[…] ┬ And yet, as problematic as Thaksin may have been for long term prospects of liberal democracy in Thailand, the coup d’etat was worse. Duncan McCargo of the University of Leeds pulls no punches in his various critiques of Thaksin; yet shortly after the coup, he told the Chronicle of Higher Education […]
“It was the leaders of the military coup d’état which toppled Thaksin in September 2006 who brought sufficiency economy back to life by enshrining it in the interim constitution. This time the intent was to counter the supposedly excessive spending and risk-taking by the Thaksin government.”
Do they mean that it wasn’t because the regime needed the monarchy as a political and ideological crutch?
Whatever the case, Chanida and Bamford’s poor assemblage of borrowed ideas and worn-out metaphors is at its best confusing and at worst incomprehensible:
“The sufficiency economy stopped being a nebular concept that meant everything and nothing and, like the coup itself, became a controversial concept.”
So many concepts, so little time: presumably they mean that before the coup, the sufficiency economy notion was vague and indistinct (rather than somehow relating to hypotheses on the origins of the galaxy). But even so, is a nebulous concept somehow precluded from controversy? And by what virtue might it cease being nebulous by reason of its becoming controversial?
This sentence is also indicative of the many giant leaps of illogic found throughout the article, as it appears to contradict the authors’ insistence that “the sufficiency economy is a fact on the ground”, in which case it should not have required an explanation from a retired general to turn it (as if by magic) from cloudy gas into controversy. But I may have misunderstood again.
Little wonder that your average foreign businessperson in Bangkok (where can I get one?) is sniggering. For further readings on politics and economy in Thailand, perhaps we can all stick with Pasuk and Baker.
That’s exactly the issue John Robb tackles in his book Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization. Basically, he argues that certain technologies are quickly making the concept of the Westphalian nation-state (and military strategies to defend it) obsolete. If current trends continue, expect to see even more irridentist movements to pop up in the near future. (Again, many of these movements have been around for decades, if not centuries, but for the first time they have the ability to make their claims known to the global community.)
I am not qualified to comment on the validity of forest protection to benefit water supplies, but I was surprised at the apparent fact that the all-powerful monarchy (in the person of HMQ) can ‘campaign vigorously … for decades’ to no apparent avail.
So much for HMK being the guiding light of the Thai nation.
Republican, I do know the differences between a blog and an academic institution, but don’t you think they, too, have some similarities, one of which is to be a platform for different viewpoints.
I think Grasshopper made this point already.
SOAS hosted this kind of PR event, and it’s still SOAS.
I’m not sure that an institution’s decision to allow Thai panel making their case is enough to justify the whole coup and its aftermath. Because if it is, it’ll mean that the Thai government’s already succeeded this kind of justification long ago and one more will make no difference anyway.
If you’re really not happy with the upcoming event and the current Thai regime, why don’t you just go to ANU, say whatever you want to say about them and tell the audiences your side of story.
That sure is a huge chunk of India and Burma that the Naga are laying claim to in their map.
I wonder what the world would be like if the world split into a bunch of mini-states, assuming everyone could agree on the boundaries?
Is that where the world’s heading? Would that be the ideal? Could the world be a peaceful place with all these mini ethnic states? There must be places with multiple ethnic claims over time to them, that would be subject to dispute, like in Iraq. What a jigsaw puzzle the world would be? And in a time when all the economic advantages seem to be going to big states like China.
Just two more questions Nicolas Farrelly: Why can’t Andrew Walker answer for himself? Can you two really disengage the subjective from the objective in any debate – – and personal rants are subjective, aren’t they, or are they objective? or are they both?
I did not realize Vichai needs any defense Nicolas Farrelly . . .
Do bloggers at New Mandala who disrespect Thaksin Shinawatra for his extrajudicial crimes, and ,gets their posters blocked by Andrew Walker, need defending?
Now I want to ask you Nicolas Farrelly, considering you being personally protective of Andrew Walker, who was unduly protective of Bangkok Pundit: Who will protect you if ask you with this question: Do you think Andrew Walker should apologize to Vichai N for blocking Vichai\’s posters . . . for hell knows what reason?
I did not realize Vichai needs any defense Nicolas Farrelly . . .
Do bloggers at New Mandala who disrespects Thaksin Shinawatra for his extrajudicial crimes, and ,gets their posters blocked by Andrew Walker, need defending?
Now I want to ask you Nicolas Farrelly, considering you being personally protective of Andrew Walker, who was unduly protective of Bangkok Pundit: Who will protect you if ask you with this question: Do you think Andrew Walker should apologize to Vichai N for blocking Vichai\’s posters . . . for hell knows what reason?
Was that the same IP as Vichai, I wouldn’t know. I use so many proxy servers I lose track. With Thaksin’s extrajudicial police goons still loose, it helps to play it safe and suspicious even with respected websites like New Mandala.
“The deleted comments added nothing to what had gone before. If Vichai has anything more of substance to add he is very welcome to post it.” – Andrew Walker
Now that was YOUR opinion Andrew Walker, and yours opinion alone. You welcome Vichai but you decide what Vichai posts! And specifically you pushed your special ‘delete-Vichai-button’ on the heat of ‘extrajudicial killings debate’ (effectively shutting down the debate) by YOUR own sole opinion because you Andrew Walker believe Vichai had nothing more of substance to add . . .
It is more than bad form Andrew Walker . . . but I just cannot put my suspicious finger on what the hell you are about . . .
“The deleted comments added nothing to what had gone before. If Vichai has anything more of substance to add he is very welcome to post it.” – Andrew Walker
Now that was YOUR opinion Andrew Walker, and yours opinion alone. You welcome Vichai but you pick on him (you don’t pick on me), and specifically on that ‘extrajudicial killings debate’ going on that you chose to cut-off, by YOUR own opinion because you Andrew Walker believe Vichai has nothing more of substance to add . . .
It is more than bad form Andrew Walker . . . you WERE protecting BangkokPundit but BP does NOT your protection, you said so yourself!
My apologies Andrew – I misinterpreted post 35 as a post by you linking to that particular site.
(because for some reason whenever I see ‘[…]’ I thought it was something the blog administrator did – I’m slowly learning about this internet stuff).
I am very much in favour of the ANU providing a platform for the presentation of a diverse range of views.
I think at the SOAS event, people were for some reason reserved in asking good questions. Maybe the forthcoming event can provide the platform for a more serious Q&A? It doesn’t have to be negative. Sure initially it is a PR event, but it doesn’t have to end that way….
Thanks Andrew and nganadeeleg. I very much appreciate New Mandala’s linking to the blog, I have learned a lot from reading this site the last few months.
As to disseminating my views, it’s a three-way battle at the moment between you all, the Guardian (UK) Football website where I post fairly often, and “Blue Moon,” a message board for Manchester City fans. Although a lot of the City fans are tired of hearing about the debate about Thaksin at this point, especially now that the season has started. I’m going to discuss this in an upcoming post, but the predominant attitude at the moment among relatively thoughtful City fans (the ones who aren’t like “he killed drug dealers? Let’s make him PM of Britain” or “what the toss do I care about what he did in Thailand? He’s good for City”) is, “look the guy’s controversial, there’s arguments on both sides, but if he was really so bad the government would step in and not let him do business here, so who am I to judge any different?”
Mike doesn’t get it. They could sing nursery rhymes at the seminar for all they care. Do you seriously NOT know the answer to the question whether these guys care about political rights in Thailand? They are working for and being paid by by a dictatorship; isn’t it obvious? The issue is not whether we are going to learn anything from this exercise, it is whether it is worth sullying the ANU’s once proud reputation in Thai Studies by foolishly, naively, irresponsibly contributing to the junta’s propaganda by hosting this event. The objective of the seminar is purely so that the junta’s propaganda machine back home (where it matters) , especially Sondhi Lim’s media, can trumpet: “Following successful visits to the leading Thai Studies institutions in Europe and the UK the “war room” concluded their tour with a lively seminar at the ANU’s National Thai Studies Centre, known as one of the world’s leading centres for the study of Thailand. While a few foreigners who don’t understand Thai culture expressed a number of concerns the panel reassured them that Thailand’s democratic development will soon be back on track … etc. etc.”
For you it might be “fun” to see the junta’s PR team at the ANU “flop”, but think about the purpose of the propaganda: justifying the armed overthrow of a democratically-elected government, the exile of its leader, and the dissolution of a mass political party, and legitimizing a new Constitution and political order that seeks to weaken as much as possible the power of politicians, the elected representatives of the people. Not “fun” for the people.
If Leopold can’t tell the difference between Republican posting an opinion on a blog, and the ANU’s flagship for Thai Studies, the NTSC, hosting a visit by a propaganda team sent and paid for by the junta for political purposes, well that just demonstrates your total lack of understanding of how Thai Studies institutions are being used by the junta. And you want people to take you “seriously”? By all means, let these guys send a post on NM so their views can be heard alongside Republican’s – as though we don’t already know what they will say. Or let the Embassy host the event; it’s not as though it is very far for ANU people to travel there to attend. But just don’t give them what they are coming to Canberra to get: the stamp of international academic approval conferred by the ANU’s imprimatur.
In the interests of transparency I hope that Andrew can find out how the NTSC came to be involved in this exercise. Who contacted whom first, whether hosting propaganda panels sent by military juntas – while half of Thailand is still under martial law and political opposition is heavily censored – is now NTSC policy. Did the whole committee agree to it? Or only some members? Who?
If the NTSC is going to go through with this then the global Thai Studies community of scholars should clearly understand what this means: anything the ANU’s NTSC says in the future about “human rights” or “democracy” in Thailand is absolute hypocrisy.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Chronicle of Higher Education: McCargo Interview
[…] ┬ And yet, as problematic as Thaksin may have been for long term prospects of liberal democracy in Thailand, the coup d’etat was worse. Duncan McCargo of the University of Leeds pulls no punches in his various critiques of Thaksin; yet shortly after the coup, he told the Chronicle of Higher Education […]
The smirk of capitalism
Elsewhere in “the rise and fall…”:
“It was the leaders of the military coup d’état which toppled Thaksin in September 2006 who brought sufficiency economy back to life by enshrining it in the interim constitution. This time the intent was to counter the supposedly excessive spending and risk-taking by the Thaksin government.”
Do they mean that it wasn’t because the regime needed the monarchy as a political and ideological crutch?
Whatever the case, Chanida and Bamford’s poor assemblage of borrowed ideas and worn-out metaphors is at its best confusing and at worst incomprehensible:
“The sufficiency economy stopped being a nebular concept that meant everything and nothing and, like the coup itself, became a controversial concept.”
So many concepts, so little time: presumably they mean that before the coup, the sufficiency economy notion was vague and indistinct (rather than somehow relating to hypotheses on the origins of the galaxy). But even so, is a nebulous concept somehow precluded from controversy? And by what virtue might it cease being nebulous by reason of its becoming controversial?
This sentence is also indicative of the many giant leaps of illogic found throughout the article, as it appears to contradict the authors’ insistence that “the sufficiency economy is a fact on the ground”, in which case it should not have required an explanation from a retired general to turn it (as if by magic) from cloudy gas into controversy. But I may have misunderstood again.
Perhaps the authors are having difficulty because they have been trying too hard to Focus on the Global South (warning: staring at fictional geography can cause lasting damage to retinae) and “dismantle oppressive economic and political structures and institutions… create liberating structures and institutions… [and] promote demilitarisation and peace-building… in the paradigm of deglobalisation” while simultaneously struggling to buttress ultra-conservative elite constructs of rural economy and apologise for military coup-makers; see further.
Little wonder that your average foreign businessperson in Bangkok (where can I get one?) is sniggering. For further readings on politics and economy in Thailand, perhaps we can all stick with Pasuk and Baker.
Nagalim online
Re jon>
That’s exactly the issue John Robb tackles in his book Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization. Basically, he argues that certain technologies are quickly making the concept of the Westphalian nation-state (and military strategies to defend it) obsolete. If current trends continue, expect to see even more irridentist movements to pop up in the near future. (Again, many of these movements have been around for decades, if not centuries, but for the first time they have the ability to make their claims known to the global community.)
ANU to host Thai junta PR machine
Republican: I think you may have misread the seminar series blurb. The one that I received reads,
The Burmese Junta: “Burmese Democracy: Two Steps Back, One Step Forward, the Thai Way”
ANU to host Thai junta PR machine
lol @ the many personalities that make up ‘Jeruchai’
Royal hydrology
I am not qualified to comment on the validity of forest protection to benefit water supplies, but I was surprised at the apparent fact that the all-powerful monarchy (in the person of HMQ) can ‘campaign vigorously … for decades’ to no apparent avail.
So much for HMK being the guiding light of the Thai nation.
ANU to host Thai junta PR machine
Republican, I do know the differences between a blog and an academic institution, but don’t you think they, too, have some similarities, one of which is to be a platform for different viewpoints.
I think Grasshopper made this point already.
SOAS hosted this kind of PR event, and it’s still SOAS.
I’m not sure that an institution’s decision to allow Thai panel making their case is enough to justify the whole coup and its aftermath. Because if it is, it’ll mean that the Thai government’s already succeeded this kind of justification long ago and one more will make no difference anyway.
If you’re really not happy with the upcoming event and the current Thai regime, why don’t you just go to ANU, say whatever you want to say about them and tell the audiences your side of story.
Nagalim online
That sure is a huge chunk of India and Burma that the Naga are laying claim to in their map.
I wonder what the world would be like if the world split into a bunch of mini-states, assuming everyone could agree on the boundaries?
Is that where the world’s heading? Would that be the ideal? Could the world be a peaceful place with all these mini ethnic states? There must be places with multiple ethnic claims over time to them, that would be subject to dispute, like in Iraq. What a jigsaw puzzle the world would be? And in a time when all the economic advantages seem to be going to big states like China.
ANU to host Thai junta PR machine
Just two more questions Nicolas Farrelly: Why can’t Andrew Walker answer for himself? Can you two really disengage the subjective from the objective in any debate – – and personal rants are subjective, aren’t they, or are they objective? or are they both?
ANU to host Thai junta PR machine
I did not realize Vichai needs any defense Nicolas Farrelly . . .
Do bloggers at New Mandala who disrespect Thaksin Shinawatra for his extrajudicial crimes, and ,gets their posters blocked by Andrew Walker, need defending?
Now I want to ask you Nicolas Farrelly, considering you being personally protective of Andrew Walker, who was unduly protective of Bangkok Pundit: Who will protect you if ask you with this question: Do you think Andrew Walker should apologize to Vichai N for blocking Vichai\’s posters . . . for hell knows what reason?
ANU to host Thai junta PR machine
I did not realize Vichai needs any defense Nicolas Farrelly . . .
Do bloggers at New Mandala who disrespects Thaksin Shinawatra for his extrajudicial crimes, and ,gets their posters blocked by Andrew Walker, need defending?
Now I want to ask you Nicolas Farrelly, considering you being personally protective of Andrew Walker, who was unduly protective of Bangkok Pundit: Who will protect you if ask you with this question: Do you think Andrew Walker should apologize to Vichai N for blocking Vichai\’s posters . . . for hell knows what reason?
ANU to host Thai junta PR machine
Was that the same IP as Vichai, I wouldn’t know. I use so many proxy servers I lose track. With Thaksin’s extrajudicial police goons still loose, it helps to play it safe and suspicious even with respected websites like New Mandala.
ANU to host Thai junta PR machine
Dear Jeru,
Thanks for your defence of Vichai. Your posts would, however, be far more credible if you weren’t both posting from the same IP.
Best wishes to all,
Nicholas Farrelly
ANU to host Thai junta PR machine
Andrew Walker – – the р╕кр╕Яр╕░р╕│р╕Ю poster
jeru // Aug 14, 2007 at 11:15 pm
supersedes the earlier
jeru // Aug 14, 2007 at 11:09 pm
that is if you don’t elect TO DELETE both.
ANU to host Thai junta PR machine
“The deleted comments added nothing to what had gone before. If Vichai has anything more of substance to add he is very welcome to post it.” – Andrew Walker
Now that was YOUR opinion Andrew Walker, and yours opinion alone. You welcome Vichai but you decide what Vichai posts! And specifically you pushed your special ‘delete-Vichai-button’ on the heat of ‘extrajudicial killings debate’ (effectively shutting down the debate) by YOUR own sole opinion because you Andrew Walker believe Vichai had nothing more of substance to add . . .
It is more than bad form Andrew Walker . . . but I just cannot put my suspicious finger on what the hell you are about . . .
ANU to host Thai junta PR machine
“The deleted comments added nothing to what had gone before. If Vichai has anything more of substance to add he is very welcome to post it.” – Andrew Walker
Now that was YOUR opinion Andrew Walker, and yours opinion alone. You welcome Vichai but you pick on him (you don’t pick on me), and specifically on that ‘extrajudicial killings debate’ going on that you chose to cut-off, by YOUR own opinion because you Andrew Walker believe Vichai has nothing more of substance to add . . .
It is more than bad form Andrew Walker . . . you WERE protecting BangkokPundit but BP does NOT your protection, you said so yourself!
Sufficiency democracy in action
My apologies Andrew – I misinterpreted post 35 as a post by you linking to that particular site.
(because for some reason whenever I see ‘[…]’ I thought it was something the blog administrator did – I’m slowly learning about this internet stuff).
ANU to host Thai junta PR machine
I am very much in favour of the ANU providing a platform for the presentation of a diverse range of views.
I think at the SOAS event, people were for some reason reserved in asking good questions. Maybe the forthcoming event can provide the platform for a more serious Q&A? It doesn’t have to be negative. Sure initially it is a PR event, but it doesn’t have to end that way….
Sufficiency democracy in action
Thanks Andrew and nganadeeleg. I very much appreciate New Mandala’s linking to the blog, I have learned a lot from reading this site the last few months.
As to disseminating my views, it’s a three-way battle at the moment between you all, the Guardian (UK) Football website where I post fairly often, and “Blue Moon,” a message board for Manchester City fans. Although a lot of the City fans are tired of hearing about the debate about Thaksin at this point, especially now that the season has started. I’m going to discuss this in an upcoming post, but the predominant attitude at the moment among relatively thoughtful City fans (the ones who aren’t like “he killed drug dealers? Let’s make him PM of Britain” or “what the toss do I care about what he did in Thailand? He’s good for City”) is, “look the guy’s controversial, there’s arguments on both sides, but if he was really so bad the government would step in and not let him do business here, so who am I to judge any different?”
ANU to host Thai junta PR machine
Mike doesn’t get it. They could sing nursery rhymes at the seminar for all they care. Do you seriously NOT know the answer to the question whether these guys care about political rights in Thailand? They are working for and being paid by by a dictatorship; isn’t it obvious? The issue is not whether we are going to learn anything from this exercise, it is whether it is worth sullying the ANU’s once proud reputation in Thai Studies by foolishly, naively, irresponsibly contributing to the junta’s propaganda by hosting this event. The objective of the seminar is purely so that the junta’s propaganda machine back home (where it matters) , especially Sondhi Lim’s media, can trumpet: “Following successful visits to the leading Thai Studies institutions in Europe and the UK the “war room” concluded their tour with a lively seminar at the ANU’s National Thai Studies Centre, known as one of the world’s leading centres for the study of Thailand. While a few foreigners who don’t understand Thai culture expressed a number of concerns the panel reassured them that Thailand’s democratic development will soon be back on track … etc. etc.”
For you it might be “fun” to see the junta’s PR team at the ANU “flop”, but think about the purpose of the propaganda: justifying the armed overthrow of a democratically-elected government, the exile of its leader, and the dissolution of a mass political party, and legitimizing a new Constitution and political order that seeks to weaken as much as possible the power of politicians, the elected representatives of the people. Not “fun” for the people.
If Leopold can’t tell the difference between Republican posting an opinion on a blog, and the ANU’s flagship for Thai Studies, the NTSC, hosting a visit by a propaganda team sent and paid for by the junta for political purposes, well that just demonstrates your total lack of understanding of how Thai Studies institutions are being used by the junta. And you want people to take you “seriously”? By all means, let these guys send a post on NM so their views can be heard alongside Republican’s – as though we don’t already know what they will say. Or let the Embassy host the event; it’s not as though it is very far for ANU people to travel there to attend. But just don’t give them what they are coming to Canberra to get: the stamp of international academic approval conferred by the ANU’s imprimatur.
In the interests of transparency I hope that Andrew can find out how the NTSC came to be involved in this exercise. Who contacted whom first, whether hosting propaganda panels sent by military juntas – while half of Thailand is still under martial law and political opposition is heavily censored – is now NTSC policy. Did the whole committee agree to it? Or only some members? Who?
If the NTSC is going to go through with this then the global Thai Studies community of scholars should clearly understand what this means: anything the ANU’s NTSC says in the future about “human rights” or “democracy” in Thailand is absolute hypocrisy.