a critical re-evaluation of the sometimes unacknowledged categories that we apply when negotiating the intercultural domain of policy and poverty.
The King Never Smiles?
Too much energy, emotion and perhaps goodwill has been spent by many on this thread criticising or defending each other’s anti-royalist credentials or logical reasoning on LM. It is very frustruating that much discussion by people who otherwise have much to contribute to the debate still involves looking in the rear vision mirror (what happened, what should have happended, who should or shouldn’t have done or said what), rather than looking out the windscreen to debate positively about what should or could be done in anticipation of (or even shape) future events.
In my humble opinion, LM is a red herring. Debating too much about it is a waste of time. Whilst I rarely agree with what the Colonel says, his #155 reflects the faith/belief of the overwhelming majority of Thais which is unlikely to change anytime soon – even if LM is abolished tomorrow – and will likely outlive Bhumipol himself. Anti-royalists (of all shades of radicalism) may not like it, but they have to stop banging their heads against this particular wall. The Reward/Effort ratio is well below 1.00 and they might want to ask themselves if there’re more important issues to debate/expose.
I’m not arguing that LM does not matter or should not be abolished. But I really believe it is a second order issue. Rama IX has outgrown his need for LM, and while Rama X may crave to have LM permanently in the constitution, it won’t really protect him for any length of time – unless, of couse, you believe that the Thai people (urgan and rural) are stupid and easily fooled all of the time.
Military sufficiency
I guess that submarines and the aircraft carrier can be used quite well in fighting the southern insurgency… Something is strange here–when Thaksin spent money on policies, it was said that Thailand was poor and could not afford all those expenses. Now, it is said that the country is rich and should spend its money. Maybe, I have missed something here.
The King Never Smiles?
Chiming in on nganadeeleg’s: “Don’t bother with comebacks about the royal wealth and how they don’t pay tax, because I believe a case can be made that much of the royal wealth is state wealth and not personal wealth.”
You can make that case, but is the administration of it strong enough to keep it that way? In the hands of the next sovereign, will it be run for the state or his/her person? Will the soveriegn choose who runs Siam Cement or Siam Commercial Bank, or will someone else? (That doesn’t mean I believe the finance ministry necessarily does a great job.) The fact is, the administrative structure does not ensure it is the state’s. Like Queen Elizabeth II’s Mansion burning with million’s worth of paintings: who takes the loss? Who was responsible?
As long as it is not clear, and based on the 1997 bailout, I think you have to say, it is the palace’s asset and the state’s liability.