I would like to know how Kevin reconciles his position on SE expressed here (especially the observation that the most globalised provinces have done better on UNDP indices) with the more or less anti-market, pro-self-sufficiency position he and Seri Phongphit advocate in the book “Village Life: Culture and transition in Thailand’s Northeast”?
OTOP was a stellar success? Now where did that come from? – – I doubt any world class product was from OTOP born, nor, any OTOP products of ‘sufficiency’ profit realized.
Me thinks all these populist policies from all these politicians eager to spend my tax money will only succeed to fire up even more wild-ass populist schemes in succeeding elections.
But Teth you could be right of course. Neither the Buddha’s nor HMK’s plea for common sense, reason and moderation may not make any impact to the parasites waiting for their handouts in exchange for their votes, and, to the generous politicos promising the gifts.
Must be really … Thaksin Shinawatra himself could not openly disrespect SE, and why is that?
I honestly cannot believe that after having been on NM for as long as you have been, you can still ask that question. The answer is not “because SE is infallible” but it is “who dares, especially a politician?” Which begs the question, if it isn’t going to be criticized (or impartially evaluated), what’s the point?
And isn’t it preposterous to attribute Thaksin’s popularity to the poor from Thaksin’s ‘defender-of-the-poor’ credentials; yet, say it is merely propaganda myth that created these same poor people’s even more demonstrable affection, and yes deep reverence, for their King?
Are you saying people cannot be deluded? Your argument based on the word “enduring” is as pathetic as it is false. I for one, am not in enduring love for HMK and many in Isaan still believe Thaksin is their saviour (rather than widely discrediting him as you have so claimed). Genuinely and enduringly, of course.
Does it say anything about the character of the man? That is exactly why I am of the opinion that both Thaksin and HMK are shrewd manipulators of the media and that messages coming from both sides are propaganda.
Personally I believe that with all Thai politicians (and their half-baked democratic credentials) all posturing mostly unproductive populist policies and give-aways to attract the votes (with the promise to hock the country even more), there is even more urgency for a counterbalancing plea for reason and moderation – exactly what HMK’s SE initiatives hope to provide.
Such “populist policy” is hardly unproductive nor wasteful as you make it seem. As someone observed, the actual money Thaksin spent on his rural populism was far less than what he actually spent to bail out rich capitalists via the AMC. Of course, you might argue that it wasn’t a good thing, but even the Democrats and most economists recommended the same and our recovery since 1997 has proven so as well (kudos to Dems and Thaksin).
The 30-baht health care scheme was at least a success in its principle. OTOP was a stellar success. And the patchy record of Village Funds does not instantaneously mean populism = evil.
How does SE provide that counterbalancing plea for reason and moderation? If the Buddha can’t do it, I can’t see HMK doing it. Also, that statement of yours nicely boils down what SE actually is, a plea for reason and moderation. Not a revolutionary, new economic theory.
Lastly, I don’t see any urgency for HMK’s “SE initiatives.” The Buddha’s teaching has always been around, commonsense has always been around, I doubt SE will. Its like how the King roundly condemned those who were corrupt. Didn’t stop corruption did it? In fact, “SE initiatives” are now being used as an explanation for incompetence: “Why did you scrap that development project?” “Por Pieng. Country doesn’t actually need it. We have to be content with what we’ve got.”
I shall be responding to Professor Taylor’s comments in detail in due course. For now, suffice it to say that his insouciance toward the regime is breathtaking. Thi things one must do to get a four month visa …. Justin Wintle
Some people apparently cannot read clearly or just want to avoid the issue. These basic elements of Khmer culture have been pointed out by prominent scholars and are generally accepted by those who know much about the country. If some want to obfuscate or deny this for whatever reason I guess that is their privilege but it does not change the reality on the ground. They will just have to live with a rather limited knowledge of the situation.
Republican: Even if we agree that the coup was hatched and directed from the palace, the events suggest that the military is critical to the plan(s?) and to the post-coup implementation of the path to “Thai-style democracy”. It seems to me that you are missing too much if you ignore that the military has become a staunch supporter and instrument for the palace. That the palace had to campaign for military support and loyalty suggests that the military was critical.
“that Cambodians do not like to openly admit unpleasant realities, hence they prefer to bury them rather than discuss them in a straighforward [sic] manner.”
Why we need to specify any particular race in a certain behavior since every human has the same potential in any emotion or any behaviorial characteristic… it is just the human nature. What should be in concern is the truth of the matter.
Truth is all prevailing. What was truth in the past is truth in the present too. And it will be the truth in the future also. Truth needs no withness or identity.
I am totally agreed with Sophea in illustrating the truth of the matter of who (individuals or states) were involved in the tragedy of Cambodia. We must not deny the truth by pointing to just the behavior of the victims, Cambodian themselves for the cause of the problem. Logically per se… A+B=C, if there is no A or B, there would not be the result in C.
While I strongly agree with the overall argument and most of the detail in KH’s review, there are a number of points on which, however, I strongly disagree. These same points are reproduced endlessly in the media reportage of the 19 September 2006 coup and its aftermath and ought to be corrected. If any media people are visiting NM please take note:
– “the military appointed PM Surayudh”: Surayudh was a privy counsellor before he was appointed PM. The basic misunderstanding about the September 19 coup held by most of the media and many academics was that it was a “military” coup. As I’ve argued before, the “military” – actually Prem loyalists – were the necessary fall guys to take the rap for the monarchy. That’s why the р╕Др╕бр╕К. are basically a bunch of idiots; they are nowhere near the calibre of former military strongmen. September 19 was a Palace coup; the elements of the military involved in the coup were working for the Palace, or to use McCargo’s terminology, the “network”. The military began to lose their hold on Thai politics after October 14 1973, and this process was almost completed following the May 1992 massacre. Only the Palace could engineer this coup today because of its reserve of symbolic authority, which was used to the fullest possible extent. No other coup has been as draped in yellow and royal symbology as this one. Tanks and guns were not enough. Just look at the makeup of the р╕кр╕Щр╕К. or the Constitutional drafting assembly. All of them are network monarchy loyalists – bureaucrats, academics, lawyers, media lackeys, NGOs. Even the detail of the new Constitution does not provide for a strong political presence for the military, although its powers are enhanced to the extent that they are needed to protect … the monarchy, ie. not for its own sake. Look at the power-brokers in the present regime, that black-toothed monster Prasong and the ghoulish Michai. The living dead. They are the ring wraiths of the dark lord of Jitrlada. These are Palace loyalists, not military.
So let us end once and for all this fiction that September 19 was a “military” coup. Call it a “palace” coup, or “royalist” coup, or better still, a “network monarchy” coup, but please not a “military” coup. Somsak Jiamthirasakul has discussed all this at much length. It is not an original observation.
– “September 19 military coup” – ditto the above. It’s bad enough to have a “military” coup, but a coup by the monarchy …. it’s time for a French Revolution.
– the “military backed government”; ditto the above. We need to avoid honing our attention onto the military and away from the true source of power – the Palace and the royalist cronies that depend on its patronage for their survival.
I would repeat yet again the importance of academics and media outside Thailand getting the story right. The situation in Thailand is totally censored (apart from the blogs and the gossip) because of the regime’s political control, its annihilation of the opposition (Thai Rak Thai), its censorship of the media, and lese majeste. But the international community is free from these restraints. The only obstacle for the latter is the misunderstanding resulting from fairy tales told by the UNDP, and “Thai Studies” seminars organized by SOAS and the NTSC at ANU.
Must be really very frustrating to the NM forum bloggers why HMK Bhumibhol’s initiatives, including his SE tenet, gets favorable and positive responses from the general Thai population (from the very poor to the elite), and, now even international agencies are into the SE bandwagon. Thaksin Shinawatra himself could not openly disrespect SE, and why is that?
NM bloggers attribute the Thai people’s enduring respect and reverence of HMK to propaganda . . . but that could NOT be it, folks! I said ENDURING! Propaganda to propagate lies and half-truths just won’t withstand the test of time (just look at Thaksin’s propaganda and how quickly his untruths and dishonesty were easily revealed). And isn’t it preposterous to attribute Thaksin’s popularity to the poor from Thaksin’s ‘defender-of-the-poor’ credentials; yet, say it is merely propaganda myth that created these same poor people’s even more demonstrable affection, and yes deep reverence, for their King?
Personally I believe that with all Thai politicians (and their half-baked democratic credentials) all posturing mostly unproductive populist policies and give-aways to attract the votes (with the promise to hock the country even more), there is even more urgency for a counterbalancing plea for reason and moderation — exactly what HMK’s SE initiatives hope to provide.
Robert Taylor is a fine scholar. If it wasn’t for him, “Burma Studies” would have long ago succumbed to sloppy scholarship in support of ideological points, the stifling notion of “enemy of the Burmese revolution” pinned on David Steinberg being a good case in point.
Aung San Suu Kyi is a great person but that does not excuse her biographer from writing what simply is not true.
What a ridiculous, pretentious, pseudo-theory laced gobbledeegook of a post.
If you are a student then first learn to write in plain English.
Sufficiency economy is nothing other than a desperate political game by the king to save his own skin. The only reason his absurd, vacuous ramblings on SE have any force in Thailand is because SE is being implemented by the king’s own royalist-military dictatorship, the loyal kha ratchakan, and he is protected from any criticism by lese majeste.
In any civilized country this theory would have been laughed down long ago. Anyone who pretends to know anything about Thailand should do the same.
Sidh S, Hasn’t a defined sufficiency principle existed for 2500+ years? Why is there a need to re-market it and monistically merge it into politics? “in this highly globalized world, most governments, ‘democratically’ elected or not, are playing the same pro-development game…. Academics, think-tanks, research institutes who are responsible for for reports such as the UNDP’s are merely hoping that narratives may influence serious action from politicians and bureaucrats.” How can people in these think tanks and research institutes who themselves are subject to elites dissolving pluralistic, secular policy suddenly hope to influence a political organism which is clenching its fist ever-tighter (thanks to a Sufficiency Economy branded health food bar), so as not to lose grip on power? I don’t think you can really call what Chris Baker has (complied?) done as a toothless attempt to influence politicians, when the politicians I see and read about are clearly populist and would themselves be concerned about a public disenchanted with “Sufficiency Economy”, “terrorism” or whatever it happens to be next.. Wouldn’t that be the very same public that we are apart of ?
My point here is that if you think that the UNDP report is simply an attempt to influence persons with civic power, then you buy into being a pawn of those elite who are making pluralism and actual societal development a fleeting chance of 10 years ago by denying your own capacity to influence others.
“Thai nee rak sangob” is precisely part of the nationalist, republican national anthem coming out from FMPibul’s era (and I find it fascinating that it is still the national anthem today with the monarchy’s renewed vibrancy!). As I said, actual reality is different and the Siamese Thai have always been ‘expansionist’ (and I am glad of the new vibrancy in regional cultures of Lanna, Isan, the South etc.).
I think we need to differentiate between “sangob” (peace) and “kwammankong” (stability). It is the latter which the Thais love I think and any leader that can deliver on that is a good leader (something along that line on King Ramkamhaeng’s inscription I recall?).
Professor Kevin, to clarify my position, I am a student of ‘sustainability’ and has followed its evolution. With that as a point of departure, I view SE as an allied concept – facing similar inherent conflicts and inconsistencies while being introduced into the Thai societal context. As with ‘sustainability’, I don’t think HM the King should (or would want to) retain ‘authorship’ or ‘ownership’. It is best left broad-based, a meeting point where the various components of society can democratically define their place in the name of mitigating the effects of development/modernization with social equity and environmental health. And this applies to all endeavors – building dams, power stations, new airports, roads, rail, ports, inner-city highrises, suburban subdivisions, clearing forests for new farms, mining…etc. and ideally these hallmarks of economic development must carefully consider the ‘triple bottom line’.
In that context, SE would work best, as you suggest as an ‘ideological device’ – but I observe SE is very far from being one. If it is, I maintain that this Thai government isn’t a believer – but is only adopting it out of convenience (like democratically elected PMThaksin, PMChuan governments before them). It’s best chance, as with ‘sustainability’, lie with local academics and civil society (and it is hoped, businesses) prodded on by environmental and social deterioration to rigorously define SE and practical actions forward. Whether consciously following SE or not, this is already happening incrementally countrywide in other ‘guises’.
From being a student of sustainability, my other position is that it is always better to be inclusive than exclusive. There are always many ways forward if we work with overlaps between SD and SE (and then slowly address conflicts/inconsistencies). As mentioned, as with SD, it is always important to maintain flexibility to accommodate socio-economic and cultural gaps.
Forbes recently listed the King of Thailand as being worth $5 billion, and ranked him the 5th richest monarch in the world. KH, referring to Phorphant above, values his “institutional wealth” at $40 billion. Number One in Forbes’ list is the Sultan of Brunei, at $22 billion. So does this mean … ?
The Thai king’s long history of partnership with military dictatorships has no doubt greatly facilitated this massive accumulation of wealth from a position of near penury at the end of the People’s Party era. Here then is a suggestion for a headline to any Australian journalist visiting NM thinking of writing a story on the Thai king’s practice of sufficiency economics, with an eye to the future:
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
I would like to know how Kevin reconciles his position on SE expressed here (especially the observation that the most globalised provinces have done better on UNDP indices) with the more or less anti-market, pro-self-sufficiency position he and Seri Phongphit advocate in the book “Village Life: Culture and transition in Thailand’s Northeast”?
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
OTOP was a stellar success? Now where did that come from? – – I doubt any world class product was from OTOP born, nor, any OTOP products of ‘sufficiency’ profit realized.
Me thinks all these populist policies from all these politicians eager to spend my tax money will only succeed to fire up even more wild-ass populist schemes in succeeding elections.
But Teth you could be right of course. Neither the Buddha’s nor HMK’s plea for common sense, reason and moderation may not make any impact to the parasites waiting for their handouts in exchange for their votes, and, to the generous politicos promising the gifts.
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
Must be really … Thaksin Shinawatra himself could not openly disrespect SE, and why is that?
I honestly cannot believe that after having been on NM for as long as you have been, you can still ask that question. The answer is not “because SE is infallible” but it is “who dares, especially a politician?” Which begs the question, if it isn’t going to be criticized (or impartially evaluated), what’s the point?
And isn’t it preposterous to attribute Thaksin’s popularity to the poor from Thaksin’s ‘defender-of-the-poor’ credentials; yet, say it is merely propaganda myth that created these same poor people’s even more demonstrable affection, and yes deep reverence, for their King?
Are you saying people cannot be deluded? Your argument based on the word “enduring” is as pathetic as it is false. I for one, am not in enduring love for HMK and many in Isaan still believe Thaksin is their saviour (rather than widely discrediting him as you have so claimed). Genuinely and enduringly, of course.
Does it say anything about the character of the man? That is exactly why I am of the opinion that both Thaksin and HMK are shrewd manipulators of the media and that messages coming from both sides are propaganda.
Personally I believe that with all Thai politicians (and their half-baked democratic credentials) all posturing mostly unproductive populist policies and give-aways to attract the votes (with the promise to hock the country even more), there is even more urgency for a counterbalancing plea for reason and moderation – exactly what HMK’s SE initiatives hope to provide.
Such “populist policy” is hardly unproductive nor wasteful as you make it seem. As someone observed, the actual money Thaksin spent on his rural populism was far less than what he actually spent to bail out rich capitalists via the AMC. Of course, you might argue that it wasn’t a good thing, but even the Democrats and most economists recommended the same and our recovery since 1997 has proven so as well (kudos to Dems and Thaksin).
The 30-baht health care scheme was at least a success in its principle. OTOP was a stellar success. And the patchy record of Village Funds does not instantaneously mean populism = evil.
How does SE provide that counterbalancing plea for reason and moderation? If the Buddha can’t do it, I can’t see HMK doing it. Also, that statement of yours nicely boils down what SE actually is, a plea for reason and moderation. Not a revolutionary, new economic theory.
Lastly, I don’t see any urgency for HMK’s “SE initiatives.” The Buddha’s teaching has always been around, commonsense has always been around, I doubt SE will. Its like how the King roundly condemned those who were corrupt. Didn’t stop corruption did it? In fact, “SE initiatives” are now being used as an explanation for incompetence: “Why did you scrap that development project?” “Por Pieng. Country doesn’t actually need it. We have to be content with what we’ve got.”
Interview with Professor Robert Taylor
I shall be responding to Professor Taylor’s comments in detail in due course. For now, suffice it to say that his insouciance toward the regime is breathtaking. Thi things one must do to get a four month visa …. Justin Wintle
Interview with Professor David Chandler
Some people apparently cannot read clearly or just want to avoid the issue. These basic elements of Khmer culture have been pointed out by prominent scholars and are generally accepted by those who know much about the country. If some want to obfuscate or deny this for whatever reason I guess that is their privilege but it does not change the reality on the ground. They will just have to live with a rather limited knowledge of the situation.
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
Republican: Even if we agree that the coup was hatched and directed from the palace, the events suggest that the military is critical to the plan(s?) and to the post-coup implementation of the path to “Thai-style democracy”. It seems to me that you are missing too much if you ignore that the military has become a staunch supporter and instrument for the palace. That the palace had to campaign for military support and loyalty suggests that the military was critical.
Interview with Professor David Chandler
“that Cambodians do not like to openly admit unpleasant realities, hence they prefer to bury them rather than discuss them in a straighforward [sic] manner.”
Why we need to specify any particular race in a certain behavior since every human has the same potential in any emotion or any behaviorial characteristic… it is just the human nature. What should be in concern is the truth of the matter.
Truth is all prevailing. What was truth in the past is truth in the present too. And it will be the truth in the future also. Truth needs no withness or identity.
I am totally agreed with Sophea in illustrating the truth of the matter of who (individuals or states) were involved in the tragedy of Cambodia. We must not deny the truth by pointing to just the behavior of the victims, Cambodian themselves for the cause of the problem. Logically per se… A+B=C, if there is no A or B, there would not be the result in C.
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
Go ahead Republican and puke . . . nobody’s stopping you. But for what reason?
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
Further comments on KH’s UNDP report review:
While I strongly agree with the overall argument and most of the detail in KH’s review, there are a number of points on which, however, I strongly disagree. These same points are reproduced endlessly in the media reportage of the 19 September 2006 coup and its aftermath and ought to be corrected. If any media people are visiting NM please take note:
– “the military appointed PM Surayudh”: Surayudh was a privy counsellor before he was appointed PM. The basic misunderstanding about the September 19 coup held by most of the media and many academics was that it was a “military” coup. As I’ve argued before, the “military” – actually Prem loyalists – were the necessary fall guys to take the rap for the monarchy. That’s why the р╕Др╕бр╕К. are basically a bunch of idiots; they are nowhere near the calibre of former military strongmen. September 19 was a Palace coup; the elements of the military involved in the coup were working for the Palace, or to use McCargo’s terminology, the “network”. The military began to lose their hold on Thai politics after October 14 1973, and this process was almost completed following the May 1992 massacre. Only the Palace could engineer this coup today because of its reserve of symbolic authority, which was used to the fullest possible extent. No other coup has been as draped in yellow and royal symbology as this one. Tanks and guns were not enough. Just look at the makeup of the р╕кр╕Щр╕К. or the Constitutional drafting assembly. All of them are network monarchy loyalists – bureaucrats, academics, lawyers, media lackeys, NGOs. Even the detail of the new Constitution does not provide for a strong political presence for the military, although its powers are enhanced to the extent that they are needed to protect … the monarchy, ie. not for its own sake. Look at the power-brokers in the present regime, that black-toothed monster Prasong and the ghoulish Michai. The living dead. They are the ring wraiths of the dark lord of Jitrlada. These are Palace loyalists, not military.
So let us end once and for all this fiction that September 19 was a “military” coup. Call it a “palace” coup, or “royalist” coup, or better still, a “network monarchy” coup, but please not a “military” coup. Somsak Jiamthirasakul has discussed all this at much length. It is not an original observation.
– “September 19 military coup” – ditto the above. It’s bad enough to have a “military” coup, but a coup by the monarchy …. it’s time for a French Revolution.
– the “military backed government”; ditto the above. We need to avoid honing our attention onto the military and away from the true source of power – the Palace and the royalist cronies that depend on its patronage for their survival.
I would repeat yet again the importance of academics and media outside Thailand getting the story right. The situation in Thailand is totally censored (apart from the blogs and the gossip) because of the regime’s political control, its annihilation of the opposition (Thai Rak Thai), its censorship of the media, and lese majeste. But the international community is free from these restraints. The only obstacle for the latter is the misunderstanding resulting from fairy tales told by the UNDP, and “Thai Studies” seminars organized by SOAS and the NTSC at ANU.
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
To put the King’s sufficiency economy propaganda campaign in context:
Crown Property Bureau: Assets worth $40 billion
Minimum daily wage in Thailand: 143-191 baht.
With respect to NM readers, this makes me want to vomit.
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
Must be really very frustrating to the NM forum bloggers why HMK Bhumibhol’s initiatives, including his SE tenet, gets favorable and positive responses from the general Thai population (from the very poor to the elite), and, now even international agencies are into the SE bandwagon. Thaksin Shinawatra himself could not openly disrespect SE, and why is that?
NM bloggers attribute the Thai people’s enduring respect and reverence of HMK to propaganda . . . but that could NOT be it, folks! I said ENDURING! Propaganda to propagate lies and half-truths just won’t withstand the test of time (just look at Thaksin’s propaganda and how quickly his untruths and dishonesty were easily revealed). And isn’t it preposterous to attribute Thaksin’s popularity to the poor from Thaksin’s ‘defender-of-the-poor’ credentials; yet, say it is merely propaganda myth that created these same poor people’s even more demonstrable affection, and yes deep reverence, for their King?
Personally I believe that with all Thai politicians (and their half-baked democratic credentials) all posturing mostly unproductive populist policies and give-aways to attract the votes (with the promise to hock the country even more), there is even more urgency for a counterbalancing plea for reason and moderation — exactly what HMK’s SE initiatives hope to provide.
Interview with Professor Robert Taylor
Robert Taylor is a fine scholar. If it wasn’t for him, “Burma Studies” would have long ago succumbed to sloppy scholarship in support of ideological points, the stifling notion of “enemy of the Burmese revolution” pinned on David Steinberg being a good case in point.
Aung San Suu Kyi is a great person but that does not excuse her biographer from writing what simply is not true.
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
In my post #13 I refer to Sidh S’s post #11
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
What a ridiculous, pretentious, pseudo-theory laced gobbledeegook of a post.
If you are a student then first learn to write in plain English.
Sufficiency economy is nothing other than a desperate political game by the king to save his own skin. The only reason his absurd, vacuous ramblings on SE have any force in Thailand is because SE is being implemented by the king’s own royalist-military dictatorship, the loyal kha ratchakan, and he is protected from any criticism by lese majeste.
In any civilized country this theory would have been laughed down long ago. Anyone who pretends to know anything about Thailand should do the same.
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
Sidh S, Hasn’t a defined sufficiency principle existed for 2500+ years? Why is there a need to re-market it and monistically merge it into politics? “in this highly globalized world, most governments, ‘democratically’ elected or not, are playing the same pro-development game…. Academics, think-tanks, research institutes who are responsible for for reports such as the UNDP’s are merely hoping that narratives may influence serious action from politicians and bureaucrats.” How can people in these think tanks and research institutes who themselves are subject to elites dissolving pluralistic, secular policy suddenly hope to influence a political organism which is clenching its fist ever-tighter (thanks to a Sufficiency Economy branded health food bar), so as not to lose grip on power? I don’t think you can really call what Chris Baker has (complied?) done as a toothless attempt to influence politicians, when the politicians I see and read about are clearly populist and would themselves be concerned about a public disenchanted with “Sufficiency Economy”, “terrorism” or whatever it happens to be next.. Wouldn’t that be the very same public that we are apart of ?
My point here is that if you think that the UNDP report is simply an attempt to influence persons with civic power, then you buy into being a pawn of those elite who are making pluralism and actual societal development a fleeting chance of 10 years ago by denying your own capacity to influence others.
“Royalist populism”
“Thai nee rak sangob” is precisely part of the nationalist, republican national anthem coming out from FMPibul’s era (and I find it fascinating that it is still the national anthem today with the monarchy’s renewed vibrancy!). As I said, actual reality is different and the Siamese Thai have always been ‘expansionist’ (and I am glad of the new vibrancy in regional cultures of Lanna, Isan, the South etc.).
I think we need to differentiate between “sangob” (peace) and “kwammankong” (stability). It is the latter which the Thais love I think and any leader that can deliver on that is a good leader (something along that line on King Ramkamhaeng’s inscription I recall?).
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
Professor Kevin, to clarify my position, I am a student of ‘sustainability’ and has followed its evolution. With that as a point of departure, I view SE as an allied concept – facing similar inherent conflicts and inconsistencies while being introduced into the Thai societal context. As with ‘sustainability’, I don’t think HM the King should (or would want to) retain ‘authorship’ or ‘ownership’. It is best left broad-based, a meeting point where the various components of society can democratically define their place in the name of mitigating the effects of development/modernization with social equity and environmental health. And this applies to all endeavors – building dams, power stations, new airports, roads, rail, ports, inner-city highrises, suburban subdivisions, clearing forests for new farms, mining…etc. and ideally these hallmarks of economic development must carefully consider the ‘triple bottom line’.
In that context, SE would work best, as you suggest as an ‘ideological device’ – but I observe SE is very far from being one. If it is, I maintain that this Thai government isn’t a believer – but is only adopting it out of convenience (like democratically elected PMThaksin, PMChuan governments before them). It’s best chance, as with ‘sustainability’, lie with local academics and civil society (and it is hoped, businesses) prodded on by environmental and social deterioration to rigorously define SE and practical actions forward. Whether consciously following SE or not, this is already happening incrementally countrywide in other ‘guises’.
From being a student of sustainability, my other position is that it is always better to be inclusive than exclusive. There are always many ways forward if we work with overlaps between SD and SE (and then slowly address conflicts/inconsistencies). As mentioned, as with SD, it is always important to maintain flexibility to accommodate socio-economic and cultural gaps.
An analysis of Burma studies
There is much that I don’t understand about Burma. Speaking of which, can somebody please tell me what this dance was all about?
http://thejotazine.blogspot.com/2007/11/dance-of-burmese-sasquatch.html
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
Link to the Forbes article: http://members.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0917/054.html
Royalist propaganda and policy nonsense
Forbes recently listed the King of Thailand as being worth $5 billion, and ranked him the 5th richest monarch in the world. KH, referring to Phorphant above, values his “institutional wealth” at $40 billion. Number One in Forbes’ list is the Sultan of Brunei, at $22 billion. So does this mean … ?
The Thai king’s long history of partnership with military dictatorships has no doubt greatly facilitated this massive accumulation of wealth from a position of near penury at the end of the People’s Party era. Here then is a suggestion for a headline to any Australian journalist visiting NM thinking of writing a story on the Thai king’s practice of sufficiency economics, with an eye to the future:
“After Suharto, now for the Bhumibol Billions”
(with apologies to David Jenkins)