A more accurate English translation of “Sethakij Poh Pieang” may be “Moderated Livelihoods” rather than “Sufficiency Economy”.
Reading the King’s 1998 speech (thanks Ngarn for the link)which was delivered one year after the 1997 crisis (an important historical context to keep in mind when reading the speech today) it is clear that His Majesty was referring to problems of excessiveness and over-exposure (including excesstive borrowing, over speculation, etc that led the country down the path towards the 1997 economic crisis).
Sethakij Poh Pieng is sounds like risk mitigation advice, rather than a proposal for some agrarian economic model. It is a moralistic piece of advice (from someone whose job it is to provide it, I reckon) about how to conduct one’s livelihood with a degree of risk mitigation (no excessive gearing, diversification of source of income, etc etc). It is not a rejection of the free market at all.
The problem is not the advice or the advice giver per se. The problem instead are the no-hopers in the NSC and the inept Rachakarn who have no clue about economic management, latching on to the idea and trying to turn it into economic policy.
Perhaps they can invite the King, or one of the SS experts from the Privy Council or the Crown Property Bureau, if his age prevents him, to be a guest lecturer. They could explain how all those mega-projects the king has ordered over the last 50 years, particularly the dam-building, which have actually destroyed the local economy and local communities, fit into his self-sufficiency theory. (Or, could the king’s theory of self-sufficiency be an admission, late in his life, that his mega-projects have actually failed?)
But I think I get the idea now: the king destroys any possibility of the villagers’ controlling their own livelihoods by allowing his servants, the ratchakan, to seize control over all the water and other local resources, thereby resulting in widespread rural poverty, as Andrew has argued, where the men have to sell the labour as construction workers in Bangkok and the women sell their bodies. Thus he makes a virtue (self sufficiency) out of a necessity (poverty). To cap it off, he uses the lese majeste law to forbid any criticism of self sufficiency, and supports a military coup to get them to declare it to be economic policy! Oh! What a cunning plan. Yes, he really is a genius king in his ability to deceive even the UNDP.
By the way, if this is the quality of the UNDP’s work in Thailand I would encourage all those interested in working for the UN to write to Mr Ban and apply for a job. The only qualification seems to be a willingness to write propaganda for the royalist military dictatorship.
I find this debates quite surealist in such touristic place as Thailand !…
It seems to me that the “development-through-tourism” policy followed nearly everywhere in the kingdom (especially in the minorities villages of the Royal Projects !) is perfectly contradictory with the idea of sufficiency economy…
I would be interested to know how the concept of sufficency economy can be concretely implemented in such a touristic country as Thailand !
It seems to me that the “development-through-tourism” policy followed nearly everywhere in the kingdom (especially in the minorities villages of the Royal Projects !) is perfectly contradictory with the idea of sufficiency economy…
For The Nation, I think it is become even clearer that they are starting to more openly turn on the junta. Two of the main articles in The Nation today are just quoting academics attacking the coup and constitutional drafting process. This is so typical of The Nation in wanting to push an agenda under the guise of “news”. Then, you have Kavi’s opinion piece today.
There are tons of “plausible” theories out there, but none backup up by a shred of evidence.
Thus, people who want a greater crackdown in the South are pointing at the Southern insurgents. Those who want a greater crackdown on Thaksin are pointing at Thaksin. Those who are enemies of Saprang are pointing at Saprang. Those who are against the junta are pointing at the ISOC. All of these are plausible…
It’s unbelievable how large and ostentatious these buildings can be. I wonder if these gambling casinos entirely vacant or are if they still are used for other purposes.
If you’re really love the king ,you have to let him out of the politics. The king never protect Thai’s democracy but he protect his family and his conservative system as he did when Prem was the priminister. Thai people should learn to live with the principle of democracy ,not this beloved king .Don’t forget he can’t live forever. You have to develop yourself to live with the next King also.
Thanks for this wonderful article. The sort of thing many would miss if you were not scanning the internet for them.
The situation doesn’t look promising and there’s no indication of whether the level of violence that once saturated society there has gone down or not.
All the west can obviously do is sponsor more education, if only to empower women from the pressures of early childbirth.
IMHO Thailand is the most obvious living encyclopedia of appropriate technologies and business ideas that Cambodians can avail themselves of, but through **direct links between Thai SMEs and business people themselves**.
Personally I thought Avudh’s blog very intriguing to say the least and his commentary would be about the most plausible theory yet of who the Bangkok NYE bombing culprits are.
For those who REALLY did not read Avudh’s blog – he was suggesting those Class 10 Generals, Thaksin’s generals to be more specific, were responsible.
Now you may think Vichai paranoid but you people will have to understand that I DO view Thaksin Shinawatra as a menace to Thailand, in or out of power. Many before gave Thaksin that label ‘The Toxin of Thailand’. Would this forum be offended if I suggest ‘The NYE Bangkok Bomber’ as well?
Ehh,.. “sufficient economy” course?
I can live with that if it is for Social Studies program, but in Economics?
I do wonder what the class would be like?
The following situation is just for fun, dont be too serious:
Teacher: Hello, student. Today we will teach about Sufficient Economy. No, we do not have official textbook about it, so dont bother going to library. No, we do not have official theory about it either. But we do have some exemplary case study applied to some local village. Also, Republic of Soviet
could be use to compare to see why it does not work. And how free market does not help improve the standard of living in the US.
Student: Can we comment on its negatively?
Teacher: No, that Lese-majeste!
First comment by Pattiwat:
>>I remember reading about how some Chula professor warned >>university students that wearing tight shirts and short skirts >>was like going around with a sign saying “Rape Me” and thinking >>that she was too much a fan of “Khun Chang Khun Phaen.”
Chula is indeed quite conservative on such issues..
Certain fields in Thai universities like Food Science are more important than in western universities. But the pioneering abalone entrepreneur in the article above was trained as a vet, so you could argue that the more general rigorous training of the natural sciences is very pertinent. The importance of the fundamental and more universal subjects that have been around for ages like mathematics is underrated. The university I worked at had no math department but it did have a trendy cosmetic science department, more an artifact of marketing than knowledge per se.
IMHO instead of taking His Majesty the King’s words and try to create some monolithic new all-encompassing subject out of it, if people just **thought good and hard** for a couple of minutes each day, perhaps before breakfast, **about what “Paw Piang” actually means** and then practiced it with perseverance in their own daily lives (albeit it is difficult to do that in the hustle bustle of Bangkok) that would be of much more value than big theories and a course. One of the most disheartening things about being a teacher was seeing all the lecture notes strewn about on the ground outside the examination room after the final exam. I still have the lecture notes from when I was a graduate student at Stanford 20 years ago.
Three weeks ago the government was claiming that they didn’t know how to activate the “sufficiency economy” philosophy in policy. Three weeks later they have grandiose all encompassing ideas and policies. They should get a clue.
The sufficiency economy is already there. Rural people can go down to a bookstore learn how to fish farm in their backyard. Ask some neighbors for some advice and presto, enough cash to eat everyday. Pak Bung, it grows wild by the side of the road! People just need to learn to use what they already have better!
I am glad Andrew Walker for once accepts he has NOT yet fully studied ‘Sufficiency Economy;. I think no one has for that matter.
But I will accept the point that even those who profess they do, including Pridiyathorn, are actually just groping around trying to interpret the best intentions of HMK on that subject.
And that is the crux of my quarrel with Andrew Walker and Republican to suggest otherwise.
Forget lese majeste fellows, just hone on the facts (of Sufficiency Economy) and criticize accordingly. I will be all ears!
Johpa, surely you’ve mistaken the King’s self-sufficiency theory for some lesser theory? The King himself said in one of his birthday speeches that the self-sufficiency theory was so innovative that it didn’t appear in any textbooks.
As for the undergrad major in sufficiency, that’s not really enough. I’m sure some chlearing university rector (hopefully not that fool who now leads Thammasat) will soon start a PhD program in sufficiency. The first recipient, of course, will be our brilliant genius of a King, who will add it to his record-breaking collection of honorary degrees.
I do like the note embedded in the punchline that His Majesty is the “developer” of the sufficiency theory, which is why the subject can’t be debated. Or did I just imagine as a young undergraduate, perhaps failing to exhale, reading books and articles on the subject some 35 years ago?
On the other hand, the Economist would not be in favor of self-sufficiency, sustainable development, or any economic theories that did not bring out the pom-poms (with Thomas Friedman as head cheerleader) celebrating the invisible hand of the free market or globalization, which are of course predestined by the almighty and not aspects of economic theory to be debated.
So the failure to discuss economics cuts both ways, Small may be beautiful to only some, but small mindedness seems to be relished by all sides.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Sufficiency economy = poverty?
A more accurate English translation of “Sethakij Poh Pieang” may be “Moderated Livelihoods” rather than “Sufficiency Economy”.
Reading the King’s 1998 speech (thanks Ngarn for the link)which was delivered one year after the 1997 crisis (an important historical context to keep in mind when reading the speech today) it is clear that His Majesty was referring to problems of excessiveness and over-exposure (including excesstive borrowing, over speculation, etc that led the country down the path towards the 1997 economic crisis).
Sethakij Poh Pieng is sounds like risk mitigation advice, rather than a proposal for some agrarian economic model. It is a moralistic piece of advice (from someone whose job it is to provide it, I reckon) about how to conduct one’s livelihood with a degree of risk mitigation (no excessive gearing, diversification of source of income, etc etc). It is not a rejection of the free market at all.
The problem is not the advice or the advice giver per se. The problem instead are the no-hopers in the NSC and the inept Rachakarn who have no clue about economic management, latching on to the idea and trying to turn it into economic policy.
The Economist on the UNDP’s Thailand Report
Perhaps they can invite the King, or one of the SS experts from the Privy Council or the Crown Property Bureau, if his age prevents him, to be a guest lecturer. They could explain how all those mega-projects the king has ordered over the last 50 years, particularly the dam-building, which have actually destroyed the local economy and local communities, fit into his self-sufficiency theory. (Or, could the king’s theory of self-sufficiency be an admission, late in his life, that his mega-projects have actually failed?)
But I think I get the idea now: the king destroys any possibility of the villagers’ controlling their own livelihoods by allowing his servants, the ratchakan, to seize control over all the water and other local resources, thereby resulting in widespread rural poverty, as Andrew has argued, where the men have to sell the labour as construction workers in Bangkok and the women sell their bodies. Thus he makes a virtue (self sufficiency) out of a necessity (poverty). To cap it off, he uses the lese majeste law to forbid any criticism of self sufficiency, and supports a military coup to get them to declare it to be economic policy! Oh! What a cunning plan. Yes, he really is a genius king in his ability to deceive even the UNDP.
By the way, if this is the quality of the UNDP’s work in Thailand I would encourage all those interested in working for the UN to write to Mr Ban and apply for a job. The only qualification seems to be a willingness to write propaganda for the royalist military dictatorship.
The Economist on the UNDP’s Thailand Report
I find this debates quite surealist in such touristic place as Thailand !…
It seems to me that the “development-through-tourism” policy followed nearly everywhere in the kingdom (especially in the minorities villages of the Royal Projects !) is perfectly contradictory with the idea of sufficiency economy…
The Economist on the UNDP’s Thailand Report
I would be interested to know how the concept of sufficency economy can be concretely implemented in such a touristic country as Thailand !
It seems to me that the “development-through-tourism” policy followed nearly everywhere in the kingdom (especially in the minorities villages of the Royal Projects !) is perfectly contradictory with the idea of sufficiency economy…
Media turning on the “heroic” junta?
For The Nation, I think it is become even clearer that they are starting to more openly turn on the junta. Two of the main articles in The Nation today are just quoting academics attacking the coup and constitutional drafting process. This is so typical of The Nation in wanting to push an agenda under the guise of “news”. Then, you have Kavi’s opinion piece today.
Backdown on the bombings
There are tons of “plausible” theories out there, but none backup up by a shred of evidence.
Thus, people who want a greater crackdown in the South are pointing at the Southern insurgents. Those who want a greater crackdown on Thaksin are pointing at Thaksin. Those who are enemies of Saprang are pointing at Saprang. Those who are against the junta are pointing at the ISOC. All of these are plausible…
Sufficiency economy goes to the polls…
And, placed nicely beneath the Bangkok Post online article:
Buying Land or Condo?
Free Guide “Legal Ownership” Thailand Property & Legal Services
Online Casino Royale on Burmese soil
It’s unbelievable how large and ostentatious these buildings can be. I wonder if these gambling casinos entirely vacant or are if they still are used for other purposes.
The King Never Smiles?
If you’re really love the king ,you have to let him out of the politics. The king never protect Thai’s democracy but he protect his family and his conservative system as he did when Prem was the priminister. Thai people should learn to live with the principle of democracy ,not this beloved king .Don’t forget he can’t live forever. You have to develop yourself to live with the next King also.
Milton Osborne’s take on Hun Sen’s position
Thanks for this wonderful article. The sort of thing many would miss if you were not scanning the internet for them.
The situation doesn’t look promising and there’s no indication of whether the level of violence that once saturated society there has gone down or not.
All the west can obviously do is sponsor more education, if only to empower women from the pressures of early childbirth.
IMHO Thailand is the most obvious living encyclopedia of appropriate technologies and business ideas that Cambodians can avail themselves of, but through **direct links between Thai SMEs and business people themselves**.
Backdown on the bombings
Am I to presume that I am the only one who read Avudh’s Blog at NationWeb Blog?
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/webblog/view_blog.php?uid=321&bid=1479
Personally I thought Avudh’s blog very intriguing to say the least and his commentary would be about the most plausible theory yet of who the Bangkok NYE bombing culprits are.
For those who REALLY did not read Avudh’s blog – he was suggesting those Class 10 Generals, Thaksin’s generals to be more specific, were responsible.
Now you may think Vichai paranoid but you people will have to understand that I DO view Thaksin Shinawatra as a menace to Thailand, in or out of power. Many before gave Thaksin that label ‘The Toxin of Thailand’. Would this forum be offended if I suggest ‘The NYE Bangkok Bomber’ as well?
Media turning on the “heroic” junta?
more details pls find from radio online in Thai only
http://www.tmctoday.com/radio/index.php
every Saturday at 4 – 9 pm. except 20th Jan 2007.
The Economist on the UNDP’s Thailand Report
Ehh,.. “sufficient economy” course?
I can live with that if it is for Social Studies program, but in Economics?
I do wonder what the class would be like?
The following situation is just for fun, dont be too serious:
Teacher: Hello, student. Today we will teach about Sufficient Economy. No, we do not have official textbook about it, so dont bother going to library. No, we do not have official theory about it either. But we do have some exemplary case study applied to some local village. Also, Republic of Soviet
could be use to compare to see why it does not work. And how free market does not help improve the standard of living in the US.
Student: Can we comment on its negatively?
Teacher: No, that Lese-majeste!
“A classic love triangle”
First comment by Pattiwat:
>>I remember reading about how some Chula professor warned >>university students that wearing tight shirts and short skirts >>was like going around with a sign saying “Rape Me” and thinking >>that she was too much a fan of “Khun Chang Khun Phaen.”
Chula is indeed quite conservative on such issues..
In-sufficient analysis
One obvious way to boost regional self-sufficiency is to move more food processing upstream to the provincial level. I could see local entrepreneurs who have the requisite technical skills in food science, e.g.:
http://www.readbangkokpost.com/business/entrepreneurship/abalone_farming_a_new_food_fro.php
…doing at a local level essentially what CP Foods does at a national level for export:
http://www.readbangkokpost.com/business/international_trade/cp_foods_export_strategies_in.php
Certain fields in Thai universities like Food Science are more important than in western universities. But the pioneering abalone entrepreneur in the article above was trained as a vet, so you could argue that the more general rigorous training of the natural sciences is very pertinent. The importance of the fundamental and more universal subjects that have been around for ages like mathematics is underrated. The university I worked at had no math department but it did have a trendy cosmetic science department, more an artifact of marketing than knowledge per se.
IMHO instead of taking His Majesty the King’s words and try to create some monolithic new all-encompassing subject out of it, if people just **thought good and hard** for a couple of minutes each day, perhaps before breakfast, **about what “Paw Piang” actually means** and then practiced it with perseverance in their own daily lives (albeit it is difficult to do that in the hustle bustle of Bangkok) that would be of much more value than big theories and a course. One of the most disheartening things about being a teacher was seeing all the lecture notes strewn about on the ground outside the examination room after the final exam. I still have the lecture notes from when I was a graduate student at Stanford 20 years ago.
Three weeks ago the government was claiming that they didn’t know how to activate the “sufficiency economy” philosophy in policy. Three weeks later they have grandiose all encompassing ideas and policies. They should get a clue.
The sufficiency economy is already there. Rural people can go down to a bookstore learn how to fish farm in their backyard. Ask some neighbors for some advice and presto, enough cash to eat everyday. Pak Bung, it grows wild by the side of the road! People just need to learn to use what they already have better!
The Economist on the UNDP’s Thailand Report
I am glad Andrew Walker for once accepts he has NOT yet fully studied ‘Sufficiency Economy;. I think no one has for that matter.
But I will accept the point that even those who profess they do, including Pridiyathorn, are actually just groping around trying to interpret the best intentions of HMK on that subject.
And that is the crux of my quarrel with Andrew Walker and Republican to suggest otherwise.
Forget lese majeste fellows, just hone on the facts (of Sufficiency Economy) and criticize accordingly. I will be all ears!
The Economist on the UNDP’s Thailand Report
Johpa, surely you’ve mistaken the King’s self-sufficiency theory for some lesser theory? The King himself said in one of his birthday speeches that the self-sufficiency theory was so innovative that it didn’t appear in any textbooks.
As for the undergrad major in sufficiency, that’s not really enough. I’m sure some chlearing university rector (hopefully not that fool who now leads Thammasat) will soon start a PhD program in sufficiency. The first recipient, of course, will be our brilliant genius of a King, who will add it to his record-breaking collection of honorary degrees.
The Economist on the UNDP’s Thailand Report
I wonder who will get the first honorary degree? Me, perhaps?
The Economist on the UNDP’s Thailand Report
We now have a university course on sufficiency economy. Roll up to get your 4 year degree.
The Economist on the UNDP’s Thailand Report
I do like the note embedded in the punchline that His Majesty is the “developer” of the sufficiency theory, which is why the subject can’t be debated. Or did I just imagine as a young undergraduate, perhaps failing to exhale, reading books and articles on the subject some 35 years ago?
On the other hand, the Economist would not be in favor of self-sufficiency, sustainable development, or any economic theories that did not bring out the pom-poms (with Thomas Friedman as head cheerleader) celebrating the invisible hand of the free market or globalization, which are of course predestined by the almighty and not aspects of economic theory to be debated.
So the failure to discuss economics cuts both ways, Small may be beautiful to only some, but small mindedness seems to be relished by all sides.