From NM Guest Contributor:
‘Chai-anan’s point is not complicated when compared to his seminal Three-Dimensional State Model. His view may reflect three dimensions of ideas that are present in a large group of Thai intellectuals today. First, it is part of a reaction to capitalist economic development at least since the late 1980s when Thailand experienced its economic boom. This anti-capitalist thinking peaked in the aftermath of the 1997 financial crisis. Second, Chai-anan is reflecting a bottom-up approach to democracy and, apparently, a reaction to the rise of the Thai Rak Thai party under Thaksin. Lastly, a nationalist rationale – Thailand’s uniqueness – is the key to negating ‘external’ elements in Thailand’s political economy.’
Sven, unfortunately it seems that you consider use of the descriptors ‘well-connected’, ‘staunchly royalist’ and/or ‘yellow-shirted’ as sufficient reason to demean someone as a ‘nutcase’. While I am none of these things myself, I do take exception to such lazy, if not crazy, comments – which indicate that you, rather than Dr. Chai-anand, are part of the problem.
The comparison to farm subsidies in EU is totally irrelevant. To start with, the EU countries have massive tax incomes that enable them to do this. Thailand doesn’t, which has now become very obvious. Secondly, the EU system is much less prone to corruption. Thirdly, there is a huge difference between paying subsidies to the farmers and buying their harvest, particularly if the government isn’t able to pay. If this had been organised as an ordinary subsidy, the farmers’ loss would only have been what they were paid more than the market price for the rice. As it is now, they are getting nothing.
Please don’t compare Malaysia’s colonial infrastructure to Thailand’s current infrastructure. As much as the British may have left, the infrastructure in Malaysia is
not always being upgraded to meet modern standards, and for all Thailand’s problems for which 99 % of NM contributors would like to absolve the Thaksin clan of any responsibility, Thailand doesn’t have right wing fascist Buddhist organisations, calling for race wars, as Malaysia does with several extremist and racist Malay (Muslim) groups which are reminiscent of Berlin in 1938, and not Bangkok in 2014.
It’s amusing to see how the western, intellectual elite on these forums denounces what they call the Thai elite. Have any of you actually lived in rural Isan or do you find your truths solely from long gone Italian politicians?
Trirat: Thank God for small mercies that there are writers such as yourself with a sense of fairness and justice. Have you any idea how much subsidies farmers are paid out under the European Union Common Agricultural Policy? It is something in the order of 43& of the total annual budget of the European Union, and there are even countries that refuse to comply to the transparency rules governing these payments. Even the Queen of England and Prince Charles receive farming subsidies. Do you not consider this rather a joke? If the Thai government gives subsidies to Thai farmers they do not have to apologize to anyone. They are doing the correct thing. At least this money is not being dished out to the already stinking rich.
I am sure you are aware that there is now a fresh angle to this whole gambit of Islamic education in Malaysia – in the form of integrated Islamic schools (both national and international). These schools, privately funded and operated, are drawing middle class professional Muslims like bees to honey, as these parents try to strike a balance between secular and religious education for their children. Also because the medium of instruction in these schools are bilingual/trilingual.
I don’t think these schools pose a threat in terms of Islamic radicalism (so the government will not have the bogey they had with the SAR, for example), and perhaps as a result of the attempt to balance both secular and religious knowledge for the children (predominantly in the English language), do you see this as a potentially powerful new force of Muslim youth that are perhaps better equipped and exposed to deal with the problems and challenges of today?
To make the rice pledging system work, the government have to sell the rice for prices that are high enough to limit the losses to a level the nation can afford. So far, they haven’t managed to do that, and the result is that Thailand’s position in the rice market is reduced considerably. Rice prices are sinking, not increasing, since Vietnam, India and other nations produce rice cheaper than Thailand does. In the meantime, the quality of the rice in stock, 18 million tons according to official figures, deteriorates, decreasing the value further.
In most countries, agricultural subsidies are paid directly to the farmers while the farmers are responsible for selling their produce. That way, all parties have a sensible cash flow and chances of corruption are minimised. With the rice pledging scheme, chances of corruption are maximised and the whole scheme is based on borrowing enormous amounts of money. And no, the government does not assume the risk. Thailand’s tax payers do.
The result of all this is that one of the back bones of Thailand’s economy is broken. Analysts have predicted that the chances are bigger for Thailand to slide further down the rice statistics, from the current third to a fourth place, rather than regaining the top position that the nation held for decades.
With your attitude, I assume you believe that the more than 10,000 farmers that demonstrated outside the Office of the Defense Ministry’s Permanent Secretary today demanding to meet the caretaker prime minister were some kind of fake farmers. I can assure you: They are not. Paying lip service to farmers doesn’t help much when the scheme on offer doesn’t float. While I agree that the 30 baht health care scheme is good, but could have been better implemented, most of the other have failed more or less, and those implemented under the current government have failed the most.
Subsidies on new cars may actually be the weirdest. While most industrialised nations try to limit passenger cars, the Yingluck government want to increase it. A large portion of those cars ended up in Bangkok with families that already owned a car. Over 100,000 buyers defaulted even before the cars were delivered. Many already have problems with the down payments. Not a good way to “help” the poor.
Or tablet computers to all school kids, when most research indicate strongly that learning to read and write by traditional means is far superior and helps develop manual skills in a way that use of a tablet computer doesn’t.
The current government’s schemes in many way look like some kind of socialist dream. But Thailand isn’t a socialist country and in the real capitalist world, which Thaksin and his sister are premium exponents for, there is no way that you can do the financially impossible. If the government had spent the money already borrowed improving the infrastructure in Isan, making it more attractive to establish industry in the region, so that there was alternative work available for those living there, they would have had my full respect. But no. For that, they wanted to borrow another 2 trillion baht of which a third was supposed to finance a high speed rail network. A high speed rail network is the last thing the farmers of Thailand need. What they do need is a functional ordinary rail network that doesn’t derail more than 100 times per year and that actually has the capacity that is needed to perform its intended tasks.
Even Malaysia, a country that had a much better developed rail network to start with, has given priority to develop the ordinary trains and is constantly upgrading. And this may become Thailand’s biggest challenge: While this nation is occupied with populist policies and infighting (not only under the current government), the neighbours are developing. They also have their problems, with democracy as well as with economy, but Thailand’s lead is decreasing very, very fast.
A new element has been introduced: looming conflict between the military and the police. Several days ago, Thai Rat reported that the Army may have agents hunting police who are attempting to suppress the PDRC “reformers” mobs. Yesterday, the Thai papers (not the royal acolytes BKK POST/Nation) reported that provincial police units have been brought in to fight Suthep’s rioters. Note that the Metropolitan police were reluctant (to say the least) to engage the rioters, just like in 2008-2010 when the “Yellow Shirts” illegally occupied government facilities. Then, add to the mix the presence of Thai Navy Special Warfare units who are shooting up the pro-government side, while blaming it all on Cambodians.
George Redelinghuys – I don’t think you’re correct about this : “the Democratic Party in the past has never lifted a finger to help farmers in the North and Northeast.” In fact the Democrats adopted quite a few Thaksin-like help policies, and have tried to be competitive at this level, in the last election they contested (i.e. not the current one, which they boycotted). It’s simply that they failed – their appeal could n’t match Thaksin’s, who did it first and was thus more trusted as the real thing. And the thereby dis-heartened Democrats made the absolutely crucial mistake, in my opinion, of foolishly NOT contesting the most recent election. Had they done so, they might well now be in a position to negotiate a coalition government led by them, riding on the wave of rural discontent over the rice-pledging debacle, instead of being – as they now are – placed as mid-wives to an increasingly likely civil war. The Democrats should n’t have abandoned the democratic process.
Are you really talking about Chai-anand Samudavanija, the well connected, staunchly royalist yellow-shirted nutcase, the inventor of “sufficiency democracy”? Well, I hope he (and you maybe too) will follow his own advice.
It’s incredible that you have not comprehended the reason behind the rice pledging policy, since you say you have been talking to farmers. Yes, it’s a populist policy, and we could debate endlessly about its pros and cons; but I leave that to my betters. To put it plainly, the government rice policy, by its nature, is a money-leaking proposition: the government assumes the risk, with the noble intention of helping the poor downtrodden farmer, of buying up the rice at a high price at harvest when prices are depressed, holds the rice in warehouses until such time as prices rise again, then sells it. But the price received will hardly ever equal the price paid, so the government will always lose money. The shortfall comes out of the national budget (your taxes and mine), if need be first borrowed from the banks. So yes, it’s a subsidy to farmers. Is the government pandering to the voters? Possibly, but isn’t it time that someone pandered to the farmers and laborers of this country? The Democrats under Chuan Leekphai frittered $4 billion bailing out the greedy financial institutions back in the late 90’s; not a whimper of dissent was heard back then.
The rice policy, along with numerous other populist policies such as the Tambon fund, the 30 baht health care, OTOP, etc. are targeted at low-income earners and, by all accounts, has lifted the majority out of abject poverty. This is the first time any government has paid more than lip service to the poor farmers. You mentioned farmers who have committed suicide because “they cannot afford to pay their bills and cannot afford to plant new rice.” We shouldn’t rush to conclusions: the Department of Mental Health warned as much today. Correlation is not causation. Common sense, something which is not so common, tells us that nine farmer suicides this year out of, let’s say a million unpaid farmers, which is only 0.0009%, is not statistically significant. But I thank you for your cordial exchange.
Excellent article. Why has Thailand come to this impasse after the great days of the Assembly of the Poor and which had s many rich lessons for others in Asia? Have the middle classes always have to be the arbitrator between the poor and the elites and cannot the poor have their say? The article has great relevance for us in India also as we fight off a fearful rightwing fascist challenge to an entrenched elite and a middle class upsurge possibly threatening the apple cart of both right and Centre. The left? It is for now “left out”. So is “civil society” as you point in the Thai case.
Notwithstanding the merits of this worthy article and various other theories, I am mindful of the cautionary saying from Zen:
‘He who speaks does not know. He who knows does not speak.’ Indeed I have often quoted this to Thais re politics here in the Kingdom of Illusions, while adding that one such widely respected commentator, Dr. Chaianand Samutvanich, once despairingly commented that he would in future refrain from making political predictions because when they proved accurate (as his tended to be) it was said that because he knew how events would pan out he must be involved in politics behind the scenes.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
A Gramscian take on Thai politics
From NM Guest Contributor:
‘Chai-anan’s point is not complicated when compared to his seminal Three-Dimensional State Model. His view may reflect three dimensions of ideas that are present in a large group of Thai intellectuals today. First, it is part of a reaction to capitalist economic development at least since the late 1980s when Thailand experienced its economic boom. This anti-capitalist thinking peaked in the aftermath of the 1997 financial crisis. Second, Chai-anan is reflecting a bottom-up approach to democracy and, apparently, a reaction to the rise of the Thai Rak Thai party under Thaksin. Lastly, a nationalist rationale – Thailand’s uniqueness – is the key to negating ‘external’ elements in Thailand’s political economy.’
Sven, unfortunately it seems that you consider use of the descriptors ‘well-connected’, ‘staunchly royalist’ and/or ‘yellow-shirted’ as sufficient reason to demean someone as a ‘nutcase’. While I am none of these things myself, I do take exception to such lazy, if not crazy, comments – which indicate that you, rather than Dr. Chai-anand, are part of the problem.
The weakness of the Thai royalists
The comparison to farm subsidies in EU is totally irrelevant. To start with, the EU countries have massive tax incomes that enable them to do this. Thailand doesn’t, which has now become very obvious. Secondly, the EU system is much less prone to corruption. Thirdly, there is a huge difference between paying subsidies to the farmers and buying their harvest, particularly if the government isn’t able to pay. If this had been organised as an ordinary subsidy, the farmers’ loss would only have been what they were paid more than the market price for the rice. As it is now, they are getting nothing.
The benefits of mud houses
Most green builders have none of the problems outlined by Jon Wright who just appears to be anti-author in his comments.
I couldn’t find any reference to dung in the article which was criticized by Peter Cohen.
Here is a you tube link to rammed earth building presented by Dr. David Suzuki which seems to contradict our learned friends above.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RnJZq9rbL8
The weakness of the Thai royalists
Please don’t compare Malaysia’s colonial infrastructure to Thailand’s current infrastructure. As much as the British may have left, the infrastructure in Malaysia is
not always being upgraded to meet modern standards, and for all Thailand’s problems for which 99 % of NM contributors would like to absolve the Thaksin clan of any responsibility, Thailand doesn’t have right wing fascist Buddhist organisations, calling for race wars, as Malaysia does with several extremist and racist Malay (Muslim) groups which are reminiscent of Berlin in 1938, and not Bangkok in 2014.
The weakness of the Thai royalists
I think that the Yingluk government was failing to pay the farmers well before the dissolution of parliament.
The weakness of the Thai royalists
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Khon-Kaen-Uni-has-Tai-Noi-signage-at-main-gate-30226965.html
A Gramscian take on Thai politics
It’s amusing to see how the western, intellectual elite on these forums denounces what they call the Thai elite. Have any of you actually lived in rural Isan or do you find your truths solely from long gone Italian politicians?
The weakness of the Thai royalists
The break-up of Thailand – or at least confederation – looms ever larger, ever likely, on the horizon : http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/395906/chiang-mai-reds-offer-government-temporary-base
The weakness of the Thai royalists
Trirat: Thank God for small mercies that there are writers such as yourself with a sense of fairness and justice. Have you any idea how much subsidies farmers are paid out under the European Union Common Agricultural Policy? It is something in the order of 43& of the total annual budget of the European Union, and there are even countries that refuse to comply to the transparency rules governing these payments. Even the Queen of England and Prince Charles receive farming subsidies. Do you not consider this rather a joke? If the Thai government gives subsidies to Thai farmers they do not have to apologize to anyone. They are doing the correct thing. At least this money is not being dished out to the already stinking rich.
The ups and downs of Islamic education in Malaysia
I am sure you are aware that there is now a fresh angle to this whole gambit of Islamic education in Malaysia – in the form of integrated Islamic schools (both national and international). These schools, privately funded and operated, are drawing middle class professional Muslims like bees to honey, as these parents try to strike a balance between secular and religious education for their children. Also because the medium of instruction in these schools are bilingual/trilingual.
I don’t think these schools pose a threat in terms of Islamic radicalism (so the government will not have the bogey they had with the SAR, for example), and perhaps as a result of the attempt to balance both secular and religious knowledge for the children (predominantly in the English language), do you see this as a potentially powerful new force of Muslim youth that are perhaps better equipped and exposed to deal with the problems and challenges of today?
The weakness of the Thai royalists
To make the rice pledging system work, the government have to sell the rice for prices that are high enough to limit the losses to a level the nation can afford. So far, they haven’t managed to do that, and the result is that Thailand’s position in the rice market is reduced considerably. Rice prices are sinking, not increasing, since Vietnam, India and other nations produce rice cheaper than Thailand does. In the meantime, the quality of the rice in stock, 18 million tons according to official figures, deteriorates, decreasing the value further.
In most countries, agricultural subsidies are paid directly to the farmers while the farmers are responsible for selling their produce. That way, all parties have a sensible cash flow and chances of corruption are minimised. With the rice pledging scheme, chances of corruption are maximised and the whole scheme is based on borrowing enormous amounts of money. And no, the government does not assume the risk. Thailand’s tax payers do.
The result of all this is that one of the back bones of Thailand’s economy is broken. Analysts have predicted that the chances are bigger for Thailand to slide further down the rice statistics, from the current third to a fourth place, rather than regaining the top position that the nation held for decades.
With your attitude, I assume you believe that the more than 10,000 farmers that demonstrated outside the Office of the Defense Ministry’s Permanent Secretary today demanding to meet the caretaker prime minister were some kind of fake farmers. I can assure you: They are not. Paying lip service to farmers doesn’t help much when the scheme on offer doesn’t float. While I agree that the 30 baht health care scheme is good, but could have been better implemented, most of the other have failed more or less, and those implemented under the current government have failed the most.
Subsidies on new cars may actually be the weirdest. While most industrialised nations try to limit passenger cars, the Yingluck government want to increase it. A large portion of those cars ended up in Bangkok with families that already owned a car. Over 100,000 buyers defaulted even before the cars were delivered. Many already have problems with the down payments. Not a good way to “help” the poor.
Or tablet computers to all school kids, when most research indicate strongly that learning to read and write by traditional means is far superior and helps develop manual skills in a way that use of a tablet computer doesn’t.
The current government’s schemes in many way look like some kind of socialist dream. But Thailand isn’t a socialist country and in the real capitalist world, which Thaksin and his sister are premium exponents for, there is no way that you can do the financially impossible. If the government had spent the money already borrowed improving the infrastructure in Isan, making it more attractive to establish industry in the region, so that there was alternative work available for those living there, they would have had my full respect. But no. For that, they wanted to borrow another 2 trillion baht of which a third was supposed to finance a high speed rail network. A high speed rail network is the last thing the farmers of Thailand need. What they do need is a functional ordinary rail network that doesn’t derail more than 100 times per year and that actually has the capacity that is needed to perform its intended tasks.
Even Malaysia, a country that had a much better developed rail network to start with, has given priority to develop the ordinary trains and is constantly upgrading. And this may become Thailand’s biggest challenge: While this nation is occupied with populist policies and infighting (not only under the current government), the neighbours are developing. They also have their problems, with democracy as well as with economy, but Thailand’s lead is decreasing very, very fast.
The weakness of the Thai royalists
A new element has been introduced: looming conflict between the military and the police. Several days ago, Thai Rat reported that the Army may have agents hunting police who are attempting to suppress the PDRC “reformers” mobs. Yesterday, the Thai papers (not the royal acolytes BKK POST/Nation) reported that provincial police units have been brought in to fight Suthep’s rioters. Note that the Metropolitan police were reluctant (to say the least) to engage the rioters, just like in 2008-2010 when the “Yellow Shirts” illegally occupied government facilities. Then, add to the mix the presence of Thai Navy Special Warfare units who are shooting up the pro-government side, while blaming it all on Cambodians.
The weakness of the Thai royalists
The source is Michael Yon.
http://www.facebook.com/MichaelYonFanPage/photos/a.229275785664.134574.207730000664/10151974533480665/
The weakness of the Thai royalists
George Redelinghuys – I don’t think you’re correct about this : “the Democratic Party in the past has never lifted a finger to help farmers in the North and Northeast.” In fact the Democrats adopted quite a few Thaksin-like help policies, and have tried to be competitive at this level, in the last election they contested (i.e. not the current one, which they boycotted). It’s simply that they failed – their appeal could n’t match Thaksin’s, who did it first and was thus more trusted as the real thing. And the thereby dis-heartened Democrats made the absolutely crucial mistake, in my opinion, of foolishly NOT contesting the most recent election. Had they done so, they might well now be in a position to negotiate a coalition government led by them, riding on the wave of rural discontent over the rice-pledging debacle, instead of being – as they now are – placed as mid-wives to an increasingly likely civil war. The Democrats should n’t have abandoned the democratic process.
A Gramscian take on Thai politics
Are you really talking about Chai-anand Samudavanija, the well connected, staunchly royalist yellow-shirted nutcase, the inventor of “sufficiency democracy”? Well, I hope he (and you maybe too) will follow his own advice.
A Gramscian take on Thai politics
Or “it is better to be silent and be taken for a fool, than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.” Mark Twain, I think
The weakness of the Thai royalists
It’s incredible that you have not comprehended the reason behind the rice pledging policy, since you say you have been talking to farmers. Yes, it’s a populist policy, and we could debate endlessly about its pros and cons; but I leave that to my betters. To put it plainly, the government rice policy, by its nature, is a money-leaking proposition: the government assumes the risk, with the noble intention of helping the poor downtrodden farmer, of buying up the rice at a high price at harvest when prices are depressed, holds the rice in warehouses until such time as prices rise again, then sells it. But the price received will hardly ever equal the price paid, so the government will always lose money. The shortfall comes out of the national budget (your taxes and mine), if need be first borrowed from the banks. So yes, it’s a subsidy to farmers. Is the government pandering to the voters? Possibly, but isn’t it time that someone pandered to the farmers and laborers of this country? The Democrats under Chuan Leekphai frittered $4 billion bailing out the greedy financial institutions back in the late 90’s; not a whimper of dissent was heard back then.
The rice policy, along with numerous other populist policies such as the Tambon fund, the 30 baht health care, OTOP, etc. are targeted at low-income earners and, by all accounts, has lifted the majority out of abject poverty. This is the first time any government has paid more than lip service to the poor farmers. You mentioned farmers who have committed suicide because “they cannot afford to pay their bills and cannot afford to plant new rice.” We shouldn’t rush to conclusions: the Department of Mental Health warned as much today. Correlation is not causation. Common sense, something which is not so common, tells us that nine farmer suicides this year out of, let’s say a million unpaid farmers, which is only 0.0009%, is not statistically significant. But I thank you for your cordial exchange.
A Gramscian take on Thai politics
Excellent article. Why has Thailand come to this impasse after the great days of the Assembly of the Poor and which had s many rich lessons for others in Asia? Have the middle classes always have to be the arbitrator between the poor and the elites and cannot the poor have their say? The article has great relevance for us in India also as we fight off a fearful rightwing fascist challenge to an entrenched elite and a middle class upsurge possibly threatening the apple cart of both right and Centre. The left? It is for now “left out”. So is “civil society” as you point in the Thai case.
Thailand’s election: 2 February 2014
North Korea welcomes you… how about a “support piece” for Kim Yong Un?
A Gramscian take on Thai politics
Notwithstanding the merits of this worthy article and various other theories, I am mindful of the cautionary saying from Zen:
‘He who speaks does not know. He who knows does not speak.’ Indeed I have often quoted this to Thais re politics here in the Kingdom of Illusions, while adding that one such widely respected commentator, Dr. Chaianand Samutvanich, once despairingly commented that he would in future refrain from making political predictions because when they proved accurate (as his tended to be) it was said that because he knew how events would pan out he must be involved in politics behind the scenes.