The case of Prajadhipok is one of hindsight. He clearly wanted reform, but what his intentions were, I think we cannot fully deduce neutrally. What is certain is Prajadhipok did not choose to fight, was he in a position to fight is certainly a good question to ask. Did he not learn about the coup d’etat via Pridi’s declaration rather than any of his senior advisors/ministers, who presumably were put under arrest?
My point is pragmatic and simple, Teth. Despite all the bloodshed and irrelevence, many societies retained their monarchys. Another pragmatic and simple point I made was that most societies who got rid of the monarchy was through violence – such as America and France, “some of the most powerful countries in the world” as you pointed out (is that Thailand’s aspirations too?). Again, I was not advocating for one (even as a ‘critical’ royalist), just making a plain statement.
Sidh, you and I either have different definitions for pragmatic or else you still believe the King is a force for good in this country. Since I do not think he is, I believe it is better for the country to not be burdened with a monarchy. That is what I believe is pragmatic: abolish the monarchy and its negative influence.
Considering the opportunity cost with regards to abolishing/not abolishing the monarchy, I still see it as a worthy path to tread towards. If there is no lese majeste, no idiotic clause in the Constitution that subvert the rule of law (ie. the King is above the law), there should be a proper investigation as to the wrongdoings of the monarch (or heir) and punish them according to the law applied to all commoners. Wasn’t the rule of law one of the many things anti-Thaksinites claim was subverted? Heed Israel’s example and convict a head-of-state or an heir.
The pragmatic way to abolish the monarchy: abolish it via a decree or constitutional amendment; put them on trial; banish/exile/imprison them. Of course, the matter of the King’s popularity is an issue that needs to be reversed. Focus on the unpopularity of the heir and perhaps exploit Phra Thep as president. That’s my “pragmatic” view, really.
Sadly, I still feel that it is unlikely, because the Thai “establishment” and network monarchy is so entrenched that change is unlikely. I also feel that the work of HMK would not be undone even after his death: too many will still continue to pursue his ruthless agendas and already they are well prepared for a smooth succession.
In Talat Bang Li in Song Phinong early this morning, I thought Ad was coming round the corner, instead a string of ten song-taeo displaying the Chat Thai team and belting out this song. The slogan on the trucks is ‘Suphanburi chooses Chat Thai,’ a statement of fact not an appeal. The tune is Ad’s standard anthem used to sell himself, the nation, beer, caffeine stimulants, and now Banharn.
Line 5 better as ‘lights the way for Thai politics’ and line 7 as ‘Chat Thai’s policies do not waver.’ That line is the kicker. CT can claim to have pursued policies for the big-middle farmers of the central plain in the past.
Tosakan: The Batson selection of documents is insufficient in my view, precisely because it is a selection and Batson was very selective indeed. If you read Batson’s book, you see that his thesis is that P was a democrat. However, if you read more widely, I do not believe that this thesis is nearly so strong. The king’s main idea was to expand the privy council and establish a constitution that maintained the monarchy, but this did not amount to a constitutional democracy (of the modern variety). After he was overthrown, he complained that his advisers should have convinced him to go ahead with his plan. Post-1932, there is ample evidence that he only supported elements of democratic reform if this got the royalists more power (e.g. he only supported political parties when he thought royalists could benefit. He opposed this when he was certain that the revolutionists would gain more. This is hardly a case for him being the great democrat of royalist propaganda.
Somsak has brilliantly destroyed the ridiculous royalist propaganda that the last absolute monarch was ever interested in democracy, based on the historical evidence. See his р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤р╕ир╕▓р╕кр╕Хр╕гр╣Мр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Юр╕┤р╣Ир╕Зр╕кр╕гр╣Йр╕▓р╕З – I think it’s chapter 2 or 3 (my copy is at home).
You would have to be an idiot to believe that an absolute monarch, and all the aristocratic and noble political and economic interests that surround the monarchy, would ever have willingly wanted to surrender that power to their enemies. It’s a total joke. Why on earth did the Bowaradet rebellion take place?
You have to understand that all this mythologizing about R7’s democratic credentials was built up in the era in which the royalists had regained control over the Thai state after the defeat of the Peoples Party, and especially after October 1973, when the monarchy, after 16 years of staunch support for a military dictatorship, had to rebrand itself as “democratic”.
Most of his close advisors, including his foreign ones, advised him against liberal democracy, because they thought the people were too uneducated to make informed political decisions
They should have advised him to start doing some educating.
“…it is harder to find “specialists” in Thai agriculture: there is no one making cheese or exquisite wines…”
A couple years back I happened to accidentally see and attend a Thai wine festival at the National Stadium next to Mah Boonkrawng.
I was completely amazed by the acres of exhibition boothes. I could only sample a few of these hundreds of wines made by Thai winemakers, but my favorite was a home brew Satoh brand by some young people in Isan.
“There needs to be convenient transport links between urban population centers: motorways and high speed railways. …”
Yes, I don’t mind Morchit and the overnight bus back to Chiang Rai, because Sombat tours actually has bunk beds you can reserve on the floor of the bus.
From what I gather, land redistibution, etc. tend to be bad ideas in the long run.
Subsidies are a good short-term solution.
But the main thing is that Thailand has only 1 real ‘urban’ center, which is Bangkok.
Chiang mai and previously Hatyai were developing, but they can’t be called an urban center compared to the monstrosity of Bangkok.
Korat is and has been growing. The fact remains is that within the Northeast, there needs to be urban development, akin to Bangkok. By that I actually mean a city of 4-8 million people. It can be the center of Isan trade, items from OTOP, rice, Isan music, etc. can be centered from there. In other words, a Thai city without the major influence of Chinese art but a very Farm-Thai style. Urban in the style of Houston and Dallas… not NYC or LA.
Of course, this idea is blasphemous, and will be shot down, then eaten up by Bangkok cannibalists to whom will never accept that any city outside Bangkok should develop except for being a ‘tourist’ location.
King Prajadhipok may not have been a Jeffersonian democrat, but the intent to transform the political system was definitely there.
Most of his close advisors, including his foreign ones, advised him against liberal democracy, because they thought the people were too uneducated to make informed political decisions.
My point is pragmatic and simple, Teth. Despite all the bloodshed and irrelevence, many societies retained their monarchys. Another pragmatic and simple point I made was that most societies who got rid of the monarchy was through violence – such as America and France, “some of the most powerful countries in the world” as you pointed out (is that Thailand’s aspirations too?). Again, I was not advocating for one (even as a ‘critical’ royalist), just making a plain statement.
And to take pragmatism further, I went back into history (two centuries) exploring the times when Siamese-Thai monarchy was most threatened – and I thought during the height of 19th century colonialism and during the 1932 coup. Restorationist thinks I took a high school textbook line here – it is up to him/her. But we can conveniently choose our interpretations, selections of history. Maybe this is a subtle point in history worth investigating, whether at the time of the coup, who had more control of the armed forces and its key personnels? In the scenario is 50:50, then my point is proven that King Prajadhipok had that choice to fight but did not take it.
In the end, a Thai compromised was struck, the monarchy was significantly weakened – at the very least it no longer governs the country. Under HMK, the monarchy is resuscitated again, enjoying high respect and popularity amongst the Thai populace (this is also Paul Handley’s view and some NM commentators will beg to differ)… At this point in time what is the ‘pragmatic’ way of abolishing the monarchy?
Democratus, I have had previous exchanges with Teth and he has once admitted that his main source of Thai political history was from Paul Handley’s book. Otherwise, as a historian I am certain he is more qualified than me.
Sidh S says, “I will say that they never had. Had King Prajadhipok chose to fight, he would have a decent chance at quelling the ‘revolution’ as the army was mostly in the nobility’s hands (and FMPibul was only a low ranked officer). Instead he chose to negotiate as it is known that the King has been entertaining the idea of a constitution and an elected parliament for quite a while himself. Was it a far-sighted act to guarantee the survival of the monarchy or was it because he believed in democracy?”
This is nothing more than the high school textbook line on Prajadhipok. It is also the royalist’s standard version of history. Can you provide the evidence for this view outside of P’s self-serving abdication letter or the half-hearted view he took on maybe expanding the privy council? I’d be interested to see it.
Sidh S: If you think that Wyatt’s book is the best place to begin understanding Thai history, you need to do some more critical reading. Might as well have recommended WAR Wood.
Besides, where do you get off recommending texts to others? What qualifications do you have and what makes you consider Teth uneducated in these matters?
Your reading of monarchies elsewhere (if indeed you have done some reading) seems rather limited to me. At least based on your trite statements here.
Interesting ideas, Jon. I, personally, think Thailand is in need of an urban migration scheme as a means of reaching out to the rural poor. Why are the provinces always relatively stagnant economically when compared to Bangkok and why do the majority of the Thai population live in those areas? One reason is because rural areas lack adequate infrastructure for prosperity to reach. Second, some rural areas lack any sort of economic incentive to be prosperous yet is home to the bulk of the population (eg Isaan). Third, rural areas generally lack the resources needed for competitiveness when compared to urban areas (schools, hospitals, etc).
Further more, when comparing the Thai rural areas to Western ones, one of the most striking differences is the farmer. The Thai farmer has much less land than the Western one, and it is harder to find “specialists” in Thai agriculture: there is no one making cheese or exquisite wines, no regional specialties that are sought after, etc. Once again, I see this as a problem of too many people. From a supply-demand point of view, there are simply too many farmers and no current development plan seems to address this. I am sure everyone is aware of this fact, but simply hope to gain the rural vote whilst waiting for the growth is trickle down.
Therefore, I believe that a policy that encourages centralization and urbanization is a good one. There needs to be convenient transport links between urban population centers: motorways and high speed railways. Urban areas should be given special administrative status so as to provide independent (and presumably better) town planning, transport infrastructure, housing initiatives, schools, public parks, libraries, museums, hospitals, etc. for urban areas.
The increased transportation efficiency between urban centers will no doubt generate increased investment in those urban centers, which creates jobs and draws people towards the cities. Also, exploitation of a city’s unique identity, like Chiang Rai’s art scene as Jon mentioned, should also encourage this growth. Improved municipal management will encourage more to permanently move into the cities. In essence, the city provides them with jobs, a good standard of living, better education for their children, etc.
Although this may seem as a policy to increase the urban/rural divide, in a similar vein to Thaksin’s dual track policies, we also focus on the rural side of things. Land reform must be implemented so that those who remain farmers will be able to make a proper living, unlike the subsistence farming many practice. Etc etc etc.
This is a first draft of my ideas, so destroy it if you like. I hope to generate some debate here.
Sidh, I understand that the British have been through much bloodshed, hence my references to Charles and Oliver. Regardless, the British arrangement on monarchy, as with many of its other eccentricities of government, is a pragmatic (and perhaps a little sentimental) one: it simply works. The monarch is nothing but a figurehead, the Lords is clearly not as powerful as the Commons, and an unwritten Constitution can have “constitutional experts”. So in that sense, you cannot even begin to compare our new partially elected Senate to the Lords.
Sidh, when you say:
And even so, the British have kept their royal family as have the Japanese. However irrelevant the monarchy is to Australia, Queen Elizabeth II is still the head of state.
I assume you are defending monarchy as an essential element of some countries? Like I said, the only reason for the survival of monarchy is pragmatic and sentimental. There is no other logical explanation for their existence. They hark from an age of mysticism. Tell me how a King is any different from a President (as a figurehead) or why any human being should be born with the right to rule over any other. Not by merit nor by work, but by birth?
As I have re-iterated, unless you find a pragmatic reason for their existence, monarchies should not exist. What is the pragmatic reason for the existence of the Thai monarchy? Conservatism, meddling in politics, military coups, vague economic theories, image-building visits to rural places, killing students (sorry, Communists), appointing prime ministers, disposing of enemies brutally, and superstitious Brahmin rituals?
Most European monarchies have earned their right for survival and its damn time for the Thai one to do the same. Uphold democracy like Juan Carlos, be duty bound as Elizabeth II, be progressive like Margrethe II, or else be abolished. Last time I checked, the US was a republic, so is France, and these are some of the most powerful countries in the world…
Some argued AjarnPridi and FMPibul had their chances. I will say that they never had. Had King Prajadhipok chose to fight, he would have a decent chance at quelling the ‘revolution’ as the army was mostly in the nobility’s hands (and FMPibul was only a low ranked officer).
You forget that there were nearly 100 people involved in the Khana Ratsadorn and at the time of the coup, important princes and important elements of the government were placed under arrest. That is how a coup is done.
These election policies don’t really seem to constitute policies or relate to long-term national goals.
That is ,they seem to address the symptom not the underlying problem. For example, farmers are in debt and they need help in the short-term so their families can survive and prosper, but in the long-run whatever debt producing activity they are engaging in, is not sustainable and they have to shift to some other activity.
If what Andrew said in a previous post is true and farmers are becoming more reliant on urban supplements to their income, then how to bootstrap members of the family skillwise into the urban workforce seems important, so rural policy is actually not just about spending money in rural areas, but ***helping the rural making inroads into the urban***. The Japanese inspired OTOP, HMK’s royal projects, and the Queen’s handicrafts initiatives, are all inspired examples of this sort of thing. Scholarships for rural kids to continue their studies since many are still pulled out of schools extremely early. Also incentives for Bangkok businesses to relocate operations to the provinces. For example, Chiang Rai has one of the most vibrant artists communities in the nation and is a natural location for the design industry.
Teth, the British took centuries (and a lot of blood) to really make sense of a working parliament and a monarchy. Membership of the House of Lords was traditionally limited to the nobility and is still by appointment only. On that aspect, we have already gone further with a partially elected Senate. And even so, the British have kept their royal family as have the Japanese. However irrelevant the monarchy is to Australia, Queen Elizabeth II is still the head of state. Thailand will become much more ‘democratic’ that is certain, but the monarchy will be around, as part of Thai society in an evolving capacity, for a very long time to come.
The only way to abolish the monarchy is through violence, as the British did to the Burmese nobility – or the French through their own revolution. Both the British and the French had their chances to do the same to Siam’s in the 19th century – maybe that is an alternative history you prefer and we might be conversing in French (or much better English)!
Some argued AjarnPridi and FMPibul had their chances. I will say that they never had. Had King Prajadhipok chose to fight, he would have a decent chance at quelling the ‘revolution’ as the army was mostly in the nobility’s hands (and FMPibul was only a low ranked officer). Instead he chose to negotiate as it is known that the King has been entertaining the idea of a constitution and an elected parliament for quite a while himself. Was it a far-sighted act to guarantee the survival of the monarchy or was it because he believed in democracy? Personally, as a ‘critical royalist’, I suspect both.
While Handley’s book has its merits, I would urge you to read as many books on Siamese-Thai history as is possible. David Wyatt is a good easy to read start. AjarnChris and AjarnPasuk’s is highly recommended too as well as B.J. Terwiel’s. AjarnThongchai’s “Siam Mapped” was ‘paradigm changing’ for me. From a material history point of view, Clarence Aasen’s “Architecture of Siam” is brilliant. There are many others addressing specific eras in both Thai and English worth sorting out.
These policies really do show how bankrupt these parties are for ideas. Irrigation – ah, um, Isarn Khioew? or USAID programs in the 1950s. Hang all the issues about salt intrusion and all the other existing problems with irrigation…. And, then the populist policies essentially plagiarized from TRT. There are no Einsteins at work here. Or is it that the parties have simply decided that there is no point to thinking up policies as coalition government is going to result and then it will be the horse-trading of the past.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The King Never Smiles?
The case of Prajadhipok is one of hindsight. He clearly wanted reform, but what his intentions were, I think we cannot fully deduce neutrally. What is certain is Prajadhipok did not choose to fight, was he in a position to fight is certainly a good question to ask. Did he not learn about the coup d’etat via Pridi’s declaration rather than any of his senior advisors/ministers, who presumably were put under arrest?
My point is pragmatic and simple, Teth. Despite all the bloodshed and irrelevence, many societies retained their monarchys. Another pragmatic and simple point I made was that most societies who got rid of the monarchy was through violence – such as America and France, “some of the most powerful countries in the world” as you pointed out (is that Thailand’s aspirations too?). Again, I was not advocating for one (even as a ‘critical’ royalist), just making a plain statement.
Sidh, you and I either have different definitions for pragmatic or else you still believe the King is a force for good in this country. Since I do not think he is, I believe it is better for the country to not be burdened with a monarchy. That is what I believe is pragmatic: abolish the monarchy and its negative influence.
Considering the opportunity cost with regards to abolishing/not abolishing the monarchy, I still see it as a worthy path to tread towards. If there is no lese majeste, no idiotic clause in the Constitution that subvert the rule of law (ie. the King is above the law), there should be a proper investigation as to the wrongdoings of the monarch (or heir) and punish them according to the law applied to all commoners. Wasn’t the rule of law one of the many things anti-Thaksinites claim was subverted? Heed Israel’s example and convict a head-of-state or an heir.
The pragmatic way to abolish the monarchy: abolish it via a decree or constitutional amendment; put them on trial; banish/exile/imprison them. Of course, the matter of the King’s popularity is an issue that needs to be reversed. Focus on the unpopularity of the heir and perhaps exploit Phra Thep as president. That’s my “pragmatic” view, really.
Sadly, I still feel that it is unlikely, because the Thai “establishment” and network monarchy is so entrenched that change is unlikely. I also feel that the work of HMK would not be undone even after his death: too many will still continue to pursue his ruthless agendas and already they are well prepared for a smooth succession.
Banharn and Aed Carabao: a match made in …
In Talat Bang Li in Song Phinong early this morning, I thought Ad was coming round the corner, instead a string of ten song-taeo displaying the Chat Thai team and belting out this song. The slogan on the trucks is ‘Suphanburi chooses Chat Thai,’ a statement of fact not an appeal. The tune is Ad’s standard anthem used to sell himself, the nation, beer, caffeine stimulants, and now Banharn.
Line 5 better as ‘lights the way for Thai politics’ and line 7 as ‘Chat Thai’s policies do not waver.’ That line is the kicker. CT can claim to have pursued policies for the big-middle farmers of the central plain in the past.
The King Never Smiles?
Tosakan: The Batson selection of documents is insufficient in my view, precisely because it is a selection and Batson was very selective indeed. If you read Batson’s book, you see that his thesis is that P was a democrat. However, if you read more widely, I do not believe that this thesis is nearly so strong. The king’s main idea was to expand the privy council and establish a constitution that maintained the monarchy, but this did not amount to a constitutional democracy (of the modern variety). After he was overthrown, he complained that his advisers should have convinced him to go ahead with his plan. Post-1932, there is ample evidence that he only supported elements of democratic reform if this got the royalists more power (e.g. he only supported political parties when he thought royalists could benefit. He opposed this when he was certain that the revolutionists would gain more. This is hardly a case for him being the great democrat of royalist propaganda.
The King Never Smiles?
To Landofsnarls: No, the article on the death of the R8 is not available in English. But I strongly recommend have a friend translate it for you.
The King Never Smiles?
Somsak has brilliantly destroyed the ridiculous royalist propaganda that the last absolute monarch was ever interested in democracy, based on the historical evidence. See his р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕зр╕▒р╕Хр╕┤р╕ир╕▓р╕кр╕Хр╕гр╣Мр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Юр╕┤р╣Ир╕Зр╕кр╕гр╣Йр╕▓р╕З – I think it’s chapter 2 or 3 (my copy is at home).
You would have to be an idiot to believe that an absolute monarch, and all the aristocratic and noble political and economic interests that surround the monarchy, would ever have willingly wanted to surrender that power to their enemies. It’s a total joke. Why on earth did the Bowaradet rebellion take place?
You have to understand that all this mythologizing about R7’s democratic credentials was built up in the era in which the royalists had regained control over the Thai state after the defeat of the Peoples Party, and especially after October 1973, when the monarchy, after 16 years of staunch support for a military dictatorship, had to rebrand itself as “democratic”.
The King Never Smiles?
Most of his close advisors, including his foreign ones, advised him against liberal democracy, because they thought the people were too uneducated to make informed political decisions
They should have advised him to start doing some educating.
Thailand’s rural development policy choices
“…it is harder to find “specialists” in Thai agriculture: there is no one making cheese or exquisite wines…”
A couple years back I happened to accidentally see and attend a Thai wine festival at the National Stadium next to Mah Boonkrawng.
I was completely amazed by the acres of exhibition boothes. I could only sample a few of these hundreds of wines made by Thai winemakers, but my favorite was a home brew Satoh brand by some young people in Isan.
There are a lot of innovative Thai entrepreneurs in the food industry, like these two young women and their desert idea. More articles on Thai entrepreneurship.
“There needs to be convenient transport links between urban population centers: motorways and high speed railways. …”
Yes, I don’t mind Morchit and the overnight bus back to Chiang Rai, because Sombat tours actually has bunk beds you can reserve on the floor of the bus.
Thailand’s rural development policy choices
Teth,
Great post.
From what I gather, land redistibution, etc. tend to be bad ideas in the long run.
Subsidies are a good short-term solution.
But the main thing is that Thailand has only 1 real ‘urban’ center, which is Bangkok.
Chiang mai and previously Hatyai were developing, but they can’t be called an urban center compared to the monstrosity of Bangkok.
Korat is and has been growing. The fact remains is that within the Northeast, there needs to be urban development, akin to Bangkok. By that I actually mean a city of 4-8 million people. It can be the center of Isan trade, items from OTOP, rice, Isan music, etc. can be centered from there. In other words, a Thai city without the major influence of Chinese art but a very Farm-Thai style. Urban in the style of Houston and Dallas… not NYC or LA.
Of course, this idea is blasphemous, and will be shot down, then eaten up by Bangkok cannibalists to whom will never accept that any city outside Bangkok should develop except for being a ‘tourist’ location.
The King Never Smiles?
Restorationist-
There is a lot of evidence to support King Prajadhipok.
You can start with Benjamin Bateson here http://seapdatapapers.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=seap;idno=seap095
King Prajadhipok may not have been a Jeffersonian democrat, but the intent to transform the political system was definitely there.
Most of his close advisors, including his foreign ones, advised him against liberal democracy, because they thought the people were too uneducated to make informed political decisions.
The King Never Smiles?
My point is pragmatic and simple, Teth. Despite all the bloodshed and irrelevence, many societies retained their monarchys. Another pragmatic and simple point I made was that most societies who got rid of the monarchy was through violence – such as America and France, “some of the most powerful countries in the world” as you pointed out (is that Thailand’s aspirations too?). Again, I was not advocating for one (even as a ‘critical’ royalist), just making a plain statement.
And to take pragmatism further, I went back into history (two centuries) exploring the times when Siamese-Thai monarchy was most threatened – and I thought during the height of 19th century colonialism and during the 1932 coup. Restorationist thinks I took a high school textbook line here – it is up to him/her. But we can conveniently choose our interpretations, selections of history. Maybe this is a subtle point in history worth investigating, whether at the time of the coup, who had more control of the armed forces and its key personnels? In the scenario is 50:50, then my point is proven that King Prajadhipok had that choice to fight but did not take it.
In the end, a Thai compromised was struck, the monarchy was significantly weakened – at the very least it no longer governs the country. Under HMK, the monarchy is resuscitated again, enjoying high respect and popularity amongst the Thai populace (this is also Paul Handley’s view and some NM commentators will beg to differ)… At this point in time what is the ‘pragmatic’ way of abolishing the monarchy?
Democratus, I have had previous exchanges with Teth and he has once admitted that his main source of Thai political history was from Paul Handley’s book. Otherwise, as a historian I am certain he is more qualified than me.
The King Never Smiles?
Sidh S says, “I will say that they never had. Had King Prajadhipok chose to fight, he would have a decent chance at quelling the ‘revolution’ as the army was mostly in the nobility’s hands (and FMPibul was only a low ranked officer). Instead he chose to negotiate as it is known that the King has been entertaining the idea of a constitution and an elected parliament for quite a while himself. Was it a far-sighted act to guarantee the survival of the monarchy or was it because he believed in democracy?”
This is nothing more than the high school textbook line on Prajadhipok. It is also the royalist’s standard version of history. Can you provide the evidence for this view outside of P’s self-serving abdication letter or the half-hearted view he took on maybe expanding the privy council? I’d be interested to see it.
The King Never Smiles?
Sidh S: If you think that Wyatt’s book is the best place to begin understanding Thai history, you need to do some more critical reading. Might as well have recommended WAR Wood.
Besides, where do you get off recommending texts to others? What qualifications do you have and what makes you consider Teth uneducated in these matters?
Your reading of monarchies elsewhere (if indeed you have done some reading) seems rather limited to me. At least based on your trite statements here.
Banharn and Aed Carabao: a match made in …
Aed is a native of Suphan and has been supportive of a range of nationalist causes from left to right.
Thailand’s rural development policy choices
Interesting ideas, Jon. I, personally, think Thailand is in need of an urban migration scheme as a means of reaching out to the rural poor. Why are the provinces always relatively stagnant economically when compared to Bangkok and why do the majority of the Thai population live in those areas? One reason is because rural areas lack adequate infrastructure for prosperity to reach. Second, some rural areas lack any sort of economic incentive to be prosperous yet is home to the bulk of the population (eg Isaan). Third, rural areas generally lack the resources needed for competitiveness when compared to urban areas (schools, hospitals, etc).
Further more, when comparing the Thai rural areas to Western ones, one of the most striking differences is the farmer. The Thai farmer has much less land than the Western one, and it is harder to find “specialists” in Thai agriculture: there is no one making cheese or exquisite wines, no regional specialties that are sought after, etc. Once again, I see this as a problem of too many people. From a supply-demand point of view, there are simply too many farmers and no current development plan seems to address this. I am sure everyone is aware of this fact, but simply hope to gain the rural vote whilst waiting for the growth is trickle down.
Therefore, I believe that a policy that encourages centralization and urbanization is a good one. There needs to be convenient transport links between urban population centers: motorways and high speed railways. Urban areas should be given special administrative status so as to provide independent (and presumably better) town planning, transport infrastructure, housing initiatives, schools, public parks, libraries, museums, hospitals, etc. for urban areas.
The increased transportation efficiency between urban centers will no doubt generate increased investment in those urban centers, which creates jobs and draws people towards the cities. Also, exploitation of a city’s unique identity, like Chiang Rai’s art scene as Jon mentioned, should also encourage this growth. Improved municipal management will encourage more to permanently move into the cities. In essence, the city provides them with jobs, a good standard of living, better education for their children, etc.
Although this may seem as a policy to increase the urban/rural divide, in a similar vein to Thaksin’s dual track policies, we also focus on the rural side of things. Land reform must be implemented so that those who remain farmers will be able to make a proper living, unlike the subsistence farming many practice. Etc etc etc.
This is a first draft of my ideas, so destroy it if you like. I hope to generate some debate here.
The King Never Smiles?
Sidh, I understand that the British have been through much bloodshed, hence my references to Charles and Oliver. Regardless, the British arrangement on monarchy, as with many of its other eccentricities of government, is a pragmatic (and perhaps a little sentimental) one: it simply works. The monarch is nothing but a figurehead, the Lords is clearly not as powerful as the Commons, and an unwritten Constitution can have “constitutional experts”. So in that sense, you cannot even begin to compare our new partially elected Senate to the Lords.
Sidh, when you say:
I assume you are defending monarchy as an essential element of some countries? Like I said, the only reason for the survival of monarchy is pragmatic and sentimental. There is no other logical explanation for their existence. They hark from an age of mysticism. Tell me how a King is any different from a President (as a figurehead) or why any human being should be born with the right to rule over any other. Not by merit nor by work, but by birth?
As I have re-iterated, unless you find a pragmatic reason for their existence, monarchies should not exist. What is the pragmatic reason for the existence of the Thai monarchy? Conservatism, meddling in politics, military coups, vague economic theories, image-building visits to rural places, killing students (sorry, Communists), appointing prime ministers, disposing of enemies brutally, and superstitious Brahmin rituals?
Most European monarchies have earned their right for survival and its damn time for the Thai one to do the same. Uphold democracy like Juan Carlos, be duty bound as Elizabeth II, be progressive like Margrethe II, or else be abolished. Last time I checked, the US was a republic, so is France, and these are some of the most powerful countries in the world…
You forget that there were nearly 100 people involved in the Khana Ratsadorn and at the time of the coup, important princes and important elements of the government were placed under arrest. That is how a coup is done.
Thailand’s rural development policy choices
These election policies don’t really seem to constitute policies or relate to long-term national goals.
That is ,they seem to address the symptom not the underlying problem. For example, farmers are in debt and they need help in the short-term so their families can survive and prosper, but in the long-run whatever debt producing activity they are engaging in, is not sustainable and they have to shift to some other activity.
If what Andrew said in a previous post is true and farmers are becoming more reliant on urban supplements to their income, then how to bootstrap members of the family skillwise into the urban workforce seems important, so rural policy is actually not just about spending money in rural areas, but ***helping the rural making inroads into the urban***. The Japanese inspired OTOP, HMK’s royal projects, and the Queen’s handicrafts initiatives, are all inspired examples of this sort of thing. Scholarships for rural kids to continue their studies since many are still pulled out of schools extremely early. Also incentives for Bangkok businesses to relocate operations to the provinces. For example, Chiang Rai has one of the most vibrant artists communities in the nation and is a natural location for the design industry.
The King Never Smiles?
Teth, the British took centuries (and a lot of blood) to really make sense of a working parliament and a monarchy. Membership of the House of Lords was traditionally limited to the nobility and is still by appointment only. On that aspect, we have already gone further with a partially elected Senate. And even so, the British have kept their royal family as have the Japanese. However irrelevant the monarchy is to Australia, Queen Elizabeth II is still the head of state. Thailand will become much more ‘democratic’ that is certain, but the monarchy will be around, as part of Thai society in an evolving capacity, for a very long time to come.
The only way to abolish the monarchy is through violence, as the British did to the Burmese nobility – or the French through their own revolution. Both the British and the French had their chances to do the same to Siam’s in the 19th century – maybe that is an alternative history you prefer and we might be conversing in French (or much better English)!
Some argued AjarnPridi and FMPibul had their chances. I will say that they never had. Had King Prajadhipok chose to fight, he would have a decent chance at quelling the ‘revolution’ as the army was mostly in the nobility’s hands (and FMPibul was only a low ranked officer). Instead he chose to negotiate as it is known that the King has been entertaining the idea of a constitution and an elected parliament for quite a while himself. Was it a far-sighted act to guarantee the survival of the monarchy or was it because he believed in democracy? Personally, as a ‘critical royalist’, I suspect both.
While Handley’s book has its merits, I would urge you to read as many books on Siamese-Thai history as is possible. David Wyatt is a good easy to read start. AjarnChris and AjarnPasuk’s is highly recommended too as well as B.J. Terwiel’s. AjarnThongchai’s “Siam Mapped” was ‘paradigm changing’ for me. From a material history point of view, Clarence Aasen’s “Architecture of Siam” is brilliant. There are many others addressing specific eras in both Thai and English worth sorting out.
Banharn and Aed Carabao: a match made in …
More muddled thinking from Ad!!!
Thailand’s rural development policy choices
[…] XHTML ← Thailand’s rural development policy choices […]
Thailand’s rural development policy choices
These policies really do show how bankrupt these parties are for ideas. Irrigation – ah, um, Isarn Khioew? or USAID programs in the 1950s. Hang all the issues about salt intrusion and all the other existing problems with irrigation…. And, then the populist policies essentially plagiarized from TRT. There are no Einsteins at work here. Or is it that the parties have simply decided that there is no point to thinking up policies as coalition government is going to result and then it will be the horse-trading of the past.