I believe that China and its economic influence in South Africa (China is South Africa’s 4th or 5th largest partner and trade is growing) and Africa as a whole, was crucial in the country’s decision to vote no.
It’s typical of Burmese state-run media to enlist the help of former rebel/ceasefire groups to prove the point that they identify with the government’s viewpoints. After all, the New Light of Myanmar has a daily headline of NLD members resigning. And the renaming of KDA echoes of the “State Peace and Development Council”.
So, “sufficiency economy” was introduced “mainly to help poor farmers.” First, there are relatively few of them left in Thailand. But this has not been due to “sufficiency economy” policies or lifestyles. Rather, the trick was done by integrating people into the modern economic sector, expanding infrastructure, etc. Second, all those who do not fall into the category of “poor farmers” can ignore “sufficiency economy.” And they certainly do–as can easily be seen in Bangkok as well as up-country. Third, the concept has not been embraced. As with many other labels (planning, efficiency, quality, performance, morality, knowledge), it is used merely as a discoursive symbol. The main difference is that, since “sufficiency economy” is a royalist project, a lot more fuss is being made.
Oh dear Nirut, it seems I have been exposed on my own blog: I speak for the villagers but have never spoken to them; and I have a vested career interest in opposing sufficiency economy and promoting capitalist social relations. And this comes on top of Vichai’s revelation that I am in the pay of Thaksin. My CV is looking rather shaky!
Perhaps just one small point in my defence – the paper I have mentioned earlier on local political values is progressing well. I hope to have a draft (which I will make available on this blog) by the end of February. But, Nirut, as you would surely appreciate, writing a paper about local values takes a long time when you have never talked to local people!
And as for using other’s voices …. please give my best New Year’s wishes to Saoneua, Haklao, Anarchist, Tumsom, Kradortom, Lingling and the rest of the gang. I hope you all managed to get together over the festive season.
Holly you might like to read Niels Mulder on Thailand for a deeper appreciation of how in the case of Thailand (where what you are talking about here is mirrored) what you call “Blame based development” is better understood as a logical extension of how society and its “pathologies” are conceived of culturally.
I would be interested for you to elucidate your ideas on the “overwhelming poverty of most HIV/AIDS sufferers” as the ineffectual programming you mention doesn’t strike me as a redirection of resources away from poverty alleviation if you understand where it is coming from and how it is funded. The lunacy of the programmes and the absence of anti-retrovirals are to me unrelated issues and while I would agree that the experience of HIV/AIDS in terms of life and death and suffering can be mediated economically do you mean to say that most people with HIV/AIDS are poor. To locate HIV/AIDS squarely in the lap of the impoverished surely plays into the systemic traps you are critiquing here.
The appeal of the sufficiency rhetoric that you discuss here is the crux of the problem and the caveats that you apply to determine whether or not, or in what form, it is “ok” is quite telling in terms of how the people at the heart of the matter are in a very unfortunate predicament.
The predicament is not simply the application of the ideology to the detriment of the population of Thailand but also that the critics of it can’t see beyond the alternatives that they have drawn of simplistic dichotomies that seem to be the default response to it, to see their way out of the whole farce. You see what is being said in the UNDP report, espoused by the Junta and “invented” by the King, is in structure being espoused by this blog, the struggle being which of you has the right to speak of, and on behalf of the “rural population” is what is in fact being sorted out. The King and Junta (with tacit support from UNDP) argue for one way of being, you lot argue for another, neither of you are speaking in terms reflected on the ground.
It is clear that what constitutes the “aspirations” of the rural folk here is derived from a reflection of self through the mirror of “if I was in their position I would want” (with a touch of what is in it for me if they did want development) and for all the discussion that this and many blogs like it have contributed to the “issue” the outsider who is not sold on the limited choices the collective here operates in accordance with, is left with the uneasy feeling that the people under discussion, those who should be sufficient or developed in their lifestyles , are being run over rough shod in equal measure by the lot of you.
Are capitalist forms of exchange of labour what “everybody wants”, if so says who? In my experience in non urban Thailand people bemoan the loss of the viability of lifestyles that would send a shiver down the World Bank’s spine (if it had one), ones that are neither totally sufficient nor totally developed but that have been turned away from through the combination of development initiatives such as the “green revolution” and the massive landlessness that this incurred, as well as rampant industrialisation for the past 36 years that effectively denuded Thailand of its vegetation and a massive source of food. Lifestyles that have possibilities of social mobility and are far richer in their day to day content than the capitalist based options that underpins both proponents and opponents of the sufficiency economy structure of class division in regards to its means of production.
Whether one is a proponent of sufficiency, development or self determination or any combination of the above what you are arguing for and against is meaningless when you claim to be the spokesperson for the people with whom, I will wage any amount of money on, you have yet to discuss the issue with let alone listen to them on. It is not particularly illuminating to limit the issue here to the Thai context either as sustainability is the catch cry of this century and its ideology has been mobilised in a similar fashion to the Junta/ King’s use even in the west where elite groups use it to legitimate a tightening of the underclass belt in all manner of areas meanwhile they feast at never before seen rates of consumption…
As for what the rural population might want in terms of economic and political participation I think the conceptual division that has emerged here that Thaksin represents one option (participation, poverty alleviation etc) and the Junta and King the other (perpetuation of and heightened poverty with zero participation) is a little simplistic and reflects a need for a greater appreciation of the political landscape beyond the grand rhetoric of failing states and true democracies and other such fantastical constructs that are espoused from your platforms of Tabloid understandings of politics (ie personality politics). Speaking of which what ever became of the paper you were writing on this, Andrew?
I digress (again), to me the upshot of all the analysis here is that the Junta have a vested interest in sufficiency economy in terms of controlling for their benefit the distribution of wealth but so do their critics. Andrew is not merely an anthroplogist interested in Thailand but is part of The Resource Management in Asia-Pacific (RMAP) Program at the Australian National University, others of you are probably enjoying expatriate lifestyles that benefit from foreign economic and political involvement in Thailand. In Andrew’s case he occupies a positionality that demands he oppose sufficiency economy as it is antithetical to his career, regardless of what his personal position might otherwise have been. I use Andrew as the only clear exampl ehere as he is both very vocal about and involved in the issue as well as th eonly person whose context is as publicly accessible as the other group (Junta etc). So what we have here instead of a genuine interest in the people in question is the assertion of one’s own worlod view using other’s voices…
One positive that has emerged I suppose is how sufficiency economy has been a catalyst for a broader realisation perhap of just how much of a farce the UN (be it UN… DP, FPA, ICEF, HCR, AIDS, TAC etc) really is.
Thanks Damian, for your interest, and thanks Patiwat for your question.
By “blame-based development’ I am referring to that strain of policy that blames the poor for their own poverty. Often, it is ‘cultural’ traits that are blamed. Minorities are as a rule associated with ‘cultural’ distinctiveness. When these minorities encounter problems such as poverty or epidemics, blame-based development projects start with the assumption that this cultural distinctiveness must be the cause of their problems. This is a false assumption because it elides the degree to which epidemics, poverty, and other ills are generated through wider structures, such as regulations, distributional mechanisms, and systematic exclusions.
A good example of a blame-based development project is the style of HIV/AIDS interventions that distribute condoms and moral preaching but not anti-retroviral drugs. This blames people’s sexual behaviour without addressing the key structural issues, which are the lack of access to health care, and the overwhelming poverty of most HIV/AIDS sufferers.
Yes, context is the key, however it is also possible to identify recurring themes in the comments of most posters on this site.
It is obvious that I do not admire Thaksin, but I am not prepared to say all his policies were wrong. In the end, Thaksin’s
personal greed and ego let down those who supported him, and their cause may have been further set back as a result of subsequent events.
On the other hand, I do admire the King, but I do not accept that his guidance must always become official policy.
If only the junta could stop being spooked by Thaksin’s maneuvering, then good people could concentrate in getting things right for the next attempt at democracy.
I have one question to ask the CNN, Did former PM. Thaksin Shinnawatra hire you to interview and broadcast worldwide? How much he paid for such the short and stupid interview?
“Are you opposed to the sufficiency principles of ‘moderation, reasonableness and immunity’ per se, or only when it is directed towards rising rural expectations?”
Surely the context is the key. As I have said several times in my comments on the UNDP report, many of the general statements about sufficiency are easy to agree with. What I am arguing against is the way these general ideas are deployed to justify a particular approach to rural development and a particular approach to economic and political participation.
You, and others, may agree with the desirability of “sacrifice” but this does not mean you accept the particular way it is used in, for example, Thaksin’s recent interview.
How influential is the KDA these days? I don’t think anybody thought too much of them from the start. They’ve always been seen as being pretty accommodating towards the military regime. The definitely were spending a lot of money back about ten years ago, trying to buy loyalty, or at least respectability; the Baptist Church compound in Lashio had some pretty prominent plaques in the building walls showing how much money the KDA had given towards the construction of the building. I’m just not sure how successful they were in buying people’s loyalty.
Nevertheless, even for the KDA, this is quite a comedown. The Kachins used to have some respect among the rest of the Burmese population for their resistance to the military regime. After all, part of the NLD uniform was the Kachin pattern longyi. I kind of doubt that would be the choice of ethnic attire among Burma’s pro-democracy movement these days.
Like you, Andrew, I’m all for a ‘serious redistribution of income or resources’.
Lets start with Thaksin & his family paying proper taxes instead of using tax havens and coerced revenue department officials to escape paying tax.
I know he did generously do some redistribution to his maid, but then she was even more generous and redistributed back to the family.
Are you opposed to the sufficiency principles of ‘moderation, reasonableness and immunity’ per se, or only when it is directed towards rising rural expectations?
The posts that are directly attributed to him refer to him in the third person. It reads like a series of poorly written press releases, not blog posts.
That South Africa – which only assumed its seat on the Security Council at the start of 2007 – has provided further succor to Southeast Asia’s most repressive regime is, however, cause for much further reflection.
I must admit I am surprised on how unexpected South Africa’s position was. The Nation in an editorial the other day said the same thing:
“Nobody in their right mind would ever have thought that South Africa would offer strong support to the Burmese junta”
However, given the strong support that the South African government has given to the Zimbabwe government despite the horrific situation that is happening in Zimbabwe, I thought South Africa’s position was expected.
To give you an idea on how bad the situation in Zimbabwe is and what South Africa is doing, here is a quote from The Times:
“World Health Organisation figures show that life expectancy in Zimbabwe, which was 62 in 1990, had by 2004 plummeted to 37 for men and 34 for women. These are by far the worst such figures in the world. Yet Zimbabwe does not even get onto the UN agenda: South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki, who has covered for Mugabe from the beginning, uses his leverage to prevent discussion.”
CNN signal again blocked in Thailand tonight during a news item about the response of the regime to Thaksin’s interview in Singapore, according to local sources. All Thaksin needs to do now is to go the rounds of the major world news networks so that they can all take turns to be censored in Thailand, which they can then turn into a news story to help boost their ratings, which leads to the further erosion of the CNS’s credibility; the perfect plan! Everyone’s a winner.
[…] As has become clearer over the passed few months, the authoritarian apparatuses of mainland Southeast Asia’s dictatorships are well-equipped to deflect critical attention. Censorship – such as the General’s apparent efforts to stop Thaksin from being heard in Thailand – is but the crudest tool available to military-backed regimes. […]
[…] The Human Development Report makes a range of other recommendations relating to community empowerment, corporate responsibility, public administration, national immunity and education. But what is striking is that there is nothing in the “action points” that seeks to seriously address the basic problems of inequality identified in chapter 1 of the report. Remember the key finding from that chapter: People in Bangkok, Bangkok Vicinity and other regional growth areas enjoy higher levels of human development than people in more isolated provinces. The North and the Northeast, as well as a few provinces in the deep South, are placed at much lower levels. […]
[…] Comment: In some cases this may be reasonable but it is important to remember that land is no longer the basis for rural livelihoods, security or prosperity that it may have been in the past. Many of the landless households I know are not particularly interested in acquiring land, partly because they simply lack the capital to invest in the types of agricultural production that will provide them with a reasonable return. They are more interested in good jobs. In some cases underutilised land may be symptomatic of maldistribution. More often, I suspect, it reflects the economic reality that returns in other sectors are much more attractive. Of course, this is not to deny that there are many farmers with uncertain land tenure, especially those who live (like Prime Minister Surayud) in conservation forest areas. I wonder if this recommendation is suggesting that forest regulation should be relaxed somewhat to provide for more secure tenure for these farmers. I suspect not. […]
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The Burmese veto aftermath and dictators’ friends
I believe that China and its economic influence in South Africa (China is South Africa’s 4th or 5th largest partner and trade is growing) and Africa as a whole, was crucial in the country’s decision to vote no.
It’s typical of Burmese state-run media to enlist the help of former rebel/ceasefire groups to prove the point that they identify with the government’s viewpoints. After all, the New Light of Myanmar has a daily headline of NLD members resigning. And the renaming of KDA echoes of the “State Peace and Development Council”.
Sufficiency economy explained…
So, “sufficiency economy” was introduced “mainly to help poor farmers.” First, there are relatively few of them left in Thailand. But this has not been due to “sufficiency economy” policies or lifestyles. Rather, the trick was done by integrating people into the modern economic sector, expanding infrastructure, etc. Second, all those who do not fall into the category of “poor farmers” can ignore “sufficiency economy.” And they certainly do–as can easily be seen in Bangkok as well as up-country. Third, the concept has not been embraced. As with many other labels (planning, efficiency, quality, performance, morality, knowledge), it is used merely as a discoursive symbol. The main difference is that, since “sufficiency economy” is a royalist project, a lot more fuss is being made.
Sufficiency going forward, diversity going backward
Oh dear Nirut, it seems I have been exposed on my own blog: I speak for the villagers but have never spoken to them; and I have a vested career interest in opposing sufficiency economy and promoting capitalist social relations. And this comes on top of Vichai’s revelation that I am in the pay of Thaksin. My CV is looking rather shaky!
Perhaps just one small point in my defence – the paper I have mentioned earlier on local political values is progressing well. I hope to have a draft (which I will make available on this blog) by the end of February. But, Nirut, as you would surely appreciate, writing a paper about local values takes a long time when you have never talked to local people!
And as for using other’s voices …. please give my best New Year’s wishes to Saoneua, Haklao, Anarchist, Tumsom, Kradortom, Lingling and the rest of the gang. I hope you all managed to get together over the festive season.
The rich don’t go to prison, and the poor don’t go to hospital
Holly you might like to read Niels Mulder on Thailand for a deeper appreciation of how in the case of Thailand (where what you are talking about here is mirrored) what you call “Blame based development” is better understood as a logical extension of how society and its “pathologies” are conceived of culturally.
I would be interested for you to elucidate your ideas on the “overwhelming poverty of most HIV/AIDS sufferers” as the ineffectual programming you mention doesn’t strike me as a redirection of resources away from poverty alleviation if you understand where it is coming from and how it is funded. The lunacy of the programmes and the absence of anti-retrovirals are to me unrelated issues and while I would agree that the experience of HIV/AIDS in terms of life and death and suffering can be mediated economically do you mean to say that most people with HIV/AIDS are poor. To locate HIV/AIDS squarely in the lap of the impoverished surely plays into the systemic traps you are critiquing here.
Sufficiency going forward, diversity going backward
The appeal of the sufficiency rhetoric that you discuss here is the crux of the problem and the caveats that you apply to determine whether or not, or in what form, it is “ok” is quite telling in terms of how the people at the heart of the matter are in a very unfortunate predicament.
The predicament is not simply the application of the ideology to the detriment of the population of Thailand but also that the critics of it can’t see beyond the alternatives that they have drawn of simplistic dichotomies that seem to be the default response to it, to see their way out of the whole farce. You see what is being said in the UNDP report, espoused by the Junta and “invented” by the King, is in structure being espoused by this blog, the struggle being which of you has the right to speak of, and on behalf of the “rural population” is what is in fact being sorted out. The King and Junta (with tacit support from UNDP) argue for one way of being, you lot argue for another, neither of you are speaking in terms reflected on the ground.
It is clear that what constitutes the “aspirations” of the rural folk here is derived from a reflection of self through the mirror of “if I was in their position I would want” (with a touch of what is in it for me if they did want development) and for all the discussion that this and many blogs like it have contributed to the “issue” the outsider who is not sold on the limited choices the collective here operates in accordance with, is left with the uneasy feeling that the people under discussion, those who should be sufficient or developed in their lifestyles , are being run over rough shod in equal measure by the lot of you.
Are capitalist forms of exchange of labour what “everybody wants”, if so says who? In my experience in non urban Thailand people bemoan the loss of the viability of lifestyles that would send a shiver down the World Bank’s spine (if it had one), ones that are neither totally sufficient nor totally developed but that have been turned away from through the combination of development initiatives such as the “green revolution” and the massive landlessness that this incurred, as well as rampant industrialisation for the past 36 years that effectively denuded Thailand of its vegetation and a massive source of food. Lifestyles that have possibilities of social mobility and are far richer in their day to day content than the capitalist based options that underpins both proponents and opponents of the sufficiency economy structure of class division in regards to its means of production.
Whether one is a proponent of sufficiency, development or self determination or any combination of the above what you are arguing for and against is meaningless when you claim to be the spokesperson for the people with whom, I will wage any amount of money on, you have yet to discuss the issue with let alone listen to them on. It is not particularly illuminating to limit the issue here to the Thai context either as sustainability is the catch cry of this century and its ideology has been mobilised in a similar fashion to the Junta/ King’s use even in the west where elite groups use it to legitimate a tightening of the underclass belt in all manner of areas meanwhile they feast at never before seen rates of consumption…
As for what the rural population might want in terms of economic and political participation I think the conceptual division that has emerged here that Thaksin represents one option (participation, poverty alleviation etc) and the Junta and King the other (perpetuation of and heightened poverty with zero participation) is a little simplistic and reflects a need for a greater appreciation of the political landscape beyond the grand rhetoric of failing states and true democracies and other such fantastical constructs that are espoused from your platforms of Tabloid understandings of politics (ie personality politics). Speaking of which what ever became of the paper you were writing on this, Andrew?
I digress (again), to me the upshot of all the analysis here is that the Junta have a vested interest in sufficiency economy in terms of controlling for their benefit the distribution of wealth but so do their critics. Andrew is not merely an anthroplogist interested in Thailand but is part of The Resource Management in Asia-Pacific (RMAP) Program at the Australian National University, others of you are probably enjoying expatriate lifestyles that benefit from foreign economic and political involvement in Thailand. In Andrew’s case he occupies a positionality that demands he oppose sufficiency economy as it is antithetical to his career, regardless of what his personal position might otherwise have been. I use Andrew as the only clear exampl ehere as he is both very vocal about and involved in the issue as well as th eonly person whose context is as publicly accessible as the other group (Junta etc). So what we have here instead of a genuine interest in the people in question is the assertion of one’s own worlod view using other’s voices…
One positive that has emerged I suppose is how sufficiency economy has been a catalyst for a broader realisation perhap of just how much of a farce the UN (be it UN… DP, FPA, ICEF, HCR, AIDS, TAC etc) really is.
The rich don’t go to prison, and the poor don’t go to hospital
Thanks Damian, for your interest, and thanks Patiwat for your question.
By “blame-based development’ I am referring to that strain of policy that blames the poor for their own poverty. Often, it is ‘cultural’ traits that are blamed. Minorities are as a rule associated with ‘cultural’ distinctiveness. When these minorities encounter problems such as poverty or epidemics, blame-based development projects start with the assumption that this cultural distinctiveness must be the cause of their problems. This is a false assumption because it elides the degree to which epidemics, poverty, and other ills are generated through wider structures, such as regulations, distributional mechanisms, and systematic exclusions.
A good example of a blame-based development project is the style of HIV/AIDS interventions that distribute condoms and moral preaching but not anti-retroviral drugs. This blames people’s sexual behaviour without addressing the key structural issues, which are the lack of access to health care, and the overwhelming poverty of most HIV/AIDS sufferers.
Sufficiency going forward, diversity going backward
Yes, context is the key, however it is also possible to identify recurring themes in the comments of most posters on this site.
It is obvious that I do not admire Thaksin, but I am not prepared to say all his policies were wrong. In the end, Thaksin’s
personal greed and ego let down those who supported him, and their cause may have been further set back as a result of subsequent events.
On the other hand, I do admire the King, but I do not accept that his guidance must always become official policy.
If only the junta could stop being spooked by Thaksin’s maneuvering, then good people could concentrate in getting things right for the next attempt at democracy.
Thaksin on CNN
I have one question to ask the CNN, Did former PM. Thaksin Shinnawatra hire you to interview and broadcast worldwide? How much he paid for such the short and stupid interview?
Sufficiency going forward, diversity going backward
“Are you opposed to the sufficiency principles of ‘moderation, reasonableness and immunity’ per se, or only when it is directed towards rising rural expectations?”
Surely the context is the key. As I have said several times in my comments on the UNDP report, many of the general statements about sufficiency are easy to agree with. What I am arguing against is the way these general ideas are deployed to justify a particular approach to rural development and a particular approach to economic and political participation.
You, and others, may agree with the desirability of “sacrifice” but this does not mean you accept the particular way it is used in, for example, Thaksin’s recent interview.
Simplified concepts are useful political tools.
The Burmese veto aftermath and dictators’ friends
How influential is the KDA these days? I don’t think anybody thought too much of them from the start. They’ve always been seen as being pretty accommodating towards the military regime. The definitely were spending a lot of money back about ten years ago, trying to buy loyalty, or at least respectability; the Baptist Church compound in Lashio had some pretty prominent plaques in the building walls showing how much money the KDA had given towards the construction of the building. I’m just not sure how successful they were in buying people’s loyalty.
Nevertheless, even for the KDA, this is quite a comedown. The Kachins used to have some respect among the rest of the Burmese population for their resistance to the military regime. After all, part of the NLD uniform was the Kachin pattern longyi. I kind of doubt that would be the choice of ethnic attire among Burma’s pro-democracy movement these days.
Sufficiency going forward, diversity going backward
Like you, Andrew, I’m all for a ‘serious redistribution of income or resources’.
Lets start with Thaksin & his family paying proper taxes instead of using tax havens and coerced revenue department officials to escape paying tax.
I know he did generously do some redistribution to his maid, but then she was even more generous and redistributed back to the family.
Are you opposed to the sufficiency principles of ‘moderation, reasonableness and immunity’ per se, or only when it is directed towards rising rural expectations?
Sulak Sivaraksa blog
Point taken, Patiwat. Some are as you describe. Some of the other posts, like these ones, are much more blog-like than the others:
– http://sivaraksa.com/how-to-achieve-our-democracy
– http://sivaraksa.com/thaksins-arrogance-something-the-king-cannot-stand
But I wouldn’t be surprised if these more substantial posts have all been published elsewhere in the past. At this stage, it’s a bit of a mixed bag.
Sulak Sivaraksa blog
Is it really his blog?
The posts that are directly attributed to him refer to him in the third person. It reads like a series of poorly written press releases, not blog posts.
The rich don’t go to prison, and the poor don’t go to hospital
What is a “blame-based ‘development’ project?”
The Burmese veto aftermath and dictators’ friends
That South Africa – which only assumed its seat on the Security Council at the start of 2007 – has provided further succor to Southeast Asia’s most repressive regime is, however, cause for much further reflection.
I must admit I am surprised on how unexpected South Africa’s position was. The Nation in an editorial the other day said the same thing:
“Nobody in their right mind would ever have thought that South Africa would offer strong support to the Burmese junta”
However, given the strong support that the South African government has given to the Zimbabwe government despite the horrific situation that is happening in Zimbabwe, I thought South Africa’s position was expected.
To give you an idea on how bad the situation in Zimbabwe is and what South Africa is doing, here is a quote from The Times:
“World Health Organisation figures show that life expectancy in Zimbabwe, which was 62 in 1990, had by 2004 plummeted to 37 for men and 34 for women. These are by far the worst such figures in the world. Yet Zimbabwe does not even get onto the UN agenda: South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki, who has covered for Mugabe from the beginning, uses his leverage to prevent discussion.”
Sufficiency democracy – CNN blocked in Thailand
CNN signal again blocked in Thailand tonight during a news item about the response of the regime to Thaksin’s interview in Singapore, according to local sources. All Thaksin needs to do now is to go the rounds of the major world news networks so that they can all take turns to be censored in Thailand, which they can then turn into a news story to help boost their ratings, which leads to the further erosion of the CNS’s credibility; the perfect plan! Everyone’s a winner.
Sufficiency democracy – CNN blocked in Thailand
[…] As has become clearer over the passed few months, the authoritarian apparatuses of mainland Southeast Asia’s dictatorships are well-equipped to deflect critical attention. Censorship – such as the General’s apparent efforts to stop Thaksin from being heard in Thailand – is but the crudest tool available to military-backed regimes. […]
The rich don’t go to prison, and the poor don’t go to hospital
Ping.
Sufficiency economy = poverty?
[…] The Human Development Report makes a range of other recommendations relating to community empowerment, corporate responsibility, public administration, national immunity and education. But what is striking is that there is nothing in the “action points” that seeks to seriously address the basic problems of inequality identified in chapter 1 of the report. Remember the key finding from that chapter: People in Bangkok, Bangkok Vicinity and other regional growth areas enjoy higher levels of human development than people in more isolated provinces. The North and the Northeast, as well as a few provinces in the deep South, are placed at much lower levels. […]
Surayud’s conservation zone
[…] Comment: In some cases this may be reasonable but it is important to remember that land is no longer the basis for rural livelihoods, security or prosperity that it may have been in the past. Many of the landless households I know are not particularly interested in acquiring land, partly because they simply lack the capital to invest in the types of agricultural production that will provide them with a reasonable return. They are more interested in good jobs. In some cases underutilised land may be symptomatic of maldistribution. More often, I suspect, it reflects the economic reality that returns in other sectors are much more attractive. Of course, this is not to deny that there are many farmers with uncertain land tenure, especially those who live (like Prime Minister Surayud) in conservation forest areas. I wonder if this recommendation is suggesting that forest regulation should be relaxed somewhat to provide for more secure tenure for these farmers. I suspect not. […]