[…] Comment: I have addressed this issue in my comments on chapter 2. To put it bluntly, self-reliant production is simply not viable for most rural people in Thailand. Rural people have responded to resource constraints by diversifying livelihood strategies. Development strategies need to focus on spatial and economic livelihood diversity rather than prioritising a foundation of “self-reliant production.” A development emphasis on self reliant production is not consistent with rural people’s quite reasonable aspirations for educational opportunity, employment mobility and increased standards of living. The “rural” can no longer be equated with the “agricultural.” […]
[…] This is my final comment on the UNDP’s 2007 Thailand Human Development Report (for my previous post see here). My comments in this post focus on the final chapter (”Sufficiency going forward”) which explores the ways in which the sufficiency economy approach can help to “change the direction of thinking and practice on development” in Thailand. […]
Army Commander Sonthi focused too much on planning his coup and not enough on ending the Southern insurgency. Now that he heads the junta, he is still more focused on destroying the Thaksin-legacy than in solving the problems of the South.
Thaksin once said that if the King whispered to him and told him to leave, he would leave. Well, the coup was more than a whisper – it was a thunderclap.
As long as the current King reigns, Thaksin has no chance in politics. His retirement from politics is wise and realistic.
Holly, thanks very much for posting this invaluable insight into the lives of Lao poor. The images portrayed here – of sick children and decaying health facilities – are powerful and moving.
As a student of peace and conflict, I am interested in this idea of blame-based development in Laos. And I feel that you are right to refer to the denial of health care as structural violence against the poor, an insidious form of violence in addition to the more overt forms that the Lao saying implies (that is, state power).
I also think that your observation that “[i]t is possible that resource distribution, not resettlement, is the real issue of concern” strikes at the heart of this matter and other issues that effect poor populations in the developing world.
I don’t think the CNS needed to order the blocking of specific content. They threatened the media last week and that is enough. This from The Nation says it all:
One Channel 7 official said the station did not wish to enter into a debate with the Council of National Security (CNS) after last week’s much-criticised demand for local broadcasters to not carry stories about the former prime minister.
“Just the name Thaksin is enough. We don’t need to look at the content,” said a Channel 7 source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
I wonder if CNN knows that its website and signal in Thailand have been blocked, (apparently the website is back up now). That would be an interesting news story in itself.
Who knows what else the royalist regime might want to block its Thai subjects from knowing – bad economic news, international criticism of the regime, unwanted results from the English premier league; the list could be endless. But such censorship is entirely in keeping with nature of royalist hegemony over the Thai polity: it can only survive by controlling what its subjects see and hear. Hence the central importance of lese majeste to the survival of the ratchakan state. Without lese majeste the entire edifice of royalist power in Thailand would collapse. Even the UNDP would find it difficult to save them.
I will confirm it. CNN was blocked during the interview. And it was stupid.
CNN just recently has been restored in the Thai internet and the Thaksin interview is available belatedly. Maybe the junta has now realized they are looking like fools trying to block the media and the internet if the news relates to Thaksin.
General Sonthi said he did not order the censor of the CNN-Thaksin interview. Must have been some other junta member definitely (Saprang?).
The junta should stick to going after real national security threats – those bombers and school arsonists. And bring back Thaksin to Thailand to face the charges and so the junta can really keep a close eye on him.
This probably does reflect the way that a lot of people feel.
They are sick of political disorder and just want peace, even if it comes with the military.
IMHO Myopic tunnel vision focus on one case, i.e. Thailand, doesn’t really help explain much.
Look at the current turmoil in Bangladesh which seems to mirror some of the same perceived problems with democracy:
“The current crisis is all about confidence. The Awami League and its allies simply did not have any confidence in the caretaker administration headed by President Iajuddin Ahmed, to deliver free and fair polls.”
“…The Awami League’s confidence in the new administration will grow if there are clear moves to reshuffle the civil administration, and remove officers loyal to the previous regime from key election duties. It will reach a peak once the electoral rolls are updated and the Election Commission is fully reorganised.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6253889.stm
Thaksin’s TRT was quickly becoming a one party state, a political impasse paralyzed the government, the only force capable of breaking the impasse (the military) acted, coup, now what? Another coup? Despite vocal media criticism and criticism by intellectuals, there is currently no political turmoil like there was last year or like there is currently in Bangladesh.
IMHO Critical economic decisions are now being made by Pridiyathorn who, though lacking the marketing expertise necessary in electoral democracy, is increasing transparency and implementing sound economic policy in his changes, and is showing as he goes along, how the marketing required of democracy itself, may have led to decreased transparency.
Thaksin is a real “people’s hero”, doing everything for the people and the country. Well, at least he did well for some people, such as in the Shin Corp sale that triggered the protests when Sonthi Limthongkul was about to leave the scene, and eventually led to the coup. But, surely, Thaksin would never do anything “stupid”!
“Myanmar is very grateful to the People’s Republic of China, Russian Federation…”
My political noise filter blocks out everything else.
What force other than plain economics and lifting the Burmese people out of their collective poverty is going to displace China’s legitimization of the regime?
No matter how much I might despise the regime, economic sanctions are not the answer.
Shinawatra: No. No. (DR: Go back as a private … ) Enough is enough. Six years you serve the countries. You been working hard. You sacrifice your time even your life. And, even your family life. So it’s, it’s time for me to go back as a private citizen. And contribute to the Thai society outside political arena.”
Can we believe him (this time) ?
I’m more worried about him being vindictive, and using his wealth to cause trouble.
PM Surayud should stop the nonsense, be unafraid, and bring back Thaksin Shinawatra to Thailand. PM Surayud’s government has already started filing many corruption/tax evasion charges against Thaksin’s family and cronies and Thaksin Shinawatra is at the center of all these allegations. It will be very awkward to formally begin the formal process of adjudicating on these allegations when Thaksin Shinawatra is not allowed to appear in person in Thailand to defend himself.
Thaksin Shinawatra has said many many times that he is willing to return to Thailand to face the charges. Now that the charges are being filed, Thaksin Shinawatra should be allowed to return.
Sufficiency Media Coverage: My sources tell me that the link you give leads to a “The page can not be displayed” in Thailand – i.e. one would assume it has been blocked. The CNN signal was definitely blocked in Thailand during the times the interview was aired, and access in Thailand to the CNN and BBC websites also appear to have been blocked, presumably for carrying the story. Still we should not complain. Along with everything else we should be satisfied with the media coverage the royalist regime allows us to have. I am beginning to think like O’Brian: “I love Big Brother!”
Ananymous’ questions goes to the heart of the problem. The Buddhistic Depotism we effectively have in Thailand is fundamentally due to reverence the people have of Bhumipol personally, not the institution he occupies. Vachiravudh does not and will probably never enjoy the same level of reverence from the people. Sirindthorn has a chance though – and this is where Handley’s theory re reason behind the coup (i.e. succession) may be prescient.
But that is exactly why the September 19 coup was a major setback for the country. The best guarantee we had for a secure future is the stregthening of democracy, not subversion of it and perpetuation of the system of Buddhistic Depotism. It was very sad to see the Millions in Yellow cheer on the tanks. It showed that the “social contract” required for democracy to reign still has not taken root in Thailand. The “social contract” is still with the King personally. But the King should have sided with democracy. He did try to steer the resolution through democratic processes, but other forces drove events towards the brink, which forced him react. We (and the coup plotters) know that when forced to choose between stability and democracy, the King always chooses the former.
Good question, anonymous.
I have some concerns about the future – mainly because there are doubts about whether the son commands the necessary level of respect (irresepctive of whether or not he has the appropriate qualities for the job).
I agree that trust in an individual and in an institution are different – At this stage I am placing my trust in HMK and hope that he knows his children well, and provides the right guidance.
No matter what power the future monarch has, I cannot see the institution lasting long if the the monarch acts poorly.
An inappropriate monarch would probably be similar to a republic anyway – there would be no higher authority above politics, and the dust will just settle with the biggest tyrant attaining power under either system.
Nganadirek, is your trust in HMK Bhumibol or the monarchy in general?
If Bhumibol were to pass away tomorrow, and his son appointed King (don’t forget, the King has to be appointed by the Parliament), would you trust him with the same powers the current King has? If the Kingdom becomes divided, would you let him choose who governs and who goes into exile? Would you trust him to keep tyrants in check, even if the constitution allows them to rule at will? Would you trust him to deal in a human way with Princess Sirindhorn and his ex-wives?
This is a very serious question. Trust in an individual and trust in an institution are very different things.
I, for one, think the King is decent enough to rule, but if his son were to be appointed King, I’d call for a republic.
Thank you, Taxi Driver, for an objective analysis.
I, too, am not comfortable with the way the King’s theory is being adopted by the junta and the bureaucracy as some sort of magical formula that has to be strictly followed to achieve economic nirvana.
I would much prefer if it was just left as guidance from a wise elder for people to think about how they live, irrespective of whether they are rich or poor, city or rural dweller.
‘Enough to live on and enough to live for’ – Even the Republicans and Andrew Walker’s of this world should be able to accept the principle behind that statement.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
A royal project
[…] Comment: I have addressed this issue in my comments on chapter 2. To put it bluntly, self-reliant production is simply not viable for most rural people in Thailand. Rural people have responded to resource constraints by diversifying livelihood strategies. Development strategies need to focus on spatial and economic livelihood diversity rather than prioritising a foundation of “self-reliant production.” A development emphasis on self reliant production is not consistent with rural people’s quite reasonable aspirations for educational opportunity, employment mobility and increased standards of living. The “rural” can no longer be equated with the “agricultural.” […]
In-sufficient analysis
[…] This is my final comment on the UNDP’s 2007 Thailand Human Development Report (for my previous post see here). My comments in this post focus on the final chapter (”Sufficiency going forward”) which explores the ways in which the sufficiency economy approach can help to “change the direction of thinking and practice on development” in Thailand. […]
Sufficiency democracy – CNN blocked in Thailand
Army Commander Sonthi focused too much on planning his coup and not enough on ending the Southern insurgency. Now that he heads the junta, he is still more focused on destroying the Thaksin-legacy than in solving the problems of the South.
Thaksin on CNN
Thaksin once said that if the King whispered to him and told him to leave, he would leave. Well, the coup was more than a whisper – it was a thunderclap.
As long as the current King reigns, Thaksin has no chance in politics. His retirement from politics is wise and realistic.
The rich don’t go to prison, and the poor don’t go to hospital
Holly, thanks very much for posting this invaluable insight into the lives of Lao poor. The images portrayed here – of sick children and decaying health facilities – are powerful and moving.
As a student of peace and conflict, I am interested in this idea of blame-based development in Laos. And I feel that you are right to refer to the denial of health care as structural violence against the poor, an insidious form of violence in addition to the more overt forms that the Lao saying implies (that is, state power).
I also think that your observation that “[i]t is possible that resource distribution, not resettlement, is the real issue of concern” strikes at the heart of this matter and other issues that effect poor populations in the developing world.
Sufficiency democracy – CNN blocked in Thailand
Vichai
I don’t think the CNS needed to order the blocking of specific content. They threatened the media last week and that is enough. This from The Nation says it all:
One Channel 7 official said the station did not wish to enter into a debate with the Council of National Security (CNS) after last week’s much-criticised demand for local broadcasters to not carry stories about the former prime minister.
“Just the name Thaksin is enough. We don’t need to look at the content,” said a Channel 7 source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Thaksin on CNN
I have to agree with Vichai on this.
What ever happened to “keep your friends close and your enemies even closer”?
Thaksin on CNN
I wonder if CNN knows that its website and signal in Thailand have been blocked, (apparently the website is back up now). That would be an interesting news story in itself.
Who knows what else the royalist regime might want to block its Thai subjects from knowing – bad economic news, international criticism of the regime, unwanted results from the English premier league; the list could be endless. But such censorship is entirely in keeping with nature of royalist hegemony over the Thai polity: it can only survive by controlling what its subjects see and hear. Hence the central importance of lese majeste to the survival of the ratchakan state. Without lese majeste the entire edifice of royalist power in Thailand would collapse. Even the UNDP would find it difficult to save them.
Sufficiency democracy – CNN blocked in Thailand
I will confirm it. CNN was blocked during the interview. And it was stupid.
CNN just recently has been restored in the Thai internet and the Thaksin interview is available belatedly. Maybe the junta has now realized they are looking like fools trying to block the media and the internet if the news relates to Thaksin.
General Sonthi said he did not order the censor of the CNN-Thaksin interview. Must have been some other junta member definitely (Saprang?).
The junta should stick to going after real national security threats – those bombers and school arsonists. And bring back Thaksin to Thailand to face the charges and so the junta can really keep a close eye on him.
Sufficiency economy goes to the polls…
This probably does reflect the way that a lot of people feel.
They are sick of political disorder and just want peace, even if it comes with the military.
IMHO Myopic tunnel vision focus on one case, i.e. Thailand, doesn’t really help explain much.
Look at the current turmoil in Bangladesh which seems to mirror some of the same perceived problems with democracy:
“The current crisis is all about confidence. The Awami League and its allies simply did not have any confidence in the caretaker administration headed by President Iajuddin Ahmed, to deliver free and fair polls.”
“…The Awami League’s confidence in the new administration will grow if there are clear moves to reshuffle the civil administration, and remove officers loyal to the previous regime from key election duties. It will reach a peak once the electoral rolls are updated and the Election Commission is fully reorganised.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6253889.stm
Thaksin’s TRT was quickly becoming a one party state, a political impasse paralyzed the government, the only force capable of breaking the impasse (the military) acted, coup, now what? Another coup? Despite vocal media criticism and criticism by intellectuals, there is currently no political turmoil like there was last year or like there is currently in Bangladesh.
IMHO Critical economic decisions are now being made by Pridiyathorn who, though lacking the marketing expertise necessary in electoral democracy, is increasing transparency and implementing sound economic policy in his changes, and is showing as he goes along, how the marketing required of democracy itself, may have led to decreased transparency.
Thaksin on CNN
Thaksin is a real “people’s hero”, doing everything for the people and the country. Well, at least he did well for some people, such as in the Shin Corp sale that triggered the protests when Sonthi Limthongkul was about to leave the scene, and eventually led to the coup. But, surely, Thaksin would never do anything “stupid”!
New Light of Myanmar defends “interest of the Myanmar people”
“Myanmar is very grateful to the People’s Republic of China, Russian Federation…”
My political noise filter blocks out everything else.
What force other than plain economics and lifting the Burmese people out of their collective poverty is going to displace China’s legitimization of the regime?
No matter how much I might despise the regime, economic sanctions are not the answer.
This could go on for another 20 years.
Thaksin on CNN
“Rivers: Will you go back to, back to politics?
Shinawatra: No. No. (DR: Go back as a private … ) Enough is enough. Six years you serve the countries. You been working hard. You sacrifice your time even your life. And, even your family life. So it’s, it’s time for me to go back as a private citizen. And contribute to the Thai society outside political arena.”
Can we believe him (this time) ?
I’m more worried about him being vindictive, and using his wealth to cause trouble.
Thaksin on CNN
I live in Thailand and yes, the whole CNN.com website looks like it is being blocked.
Thaksin on CNN
This is getting ridiculous!
PM Surayud should stop the nonsense, be unafraid, and bring back Thaksin Shinawatra to Thailand. PM Surayud’s government has already started filing many corruption/tax evasion charges against Thaksin’s family and cronies and Thaksin Shinawatra is at the center of all these allegations. It will be very awkward to formally begin the formal process of adjudicating on these allegations when Thaksin Shinawatra is not allowed to appear in person in Thailand to defend himself.
Thaksin Shinawatra has said many many times that he is willing to return to Thailand to face the charges. Now that the charges are being filed, Thaksin Shinawatra should be allowed to return.
Thaksin on CNN
Sufficiency Media Coverage: My sources tell me that the link you give leads to a “The page can not be displayed” in Thailand – i.e. one would assume it has been blocked. The CNN signal was definitely blocked in Thailand during the times the interview was aired, and access in Thailand to the CNN and BBC websites also appear to have been blocked, presumably for carrying the story. Still we should not complain. Along with everything else we should be satisfied with the media coverage the royalist regime allows us to have. I am beginning to think like O’Brian: “I love Big Brother!”
Sufficiency economy = poverty?
Ananymous’ questions goes to the heart of the problem. The Buddhistic Depotism we effectively have in Thailand is fundamentally due to reverence the people have of Bhumipol personally, not the institution he occupies. Vachiravudh does not and will probably never enjoy the same level of reverence from the people. Sirindthorn has a chance though – and this is where Handley’s theory re reason behind the coup (i.e. succession) may be prescient.
But that is exactly why the September 19 coup was a major setback for the country. The best guarantee we had for a secure future is the stregthening of democracy, not subversion of it and perpetuation of the system of Buddhistic Depotism. It was very sad to see the Millions in Yellow cheer on the tanks. It showed that the “social contract” required for democracy to reign still has not taken root in Thailand. The “social contract” is still with the King personally. But the King should have sided with democracy. He did try to steer the resolution through democratic processes, but other forces drove events towards the brink, which forced him react. We (and the coup plotters) know that when forced to choose between stability and democracy, the King always chooses the former.
Sufficiency economy = poverty?
Good question, anonymous.
I have some concerns about the future – mainly because there are doubts about whether the son commands the necessary level of respect (irresepctive of whether or not he has the appropriate qualities for the job).
I agree that trust in an individual and in an institution are different – At this stage I am placing my trust in HMK and hope that he knows his children well, and provides the right guidance.
No matter what power the future monarch has, I cannot see the institution lasting long if the the monarch acts poorly.
An inappropriate monarch would probably be similar to a republic anyway – there would be no higher authority above politics, and the dust will just settle with the biggest tyrant attaining power under either system.
Sufficiency economy = poverty?
Nganadirek, is your trust in HMK Bhumibol or the monarchy in general?
If Bhumibol were to pass away tomorrow, and his son appointed King (don’t forget, the King has to be appointed by the Parliament), would you trust him with the same powers the current King has? If the Kingdom becomes divided, would you let him choose who governs and who goes into exile? Would you trust him to keep tyrants in check, even if the constitution allows them to rule at will? Would you trust him to deal in a human way with Princess Sirindhorn and his ex-wives?
This is a very serious question. Trust in an individual and trust in an institution are very different things.
I, for one, think the King is decent enough to rule, but if his son were to be appointed King, I’d call for a republic.
Sufficiency economy = poverty?
Thank you, Taxi Driver, for an objective analysis.
I, too, am not comfortable with the way the King’s theory is being adopted by the junta and the bureaucracy as some sort of magical formula that has to be strictly followed to achieve economic nirvana.
I would much prefer if it was just left as guidance from a wise elder for people to think about how they live, irrespective of whether they are rich or poor, city or rural dweller.
‘Enough to live on and enough to live for’ – Even the Republicans and Andrew Walker’s of this world should be able to accept the principle behind that statement.