Such a great idea A.Andrew this idea should have been proposed to the acting Thai Govt/and so called ‘Kor Mor Chor’ a present tranforming body of the Coup, the supposedly interim govt but fully and powerfully have power to ‘re-structure’ Thai society, who just luanced the policy banning all liquor ads saying that this way would prevent Thai peoples, the young in particular, from a negative effect of drinking – an immoral act?.
So if they really wanted to restore and reform Thai politics (as they claimed) and economy (they just boosting a self-sufficiency way but also insist to continue trading with the world, via FTA negotiation- so sounds not realy different from the TRT duo-tracks, and society [banning liqour ads and perhaps followed by a nightclub, karaoke, and sex works – ohhh my life would be bored and suppressed, therefore…..], and culture [who knows? can anyone here please help me to forecast] as a whole, this one-year interim govty who got power from the Coup so they can everything without protest or less resistance- please emphasise – should be heard of this idea.
We, Thai academics here, begin to worry about this act, to quote Atthjak’s word, it is a kind of ‘Long Yuk policy’ (doing the right thing in the wrong time?). Thus come! telling them to not be ‘Long Yuk’ beging with this new voting system.
Hi Chris, it is a typo and I did mean reflexive, sorry for the confusion. The post to “outside” is the one numbered 20 on the same thread as Grant Evans’ post and my reply to him (its just before it.). You probably saw it but as it doesn’t state categorically anything about being reflexive probably thought I was referring to another one somewhereelse.
The epistemological shift I am advocating is one away from the position that analysis of democratic and capitalist forms, in terms of how they are operationalised outside of Thailand, is how we study Thai politics/society. Indigenous political norms and processes are reduced to simplistic descriptions of institutional barriers to success of greater economic and political realisation in these analyses. In effect and as I have briefly touched on elsewhere, studies of Thai politics lack the fine grained and highly nuanced study that anthropology should be contributing to debates as the “meta narrative” or sets of assumptions as to what the issues are and what constitutes an appropriate research problem are already set and left unquestioned. In fact they dominate in the field of South East Asian studies in general.
Here we get the analyses that talk about tiger economies and Asian values and the “How to…” of democracy? You could say that there is a meta narrative that informs these approaches but I prefer to think of them as sets of assumptions (taken for granteds) that require unpacking by being subject to rigorous critical reflexive scrutiny.
Problems I see emerging from this beyond the flippant dismissal of the normative practice of vote buying being meaningful, because its stated aim of “buying votes” can’t be comprehended under the auspices of this episteme of Thai politics, namely it isn’t seen as being effective so therefore, it is redundant; is that academic accounts of Thai politics mirrors in tone and depth media reporting and diplomatic statements as to what is going on…both groups having vested interests in procedings. There is very little meaningful disagreement in debates. On the one hand we have pro Thaksin and anti-coup and on an other hand anti Thaksin anti coup pro democracy and then pro coup and anti Thaksin all of which are positions that are barracking for one or another team, the rules of the game already being understood by all players (researchers) and so not requiring being questioned. If you look a little more closely the debates of Aisan values and conditions for democracy are still with us here and what is actually happening has escaped everyone’s notice. Research findings are often more concerned with how well is democracy or capitalism going in Thailand or whereever, and problems are those issues that seem to be in the way of either one being successful.
Importantly, throughout this class and peasant are scrapped from the vernacular, unless we talk about the middleclass, and somehow through it all, the Asian values and tiger economy people become convinced that two fundamental aspects of Thai political practice, vote buying and coups have been done away with for no better reason than a couple of elections were held and a new constitution was written somewhere (again). Then suddenly there is a coup, (the vote buying has been ongoing) and people decry the loss of democracy ). It is strange to me to hear academics (social scientists–partculalry anthropologists) saying the same thing as diplomats and government heads who have vested interests in events and very tighly controlled/censored options for commentary. To conclude we need to cease seeing like and reporting for States and return some reflexivity to our ponderings. I could go on but I am sure people are getting a little tired of this soap box and it wasn’t my intention to dominate discussion so I will spare you all the rest of the sermon.
On your last point the ideologues who espouse the nationalist “occidentalism” you mention are a deeply entrenched institution of the Thai state.
To Khun Chris White again,
Frankly, I think , and really think, it is not an easy taks to get this information and no one could guarantee whether it is from a reliable source. Deal to the so called ‘data-base recording and processing system’ in Thailand, I the Thai myself never truste any information or story that release from the Thai govt. Though I might have been able to find this figure from other organisations or foreign sources, and if I found it I would let you know immediately, I do not think you need any exact figure or reliable sources to affirm this. The point is, as you know, they are flows of people to and through BK for at least a century, but since the Siam was turned into Thailand, this flow has been accelerated and changed dramatically. The number I raised might be wrong or not exactly correct, but this is a very close picture of the propostion of multi=region=ethnic=background of the so called Bangkokians.
When I mentioned this I just would like to propose that urban-rural dichotomy has its problem. And I contend that to understand Thai politics, democracy in particular, this frame is not suitable anymore. Like some peoples here, to me the rurals or whatever they are called and seen, such as the poors who are uneducated or less educated, who ‘not ready for Democracy’ (Gen Sondhi was one of many who spoke out this idea on air – TV) , this kind of idea or alike to me is so dumped! From my counryside experience, the peoples who are called the poors or the rurals they are really clever, at least they know which plants and animals that can be eaten for survive. The idea which the urbanites in BK might not have.
So not neccesary to ask, whether they know those candidates or politicians who offer them good or bad policies, good or bad interests, fake or real notes, and so on.
Sorry if I just repeated an idea other peoples here have already posted
Silly me, I always thought that Bangkok was an extremely diverse multi ethnic city where about half the population – or their parents or grand parents – migrated from other nation states.
Yes, I would have really liked to see the evidence. 90% of the population Bangkok being made up of people moving from the regions seems like such a great story. I had seen the stuff from Pasuk and Baker but thought that they had overstated the size of the ‘new generation’ to support their argument for the amount of structural adjustment that they thought was happening in the economy. – you know the sort of thing you do when your writing a book. I guess because there is no firm data on this matter its hard to tell – and the data that you often do get from Thailand like the literacy rate and the unemployment figures (I think from memory is 98% and 1.4% respectively) doesn’t match my experience at all. (If these figures are true I must know just about every illiterate and unemployed person in Thailand). Is there any reliable sources of information?
I was interested in reading your post particularly where you write “As I outlined in my posting to ‘Outside’ I think the “revising of assumptions” you mention need to be made in a critical and reflexive manner…” I’m a bit confused here because I looked for the post and I couldn’t find it. However, I did find in a post or two later to Grant Evens you said that you found that “some of New Mandala’s contributor’s comments regarding relationships to and of exchange (vote buying) being somewhat unreflective…” Fair enough I thought – but reflective and reflexive really do mean totally different things. Now I realize that you are a bright young fella and it’s probably just an innocent typo – I find that I make typos all the time – particular if I don’t have my glasses on. But can you please clarify which term you meant to use. And if you did mean unreflexive can you please point me to the comments that on New Mandela that demonstrate this?
Also you see the need for an “epistemological shift”. Well – I’m so excited about all this terminology – it is taking me right back to my early student days in the 1970’s – sex, drugs and rock and role. Ohh and so much fun – I wish I could still get it up. But anyway, to get back to the point . To have an “epistemological shift” suggests that we need to have some type of meta narrative to ‘shift from. I thought that we had well and truly buried them (meta narratives) by the end of the 20th century – even in the so called social ‘sciences’. One of the things that attracted me to ‘New Mandalla’ was the diversity of the stories and viewpoints being put forward – lots of small narratives – lots of different opinions. So I’m a bit surprised. If you can point them out to me (the meta narratives that is) on this site I’d really appreciate it too.
This is drawing a bit of a long bow, but, I do recognize a number of ‘types’ of meta narrative coming out of military junta in Thailand. The first is a type of perverse type of reverse ‘orientalist’ narrative. One where instead of Thailand being judged against the values of the so called ‘superior’ metropolis found in Europe the rest of the world is being judged by the superior metropolis of Bangkok – the rest of the world will never understand because they are not ‘Thai’ (what ever that is) and are inherently inferior. (perhaps this is what you are reffering to) Secondly, I sense a perverse type of neocolonial narrative emanating from the junta too– there seems to be some need to get out there and re-colonialise the country again. I would point to the coup itself and Surayud’s mission to the military outpost in Sakon Nakhon and Biri Bam last week, amoungst others, as evidence for this.
First I would love to thank Dr. Grant Evans, for a good suggestion. Second, to Christ White, for the figure you need I do not have it, and no ones perhpas have it, if you really need the exact numbers.
Everyone who have experienced Thailand, BK in particular, realise that there is no ‘real’ data on this, but we might estimate, quite systematic and reasonable though, about this. For examples, you may bring a number from the household registration first, plus a study by the demographic sociologists at Mahidol Univ. Then you observe the flows of people travelling ‘back to thier orginal hometowns’, though temporarily, during the festivals, particularly the Thai New Year Festival. Fourth, many Thai leaders, scholars, journalists, and a super star of you like, Taksin, Gen Sondhi, and perhpas a present PM – sorry I did not have time to check for this, for examples, all have thier countryside background. They are, possibly Pasuk and Baker would call, members of ‘a new generation’ who outed of thier rurals to the Centre and never returned. The point I would just like to say is you may not need the figure but reality that you can make sense of.
To Ant, I do not see any point you raised to Pasuk and Baker’s writing as a kind of works that built upon what u called ‘an ethnocentric epistemology.’ Can anyone on earth being neutral? I do not think so, besides thier work hust another work but it si worht to read and learn from them, particularly for the non-Thai, schoalars or not, who can not read Thai fluently.
For the post ‘Where to for Thai Studies’, sorry if I just read only a few word, caused the question to me is sounded really boring, but would like to suggest some ideas here.
The Thai Studies is not simply the study of Thai State and Politics, but unfortunately, Thai Studies in AUS seems to be dominated by this, have a look from Thailand Update for example. There are many things more wider than this diplomatic issue.
I would rather, in short, love to try to undestand, though it is just a little seen, such as street gatherings, a female dancer from Cafe restaurant come to show thier performance to solute and support the soldiers, city folks in Chiang Mai made thier wedding photo album with a tank, to memorise thier love that exploded during the Coup!!!, peoples went to touch the tanks and the soldiers with thier M16 because they never saw these quite often, some might ask or guess for a lukcy number for Lottery next round, and so on. All these also happened in the aftermatch of this Coup.
They are some kind of knowlegde that worth to explore in Thai Studies.
You academic fools . . . why study Thai vote-buying or vote-selling at all? Selling the vote is criminal and I challenge anyone to tell me different. Buying the vote is criminal and absolutely distasteful . . . and politicians who took advantage of those rural villagers to entice them with handouts in exchange for their vote was unforgiveable corruption.
But there should be no excuse. People who sell their votes should be jailed, without exception. After that . . . bingo . . . virtuous democracy blooms!
Grant, I would agree with you that his work is both, better informed (ethnographically so) and nuanced than other works in the area. My own cause for ommission of his work here is not that I think it ethnocentric like Baker and Pasuk but rather, that like them the wrong kinds of questions are being asked. If I was to recommend any reading here now it would be Louis Dumont’s From “Mandeville to Marx: The genesis and triumph of economic ideology.” 1977 purely as a way of “revising assumptions” as Nicholas discusses in today’s topic “Where to for Thai Studies”. The project of democratisation and development is integrally intertwined with economic ideology and some of New Mandala’s contributor’s comments regarding relationships to and of exchange (vote buying) being somewhat unreflective, I see the problem as deeply ingrained and a good ethnography alone won’t challenge this sufficiently. However, a very good account nonetheless.
I am surprised that among the recent comments on the rural electorate and vote buying in Thailand no-one has mentioned the excellent study of rural politics by Daniel Arghiros, DEMOCRACY, DEVELOPMENT AND DECENTRALIZATION IN PROVINCIAL THAILAND (2001). It is much better informed that almost anything else I have seen lately.
I recommend it to all readers of New Mandala.
Thanks for those references. I was familiar with the work of Pasuk and Baker and think they provide a valuable contribution, amongst many of the voices to be heard inside and outside of Thailand, to Thai studies. All though, when I read them I did have issues with some of their stuff (but that’s OK – it happens with everything that I read) and would sometimes like to have seen a bit more evidence – I absolute love their funky writing style – I’m so envious!!! I have seen some of the other stuff you mentioned and I do think it is of high quality. But, as political (so called) ‘science’ is not my thing I tend to read it late at night when I need to be sent off to sleep so I don’t really get that much of out of it. Thanks for the lead on James Okey I found that to be pretty interesting – but best of all when I went to look it up there in the same issue was the article by Jonathan Rigg ‘Poverty and livelihoods after full-time farming:
A South-East Asian view’ – much more down my alley.
I’m an old white fella who loves sitting under the shade of a tree on a stinking hot day with other old folk, chewing the fat. And thankfully I do get the opportunity to do so for a couple of months every year in the northeast. And in my humble opinion I feel that their voice is as legitimate as any other in the discourse on what is best in their interest as well as for the rest of the country.
As for my ‘bug bare’ about the urban – rural divide. Well it is mine and I’m happy to keep on banging on about it. But, I don’t think that I’m totally alone here. I was interested to see, on my usual Sunday morning scan of the Thai English media, that Aree Wong-araya felt that he needed to respond to rumors that there are so called ‘political movements’ in the Northeast that are attempting to disrupt the military rule of the new government. I’d love to know more about the fear and loathing that is going on in Bangkok that is fuelling these rumors. Also I noticed that Surayud flew into military bases in Sakon Nakhon and Biri Bam the other day where people were then brought in to these bases to meet him. (Does anybody know if there is any problem with Surayad moving freely around the countryside?) The reported purpose of his visit was to assure the locals that his military government will continue Thaksin’s so called populist policies that benefited rural folk. He had to deny media questioning that the purpose of his visit had anything to with the ‘non existent’ rumors. But apparently, according to the report Surayud had earlier conceded that there was a link between former communist insurgents in the northeast and those who are now voicing opposition to military government. (Thaksin in the bed with communists!!! – now that’s an interesting thought.) Also he met up with 20 former communist insurgents at the Sakon Nakhon base where Surayad assured these folk that he would eventually get around to carrying out the promises he made to them (that was providing them with a few head of cattle and a couple of acres of land in return for coming out of the hills) when he was the military commander overseeing the area more than 20 years ago. Now that is a great track record to build faith and trust on isn’t it?
According the Bangkok post both these stories were sourced from the TNA
So I guess there is at least 3 of us left in the world that continue to flog the ‘old dead horse’ of the urban – rural divide.
Oh, I nearly forgot. Wassan, I would still love to find the source of the figures you referred to about the population make up of Bangkok – you know the one you mentioned here:
“since many Thai rurals have migrated to BK for a few decades and they are now counted 9 in 10 of the whole population of this metropol.”
I think that the recent debate and commentary on the coup on New Mandala is evidence that Thai studies has an important place in “the currnet scene”. I understand the sentiment that some might think non-Thais should stay out of it but that is parochial and cerrtainly not to the benfit of Thailand. As I outlined in my posting to “Outside” I think the “revising of assumptions” you mention need to be made in a critical and reflexive manner as the assumptions that are out of line with what is happening have been shown to be so, over and over throughout the region time and again. So not so much a need for revising assumptions but perhaps “questioning” them reflexively and making a bit of an epistemological shift (for some ontlogical) away from the orientalist narratives of SEAsia, democracy and economics and more of a focus on the people, perhaps is called for. The small effort to try to understand Thailand on its own terms BEFORE applying these externally derived models will pay big dividends. Revise assumptions by asking new questions I say.
Outside,
My “big statment” comes from my own convitcion that much of the political science and economic frameworks/modelling for understanding Thailand, its political and economic processes “situations”, are grounded in narratives born of an ethnocentric epistemology. By this I mean political and economic studies of Thailand (and most of SEAsia), concern themselves with western global capital and western liberal democracy (procedural not substantive) and Thailand is written according to this narrative. Pasuk and Baker’s work epitomises this. However, I do not mean to say the details are necessarily erroneuos, just limited (fundamentally). Like Whyatt’s royalist histories, I acknowledge they are well detailed BUT their narrative structure perpetuates/reproduces and privileges a particular perspective that happens to limit discussion.
The nature of this modelling has time and again been shown to be out of line with what is actually happening. From the most recent coup through to East Tiomor, Suharto, economic crisis, this kind of modelling of what is happening in Southeast Asia has failed time and again to account for what is and or was happening and the myopia isn’t born of these being exceptional circumstances, rather the modelling is flawed and when events happen the models can’t cope. The rest of my posts here outline what I think the consequences are.
There is ample field research on the sediment loss due to disturbed slash-and-burn systems with shortened fallows as a consequence of population pressure increase. See for instance the work of Gafur and Borggaard (Borggaard et al. 2003; Gafur et al. 2003) in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. The loss of soil material from watersheds under mixed perennial vegetation or fallow is typically about 3 Mg ha-1 y-1, whereas the loss during the year of cultivation was about 6 times higher. Gafur does mention the seasonal variation in sediment delivery and the filtering functions in the landscape. Although the valley floor farmers that grow rice get sediment and nutrient-influx from run-on, the on-site effects for the slash-and-burn farmers are clearly negative. These farmers are aware of production declines despite the use of fertilizers (J. Ramon Olarieta, pers. comm.). Often the valley floor farmers do not cultivate the hills and vice-versa. So even if sediment would not leave the watershed, there may be a clear impact on part of the land users.
I wonder why you assume that theme of the conference is not for discussion? It is the very reason that such events are organized! Anyone challenging a theory with good arguments will –and has freedom to- do so. Scientific events such as these are not religious gatherings where the solid truths cannot be touched. It seems to me you should participate and present….
Stephan Mantel
References
Borggaard OK Gafur A and Petersen L 2003. Sustainability appraisal of shifting cultivation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. Ambio 32, 118-123.
Gafur A Jensen RJ Borggaard OK and Petersen L 2003. Runoff and losses of soil and nutrients from small watersheds under shifting cultivation (jhum) in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. Journal of Hydrology 274, 30-46.
[…] For all of the 100,000s of words that have been written and spoken about Thai politics over the past month, there is obviously much disagreement among well-meaning observers. At a time of crisis, this is healthy, I am sure. These divisions will, for the foreseeable future, probably mean that the academic study of Thailand occupies a divided landscape. New Mandala has, of course, contributed, in its own very small way, to this situation. In the weeks after the coup such division was unavoidable. And differences of opinion and interpretation still run the full gamut of possibilities. […]
[…] For all of the 100,000s of words that have been written and spoken about Thai politics over the past month, there is obviously much disagreement among well-meaning observers. At a time of crisis, this is healthy, I am sure. These divisions will, for the foreseeable future, probably mean that the academic study of Thailand occupies a divided landscape. New Mandala has, of course, contributed, in its own very small way, to this situation. In the weeks after the coup such division was unavoidable. And differences of opinion and interpretation still run the full gamut of possibilities. […]
[…] Back on 20 August 2006, I posted a short note that flagged what I then saw as some of the potentially important events that were looming over the horizon for scholarly interpretations of Southeast Asia. The dramatic events of September 19, but a month later, were certainly beyond my vision of the political stalemate. Back then, almost nobody openly speculated on the possibility of another Thai coup. […]
Thanks for the clarification, ‘Clive’. Good to see that the honesty and integrity of the Irrawaddy are being defended. This newsmagazine must continue to be a model of ethical journalism for the future …
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Kaan muang and kaan baan
Such a great idea A.Andrew this idea should have been proposed to the acting Thai Govt/and so called ‘Kor Mor Chor’ a present tranforming body of the Coup, the supposedly interim govt but fully and powerfully have power to ‘re-structure’ Thai society, who just luanced the policy banning all liquor ads saying that this way would prevent Thai peoples, the young in particular, from a negative effect of drinking – an immoral act?.
So if they really wanted to restore and reform Thai politics (as they claimed) and economy (they just boosting a self-sufficiency way but also insist to continue trading with the world, via FTA negotiation- so sounds not realy different from the TRT duo-tracks, and society [banning liqour ads and perhaps followed by a nightclub, karaoke, and sex works – ohhh my life would be bored and suppressed, therefore…..], and culture [who knows? can anyone here please help me to forecast] as a whole, this one-year interim govty who got power from the Coup so they can everything without protest or less resistance- please emphasise – should be heard of this idea.
We, Thai academics here, begin to worry about this act, to quote Atthjak’s word, it is a kind of ‘Long Yuk policy’ (doing the right thing in the wrong time?). Thus come! telling them to not be ‘Long Yuk’ beging with this new voting system.
Where to for Thai Studies?
Hi Chris, it is a typo and I did mean reflexive, sorry for the confusion. The post to “outside” is the one numbered 20 on the same thread as Grant Evans’ post and my reply to him (its just before it.). You probably saw it but as it doesn’t state categorically anything about being reflexive probably thought I was referring to another one somewhereelse.
The epistemological shift I am advocating is one away from the position that analysis of democratic and capitalist forms, in terms of how they are operationalised outside of Thailand, is how we study Thai politics/society. Indigenous political norms and processes are reduced to simplistic descriptions of institutional barriers to success of greater economic and political realisation in these analyses. In effect and as I have briefly touched on elsewhere, studies of Thai politics lack the fine grained and highly nuanced study that anthropology should be contributing to debates as the “meta narrative” or sets of assumptions as to what the issues are and what constitutes an appropriate research problem are already set and left unquestioned. In fact they dominate in the field of South East Asian studies in general.
Here we get the analyses that talk about tiger economies and Asian values and the “How to…” of democracy? You could say that there is a meta narrative that informs these approaches but I prefer to think of them as sets of assumptions (taken for granteds) that require unpacking by being subject to rigorous critical reflexive scrutiny.
Problems I see emerging from this beyond the flippant dismissal of the normative practice of vote buying being meaningful, because its stated aim of “buying votes” can’t be comprehended under the auspices of this episteme of Thai politics, namely it isn’t seen as being effective so therefore, it is redundant; is that academic accounts of Thai politics mirrors in tone and depth media reporting and diplomatic statements as to what is going on…both groups having vested interests in procedings. There is very little meaningful disagreement in debates. On the one hand we have pro Thaksin and anti-coup and on an other hand anti Thaksin anti coup pro democracy and then pro coup and anti Thaksin all of which are positions that are barracking for one or another team, the rules of the game already being understood by all players (researchers) and so not requiring being questioned. If you look a little more closely the debates of Aisan values and conditions for democracy are still with us here and what is actually happening has escaped everyone’s notice. Research findings are often more concerned with how well is democracy or capitalism going in Thailand or whereever, and problems are those issues that seem to be in the way of either one being successful.
Importantly, throughout this class and peasant are scrapped from the vernacular, unless we talk about the middleclass, and somehow through it all, the Asian values and tiger economy people become convinced that two fundamental aspects of Thai political practice, vote buying and coups have been done away with for no better reason than a couple of elections were held and a new constitution was written somewhere (again). Then suddenly there is a coup, (the vote buying has been ongoing) and people decry the loss of democracy ). It is strange to me to hear academics (social scientists–partculalry anthropologists) saying the same thing as diplomats and government heads who have vested interests in events and very tighly controlled/censored options for commentary. To conclude we need to cease seeing like and reporting for States and return some reflexivity to our ponderings. I could go on but I am sure people are getting a little tired of this soap box and it wasn’t my intention to dominate discussion so I will spare you all the rest of the sermon.
On your last point the ideologues who espouse the nationalist “occidentalism” you mention are a deeply entrenched institution of the Thai state.
What about some political education for the elite?
To Khun Chris White again,
Frankly, I think , and really think, it is not an easy taks to get this information and no one could guarantee whether it is from a reliable source. Deal to the so called ‘data-base recording and processing system’ in Thailand, I the Thai myself never truste any information or story that release from the Thai govt. Though I might have been able to find this figure from other organisations or foreign sources, and if I found it I would let you know immediately, I do not think you need any exact figure or reliable sources to affirm this. The point is, as you know, they are flows of people to and through BK for at least a century, but since the Siam was turned into Thailand, this flow has been accelerated and changed dramatically. The number I raised might be wrong or not exactly correct, but this is a very close picture of the propostion of multi=region=ethnic=background of the so called Bangkokians.
When I mentioned this I just would like to propose that urban-rural dichotomy has its problem. And I contend that to understand Thai politics, democracy in particular, this frame is not suitable anymore. Like some peoples here, to me the rurals or whatever they are called and seen, such as the poors who are uneducated or less educated, who ‘not ready for Democracy’ (Gen Sondhi was one of many who spoke out this idea on air – TV) , this kind of idea or alike to me is so dumped! From my counryside experience, the peoples who are called the poors or the rurals they are really clever, at least they know which plants and animals that can be eaten for survive. The idea which the urbanites in BK might not have.
So not neccesary to ask, whether they know those candidates or politicians who offer them good or bad policies, good or bad interests, fake or real notes, and so on.
Sorry if I just repeated an idea other peoples here have already posted
What about some political education for the elite?
Thanks Wasan
Silly me, I always thought that Bangkok was an extremely diverse multi ethnic city where about half the population – or their parents or grand parents – migrated from other nation states.
Yes, I would have really liked to see the evidence. 90% of the population Bangkok being made up of people moving from the regions seems like such a great story. I had seen the stuff from Pasuk and Baker but thought that they had overstated the size of the ‘new generation’ to support their argument for the amount of structural adjustment that they thought was happening in the economy. – you know the sort of thing you do when your writing a book. I guess because there is no firm data on this matter its hard to tell – and the data that you often do get from Thailand like the literacy rate and the unemployment figures (I think from memory is 98% and 1.4% respectively) doesn’t match my experience at all. (If these figures are true I must know just about every illiterate and unemployed person in Thailand). Is there any reliable sources of information?
Where to for Thai Studies?
Hi Ant
I was interested in reading your post particularly where you write “As I outlined in my posting to ‘Outside’ I think the “revising of assumptions” you mention need to be made in a critical and reflexive manner…” I’m a bit confused here because I looked for the post and I couldn’t find it. However, I did find in a post or two later to Grant Evens you said that you found that “some of New Mandala’s contributor’s comments regarding relationships to and of exchange (vote buying) being somewhat unreflective…” Fair enough I thought – but reflective and reflexive really do mean totally different things. Now I realize that you are a bright young fella and it’s probably just an innocent typo – I find that I make typos all the time – particular if I don’t have my glasses on. But can you please clarify which term you meant to use. And if you did mean unreflexive can you please point me to the comments that on New Mandela that demonstrate this?
Also you see the need for an “epistemological shift”. Well – I’m so excited about all this terminology – it is taking me right back to my early student days in the 1970’s – sex, drugs and rock and role. Ohh and so much fun – I wish I could still get it up. But anyway, to get back to the point . To have an “epistemological shift” suggests that we need to have some type of meta narrative to ‘shift from. I thought that we had well and truly buried them (meta narratives) by the end of the 20th century – even in the so called social ‘sciences’. One of the things that attracted me to ‘New Mandalla’ was the diversity of the stories and viewpoints being put forward – lots of small narratives – lots of different opinions. So I’m a bit surprised. If you can point them out to me (the meta narratives that is) on this site I’d really appreciate it too.
This is drawing a bit of a long bow, but, I do recognize a number of ‘types’ of meta narrative coming out of military junta in Thailand. The first is a type of perverse type of reverse ‘orientalist’ narrative. One where instead of Thailand being judged against the values of the so called ‘superior’ metropolis found in Europe the rest of the world is being judged by the superior metropolis of Bangkok – the rest of the world will never understand because they are not ‘Thai’ (what ever that is) and are inherently inferior. (perhaps this is what you are reffering to) Secondly, I sense a perverse type of neocolonial narrative emanating from the junta too– there seems to be some need to get out there and re-colonialise the country again. I would point to the coup itself and Surayud’s mission to the military outpost in Sakon Nakhon and Biri Bam last week, amoungst others, as evidence for this.
What about some political education for the elite?
Vichai
What about the middle class people in Bangkok who are enticed by the mass transit systems to vote for a political party? Unforgiveable corruption?
What about some political education for the elite?
First I would love to thank Dr. Grant Evans, for a good suggestion. Second, to Christ White, for the figure you need I do not have it, and no ones perhpas have it, if you really need the exact numbers.
Everyone who have experienced Thailand, BK in particular, realise that there is no ‘real’ data on this, but we might estimate, quite systematic and reasonable though, about this. For examples, you may bring a number from the household registration first, plus a study by the demographic sociologists at Mahidol Univ. Then you observe the flows of people travelling ‘back to thier orginal hometowns’, though temporarily, during the festivals, particularly the Thai New Year Festival. Fourth, many Thai leaders, scholars, journalists, and a super star of you like, Taksin, Gen Sondhi, and perhpas a present PM – sorry I did not have time to check for this, for examples, all have thier countryside background. They are, possibly Pasuk and Baker would call, members of ‘a new generation’ who outed of thier rurals to the Centre and never returned. The point I would just like to say is you may not need the figure but reality that you can make sense of.
To Ant, I do not see any point you raised to Pasuk and Baker’s writing as a kind of works that built upon what u called ‘an ethnocentric epistemology.’ Can anyone on earth being neutral? I do not think so, besides thier work hust another work but it si worht to read and learn from them, particularly for the non-Thai, schoalars or not, who can not read Thai fluently.
For the post ‘Where to for Thai Studies’, sorry if I just read only a few word, caused the question to me is sounded really boring, but would like to suggest some ideas here.
The Thai Studies is not simply the study of Thai State and Politics, but unfortunately, Thai Studies in AUS seems to be dominated by this, have a look from Thailand Update for example. There are many things more wider than this diplomatic issue.
I would rather, in short, love to try to undestand, though it is just a little seen, such as street gatherings, a female dancer from Cafe restaurant come to show thier performance to solute and support the soldiers, city folks in Chiang Mai made thier wedding photo album with a tank, to memorise thier love that exploded during the Coup!!!, peoples went to touch the tanks and the soldiers with thier M16 because they never saw these quite often, some might ask or guess for a lukcy number for Lottery next round, and so on. All these also happened in the aftermatch of this Coup.
They are some kind of knowlegde that worth to explore in Thai Studies.
Junta to junta, heart to heart
Diplomatic speak indeed. The only phrase missing is “constructive dialogue”.
What about some political education for the elite?
You academic fools . . . why study Thai vote-buying or vote-selling at all? Selling the vote is criminal and I challenge anyone to tell me different. Buying the vote is criminal and absolutely distasteful . . . and politicians who took advantage of those rural villagers to entice them with handouts in exchange for their vote was unforgiveable corruption.
But there should be no excuse. People who sell their votes should be jailed, without exception. After that . . . bingo . . . virtuous democracy blooms!
What about some political education for the elite?
Grant, I would agree with you that his work is both, better informed (ethnographically so) and nuanced than other works in the area. My own cause for ommission of his work here is not that I think it ethnocentric like Baker and Pasuk but rather, that like them the wrong kinds of questions are being asked. If I was to recommend any reading here now it would be Louis Dumont’s From “Mandeville to Marx: The genesis and triumph of economic ideology.” 1977 purely as a way of “revising assumptions” as Nicholas discusses in today’s topic “Where to for Thai Studies”. The project of democratisation and development is integrally intertwined with economic ideology and some of New Mandala’s contributor’s comments regarding relationships to and of exchange (vote buying) being somewhat unreflective, I see the problem as deeply ingrained and a good ethnography alone won’t challenge this sufficiently. However, a very good account nonetheless.
What about some political education for the elite?
I am surprised that among the recent comments on the rural electorate and vote buying in Thailand no-one has mentioned the excellent study of rural politics by Daniel Arghiros, DEMOCRACY, DEVELOPMENT AND DECENTRALIZATION IN PROVINCIAL THAILAND (2001). It is much better informed that almost anything else I have seen lately.
I recommend it to all readers of New Mandala.
What about some political education for the elite?
Thanks for those references. I was familiar with the work of Pasuk and Baker and think they provide a valuable contribution, amongst many of the voices to be heard inside and outside of Thailand, to Thai studies. All though, when I read them I did have issues with some of their stuff (but that’s OK – it happens with everything that I read) and would sometimes like to have seen a bit more evidence – I absolute love their funky writing style – I’m so envious!!! I have seen some of the other stuff you mentioned and I do think it is of high quality. But, as political (so called) ‘science’ is not my thing I tend to read it late at night when I need to be sent off to sleep so I don’t really get that much of out of it. Thanks for the lead on James Okey I found that to be pretty interesting – but best of all when I went to look it up there in the same issue was the article by Jonathan Rigg ‘Poverty and livelihoods after full-time farming:
A South-East Asian view’ – much more down my alley.
I’m an old white fella who loves sitting under the shade of a tree on a stinking hot day with other old folk, chewing the fat. And thankfully I do get the opportunity to do so for a couple of months every year in the northeast. And in my humble opinion I feel that their voice is as legitimate as any other in the discourse on what is best in their interest as well as for the rest of the country.
As for my ‘bug bare’ about the urban – rural divide. Well it is mine and I’m happy to keep on banging on about it. But, I don’t think that I’m totally alone here. I was interested to see, on my usual Sunday morning scan of the Thai English media, that Aree Wong-araya felt that he needed to respond to rumors that there are so called ‘political movements’ in the Northeast that are attempting to disrupt the military rule of the new government. I’d love to know more about the fear and loathing that is going on in Bangkok that is fuelling these rumors. Also I noticed that Surayud flew into military bases in Sakon Nakhon and Biri Bam the other day where people were then brought in to these bases to meet him. (Does anybody know if there is any problem with Surayad moving freely around the countryside?) The reported purpose of his visit was to assure the locals that his military government will continue Thaksin’s so called populist policies that benefited rural folk. He had to deny media questioning that the purpose of his visit had anything to with the ‘non existent’ rumors. But apparently, according to the report Surayud had earlier conceded that there was a link between former communist insurgents in the northeast and those who are now voicing opposition to military government. (Thaksin in the bed with communists!!! – now that’s an interesting thought.) Also he met up with 20 former communist insurgents at the Sakon Nakhon base where Surayad assured these folk that he would eventually get around to carrying out the promises he made to them (that was providing them with a few head of cattle and a couple of acres of land in return for coming out of the hills) when he was the military commander overseeing the area more than 20 years ago. Now that is a great track record to build faith and trust on isn’t it?
According the Bangkok post both these stories were sourced from the TNA
So I guess there is at least 3 of us left in the world that continue to flog the ‘old dead horse’ of the urban – rural divide.
Oh, I nearly forgot. Wassan, I would still love to find the source of the figures you referred to about the population make up of Bangkok – you know the one you mentioned here:
“since many Thai rurals have migrated to BK for a few decades and they are now counted 9 in 10 of the whole population of this metropol.”
Can you point me to them?
Where to for Thai Studies?
I think that the recent debate and commentary on the coup on New Mandala is evidence that Thai studies has an important place in “the currnet scene”. I understand the sentiment that some might think non-Thais should stay out of it but that is parochial and cerrtainly not to the benfit of Thailand. As I outlined in my posting to “Outside” I think the “revising of assumptions” you mention need to be made in a critical and reflexive manner as the assumptions that are out of line with what is happening have been shown to be so, over and over throughout the region time and again. So not so much a need for revising assumptions but perhaps “questioning” them reflexively and making a bit of an epistemological shift (for some ontlogical) away from the orientalist narratives of SEAsia, democracy and economics and more of a focus on the people, perhaps is called for. The small effort to try to understand Thailand on its own terms BEFORE applying these externally derived models will pay big dividends. Revise assumptions by asking new questions I say.
What about some political education for the elite?
Outside,
My “big statment” comes from my own convitcion that much of the political science and economic frameworks/modelling for understanding Thailand, its political and economic processes “situations”, are grounded in narratives born of an ethnocentric epistemology. By this I mean political and economic studies of Thailand (and most of SEAsia), concern themselves with western global capital and western liberal democracy (procedural not substantive) and Thailand is written according to this narrative. Pasuk and Baker’s work epitomises this. However, I do not mean to say the details are necessarily erroneuos, just limited (fundamentally). Like Whyatt’s royalist histories, I acknowledge they are well detailed BUT their narrative structure perpetuates/reproduces and privileges a particular perspective that happens to limit discussion.
The nature of this modelling has time and again been shown to be out of line with what is actually happening. From the most recent coup through to East Tiomor, Suharto, economic crisis, this kind of modelling of what is happening in Southeast Asia has failed time and again to account for what is and or was happening and the myopia isn’t born of these being exceptional circumstances, rather the modelling is flawed and when events happen the models can’t cope. The rest of my posts here outline what I think the consequences are.
Sloppy thinking about sloping lands
There is ample field research on the sediment loss due to disturbed slash-and-burn systems with shortened fallows as a consequence of population pressure increase. See for instance the work of Gafur and Borggaard (Borggaard et al. 2003; Gafur et al. 2003) in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. The loss of soil material from watersheds under mixed perennial vegetation or fallow is typically about 3 Mg ha-1 y-1, whereas the loss during the year of cultivation was about 6 times higher. Gafur does mention the seasonal variation in sediment delivery and the filtering functions in the landscape. Although the valley floor farmers that grow rice get sediment and nutrient-influx from run-on, the on-site effects for the slash-and-burn farmers are clearly negative. These farmers are aware of production declines despite the use of fertilizers (J. Ramon Olarieta, pers. comm.). Often the valley floor farmers do not cultivate the hills and vice-versa. So even if sediment would not leave the watershed, there may be a clear impact on part of the land users.
I wonder why you assume that theme of the conference is not for discussion? It is the very reason that such events are organized! Anyone challenging a theory with good arguments will –and has freedom to- do so. Scientific events such as these are not religious gatherings where the solid truths cannot be touched. It seems to me you should participate and present….
Stephan Mantel
References
Borggaard OK Gafur A and Petersen L 2003. Sustainability appraisal of shifting cultivation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. Ambio 32, 118-123.
Gafur A Jensen RJ Borggaard OK and Petersen L 2003. Runoff and losses of soil and nutrients from small watersheds under shifting cultivation (jhum) in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. Journal of Hydrology 274, 30-46.
SOAS and the coup
[…] For all of the 100,000s of words that have been written and spoken about Thai politics over the past month, there is obviously much disagreement among well-meaning observers. At a time of crisis, this is healthy, I am sure. These divisions will, for the foreseeable future, probably mean that the academic study of Thailand occupies a divided landscape. New Mandala has, of course, contributed, in its own very small way, to this situation. In the weeks after the coup such division was unavoidable. And differences of opinion and interpretation still run the full gamut of possibilities. […]
SOAS discussion on the Thai coup
[…] For all of the 100,000s of words that have been written and spoken about Thai politics over the past month, there is obviously much disagreement among well-meaning observers. At a time of crisis, this is healthy, I am sure. These divisions will, for the foreseeable future, probably mean that the academic study of Thailand occupies a divided landscape. New Mandala has, of course, contributed, in its own very small way, to this situation. In the weeks after the coup such division was unavoidable. And differences of opinion and interpretation still run the full gamut of possibilities. […]
Coming Attractions: Elections, Constitutions and More…
[…] Back on 20 August 2006, I posted a short note that flagged what I then saw as some of the potentially important events that were looming over the horizon for scholarly interpretations of Southeast Asia. The dramatic events of September 19, but a month later, were certainly beyond my vision of the political stalemate. Back then, almost nobody openly speculated on the possibility of another Thai coup. […]
What about some political education for the elite?
Ant:
I was interested in your comments regarding Chris Baker and Pasuk Pongpaichit.
“They are to me the flagship writers of the shallow and ethnocentric political science and economic perspectives on Thailand …”
A big statement. Care to justify it?
I’m assuming you are Thai, and that you aren’t just some Aussie student sounding off….
Naypyidaw reports from The Irrawaddy team
Thanks for the clarification, ‘Clive’. Good to see that the honesty and integrity of the Irrawaddy are being defended. This newsmagazine must continue to be a model of ethical journalism for the future …