Why all the fuss…on this issue of Cambodia and its people since every thing is nothing…just like Professor Chandler had said in the interview that he doesn’t think the Cambodian story can teach anything to the rest of Southeast Asia. With this comment, Professor Chandler himself sees no important in Cambodia and its history and yet he cares to write about Cambodia. Why? What quality in any intellect if there is no respect of beings in any environment. Another word, a noble person must have humanity in the heart…but what if he has a heart disease regardless the cause of it…
Thank you for your comments and appreciate your time to response and share with my fellow’ Sophea thorn about our beloved country, Cambodia and its future. It is important that we need to understand the root of each problem(s) was happened in Cambodia 1978 to Jan/1979 and the invasion forces by the Vietnamese without any approval from the UN chapter.
The Cambodia people were a victim of its leader failed to recognized the face and lack of debate since the creation of our country. Today, we must dare to face the truth and openly debate what will rights to our country. I would like to recommend to Mr. Don that not all Cambodian are mentality as you respond to Mr. Sophea.
Our beloved people was suffered by its leader and the politicians who never accept the truth and lack of an accountability, responsibility to his/her actions. At the same, the UN and its international organization has failure to accept its mistake. After the election 1993, the UN must implement the will of our people but failed to delivery our dream and determination by allowed to have two prime ministers.
I would like to inform you that I am young and experience the Khmer Rough regime and a fighter who fought the Vietnamese invasion our beloved country and served the U.S embass until my last day. I am believing in debate and recognized our current leaders and the past were not never accept the truth and blame to other.
But today, I am working to promote the debate and change course our country to the pour democracy and will ensure our beloved people have an equals opportunity to express without fear.
Remember, Cambodian is human just like to every human and sense and feeling, dream, vision to see a bright future and a better a place live. I hope youn understand and help us
Never fear Srithanonchai, Historicus & Teth:
PPP & Samak will be the savior, and lead the country into the light.
(We are so lucky that there are no hypocrites on that side of the political battle)
Dear Sophea: Thanks for the book suggestion. I have just ordered it from Amazon.com and look forward to seeing what he has to say. There is no doubt that Cambodia, as a small country located between much larger powers, has suffered from its geographical situation. But this does not explain everything about what happens in Cambodia. The Cambodians who live there must accept some of the responsibility for their own history, not to mention the current state of affairs. This is where things often go off the tracks because many Cambodians find it difficult to take this step. I am impressed with your efforts to understand Cambodia’s problems, past and present, but I think you need to take a broader perspective and accept the fact that Cambodians have also made some mistakes. In addition to Chandler, a good source on this is “Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare” by Philip Short. You might also take a look at the writings of Serge Thion, John Tully, Penny Edwards and Karen Coates, among others. There are many good books on Cambodia that can help to deepen your understanding, if that is your goal.
I respect your opinion and based on your analysis you have chosen my statement right out of context and dissect them and begin to argue. True I said what I said and have written what I have written and there is no deny about that. As human we appreciate what others have done for us and the same can be said of what Dr. Chandler is doing and continue to do more for Cambodia and its people. Words could never describe what Dr. Chandler did, however, criticism is a part of human endeavor and it will not end here. In Cambodia we have a saying, “Neak Lerng Baan Tae Bess Neag P’less Cham Tae See.” It means, “Those who are doers are most likely to be criticized by those who are sitting and watching them doing it.”
Prior to criticizing Dr. Chandler I have already offering my accolade as human and as Cambodian. I have the right to express my opinion just as you have your rights to criticize me for what I have said here, but you choose to forget the point that I have also brought to this blog or forum about “how Cambodia got to be in this condition should there be no involvment from the outsiders.” Until this very moment I have not yet seen anyone care to response as to why Cambodia got itself in this web of war bewteen USSR, China and Vietnam. 1.75 millions of lives have been perished under this Khmer Rouge regime dating from April 17, 1975 to September 21, 1979.
Cambodia has always been a nuetral country and claimed to be as such since the beginning. It is maybe true some of our leaders did not except their guilts when they did something wrong and I admit that and eventually it led us to this horrible position, in addition, it really is destroying our image as a nation and it passes on toward the people of Cambodia as consequence. That is why I am here to bring this issue out on the table to debate these problems with you gentlemen and hoping that someone out there will hear my pain and suffering and by the power of goodness…they begin to pitch in and help Cambodia.
I would like to ask each and everyone of you gentlemen and scholars to read this book written by Dr. Chang Pao-Min a book titled “Kampuchea between China and Vietnam”. And you may just rethink your position between Dr. Chandler and Dr. Chang.
I am not saying or leaning toward anyone of these two scholars, but Dr. Chang’s arguement seems more appropriate about Cambodia or Kampuchea caught between USSR, China and Vietnam…thus it led me to believe that Cambodia is just a pawn on a chess board played by the Super Powers.
To help is to lead by example and to distinguish the differences of what is true and accurate accounts verse speculations. Cambodia wants to grow into the right direction just as other countries wanting the same accomplishment for its own objectives. But due to war(s), Cambodia cant grow as it has expected. I believe everyone is fighting for the same cause, but we do not know how to get there. Just imagine if the entire Asia seeking Nuclear Development Programs…think what the consequences might just be. To possess power and not allowing others to possess the same power as you have…it is not a good way to preach when you do not practice what you preach.
[…] readers may recall my commentary on the UNDP’s 2007 Human Development Report for Thailand. Kevin Hewison has also written a commentary and generously provides a preview here. The review will appear in the […]
Sidhi S: Are you really Thai, as you have stated? I find myself questioning this, in view of several of your comments, including those on my postings.
I’ll deal with the question of the Lese Majeste law first. Your statement that such cases are usually followed by a pardon is incorrect. The recent very widely publicized case of the Swede in Chiangmai (a resident for about 10 years), who sprayed graffiti all over HM’s portrait on the King’s birthday resulted in the Swedish Embassy intervening & pointing out that the offender was already known to them to be mentally ill. On the basis of that, plus his statement that he sincerely regretted what he had done, they were able to successfully negotiate with the authorities, and the end result was that HM did very graciously award a pardon. (It’s interesting to note that when the news of the offence broke, expats in Thailand typically reacted with exclamations along the lines of, “He must be completely mad!” ) In fact pardons are not “usual,” especially for Thai subjects. You can check this, if you have any connexions within the Justice Department…and a lot of time, patience, & whatever else the department’s employees might require of you.
My sources, who I contacted for clarification before writing this, are in an authoritative position to comment on the foregoing, as well as my statement that “Thai gaols are hideous places…” They have had regular dealings with the Justice Department, the police, the prison guards, and the prisoners themselves (Thai & otherwise) in various institutions over many years. One suggested that if you would like to have a free trial, they could arrange for you to spend the night in a holding cell, which, while not as bad as an actual prison cell which you could spend 20 or 40 (many do) years in for not always heinous crimes, would give you a “life-changing experience. ” This is a serious offer, by the way. Just say the word. I assure you that the word hideous is not an “over-dramatization.”
I fail to see how your reference to the British in Burma is relevant. Thailand has never been colonised, although I have heard Central and Isan Thais seriously stating that it is being colonized covertly by the Chinese. Mr Thaksin’s sale of the communications satellite (containing key security communications links) to a Singapore government-owned company would tend, in the minds of some, to add weight to what is otherwise a rather silly, indeed racist, idea.
Having experienced what it’s like to be an employee in several Thai public & private sector institutions, as well as having opportunities to observe Thai people in the workplace and in many other environments, I can defend my statement regarding “chains” & feudalism with facts.( Perhaps another thread would be a good idea if you really want to pursue this, since it’s getting away from the main thread of this discussion – the book. )
I must say that your tendency to use manipulative strategies such as the inference that farangs are outsiders (& therefore MUST miss the point) & colonizers, is flaky and boring. Well, of course my perspective is “foreign.” I’m not Thai. I give myself the right to have opinions about anything I want to, anywhere I find myself. Thais do that also, and why not? Discussion about politics and social issues is a worthwhile & constructive pursuit . Do you like everything about Australia? Of course not. Is anyone stopping you from airing your views? Educated Australians, in my experience, are more likely to think there is something wrong with you if you don’t.
Regarding rumours mentioned in the book: One of the most intriguing things about Thailand is the prevalence of often quite vicious rumours about all kinds of people. If a rumour is strong & has a lot of currency, or if a researcher knows of a rumour that was started by a particular faction but didn’t take off, surely that is something that should be mentioned in works of this kind. Recently at a party, a Thai journalist friend of mine told me a number of rumours that are in circulation at the moment. I had heard a couple of them from other sources, including quite highly-connected ones, previously. The most interesting thing about these rumours, and the thing we focussed on in discussing them, was the possible motives of the people who started them and their social meaning, quite apart from whether there is any truth in them. A widespread rumour is as much of a cultural artifact as a ceremony or a building or an artwork, and in and around it there is valuable evidence. A responsible writer declares rumour, and Handley has done that. Obviously he can’t reveal sources of other material that has been gathered from informants, but, as other contributors have commented in their posts, there is clearly no “sensationalist” agenda, & Handley and the publishers are known to have integrity.
Frankly, I don’t think it matters if some details are later shown to be incorrect. I don’t think Handley will lose anything by that. The important thing about this book is that it has broken the ice, turned on the tap. Now there is a discussion & it can move…still shackled, but shuffling forward, nevertheless.
I urge Sophea, and others, to read Francois Ponchaud’s “Approaches to the Khmer Mentality”, which is available on line at http://www.catholiccambodia.org (click on the section labeled “mentality”) As he points out, one factor which makes it difficult for many Cambodians to see their own history objectively is the issue of “face”. This is reinforced by Somaly Mam in her book “Le Silence de l’Innocence” (soon to appear in English translation) where she explains that Cambodians do not like to openly admit unpleasant realities, hence they prefer to bury them rather than discuss them in a straighforward manner. The upshot is that problems in Cambodia are almost never accepted as the result of actions by Cambodians themselves but are generally attributed to outside forces, ususally the Vientnames or the Thai, but this can include, as in the case of Sophea, Soviets, Chinese or others. Such an outlook poses a major hurdle for Cambodians in understanding their own history, not to mention dealing with politics, current affairs and interpersonal relations generally. As Ponchaud notes, the ubiquitous Khmer smile which many find so attractive is really a device for hiding the underlying anxities which Cambodians, like all human beings, must live with on a daily basis but do not want to admit openly. The corollary is periodic outbursts of violence (including child/wife abuse) as the repressed emotions eventually erupt. The massive killing by the Khmer Rouge is in some respects a result of this dynamic. That is not to say that others, including the French, the US, the Chinese, the Vientnamese and the Thai, do not bear some responsibility for what happened. But in the end much of the most distastful things were done by Khmer themselves against other Khmer. And this is not the first time in Cambodian history that such things have taken place. Just some food for thought for all concerned.
Its always a case of “lesser of two evils” in Thai politics. Never any sort of real principle, always some sort of emotionally-fired “let’s fight for the King” type crap. If only Thai intelligentsia, literati, elite, Bangkok middle class, or whatever you call us were to move away from our royalist, nationalist, conservative brainwashing, our country would be a better place.
In what other country does its population make so much fuss about corruption yet gleefully participate in it themselves?
Same with regards to “preserving Thai culture/language/traditions” by not showing satirical art or preserving “nation/religion/king” through a “democratic coup.” Hypocritical.
Make up your minds, open up your eyes. Our unelected monarchy is inbred (*I say this using its strict meaning, not colloquially as an insult) and our “nation” has only been a proper nation-state for less than 150 years. Our religious clergy are corrupt and immoral. I’d rather see “democracy, justice, equality, and rule of law” over any “preservation” of Thai culture any day and I could only wish my fellows would see the same rather than argue over pointless ways to “protect” nation/religion/king. As if such “protection” and “preservation” hasn’t been enough to hold us back as it is.
[…] 6th, 2007 The New Mandela continues to publish stellar content. Today, it’s a detailed look at Lao connections to the Khmer Rouge revolution. The piece is written by Martin Rathie, PhD, a former scholar with the Department of […]
The Democrats are just so desparate for every MP seat that they might be able to win that they are ready to take in people who are almost completely alien to them, and who will have great difficulties integrating themselves into the Democrats’ party culture. On the other hand, people such as Kraisak, Somkiat, Manoonkrit, or Phichet (a rather unlikeable, emotional, aggressive, and unreasonable guy) are desperate to continue their political roles. Thus, they are willing to forget for a while that they dislike the Democrats’ blandness and liberal stance.
Readers may be interested in the review I recently completed of the UNDP SE report:
THAILAND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT. SUFFICIENCY ECONOMY AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT.
By UNDP (Bangkok: United Nations Development Programme, 2007).
Over many years, various UN agencies operating in Thailand have sought to honour the monarchy by bestowing awards on various royals. The palace craves international honours and when international agencies recognise supposed royal greatness and brilliance, this has considerable local propaganda value.
In 2007, however, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has gone much further, devoting its 2007 Thailand Human Development Report to the alleged virtues of King Bhumibol Adulyadej’s development ideas – rendered in English as “Sufficiency Economy” (SE) or setthakit pho phiang in Thai. According to the UNDP report, the king’s ideas about the SE are potentially useful for individuals, companies and developing countries. The UNDP Resident Representative gushes that the agency is “immensely honoured” to be able to disseminate the king’s “important messages across the globe” (p. vi). Extolling the “very special uniqueness” of the king’s development thinking, SE is claimed to offer a “much-needed alternative to the unsustainable road the world is currently travelling down” (p. v).
Such grandiose claims are not substantiated by the text of the report under review. In fact, in explaining the king’s thinking, this report does little more than reproduce claims touted by fawning Thailand-based publications that glorify the king’s supposed brilliance on development issues. The UNDP report does not subject the king’s ideas to critical assessment. One gets a feeling for the nature of the report in its thin bibliography; it includes almost no serious works of social science. And, flipping back to the acknowledgements, it is clear that the palace has managed the report’s production, with an Advisory Panel co-chaired by one of the king’s privy councillors and the Director-General of the Crown Property Bureau, while the Panel is populated by a coterie of academic, business and bureaucratic acolytes (p. vii). Hence, the king is praised as a “scientist, philosopher, advocate, and exemplar of the Sufficiency Economy…. He offers … outstanding leadership that might be unique, but is still an inspiration from which the world can learn.” (p. xviii), This kind of breathless wonder for the king and his ideas abound in a report peppered by royal quotations, providing a semi-religious context, where the king’s words count for more than evidence and analysis.
Chapter 1 of the report, where the state of Thailand’s human development (HD) is assessed, is the only part of the report that can be said to avoid blind adherence to SE ideas. This is because this chapter does a good job of assessing Thailand’s progress toward meeting the UN’s Millenium Development Goals. The chapter notes substantial success in all areas – health, poverty, gender equality, and so on – while noting some important problems. In particular, rising inequality is highlighted, together with some issues related to health, education and employment. These sections provide a useful summary of Thailand’s recent development and are based on a fine collection of data (Annex II). Interesting, the remainder of the report, on SE, includes almost no data. This lack of data means that there is no way to adequately assess its outcomes, except as a philosophical, political and ideological set of ideas.
The one section of Chapter 1 that deserves criticism is the brief discussion of political participation. This section argues that “[p]olitical participation has increased markedly;” commenting that decentralisation has expanded, elective bodies increased and voter turnout risen in recent years (p. 16). This was true until the September 2006 military coup that overthrew an elected government and imposed strict controls on political freedoms. Given that the report includes a Foreword by the military-appointed Prime Minister, General Surayud Chulanont, and other comments regarding post-coup developments, the positive comments on political participation pander to the military-backed government.
This is important as the junta and its government have elevated SE to the status of national economic ideology. SE ideas are used to distinguish this military-backed government’s economic policies from those of Thaksin Shinawatra’s government that was overthrown by the 2006 putsch. While the report may have begun its life long before the coup, that the UNDP decided to promote SE when it was intimately associated with the junta and an unelected government is quite a political statement.
Chapter 2 sets out to explain the meaning of SE. Accurately pointing to the 1997 Economic Crisis as the genesis of SE ideas, there follows an unconvincing argument that SE is not about “self-sufficiency”, turning “back to the roots” or antithetical to globalisation or modern economics. These arguments are embedded in a selection of decontextualised quotations from the king. Finally, the report concludes that SE means moderation, wisdom or insight, and built-in resilience (p. 29). In other words, don’t rush to join the global capitalist system, but do so carefully by building local “sufficiency” first. SE is necessarily reduced to such trite notions because it is touted as being for everyone: a “guide to conducting life and taking decisions … [for] an individual, household, community, project, business, nation or the whole world” (p. 31). In practice, such “simplicity” is required for the transformation of royalist propaganda into a national ideology.
The people and organisations that promote SE are a contradictory lot. The king, promoting moderation, heads the wealthiest family in Thailand that own huge tracts of land and large capitalist corporations. His known institutional wealth is about US$40 billion (see Porphant Ouyyanont, The Crown Property Bureau in Thailand and the Crisis of 1997,” Journal of Contemporary Asia, 38, 1, 2008). Military-appointed Prime Minister Surayud spends considerable time talking up SE and his government has made huge budget allocations to SE activities (in one announcement, the government allocated 8 billion baht to such projects; see Bangkok Post, 6 June 2007). Meanwhile, Surayud has foreign sports cars, an expensive watch collection and luxury homes, despite having been on a relatively low military salary for his entire career. It may be argued that Buddhism’s middle path – seen in SE’s ideas about moderation – is not against great wealth or pleasure, but only attachment to wealth or the craving of pleasure. The truth that emerges from these contradictions seems to be that SE is so broadly defined that it really is whatever one wants it to be. The wealthy can enjoy their wealth so long as they do so within their means. For the poor, the advice is to do better with what they have; make do. In class terms, SE becomes an ideology to justify the very inequality the UNDP report claims is of concern.
Chapter 3 includes a series of case studies of SE. Interestingly, almost all of the examples pre-date SE and are included by arguing that these examples use ideas that are compatible with SE (p. 38). These examples are not new, and are regularly touted in the Thai media. While each example is interesting, as noted above, there is no data available that permits any real assessment. One of the contradictions of this chapter is the discussion of the king’s concern for the environment (pp. 48-9). A range of examples are provided but nothing is said about the king’s long, fervent and continuing support for large dams that displace and disadvantage communities and cause the flooding of forests. The discussion of corporate SE successes suggests that SE is a business model and even develops SE checklists and scorecards for companies. However, this simplistic discussion adds little to existing literature on sustainable business and corporate social responsibility.
The section on SE and the national economy (pp. 58-66) is interesting because it includes a critique of the Thaksin government’s policies on development and social welfare. This section reproduces many of the criticisms made by the anti-Thaksin movement that led to the 2006 coup. While grudgingly accepting that Thaksin’s policies were immensely popular, the criticisms are of a lack of “moderation” and of the central role of government. On the latter, the report is explicit, stating that interventionist governments will certainly make incorrect decisions that are “not necessarily best for society.” Rather, it is argued that governments should be limited to creating institutions that “help markets to work … efficiently…” (p. 63). The ideological nature of SE is reinforced in the discussion of how SE is being made an essential part of all levels of the national educational curriculum (pp. 66-8) and by the statement that SE “now serves as a mission statement for the nation” (p. 68).
Chapter 4 attempts to link SE with the UNDP’s agenda on HD and to draw the policy lessons of SE. One of these lessons reinforces the anti-state message of Chapter 3, asserting that redistribution and welfare should be limited so as to not “breach with the principle of self-reliance.” The report urges that government “handouts” are to be avoided and that all funds should be channelled through “existing community institutions” (p. 72). This is in line with the king’s long-held belief that welfare makes people lazy. His is a classic conservative position, arguing that social welfare reduces personal responsibility, extends the role of potentially corrupt government, and assigns tasks to the state that are rightfully those of family and community.
The report concludes by stating that SE “offers a way to avoid mindless growth…” (p. 76). While this reviewer doubts this, one of the interesting outcomes of marrying the UNDP’s HD data collection with SE is that the data do not match SE assumptions. In fact, the provinces that generally do best on HD indicators are the ones most enmeshed with the world capitalist economy. Orthodox economists might look at this as sufficient reason for sniggering about SE, but this misses the point of SE, which is to provide an ideological reference for conservative Thais working to prevent any diminution of their political and economic power. Their power was challenged by Thaksin’s massive electoral victories, popular appeal and welfare policies.
In the end, the UNDP has produced a report that purports to address critical development issues but which does little more than add to the policy nonsense that passes for the military-backed government’s development strategy. The government continually cites this UNDP report and UN awards to the royal family to justify its adherence to SE. Worse, the publication of this report provides additional support for royalist propaganda that continually assaults the senses in contemporary Thailand, on television, in schools, in newspapers and in most public places. There can be few places in the world where a constitutional monarchy has been so central to the political control of a military-directed government. This reviewer suggests that the UNDP do some serious institutional soul-searching to understand why it has been used in this way or has been complicit in promoting military-backed government.
Kevin Hewison
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
The review will appear in the Journal of Contemporary Asia, 38, 1 (2008).
“And with PAD (capitalism is evil) stalwarts joining the Democrats, there will probably be some action on these policies.”
So-called anti-capitalists joining with the alleged neo-liberals (Dems). The very same party they abused and hated from the economic crisis and up to they threw in their lot with Thaksin…. The coup and post-coup politics are remarkable for their bizarre alliances (if nothing else).
Colonel Jeru, yes. Yes I do. I say, ‘mummyyyyyyyyyyy’ and she says ‘coochecoochegoooo’. I am quite sure this is universal and not at all confined to Eurocentrism. I think my comments were more about not being arrogant toward people rather than criticism of Chandlers actual work.
Irrational man, because you are irrational you should know that happiness is best retained with a short memory. What a wonderful world!
It’s been an interesting election campaign so far jonfernquest. With PPP planning to continue where TRT left off, the Democrats seem to be the only party releasing policies that pander to every segment of society while the ‘mid-size’ parties are very busy wheeling and dealing! They’ll all mention SE ofcourse…
come to Thailand, learn Thai langage to get a more understanding of SE. SE has more than you thought. It might not be a final solution, but at least it is the alternative to Western. U might change your idea. West is always the West. Alternatives will not be in your mind unless you open up your mind. Come and see, don’t boycott or stay there in your Western box.
No more opaque gifts to subsidise a one party state, that’s the real issue.
I’ve never heard Finance Minister Chalongphob abuse rural folk.
To demand that things be done in a transparent fashion, how is that abuse?
Every candidate has “populist” policies on their platform:
“Mr Abhisit has already campaigned on reversing the capital controls and the controversial amendments on foreign business practices. Privatisation and mega-infrastructure projects would likely be given a big boost under his rule. At the same time, these neoliberal policy promises are being coupled with free education, free health-care, grassroots debt forgiveness, and a host of other handouts and giveaways that underpin the Democrats’ vague and self-aggrandising “People First” agenda.
“Mr Abhisit and his crew have not spelled out how such grassroots pledges will be financed. Nor have they squared their populism with their neoliberal promises. It is a scattered agenda that caters to investor interests and panders to rural sentiments without concrete means for achievement, devoid of coherence.” (Source)
And with PAD (capitalism is evil) stalwarts joining the Democrats, there will probably be some action on these policies.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Lao links in Khmer revolution
I haven’t got a Ph.D. at this point in time, I’m just a candidate. Thanks!
Interview with Professor David Chandler
My crude comment:
Why all the fuss…on this issue of Cambodia and its people since every thing is nothing…just like Professor Chandler had said in the interview that he doesn’t think the Cambodian story can teach anything to the rest of Southeast Asia. With this comment, Professor Chandler himself sees no important in Cambodia and its history and yet he cares to write about Cambodia. Why? What quality in any intellect if there is no respect of beings in any environment. Another word, a noble person must have humanity in the heart…but what if he has a heart disease regardless the cause of it…
Interview with Professor David Chandler
Until this very moment I have not yet seen anyone care to response as to why Cambodia got itself in this web of war bewteen USSR, China and Vietnam
Please enlighten me with a quick summary of your opinion.
Interview with Professor David Chandler
Don Jameson,
Thank you for your comments and appreciate your time to response and share with my fellow’ Sophea thorn about our beloved country, Cambodia and its future. It is important that we need to understand the root of each problem(s) was happened in Cambodia 1978 to Jan/1979 and the invasion forces by the Vietnamese without any approval from the UN chapter.
The Cambodia people were a victim of its leader failed to recognized the face and lack of debate since the creation of our country. Today, we must dare to face the truth and openly debate what will rights to our country. I would like to recommend to Mr. Don that not all Cambodian are mentality as you respond to Mr. Sophea.
Our beloved people was suffered by its leader and the politicians who never accept the truth and lack of an accountability, responsibility to his/her actions. At the same, the UN and its international organization has failure to accept its mistake. After the election 1993, the UN must implement the will of our people but failed to delivery our dream and determination by allowed to have two prime ministers.
I would like to inform you that I am young and experience the Khmer Rough regime and a fighter who fought the Vietnamese invasion our beloved country and served the U.S embass until my last day. I am believing in debate and recognized our current leaders and the past were not never accept the truth and blame to other.
But today, I am working to promote the debate and change course our country to the pour democracy and will ensure our beloved people have an equals opportunity to express without fear.
Remember, Cambodian is human just like to every human and sense and feeling, dream, vision to see a bright future and a better a place live. I hope youn understand and help us
“Royalist populism”
Never fear Srithanonchai, Historicus & Teth:
PPP & Samak will be the savior, and lead the country into the light.
(We are so lucky that there are no hypocrites on that side of the political battle)
Interview with Professor David Chandler
Dear Sophea: Thanks for the book suggestion. I have just ordered it from Amazon.com and look forward to seeing what he has to say. There is no doubt that Cambodia, as a small country located between much larger powers, has suffered from its geographical situation. But this does not explain everything about what happens in Cambodia. The Cambodians who live there must accept some of the responsibility for their own history, not to mention the current state of affairs. This is where things often go off the tracks because many Cambodians find it difficult to take this step. I am impressed with your efforts to understand Cambodia’s problems, past and present, but I think you need to take a broader perspective and accept the fact that Cambodians have also made some mistakes. In addition to Chandler, a good source on this is “Pol Pot: Anatomy of a Nightmare” by Philip Short. You might also take a look at the writings of Serge Thion, John Tully, Penny Edwards and Karen Coates, among others. There are many good books on Cambodia that can help to deepen your understanding, if that is your goal.
Interview with Professor David Chandler
To Irrational Man,
I respect your opinion and based on your analysis you have chosen my statement right out of context and dissect them and begin to argue. True I said what I said and have written what I have written and there is no deny about that. As human we appreciate what others have done for us and the same can be said of what Dr. Chandler is doing and continue to do more for Cambodia and its people. Words could never describe what Dr. Chandler did, however, criticism is a part of human endeavor and it will not end here. In Cambodia we have a saying, “Neak Lerng Baan Tae Bess Neag P’less Cham Tae See.” It means, “Those who are doers are most likely to be criticized by those who are sitting and watching them doing it.”
Prior to criticizing Dr. Chandler I have already offering my accolade as human and as Cambodian. I have the right to express my opinion just as you have your rights to criticize me for what I have said here, but you choose to forget the point that I have also brought to this blog or forum about “how Cambodia got to be in this condition should there be no involvment from the outsiders.” Until this very moment I have not yet seen anyone care to response as to why Cambodia got itself in this web of war bewteen USSR, China and Vietnam. 1.75 millions of lives have been perished under this Khmer Rouge regime dating from April 17, 1975 to September 21, 1979.
Cambodia has always been a nuetral country and claimed to be as such since the beginning. It is maybe true some of our leaders did not except their guilts when they did something wrong and I admit that and eventually it led us to this horrible position, in addition, it really is destroying our image as a nation and it passes on toward the people of Cambodia as consequence. That is why I am here to bring this issue out on the table to debate these problems with you gentlemen and hoping that someone out there will hear my pain and suffering and by the power of goodness…they begin to pitch in and help Cambodia.
I would like to ask each and everyone of you gentlemen and scholars to read this book written by Dr. Chang Pao-Min a book titled “Kampuchea between China and Vietnam”. And you may just rethink your position between Dr. Chandler and Dr. Chang.
I am not saying or leaning toward anyone of these two scholars, but Dr. Chang’s arguement seems more appropriate about Cambodia or Kampuchea caught between USSR, China and Vietnam…thus it led me to believe that Cambodia is just a pawn on a chess board played by the Super Powers.
To help is to lead by example and to distinguish the differences of what is true and accurate accounts verse speculations. Cambodia wants to grow into the right direction just as other countries wanting the same accomplishment for its own objectives. But due to war(s), Cambodia cant grow as it has expected. I believe everyone is fighting for the same cause, but we do not know how to get there. Just imagine if the entire Asia seeking Nuclear Development Programs…think what the consequences might just be. To possess power and not allowing others to possess the same power as you have…it is not a good way to preach when you do not practice what you preach.
Sincerely Yours,
Sophea
Interview with Professor Kevin Hewison – Part One
[…] readers may recall my commentary on the UNDP’s 2007 Human Development Report for Thailand. Kevin Hewison has also written a commentary and generously provides a preview here. The review will appear in the […]
In-sufficient analysis
[…] New Mandala readers may recall my commentary on the UNDP’s 2007 Human Development Report for Thailand. Kevin Hewison has also written a […]
Interview with Paul Handley
Sidhi S: Are you really Thai, as you have stated? I find myself questioning this, in view of several of your comments, including those on my postings.
I’ll deal with the question of the Lese Majeste law first. Your statement that such cases are usually followed by a pardon is incorrect. The recent very widely publicized case of the Swede in Chiangmai (a resident for about 10 years), who sprayed graffiti all over HM’s portrait on the King’s birthday resulted in the Swedish Embassy intervening & pointing out that the offender was already known to them to be mentally ill. On the basis of that, plus his statement that he sincerely regretted what he had done, they were able to successfully negotiate with the authorities, and the end result was that HM did very graciously award a pardon. (It’s interesting to note that when the news of the offence broke, expats in Thailand typically reacted with exclamations along the lines of, “He must be completely mad!” ) In fact pardons are not “usual,” especially for Thai subjects. You can check this, if you have any connexions within the Justice Department…and a lot of time, patience, & whatever else the department’s employees might require of you.
My sources, who I contacted for clarification before writing this, are in an authoritative position to comment on the foregoing, as well as my statement that “Thai gaols are hideous places…” They have had regular dealings with the Justice Department, the police, the prison guards, and the prisoners themselves (Thai & otherwise) in various institutions over many years. One suggested that if you would like to have a free trial, they could arrange for you to spend the night in a holding cell, which, while not as bad as an actual prison cell which you could spend 20 or 40 (many do) years in for not always heinous crimes, would give you a “life-changing experience. ” This is a serious offer, by the way. Just say the word. I assure you that the word hideous is not an “over-dramatization.”
I fail to see how your reference to the British in Burma is relevant. Thailand has never been colonised, although I have heard Central and Isan Thais seriously stating that it is being colonized covertly by the Chinese. Mr Thaksin’s sale of the communications satellite (containing key security communications links) to a Singapore government-owned company would tend, in the minds of some, to add weight to what is otherwise a rather silly, indeed racist, idea.
Having experienced what it’s like to be an employee in several Thai public & private sector institutions, as well as having opportunities to observe Thai people in the workplace and in many other environments, I can defend my statement regarding “chains” & feudalism with facts.( Perhaps another thread would be a good idea if you really want to pursue this, since it’s getting away from the main thread of this discussion – the book. )
I must say that your tendency to use manipulative strategies such as the inference that farangs are outsiders (& therefore MUST miss the point) & colonizers, is flaky and boring. Well, of course my perspective is “foreign.” I’m not Thai. I give myself the right to have opinions about anything I want to, anywhere I find myself. Thais do that also, and why not? Discussion about politics and social issues is a worthwhile & constructive pursuit . Do you like everything about Australia? Of course not. Is anyone stopping you from airing your views? Educated Australians, in my experience, are more likely to think there is something wrong with you if you don’t.
Regarding rumours mentioned in the book: One of the most intriguing things about Thailand is the prevalence of often quite vicious rumours about all kinds of people. If a rumour is strong & has a lot of currency, or if a researcher knows of a rumour that was started by a particular faction but didn’t take off, surely that is something that should be mentioned in works of this kind. Recently at a party, a Thai journalist friend of mine told me a number of rumours that are in circulation at the moment. I had heard a couple of them from other sources, including quite highly-connected ones, previously. The most interesting thing about these rumours, and the thing we focussed on in discussing them, was the possible motives of the people who started them and their social meaning, quite apart from whether there is any truth in them. A widespread rumour is as much of a cultural artifact as a ceremony or a building or an artwork, and in and around it there is valuable evidence. A responsible writer declares rumour, and Handley has done that. Obviously he can’t reveal sources of other material that has been gathered from informants, but, as other contributors have commented in their posts, there is clearly no “sensationalist” agenda, & Handley and the publishers are known to have integrity.
Frankly, I don’t think it matters if some details are later shown to be incorrect. I don’t think Handley will lose anything by that. The important thing about this book is that it has broken the ice, turned on the tap. Now there is a discussion & it can move…still shackled, but shuffling forward, nevertheless.
Interview with Professor David Chandler
I urge Sophea, and others, to read Francois Ponchaud’s “Approaches to the Khmer Mentality”, which is available on line at http://www.catholiccambodia.org (click on the section labeled “mentality”) As he points out, one factor which makes it difficult for many Cambodians to see their own history objectively is the issue of “face”. This is reinforced by Somaly Mam in her book “Le Silence de l’Innocence” (soon to appear in English translation) where she explains that Cambodians do not like to openly admit unpleasant realities, hence they prefer to bury them rather than discuss them in a straighforward manner. The upshot is that problems in Cambodia are almost never accepted as the result of actions by Cambodians themselves but are generally attributed to outside forces, ususally the Vientnames or the Thai, but this can include, as in the case of Sophea, Soviets, Chinese or others. Such an outlook poses a major hurdle for Cambodians in understanding their own history, not to mention dealing with politics, current affairs and interpersonal relations generally. As Ponchaud notes, the ubiquitous Khmer smile which many find so attractive is really a device for hiding the underlying anxities which Cambodians, like all human beings, must live with on a daily basis but do not want to admit openly. The corollary is periodic outbursts of violence (including child/wife abuse) as the repressed emotions eventually erupt. The massive killing by the Khmer Rouge is in some respects a result of this dynamic. That is not to say that others, including the French, the US, the Chinese, the Vientnamese and the Thai, do not bear some responsibility for what happened. But in the end much of the most distastful things were done by Khmer themselves against other Khmer. And this is not the first time in Cambodian history that such things have taken place. Just some food for thought for all concerned.
“Royalist populism”
Its always a case of “lesser of two evils” in Thai politics. Never any sort of real principle, always some sort of emotionally-fired “let’s fight for the King” type crap. If only Thai intelligentsia, literati, elite, Bangkok middle class, or whatever you call us were to move away from our royalist, nationalist, conservative brainwashing, our country would be a better place.
In what other country does its population make so much fuss about corruption yet gleefully participate in it themselves?
Same with regards to “preserving Thai culture/language/traditions” by not showing satirical art or preserving “nation/religion/king” through a “democratic coup.” Hypocritical.
Make up your minds, open up your eyes. Our unelected monarchy is inbred (*I say this using its strict meaning, not colloquially as an insult) and our “nation” has only been a proper nation-state for less than 150 years. Our religious clergy are corrupt and immoral. I’d rather see “democracy, justice, equality, and rule of law” over any “preservation” of Thai culture any day and I could only wish my fellows would see the same rather than argue over pointless ways to “protect” nation/religion/king. As if such “protection” and “preservation” hasn’t been enough to hold us back as it is.
Sorry about the rant.
Lao links in Khmer revolution
[…] 6th, 2007 The New Mandela continues to publish stellar content. Today, it’s a detailed look at Lao connections to the Khmer Rouge revolution. The piece is written by Martin Rathie, PhD, a former scholar with the Department of […]
“Royalist populism”
The Democrats are just so desparate for every MP seat that they might be able to win that they are ready to take in people who are almost completely alien to them, and who will have great difficulties integrating themselves into the Democrats’ party culture. On the other hand, people such as Kraisak, Somkiat, Manoonkrit, or Phichet (a rather unlikeable, emotional, aggressive, and unreasonable guy) are desperate to continue their political roles. Thus, they are willing to forget for a while that they dislike the Democrats’ blandness and liberal stance.
Interview with Professor Kevin Hewison – Part Two
Readers may be interested in the review I recently completed of the UNDP SE report:
THAILAND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT. SUFFICIENCY ECONOMY AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT.
By UNDP (Bangkok: United Nations Development Programme, 2007).
Over many years, various UN agencies operating in Thailand have sought to honour the monarchy by bestowing awards on various royals. The palace craves international honours and when international agencies recognise supposed royal greatness and brilliance, this has considerable local propaganda value.
In 2007, however, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has gone much further, devoting its 2007 Thailand Human Development Report to the alleged virtues of King Bhumibol Adulyadej’s development ideas – rendered in English as “Sufficiency Economy” (SE) or setthakit pho phiang in Thai. According to the UNDP report, the king’s ideas about the SE are potentially useful for individuals, companies and developing countries. The UNDP Resident Representative gushes that the agency is “immensely honoured” to be able to disseminate the king’s “important messages across the globe” (p. vi). Extolling the “very special uniqueness” of the king’s development thinking, SE is claimed to offer a “much-needed alternative to the unsustainable road the world is currently travelling down” (p. v).
Such grandiose claims are not substantiated by the text of the report under review. In fact, in explaining the king’s thinking, this report does little more than reproduce claims touted by fawning Thailand-based publications that glorify the king’s supposed brilliance on development issues. The UNDP report does not subject the king’s ideas to critical assessment. One gets a feeling for the nature of the report in its thin bibliography; it includes almost no serious works of social science. And, flipping back to the acknowledgements, it is clear that the palace has managed the report’s production, with an Advisory Panel co-chaired by one of the king’s privy councillors and the Director-General of the Crown Property Bureau, while the Panel is populated by a coterie of academic, business and bureaucratic acolytes (p. vii). Hence, the king is praised as a “scientist, philosopher, advocate, and exemplar of the Sufficiency Economy…. He offers … outstanding leadership that might be unique, but is still an inspiration from which the world can learn.” (p. xviii), This kind of breathless wonder for the king and his ideas abound in a report peppered by royal quotations, providing a semi-religious context, where the king’s words count for more than evidence and analysis.
Chapter 1 of the report, where the state of Thailand’s human development (HD) is assessed, is the only part of the report that can be said to avoid blind adherence to SE ideas. This is because this chapter does a good job of assessing Thailand’s progress toward meeting the UN’s Millenium Development Goals. The chapter notes substantial success in all areas – health, poverty, gender equality, and so on – while noting some important problems. In particular, rising inequality is highlighted, together with some issues related to health, education and employment. These sections provide a useful summary of Thailand’s recent development and are based on a fine collection of data (Annex II). Interesting, the remainder of the report, on SE, includes almost no data. This lack of data means that there is no way to adequately assess its outcomes, except as a philosophical, political and ideological set of ideas.
The one section of Chapter 1 that deserves criticism is the brief discussion of political participation. This section argues that “[p]olitical participation has increased markedly;” commenting that decentralisation has expanded, elective bodies increased and voter turnout risen in recent years (p. 16). This was true until the September 2006 military coup that overthrew an elected government and imposed strict controls on political freedoms. Given that the report includes a Foreword by the military-appointed Prime Minister, General Surayud Chulanont, and other comments regarding post-coup developments, the positive comments on political participation pander to the military-backed government.
This is important as the junta and its government have elevated SE to the status of national economic ideology. SE ideas are used to distinguish this military-backed government’s economic policies from those of Thaksin Shinawatra’s government that was overthrown by the 2006 putsch. While the report may have begun its life long before the coup, that the UNDP decided to promote SE when it was intimately associated with the junta and an unelected government is quite a political statement.
Chapter 2 sets out to explain the meaning of SE. Accurately pointing to the 1997 Economic Crisis as the genesis of SE ideas, there follows an unconvincing argument that SE is not about “self-sufficiency”, turning “back to the roots” or antithetical to globalisation or modern economics. These arguments are embedded in a selection of decontextualised quotations from the king. Finally, the report concludes that SE means moderation, wisdom or insight, and built-in resilience (p. 29). In other words, don’t rush to join the global capitalist system, but do so carefully by building local “sufficiency” first. SE is necessarily reduced to such trite notions because it is touted as being for everyone: a “guide to conducting life and taking decisions … [for] an individual, household, community, project, business, nation or the whole world” (p. 31). In practice, such “simplicity” is required for the transformation of royalist propaganda into a national ideology.
The people and organisations that promote SE are a contradictory lot. The king, promoting moderation, heads the wealthiest family in Thailand that own huge tracts of land and large capitalist corporations. His known institutional wealth is about US$40 billion (see Porphant Ouyyanont, The Crown Property Bureau in Thailand and the Crisis of 1997,” Journal of Contemporary Asia, 38, 1, 2008). Military-appointed Prime Minister Surayud spends considerable time talking up SE and his government has made huge budget allocations to SE activities (in one announcement, the government allocated 8 billion baht to such projects; see Bangkok Post, 6 June 2007). Meanwhile, Surayud has foreign sports cars, an expensive watch collection and luxury homes, despite having been on a relatively low military salary for his entire career. It may be argued that Buddhism’s middle path – seen in SE’s ideas about moderation – is not against great wealth or pleasure, but only attachment to wealth or the craving of pleasure. The truth that emerges from these contradictions seems to be that SE is so broadly defined that it really is whatever one wants it to be. The wealthy can enjoy their wealth so long as they do so within their means. For the poor, the advice is to do better with what they have; make do. In class terms, SE becomes an ideology to justify the very inequality the UNDP report claims is of concern.
Chapter 3 includes a series of case studies of SE. Interestingly, almost all of the examples pre-date SE and are included by arguing that these examples use ideas that are compatible with SE (p. 38). These examples are not new, and are regularly touted in the Thai media. While each example is interesting, as noted above, there is no data available that permits any real assessment. One of the contradictions of this chapter is the discussion of the king’s concern for the environment (pp. 48-9). A range of examples are provided but nothing is said about the king’s long, fervent and continuing support for large dams that displace and disadvantage communities and cause the flooding of forests. The discussion of corporate SE successes suggests that SE is a business model and even develops SE checklists and scorecards for companies. However, this simplistic discussion adds little to existing literature on sustainable business and corporate social responsibility.
The section on SE and the national economy (pp. 58-66) is interesting because it includes a critique of the Thaksin government’s policies on development and social welfare. This section reproduces many of the criticisms made by the anti-Thaksin movement that led to the 2006 coup. While grudgingly accepting that Thaksin’s policies were immensely popular, the criticisms are of a lack of “moderation” and of the central role of government. On the latter, the report is explicit, stating that interventionist governments will certainly make incorrect decisions that are “not necessarily best for society.” Rather, it is argued that governments should be limited to creating institutions that “help markets to work … efficiently…” (p. 63). The ideological nature of SE is reinforced in the discussion of how SE is being made an essential part of all levels of the national educational curriculum (pp. 66-8) and by the statement that SE “now serves as a mission statement for the nation” (p. 68).
Chapter 4 attempts to link SE with the UNDP’s agenda on HD and to draw the policy lessons of SE. One of these lessons reinforces the anti-state message of Chapter 3, asserting that redistribution and welfare should be limited so as to not “breach with the principle of self-reliance.” The report urges that government “handouts” are to be avoided and that all funds should be channelled through “existing community institutions” (p. 72). This is in line with the king’s long-held belief that welfare makes people lazy. His is a classic conservative position, arguing that social welfare reduces personal responsibility, extends the role of potentially corrupt government, and assigns tasks to the state that are rightfully those of family and community.
The report concludes by stating that SE “offers a way to avoid mindless growth…” (p. 76). While this reviewer doubts this, one of the interesting outcomes of marrying the UNDP’s HD data collection with SE is that the data do not match SE assumptions. In fact, the provinces that generally do best on HD indicators are the ones most enmeshed with the world capitalist economy. Orthodox economists might look at this as sufficient reason for sniggering about SE, but this misses the point of SE, which is to provide an ideological reference for conservative Thais working to prevent any diminution of their political and economic power. Their power was challenged by Thaksin’s massive electoral victories, popular appeal and welfare policies.
In the end, the UNDP has produced a report that purports to address critical development issues but which does little more than add to the policy nonsense that passes for the military-backed government’s development strategy. The government continually cites this UNDP report and UN awards to the royal family to justify its adherence to SE. Worse, the publication of this report provides additional support for royalist propaganda that continually assaults the senses in contemporary Thailand, on television, in schools, in newspapers and in most public places. There can be few places in the world where a constitutional monarchy has been so central to the political control of a military-directed government. This reviewer suggests that the UNDP do some serious institutional soul-searching to understand why it has been used in this way or has been complicit in promoting military-backed government.
Kevin Hewison
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
The review will appear in the Journal of Contemporary Asia, 38, 1 (2008).
“Royalist populism”
“And with PAD (capitalism is evil) stalwarts joining the Democrats, there will probably be some action on these policies.”
So-called anti-capitalists joining with the alleged neo-liberals (Dems). The very same party they abused and hated from the economic crisis and up to they threw in their lot with Thaksin…. The coup and post-coup politics are remarkable for their bizarre alliances (if nothing else).
Interview with Professor David Chandler
Colonel Jeru, yes. Yes I do. I say, ‘mummyyyyyyyyyyy’ and she says ‘coochecoochegoooo’. I am quite sure this is universal and not at all confined to Eurocentrism. I think my comments were more about not being arrogant toward people rather than criticism of Chandlers actual work.
Irrational man, because you are irrational you should know that happiness is best retained with a short memory. What a wonderful world!
“Royalist populism”
Thanks for the correction Srithanonchai.
It’s been an interesting election campaign so far jonfernquest. With PPP planning to continue where TRT left off, the Democrats seem to be the only party releasing policies that pander to every segment of society while the ‘mid-size’ parties are very busy wheeling and dealing! They’ll all mention SE ofcourse…
Interview with Professor Kevin Hewison – Part Two
come to Thailand, learn Thai langage to get a more understanding of SE. SE has more than you thought. It might not be a final solution, but at least it is the alternative to Western. U might change your idea. West is always the West. Alternatives will not be in your mind unless you open up your mind. Come and see, don’t boycott or stay there in your Western box.
“Royalist populism”
No more opaque gifts to subsidise a one party state, that’s the real issue.
I’ve never heard Finance Minister Chalongphob abuse rural folk.
To demand that things be done in a transparent fashion, how is that abuse?
Every candidate has “populist” policies on their platform:
“Mr Abhisit has already campaigned on reversing the capital controls and the controversial amendments on foreign business practices. Privatisation and mega-infrastructure projects would likely be given a big boost under his rule. At the same time, these neoliberal policy promises are being coupled with free education, free health-care, grassroots debt forgiveness, and a host of other handouts and giveaways that underpin the Democrats’ vague and self-aggrandising “People First” agenda.
“Mr Abhisit and his crew have not spelled out how such grassroots pledges will be financed. Nor have they squared their populism with their neoliberal promises. It is a scattered agenda that caters to investor interests and panders to rural sentiments without concrete means for achievement, devoid of coherence.” (Source)
And with PAD (capitalism is evil) stalwarts joining the Democrats, there will probably be some action on these policies.