This is endemic globally, isn’t it? Where is the left anywhere now a days?…I asked this question here earlier today, whether this site had a leftist leaning with some feeling or voice of solidarity with the rural population of Thailand? It would appear that there is a pro rural lobby here…is anyone on this site actually involved in any political movements in Thailand? Are there grass roots groups that are supported here, people outsiders can talk to, perhpas help out?
[…] You would think that Thailand’s active and diverse NGO movement may provide some basis for such a leftish political force. But all too often they seem distracted by elitist nostalgia and versions of sufficiency rhetoric (often combined with a simplistic environmentalism that automatically associates modernisation with degradation). As I wrote four days after the coup The disconnect from the rural which arises from the anti-modern and anti-capitalist thinking of many of Thailand’s leftish leaning commentators leaves them poorly placed to defend the rights of Thailand’s majority to participate in democratic national politics. Thaksin has badly wrongfooted them, displaying a more acute understanding of rural aspirations than many of these “grass roots” commentators. And the wrong foot is not a good place to be when confronting a coup. […]
Thai urban upper/middleclass, especially, the Bangkok-centric group are well known to look down upon the peasant with disdain, distrust, or at best, pity. There was a movie ‘Jaew+’ which play on this stereotypes. My sister asked our maid (who we are very close to and like a part of family) what she thinks, and she is not amused at all. I find it quite appalling that people is insensitive enough to make this kind of movies (the other one about the Laotian soccer team comes to mind), and furthermore that many supposedly well-educated people find it quite entertaining.
Class is nothing new in Thai society. What’s new is that the hitherto silent majority of the peasantry (Prai) is starting to stir for change.
The upper/middleclass feel that they are entitled to set the agenda for Thailand and reap the primary benefit of development, letting just the leftover to trickle down to the countryside. There’s never a shortage of opinion leaders who readily supply neatly packaged talking points. The rural peasants are at a handicap when it comes to articulating what they want. They are far from the access point of governance. They have the mass but not enough leverage.
This is an inequilibrium that exist in Thai society. Thaksin or the coup notwithstanding, the system will tend to correct itself if the social force is stronger that the restraint. Economic integration, increased mobility, and technology has a tendency to level the playing field. I suspect there will be plenty more to see in this battle between Empowerment and Entitlement.
I think the single most urgent reason for General Sonthi’s was ‘class conflict’. Thaksin was intentionally formenting ‘class conflict’ and division in Thai society as he struggled to cling on to power. Muslims against the non-Muslims, the Isans against the Bangkok city protesters – – Thaksin’s divide and rule.
The hypocrites Patiwat were the ones who kept urging Thaksin to stay on his dangerous course, ignoring his divisiveness, his extrajudicial murders, his subvertion of the constitution, his conflict of interest, his corruption, and yes of course even Thaksin’s ridiculous Khmer voodoo devotion.
Did you Patiwat and Bangkok Pundit also willingly ignored above many Thaksin flaws and urged Thaksin on?
What’s really funny about this is that the king has always called the rural poor Thailand’s trustworthy bedrock and has been suspicious of the urban trading and capitalist classes. So Sondhi’s a monarchist who rejects the king’s own thought?
…furthermore, I think it might not be such a far cry from the truth to say that the rural poor’s political choices are subject to some manipulation…the poor elsewhere in the world seem to be…look at the United states and Australia and the abominations they have successively voted in time and again, right wing, elite with a penchant for racism…even the middle-classes were in on those two…
What to do when the elite are happy to maintain control over the poor and do so in an unapologetic manner?
It seems that there is an element of socialist, perhaps even communist, sentiment seeping out here. Is this the begining of support for a peasant uprising amongst the bloggers here? Is it possible that we might see an international uniting of the academic elite of America, Australia, and Britain and the peasantry of SEAsia like once before, like in Vietnam? Only fighting for democracy rather than freedom? Or is this support for the rural poor of Thailand merely a twinge of conscience, like in the more liberal days of the end of the Netherlands East Indies, or is it just an academic curiosity?
I see that Andrew you are interested in development so perhaps it is your humanitarian side that brings you to this issue? But I ask, is this elite view of the peasants as being problematic really that hard to accept considering that over the past 140 years, at least, they have been the focus of political mobilisation by deposed local rulers, milleniarian cults, charismatic leaders, by Kings and Communists, by development workers, and by facists, even by Tiger Cub Scouts…of course they are going to be seen as problematic and especially in a regime change where their allegiance was seen to be with the ousted group, any elite person with half a brain is going to want to delegitamise them as fast as possible…ho hum.
In the early 1990s I saw some rough estimates by Thai researchers that there were over a series of elections clearly diminishing returns from vote buying, falling from, say, 80% effectiveness in the early 80s to 60 percent by then. I don’t know how solid the methodology but it certainly seemed evident that politicians were haveing to work much harder and spend more to get the same number of votes. If that trend continued it would make it easy to toss views like Sondhi’s into the trash can.
On the other hand, too, I wonder how many of Sondhi’s vauntd middle class vote their pocketbooks — the SET level, the cost of petrol or whatever.
That’s why I say Thaksin could have been so good, but he turned out such a disappointment.
Instead of shaking up the traditional elites for the betterment of the country, he did it to further his own interests and that of his family & friends.
The Temasek deal was the final straw and proved that Thaksin did not really care about the poor, and was just using them in a dangerous game.
Do any politicians really want to improve the situation for the poor? Looking at the way they play musical chairs shifting from one party to another, makes me suspect most are just in it for what they can get, so Thaksin was not a lone wolf.
Thaksin blew it, and fortunately Thailand still has the monarchy to provide some stability.
Now that the coup has happened, it would be nice if Surayud, the reluctant prime minister, could be allowed to get on with the job without being dragged down by the same old politics, media and intellectuals snapping away at him.
PS – Hopefully my comment was not too ethnocentric.
RBA, do you have a source for that “What is worrisome is that Thaksin has mobilized the poor and gotten them involved in politics…” quote? I can’t seem to corraborate that statement.
To see a 6 October-man saying that is quite revolting. But then I remember that it’s Theerayut Boonmee, who wold his soul out a long time ago.
When I hear hear Sondhi, I read The Nation, and I read Vichai, I can’t help but think that there is a fundamental class conflict going on.
At first I thought that they were just being hypocrites – that they were attacking populism because doing so would hurt Thaksin. And just as in the case of Khmer voodoo slander, “any means necessary” had to be used to take down the man.
But when you read the content of their work and spirit of their rhetoric (“parasitically venal”, “unprincipled wants and needs”), it seems as if these people really are elitist, that they really do advocate “putting the poor in their place,” at least until the poor can “responsibly” take part in the political process. The same type of thinking that, during the 1930’s, forbid direct parliamentary elections until half the population had completed primary education. Well, Thailand hit that milestone 60 years ago, and the people of the provinces have more at stake politically now than they ever had in the past. Without a fundamental dismantling of the 1997 constitution, it’s going to be very difficult to put the genie back in the bottle and hope that no more populists gain power in Thailand.
Here is a follow-up email to the comments by Keyes. I am not sure who the author (RBA) is:
Thanks very much for thi, Biff. There must be some voices that give lie to the oft-repeated charge that rural people are not sufficiently competent to exercise the vote. For all his faults, Thaksin was the only politician in my memory who did anything for the poor. More seriously, what I find is that much of what is taking place is largely a reaction to the sense of loss of power and prestige among the traditional elites (this includes intellectual elites). For example:
A few years ago, I heard Prawasi Wasi give a talk (in English) in which he said that the problem for Thailand was that people aspired too much, that they should go back to planting their rice fields and be happy. I have held him in contempt ever since, but he is honored by the intellectuals;
Thirayuth’s comment in March is another blow to democracy: “What is worrisome is that Thaksin has mobilized the poor and gotten them involved in politics….And what is worrisome about that is that the poor vote differently from the middle class.” So, he loses all credibility in my book.
I must say that Thongchai and Giles Ungpakhorn seem to be among the few Thai intellectuals who can think clearly about the issue. They both suffer from taking rather courageous positions. I hope that we can provide them with sufficient support to continue.
Of course ‘The Nation would ramp up its selective attack on Thailand’s poor:’ Why should such a distinguished newspaper care for the Thai poor? The Thai poor cannot read English newspapers, they are most certainly parasitically venal, and without the Thaksin hand-outs and populist village loans , rice subsidies and other ‘give-aways’, all those Thai poor would just raid Bangkok and harass the Thai elite to feed themselves! Right Andrew?
‘Insufficient Economy’ of the Thai poor demands Thaksin be returned for the sake of handouts and populist give-aways that these poor depend on for their survival.
On the other hand, Thaksin himself indulge on his own version of ‘Insufficiency Economy’, never ever understanding the meaning of ‘ENOUGH’ and more ill-gotten billions drive him for even more ill-gottens. The more ill-gottens the better the Thai economy – Thaksin’s version of ‘Insufficiency Economy’.
[…] The Nation ramps up its selective attack on Thailand’s poor: What was wrong with Thaksin’s populist policies was that they were rife with corruption and they pandered to the unprincipled wants and needs of the beneficiaries. In many instances, cheap loans, such as those under the Village Fund, aimed to encourage villagers to develop entrepreneurial skills that would improve their livelihood. These loans were mistaken by the recipients for handouts, and were squandered on personal consumption instead of on profitable enterprise and community development projects that would raise their standard of living. [Would some evidence be too much to ask for? And I’m sure The Nation has never encourage personal consumption!] The government must implement a public education programme to explain to the people, particularly those who benefited from populist policies, why Thaksin’s dishonest methods and ruthless manipulation are bad for the country. Next, the government must carefully evaluate Thaksin’s policies and decide which should be continued, which should be reoriented and which should be scrapped. There is no such thing as a free lunch. […]
[…] Here is a summary of the presentation by Sondhi Limthongkul in Seattle. It is written by anthropologist and Thai scholar Charles Keyes. On November 14, 2006, Khun Sondhi Limthongkul spoke on the campus of the University of Washington in Seattle about the Thai political situation. His visit was arranged by Thai students at the University. An audience of approximately 350 people attended the event; most were Thai by origin who live in the Seattle area, although some came from as far away as Vancouver, British Columbia. There was also a scattering of non-Thai in the audience, including the former US Ambassador to Thailand, Darryl Johnson, who is currently a lecturer at the Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington. […]
I can’t explain how disgusted I have been of these hypocrites. I want to unmask their masks, but, writing about them, I would feel really sick. I am just too tired to deal with them now, but I will…soon and as long as I live.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The Thai left – missing in action.
This is endemic globally, isn’t it? Where is the left anywhere now a days?…I asked this question here earlier today, whether this site had a leftist leaning with some feeling or voice of solidarity with the rural population of Thailand? It would appear that there is a pro rural lobby here…is anyone on this site actually involved in any political movements in Thailand? Are there grass roots groups that are supported here, people outsiders can talk to, perhpas help out?
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
Please adding that Sondhi never come to visit the countryside more than a day!.
Beyond the “rural betrayal”. Where to now for the left(ish) social movements?
[…] You would think that Thailand’s active and diverse NGO movement may provide some basis for such a leftish political force. But all too often they seem distracted by elitist nostalgia and versions of sufficiency rhetoric (often combined with a simplistic environmentalism that automatically associates modernisation with degradation). As I wrote four days after the coup The disconnect from the rural which arises from the anti-modern and anti-capitalist thinking of many of Thailand’s leftish leaning commentators leaves them poorly placed to defend the rights of Thailand’s majority to participate in democratic national politics. Thaksin has badly wrongfooted them, displaying a more acute understanding of rural aspirations than many of these “grass roots” commentators. And the wrong foot is not a good place to be when confronting a coup. […]
Whose free lunch?
Thai urban upper/middleclass, especially, the Bangkok-centric group are well known to look down upon the peasant with disdain, distrust, or at best, pity. There was a movie ‘Jaew+’ which play on this stereotypes. My sister asked our maid (who we are very close to and like a part of family) what she thinks, and she is not amused at all. I find it quite appalling that people is insensitive enough to make this kind of movies (the other one about the Laotian soccer team comes to mind), and furthermore that many supposedly well-educated people find it quite entertaining.
Class is nothing new in Thai society. What’s new is that the hitherto silent majority of the peasantry (Prai) is starting to stir for change.
The upper/middleclass feel that they are entitled to set the agenda for Thailand and reap the primary benefit of development, letting just the leftover to trickle down to the countryside. There’s never a shortage of opinion leaders who readily supply neatly packaged talking points. The rural peasants are at a handicap when it comes to articulating what they want. They are far from the access point of governance. They have the mass but not enough leverage.
This is an inequilibrium that exist in Thai society. Thaksin or the coup notwithstanding, the system will tend to correct itself if the social force is stronger that the restraint. Economic integration, increased mobility, and technology has a tendency to level the playing field. I suspect there will be plenty more to see in this battle between Empowerment and Entitlement.
Whose free lunch?
I think the single most urgent reason for General Sonthi’s was ‘class conflict’. Thaksin was intentionally formenting ‘class conflict’ and division in Thai society as he struggled to cling on to power. Muslims against the non-Muslims, the Isans against the Bangkok city protesters – – Thaksin’s divide and rule.
The hypocrites Patiwat were the ones who kept urging Thaksin to stay on his dangerous course, ignoring his divisiveness, his extrajudicial murders, his subvertion of the constitution, his conflict of interest, his corruption, and yes of course even Thaksin’s ridiculous Khmer voodoo devotion.
Did you Patiwat and Bangkok Pundit also willingly ignored above many Thaksin flaws and urged Thaksin on?
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
What’s really funny about this is that the king has always called the rural poor Thailand’s trustworthy bedrock and has been suspicious of the urban trading and capitalist classes. So Sondhi’s a monarchist who rejects the king’s own thought?
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
…furthermore, I think it might not be such a far cry from the truth to say that the rural poor’s political choices are subject to some manipulation…the poor elsewhere in the world seem to be…look at the United states and Australia and the abominations they have successively voted in time and again, right wing, elite with a penchant for racism…even the middle-classes were in on those two…
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
What to do when the elite are happy to maintain control over the poor and do so in an unapologetic manner?
It seems that there is an element of socialist, perhaps even communist, sentiment seeping out here. Is this the begining of support for a peasant uprising amongst the bloggers here? Is it possible that we might see an international uniting of the academic elite of America, Australia, and Britain and the peasantry of SEAsia like once before, like in Vietnam? Only fighting for democracy rather than freedom? Or is this support for the rural poor of Thailand merely a twinge of conscience, like in the more liberal days of the end of the Netherlands East Indies, or is it just an academic curiosity?
I see that Andrew you are interested in development so perhaps it is your humanitarian side that brings you to this issue? But I ask, is this elite view of the peasants as being problematic really that hard to accept considering that over the past 140 years, at least, they have been the focus of political mobilisation by deposed local rulers, milleniarian cults, charismatic leaders, by Kings and Communists, by development workers, and by facists, even by Tiger Cub Scouts…of course they are going to be seen as problematic and especially in a regime change where their allegiance was seen to be with the ousted group, any elite person with half a brain is going to want to delegitamise them as fast as possible…ho hum.
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
In the early 1990s I saw some rough estimates by Thai researchers that there were over a series of elections clearly diminishing returns from vote buying, falling from, say, 80% effectiveness in the early 80s to 60 percent by then. I don’t know how solid the methodology but it certainly seemed evident that politicians were haveing to work much harder and spend more to get the same number of votes. If that trend continued it would make it easy to toss views like Sondhi’s into the trash can.
On the other hand, too, I wonder how many of Sondhi’s vauntd middle class vote their pocketbooks — the SET level, the cost of petrol or whatever.
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
That’s why I say Thaksin could have been so good, but he turned out such a disappointment.
Instead of shaking up the traditional elites for the betterment of the country, he did it to further his own interests and that of his family & friends.
The Temasek deal was the final straw and proved that Thaksin did not really care about the poor, and was just using them in a dangerous game.
Do any politicians really want to improve the situation for the poor? Looking at the way they play musical chairs shifting from one party to another, makes me suspect most are just in it for what they can get, so Thaksin was not a lone wolf.
Thaksin blew it, and fortunately Thailand still has the monarchy to provide some stability.
Now that the coup has happened, it would be nice if Surayud, the reluctant prime minister, could be allowed to get on with the job without being dragged down by the same old politics, media and intellectuals snapping away at him.
PS – Hopefully my comment was not too ethnocentric.
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
RBA, do you have a source for that “What is worrisome is that Thaksin has mobilized the poor and gotten them involved in politics…” quote? I can’t seem to corraborate that statement.
To see a 6 October-man saying that is quite revolting. But then I remember that it’s Theerayut Boonmee, who wold his soul out a long time ago.
Whose free lunch?
When I hear hear Sondhi, I read The Nation, and I read Vichai, I can’t help but think that there is a fundamental class conflict going on.
At first I thought that they were just being hypocrites – that they were attacking populism because doing so would hurt Thaksin. And just as in the case of Khmer voodoo slander, “any means necessary” had to be used to take down the man.
But when you read the content of their work and spirit of their rhetoric (“parasitically venal”, “unprincipled wants and needs”), it seems as if these people really are elitist, that they really do advocate “putting the poor in their place,” at least until the poor can “responsibly” take part in the political process. The same type of thinking that, during the 1930’s, forbid direct parliamentary elections until half the population had completed primary education. Well, Thailand hit that milestone 60 years ago, and the people of the provinces have more at stake politically now than they ever had in the past. Without a fundamental dismantling of the 1997 constitution, it’s going to be very difficult to put the genie back in the bottle and hope that no more populists gain power in Thailand.
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
Here is a follow-up email to the comments by Keyes. I am not sure who the author (RBA) is:
Thanks very much for thi, Biff. There must be some voices that give lie to the oft-repeated charge that rural people are not sufficiently competent to exercise the vote. For all his faults, Thaksin was the only politician in my memory who did anything for the poor. More seriously, what I find is that much of what is taking place is largely a reaction to the sense of loss of power and prestige among the traditional elites (this includes intellectual elites). For example:
A few years ago, I heard Prawasi Wasi give a talk (in English) in which he said that the problem for Thailand was that people aspired too much, that they should go back to planting their rice fields and be happy. I have held him in contempt ever since, but he is honored by the intellectuals;
Thirayuth’s comment in March is another blow to democracy: “What is worrisome is that Thaksin has mobilized the poor and gotten them involved in politics….And what is worrisome about that is that the poor vote differently from the middle class.” So, he loses all credibility in my book.
I must say that Thongchai and Giles Ungpakhorn seem to be among the few Thai intellectuals who can think clearly about the issue. They both suffer from taking rather courageous positions. I hope that we can provide them with sufficient support to continue.
RBA
Whose free lunch?
Of course ‘The Nation would ramp up its selective attack on Thailand’s poor:’ Why should such a distinguished newspaper care for the Thai poor? The Thai poor cannot read English newspapers, they are most certainly parasitically venal, and without the Thaksin hand-outs and populist village loans , rice subsidies and other ‘give-aways’, all those Thai poor would just raid Bangkok and harass the Thai elite to feed themselves! Right Andrew?
‘Insufficient Economy’ of the Thai poor demands Thaksin be returned for the sake of handouts and populist give-aways that these poor depend on for their survival.
On the other hand, Thaksin himself indulge on his own version of ‘Insufficiency Economy’, never ever understanding the meaning of ‘ENOUGH’ and more ill-gotten billions drive him for even more ill-gottens. The more ill-gottens the better the Thai economy – Thaksin’s version of ‘Insufficiency Economy’.
Can farmers be trusted with debt? Part 2
[…] The Nation ramps up its selective attack on Thailand’s poor: What was wrong with Thaksin’s populist policies was that they were rife with corruption and they pandered to the unprincipled wants and needs of the beneficiaries. In many instances, cheap loans, such as those under the Village Fund, aimed to encourage villagers to develop entrepreneurial skills that would improve their livelihood. These loans were mistaken by the recipients for handouts, and were squandered on personal consumption instead of on profitable enterprise and community development projects that would raise their standard of living. [Would some evidence be too much to ask for? And I’m sure The Nation has never encourage personal consumption!] The government must implement a public education programme to explain to the people, particularly those who benefited from populist policies, why Thaksin’s dishonest methods and ruthless manipulation are bad for the country. Next, the government must carefully evaluate Thaksin’s policies and decide which should be continued, which should be reoriented and which should be scrapped. There is no such thing as a free lunch. […]
New research – the demise of Somtam?
If somtam with fermented fish disappears, I can say I won’t be shedding any tears. I would be surprised if all forms of somtam disappear.
Sondhi in Seattle … update
[…] Here is a summary of the presentation by Sondhi Limthongkul in Seattle. It is written by anthropologist and Thai scholar Charles Keyes. On November 14, 2006, Khun Sondhi Limthongkul spoke on the campus of the University of Washington in Seattle about the Thai political situation. His visit was arranged by Thai students at the University. An audience of approximately 350 people attended the event; most were Thai by origin who live in the Seattle area, although some came from as far away as Vancouver, British Columbia. There was also a scattering of non-Thai in the audience, including the former US Ambassador to Thailand, Darryl Johnson, who is currently a lecturer at the Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington. […]
Sondhi in Seattle … update
Thanks, Andrew and Jopha, for the notes.
I can’t explain how disgusted I have been of these hypocrites. I want to unmask their masks, but, writing about them, I would feel really sick. I am just too tired to deal with them now, but I will…soon and as long as I live.
New research – the demise of Somtam?
It’s a nasty but not false joke among expats in Thailand: when your farang wife turns 40, you can get her exchanged for two Thai girls aged 20.
Sondhi in Seattle … update
Thanks Jopha for your detailed account of Sonthi’s talk.