Comments

# 7: A “concept of nation without geography” is also merely a concept, i.e. an imagination. That does not mean that it has not very real behavioral consequences, on the opposite. In Marokko, the state is worried, because the concept of nation propagated by Islamist forces is not the country of Marocco, but rather the Muslim-Arab Nation. In the case of Southern Thailand, however, the geographical focus seems to be rather clear, although some religous references might certainly go beyond the three provinces. It is important to note, as you do, that the previous ethnic nationalism seem to have been replaced by groups that are mlilitantly Islamistic.

# 1: Regarding your interest concerning the factor of “fear”, at the cent AAS conference in Boston, Marc Askew presented a paper antitled “Landscapes of Fear, Horizons of Trust: Dealing With Danger in Thailand’s Insurgent South.” Maybe, we will see this in print at some later point of time. The author of this paper has just started his second round of field data collection in Pattani. Duncan McCargo had also done many months of field work in Pattani, mainly on political aspects, including the Islamic Council elections. He is now writing up his book. A number of PhD students has also taken up the South as an object of study. But research is dangerous. One of them, collecting data in Narathiwat, told me, “I would like to collect some more data in rural areas, but this is life-threatening.”

So, some more publications will certainly see the light, sooner or later.

It’s interesting to compare the OSI grantees to the list of NED grantees. The NED doesn’t list the names of the organizations, but it’s easy to identify many of the smaller organizations and media groups by the descriptions. The International Republican Institute is an interesting thing – I wonder if anyone has any opinions on that? I had not heard of them until visiting that site.

Funny enough, though, the NED was an OSI grant recipient in 2004.

I think the criticisms of OSI here are valid, but I also think it’s worth pointing out the difference between the ‘international’ discourse on Burma, which is dominated by the pro-sanctions, free ASSK crowd and the attitudes of Burmese exiles/activists/refugees in Asia. For those working on the ground with refugee communities, in education, community development, health, etc. these issues are hardly dominant, and I doubt you’d find many with the ‘hard-line’ perspective referenced above. There are well-deserving groups getting OSI funding.

In my experience in Thailand and Malaysia, I did not meet one Burmese activist who beleived that Aung San Suu Kyi’s freedom was actually a solution to the problem, and a few who were openly critical of the focus on her detention. Discussion of sanctions were quite rare, and the few I can remember were not characterized by the dogmatic attitudes commenters are rightly criticizing. The fact is that these issues aren’t really relevant to the work they are doing there – their voices are different, and it would be great if we could hear more of them, but they aren’t being drowned out per se, they just have better work to be doing. That’s not to say some voices aren’t being drowned out by all this, just that the public debate and discourse that is so prominent does not reflect the attitudes of those people actually working on the ground to do something constructive. And I’m not sure how much the drawbacks of funding practices of the OSI and NED necessarily influence that work as much as it does that public debate.

Finally, a number of people are heading towards the right direction. I’d like to add a few things briefly.

: Researchers need to go down to the ground. Go to the pondok (ponoh) religious schools. Access would be extremely difficult around this time (I visited some at peace time). The ones you should be studying normally don’t let you in. Study the role of ‘toh kru’ and remember education is a process of ‘socialization’.

: I fear that this may be ‘Nationalism’ of most complicated kind. It is ‘re-li-gi-o-us nationalism’. Psychologists (to study cause of ideology/mind), anthropologists (to study ethno-symbolism), and religion comparativists need to get involved. Historians and political sociologists have to move beond an understanding which suggests the ‘nation’ is an imaginary construct (or isn’t real). Islam transcends modernity. It provides a strong base to a concept of nation without geography and doesn’t necessarily require printed materials to spread Nationalist idea (the fact that something like kitab jawi exists and they are still teaching it has some implication to the idea of ethno-religious homeland?)

Best of luck to everyone researching the South.

>>Maybe, we will see a new and improbable holy trinity of the global green and alternative movement appear on the horizon: Schumacher, Illich, and King Bhumibol. And Sachs is their prophet. Amen.

Organizing a seminar (or even a “creative gathering”) on developing more environmentally sustainable economic models is a worthy activity, and of course it is a “good thing” for international organizations to join their Thai counterparts to discuss such issues. But why call it “sufficiency economy”? Do the participants not realize that once one uses the king’s “theory” that any real debate will be impossible? In fact, technically speaking criticism of the king’s “theory” (that the military junta has forced upon the Thai people after the coup) would put one at risk of lese majeste, and a 15 year jail term. Participation in such a conference by international organizations not only gives undeserved international credibility to the “sufficiency economy” propaganda (for that is exactly what it is) but it shows a callous disregard for the Thai people who have been forced to accept the “sufficiency theory” at the barrel of a gun. Yet another example of how international organizations allow themselves to be used (knowingly or not) for royalist propaganda purposes.

By chance I came across the article of Andrew Walker on our Sufficiency Economy conference and the comments.

If Anrew received the right anouncement for this creative gathering it should have indicated that some supporting groups were not yet confirmed. The final co-organizers are: Schweisfurth Stiftung, Sathirakoses-Nagapradipa Foundation, Bangchak Petroleum, Social Research Institute, Chula, Suan Nguen Mee Ma Co., Ltd. and Social Venture Network Asia.

So Heinrich Boell Foundation did not confirm and that makes the exchanges on German political parties meddling irrelevant (but many remarks are interesting and deserve to be included in a more consistent analysis).

The most important input from the German side we expect will be (not from any organisation but) from Wolfgang Sachs who is known for his independent thinking and critical analysis. We asked him to cast a fresh light on ‘sufficiency economy’ and our intention is to go beyond ritualistic or stereotyped appraisals. We offer the discussion between a variety of stakeholders as an opportunity for open debate on fundamentals of the economy and the title of the conference is ‘Sufficiency Economy and global transformation’.

Where are the farmers? Last year in April we organised, also together with Scheisfurth Stiftung, a meeting on ‘Green Marketing’ and that has resulted in strengthening of the Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) project that makes a direct link between rural producers and urban consumers of organic vegetables on one year subscription base.

This year the issue is more complicated and we have persons in the workshops on 20 April who speak from various perspectives including the farmers, labour in industry, and micro-finance.

We try to involve civil society, government and the business sector as equal partners.

It is true that our small-scale company is closely connected with Sulak and other organizations inspired by him but I can assure you that we work in a climate of total independence and diversity of opinioins.

So we really would appreciate participation of many commentators and critical thinkers, activists (‘join our love-in’) in the public debate on Saturday 21 April 9.00 – 12.30 at Chumphot Pantip auditorium, Chulalongkorn University (in between Faculties of Political Science and Economy).

Hans and Wallapa
Suan Nguen Mee Ma

As the last outgoing British ambassador ironically pointed out, the activists are making their activism targets, but Burma clearly isn’t.

OSI seems to be funding a whole generation of professional activists who can do nothing else. Look at the list of excluded projects:

Ineligible Projects

* Unsolicited research projects….
* Social welfare projects, including health care, schools (outside of OSI’s Burma Project Education Office activities), orphanages, and provision of social services;
* Cultural projects, including those related to cultural heritage and preservation, museums, literature, and fine and performing arts unless directly connected to the protection and promotion of civil and political rights;
* Environmental projects unless directly connected to the protection and promotion of civil and political rights;
* Development projects (i.e., construction of buildings, well-digging);
* Microfinance and loans.
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/bpsai/focus_areas/burma/guidelines

When I was doing my (privately funded) research there in the 1990s, I had a research assistant, a young male university student who like so many others had a lot of free time on their hands because the universities were always closed, a male because a lot of people use the hiring of a language teacher or research assistant to make contact with females for nefarious purposes (ironically some people thought I was homosexual when they saw us together). He helped me read Burmese history books and literature and later got a good job at a UN library.

I don’t see why the OSI has such a negative impression of Burmese culture, literature, and history, that they don’t see fit to fund research in this area. They were behind those two wonderful Mon dictionaries, I hear, though.

What? Was this posted in the right place? The thread has nothing to do with Thaksin, It’s a pathetic fallacy to say that if you criticize people who criticize Thaksin, you are pro-Thaksin. Though that seems to be the fad in many circles in Thailand now.

That’s a bit simplistic – Have a look at Andrew’s posts on this site since the coup and you will see a consistent theme.
How many times sufficiency has been used as a snide header, how many times has Surayud been prefaced by ‘puppet’, but one thing you will not find is much criticism of Thaksin – it seems he can do no wrong because the rural poor voted for him.

JFL got it right in his comment#1 above.

Rather than make snide comments about sufficiency valentines and the like (& to help avoid being labelled as pro Thaksin), detractors of Sufficiency Economy might be better served by clearly explaining which of the following camps they fit into:
1. they oppose Sufficiency Economy as a theory (and give reasons, not just trot out the manta Poor stay Poor)
or
2. they oppose the junta imposing Sufficiency Economy.

Having read the king’s speeches on the subject, I see nothing wrong with Sufficiency Economy principles, and consider it more good advice from the king (that will probably not be heeded).

I also see nothing wrong with the government providing educational advice on the subject of sufficiency (most of it is just common sense – moderaton, immunity, reasonableness etc)

I do, however, oppose Sufficiency Economy being mandated as the official economic policy that all Thai’s must adhere to.

As for the conference in a few days, who cares if it’s a love-in – I would only be concerned if critics were stopped from raising questions.

If I were academics working on the South, I would devote all my attention studying ‘religious nationalism’.