Why did they not wrap it up is really the interesting question. I think that until Phibul became prime minister the senior faction combined with old royalists etc. was still too strong and entrenched, even after the B. rebellion. Afterwards, perhaps there was no more need for it. The new regime was quite well established and did not have to fear interferences from other groups.
In my understanding of Phibul, he used Mussolline as an example, and M. kept the monarchy as an additional legitimation of rule. Even more, while the italian king was in Italy, the King of Siam was far away and could hardly been seen as a challenge. Finally they might have feared that a change towards a republic could have led to repercussions from the British.
For an understanding of the 1932 rebellion I find the book by Scot Barme highly interesting. It shows the lack of legitimacy the monarchy had during the time prior to 1932
The date of Dr Thawatt’s study – the thesis was 1962, the Chalermnit edition 1972 – shows how little progress has been made in understanding 1932. Anderson’s endorsement of the book as the fullest English-language account could be re-stated today without qualification. Some work in Thai and English has shed light on the dynamics of the emerging public sphere, and new work underway on the 1930s will illuminate even more, yet weaknesses in the study of 1932 remain. Yes, the Bowaradej Rebellion was suppressed, but the coup group continued to be challenged at every turn. Why didn’t they wrap it up when they had their chances – after the bloodless coup in 1932, and again when the seventh king abdicated in 1935?
P. S. Okay, I give up. In the illustration, why are we looking at Thai books on labour, ethnic minorities etc. in Burma?
Frederick the Great said, “Had I the good fortune to be born an ordinary person, I would never be a lawyer. It is better to have only one shirt for one’s back and to be an honest man.”
Thank you for your post, it is good to get some discussion and information sharing going on this issue.
I might respond with a few points.
I would be reticent to say that Mr. Watson has died. He is reported as kidnapped without proof of life. I am sure that his family are still holding out hope for contact, however slim those hopes may be at this point.
Second, I really don’t think I presented Murray as a champion of social justice. I noted for example his close involvement in previous problematic hydropower projects in Laos. Clearly RMR was considered as an industry friendly consulting firm.
I certainly didn’t have an inside line into the inner psyche of Mr. Watson. He could very well have been acting out of venality, revenge, greed and empire building as you suggest. He even threatened legal action against IRN at one point, as you indicate. So that is certainly one line of plausible interpretation of his actions and intent.
However, it seems to me at least, that this interpretation would not adequately explain the sheer extent of documentation that RMR produced on the downstream effects of THPC in their draft EIA, long after it became of any use to his firms ability to secure contracts or for their reputation. Watson also developed a new line of thinking on why the flooding effects in the downstream area were becoming so severe (his ‘sediment wave’ hypothesis). Your interpretation would also have trouble explaining the significant level of his later cooperation with International Rivers (for example with their joint media conference held at the Foreign Correspondents Club in Bangkok).
Mr. Watson may have been acting solely out of self-interest through this whole episode- who knows. However, it seems to me at least, that he might also have had more than one source of motivation going on (for example a professional desire to document what was actually happening). So that is why I suggested that it was difficult to pin down his motivations, and that’s part of what (I think at least) makes him an interesting character in this story.
Regarding the first point, well, I did not intend to be at all misleading, or to portray myself as having some kind of singular insight into this issue. In my published work on this, I have tried to be careful to cite all the previous evidence that I could gather on this subject. For this short blog post of course I did not present an exhaustive bibliography.
I could have noted other previous studies written by, for example, the late Charlie Pahlman on the effects of THPC; as well as a study entitled “An Update on the Environmental and Social-Economic Impacts of the Nam Theun-Hinboun Hydroelectric Dam and Water Diversion Project in Central Laos” published by IRN in 1999 and written by Ian Baird. In these earlier studies from 1998-1999, the issue of increased wet season flooding in villager rice fields is noted, as well as a range of other issues such as for fisheries and riverside gardens.
Terry Warren’s 199 fishery study on the Hinboun is very important.
In addition there was the Review of the Environmental Management Division written by Blake, Carson and Tubtim in 2005, although in this report the level of wet season flooding and paddy abandonment was not closely described.
That said, (and I am happy to stand corrected on this), I think that my study was amongst the first ethnographic community studies, based on longer term fieldwork in a single village on the lower Hinboun, and in particular that showed how these downstream effects (particularly with respect to the widespread abandonment of lowland paddy and the failure of EMD mitigation and compensation programs, including dry season irrigation) translated into complex social-ecological and livelihood changes in a particular community setting.
In parallel, Watson was also documenting the emergent erosion and flooding regime, and arriving at a fluvial-geomorpological explanation for why so much flooding was happening (his ‘sediment wave’ idea).
The broad outlines of the downstream impacts of THPC may have been known by many by 2006, however in presentations like this one, from 2003
[http://www.adbi.org/conf-seminar-papers/2003/12/09/370.power.progress.partnership/ ] THPC was still avoiding any serious discussion of these effects.
In particular, THPC were rejecting the notion that seriously aggravated downstream flooding from THPC could be linked to their inter-basin transfer project (they still preferred ideas that pinned the blame for the flooding upon deforestation, logging and swidden cultivation in the upper watershed, and to water back-up effects from the main Mekong channel).
Is Watson’s sediment wave interpretation really correct? What are the real prospects for the social-ecology of the Nam Hinboun as a result of the doubling of inter-basin water transfers due to the expansion project- THXP? Those seem like very interesting questions that deserves further study.
I believe (ahem) that people (peasants or otherwise) who are lazy and drunk most of the time lack a zest in life, that elusive inspiration to jump high up early from their beds every mornings ready to do battle. Only ‘sincere avarice’ could give that zest.
President Obama, like a true academic, continue to defame avarice as ‘poverty of ambition’. ‘Poverty of ambition’ my ass! I suspect President Obama had not met any of New Mandala’s ‘political peasants’.
I have a large number of relatives who could be loosely described as “peasants”. Some of them are lazy, dumb and drunk some of the time. Most of them are, unsurprisingly, smart, aware and industrious.
I know a number of educated Thai academics. Some of them are lazy, dumb and drunk some of the time, which is also unsurprising.
[…] about the future of the AEC are echoed by Murray Hunter, another analyst of the region who wrote an article about ASEAN integration for the New Mandala last month. The article contains some factual inaccuracies and could have used […]
This is an interesting post, but there are two important points worth making.
First, Barney writes, “By the time of my fieldwork in 2005-2006, I found that the THPC project was clearly creating very significant downstream socio-ecological transformations in the inter-basin transfer recipient river– the Nam Hinboun.” This sentence implies that he was the first, or at least amongst the first, to discover the downstream impacts along the Hinboun River. The reality is that the impacts were already well documented by that time. The ADB had even admitted them by that time. On this matter, the posting is quite misleading.
Second, I would be wary of presenting Murray Watson as some sort of champion of justice fighting against the Theun-Hinboun dam. In fact, his main motivation for releasing information about the project appears to be revenge. He was angry with the THPC for dumping him as their consultant, so he went after them. His motives do not appear to have been particularly noble. In fact, a few years earlier he had threatened to sue the anti-dam NGO, International Rivers Network (IRN), in order to keep them from legitimately criticizing projects that he was involved with. I am sorry that he died in Somalia, but the record seems to suggest that he was simply a high priced hydropower dam consultant who was willing to turn on anyone who he felt was blocking his own path to advancement. He didn’t want anyone to mess with him, and he was willing to make anyone who did pay. I have no doubt that much of what he wrote against Theun-Hinboun is true, but I doubt that he would have released the information had he not had a falling out with THPC.
Cambodia is becoming a Chinese stooge. The Chinese are using the 2B-tactics (bribery and bullying) combined with their basic 2Y-strategy (Yuan and Y-chromosomes) in order to split up ASEAN (a rather facile trick which the Chinese believe Sun-Tzu “invented” lol). China needs “Lebensraum” and natural resources. Southeast Asia is viewed by the Chinese as a cheap takeaway kitchen populated by “Untermenschen” happy to be ruled and dominated by the Great Han Civilisation.
What is with SteveCM. Doesn’t he read the Thai news at all? It is common knowledge the whole Peau Thai Party serves (as in “servant”) Thaksin and only Thaksin.
But to satisfy SteveCM thirst for VichaiN fact, here is the link:
1) In Myanmar ONLY cronies, the degree of cronyism aside, can engage in ANY business. The failure and success are however never guaranteed.
2) Natural disaster as well as poverty/traditional related practices incur more damages to Myanmar ecosystem than any other practices.
3) Buddhism and the associated moral teachings have been the fabric that has held Myanmar since ~1044. Will remain so for the foreseeable future.
Within the above context, well intended ideas on Tourism, Ecosystem and Morality related fall outs all seem at best conjecture and at the worst ‘crying wolf”.
After 6 decades under Ne Win and SPDC, from the ordinary street vendors to ultimate example, Tay Za holdings, ALL must be cronies to a certain degree to do business in Myanmar.
Bemoaning cronyism yet expecting the wind fall of tourism equitably is at best wishful and self contradictory, at the worst resurrecting the raison d’etre of sanction.
Weather related events, forest fire, together with man made/slash and burn, cause as much if not more damage than the much publicized China, Thailand, Singapore and any other countries that took advantage of useless careless policy period doing business with SPDC.
Alleviating poverty alone adequately will prevent much lost of ecosystem is an established fact, applicable else where in the world as well as in Myanmar.
Buddhism enable Myanmar Citizenry to endure such adversity without becoming self predatory since the advent of colonial period. Still not frayed, even after Nargis, the useless careless treatment by the West and the results of multiple conflicts.
Until ‘cronyism’ make way for rule of laws as well as unjustified ‘poverty’ of a Citizenry is addressed by all means the consequences both will remain.
As for the most bestial form SEXUAL TOURISM the abundance of which in towns bordering China says it all.
Rather desperate even by your usual standards, Vichai…..
Obama’s awkward cheek-peck moment with Aung San Suu Kyi was itself a cultural mis-step – albeit during a relatively informal meet with an MP at her home and not with a Thai PM on a formal state occasion at Government House.
I believe Deputy PM Chalerm Yubamrung just recently blurted to a Thai reporter that indeed Chalerm Yubamrung is merely a ‘servant’ of Thaksin. Probably the whole Peau Thai Party executive ranks and ministers are too ‘servants’ of the fugitive Thaksin S.
Jory is not stupid when he says that Yingluck is merely a puppet of Thaksin S.
But Jory is being stupid when he insists that Yingluck should publicly and proudly acknowledge that fact. A stupid mis-step like what Jory suggests would be the end of Yingluck’s regime and Thaksin’s party would be outlawed (again!).
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
1932/2012: Reflecting on revolution
Why did they not wrap it up is really the interesting question. I think that until Phibul became prime minister the senior faction combined with old royalists etc. was still too strong and entrenched, even after the B. rebellion. Afterwards, perhaps there was no more need for it. The new regime was quite well established and did not have to fear interferences from other groups.
In my understanding of Phibul, he used Mussolline as an example, and M. kept the monarchy as an additional legitimation of rule. Even more, while the italian king was in Italy, the King of Siam was far away and could hardly been seen as a challenge. Finally they might have feared that a change towards a republic could have led to repercussions from the British.
For an understanding of the 1932 rebellion I find the book by Scot Barme highly interesting. It shows the lack of legitimacy the monarchy had during the time prior to 1932
1932/2012: Reflecting on revolution
Thanks Craig,
No deep meaning on the photo. Just a “file photo” of the bookshelf in a certain Hedley Bull office. Sorry for any confusion.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
1932/2012: Reflecting on revolution
The date of Dr Thawatt’s study – the thesis was 1962, the Chalermnit edition 1972 – shows how little progress has been made in understanding 1932. Anderson’s endorsement of the book as the fullest English-language account could be re-stated today without qualification. Some work in Thai and English has shed light on the dynamics of the emerging public sphere, and new work underway on the 1930s will illuminate even more, yet weaknesses in the study of 1932 remain. Yes, the Bowaradej Rebellion was suppressed, but the coup group continued to be challenged at every turn. Why didn’t they wrap it up when they had their chances – after the bloodless coup in 1932, and again when the seventh king abdicated in 1935?
P. S. Okay, I give up. In the illustration, why are we looking at Thai books on labour, ethnic minorities etc. in Burma?
Lynas Corporation for dummies (and Australians)
A correction. Lynas was announced in 2008 BEFORE it was built.
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/mca-warns-kuantan-mp-to-cease-attacks-over-lynas/
Chris Baker on Thailand’s Political Peasants
Frederick the Great said, “Had I the good fortune to be born an ordinary person, I would never be a lawyer. It is better to have only one shirt for one’s back and to be an honest man.”
Remaking the Nam Hinboun
Dear Observer:
Thank you for your post, it is good to get some discussion and information sharing going on this issue.
I might respond with a few points.
I would be reticent to say that Mr. Watson has died. He is reported as kidnapped without proof of life. I am sure that his family are still holding out hope for contact, however slim those hopes may be at this point.
Second, I really don’t think I presented Murray as a champion of social justice. I noted for example his close involvement in previous problematic hydropower projects in Laos. Clearly RMR was considered as an industry friendly consulting firm.
I certainly didn’t have an inside line into the inner psyche of Mr. Watson. He could very well have been acting out of venality, revenge, greed and empire building as you suggest. He even threatened legal action against IRN at one point, as you indicate. So that is certainly one line of plausible interpretation of his actions and intent.
However, it seems to me at least, that this interpretation would not adequately explain the sheer extent of documentation that RMR produced on the downstream effects of THPC in their draft EIA, long after it became of any use to his firms ability to secure contracts or for their reputation. Watson also developed a new line of thinking on why the flooding effects in the downstream area were becoming so severe (his ‘sediment wave’ hypothesis). Your interpretation would also have trouble explaining the significant level of his later cooperation with International Rivers (for example with their joint media conference held at the Foreign Correspondents Club in Bangkok).
Mr. Watson may have been acting solely out of self-interest through this whole episode- who knows. However, it seems to me at least, that he might also have had more than one source of motivation going on (for example a professional desire to document what was actually happening). So that is why I suggested that it was difficult to pin down his motivations, and that’s part of what (I think at least) makes him an interesting character in this story.
Regarding the first point, well, I did not intend to be at all misleading, or to portray myself as having some kind of singular insight into this issue. In my published work on this, I have tried to be careful to cite all the previous evidence that I could gather on this subject. For this short blog post of course I did not present an exhaustive bibliography.
I could have noted other previous studies written by, for example, the late Charlie Pahlman on the effects of THPC; as well as a study entitled “An Update on the Environmental and Social-Economic Impacts of the Nam Theun-Hinboun Hydroelectric Dam and Water Diversion Project in Central Laos” published by IRN in 1999 and written by Ian Baird. In these earlier studies from 1998-1999, the issue of increased wet season flooding in villager rice fields is noted, as well as a range of other issues such as for fisheries and riverside gardens.
Terry Warren’s 199 fishery study on the Hinboun is very important.
In addition there was the Review of the Environmental Management Division written by Blake, Carson and Tubtim in 2005, although in this report the level of wet season flooding and paddy abandonment was not closely described.
That said, (and I am happy to stand corrected on this), I think that my study was amongst the first ethnographic community studies, based on longer term fieldwork in a single village on the lower Hinboun, and in particular that showed how these downstream effects (particularly with respect to the widespread abandonment of lowland paddy and the failure of EMD mitigation and compensation programs, including dry season irrigation) translated into complex social-ecological and livelihood changes in a particular community setting.
In parallel, Watson was also documenting the emergent erosion and flooding regime, and arriving at a fluvial-geomorpological explanation for why so much flooding was happening (his ‘sediment wave’ idea).
The broad outlines of the downstream impacts of THPC may have been known by many by 2006, however in presentations like this one, from 2003
[http://www.adbi.org/conf-seminar-papers/2003/12/09/370.power.progress.partnership/ ] THPC was still avoiding any serious discussion of these effects.
In particular, THPC were rejecting the notion that seriously aggravated downstream flooding from THPC could be linked to their inter-basin transfer project (they still preferred ideas that pinned the blame for the flooding upon deforestation, logging and swidden cultivation in the upper watershed, and to water back-up effects from the main Mekong channel).
Is Watson’s sediment wave interpretation really correct? What are the real prospects for the social-ecology of the Nam Hinboun as a result of the doubling of inter-basin water transfers due to the expansion project- THXP? Those seem like very interesting questions that deserves further study.
Chris Baker on Thailand’s Political Peasants
I believe (ahem) that people (peasants or otherwise) who are lazy and drunk most of the time lack a zest in life, that elusive inspiration to jump high up early from their beds every mornings ready to do battle. Only ‘sincere avarice’ could give that zest.
President Obama, like a true academic, continue to defame avarice as ‘poverty of ambition’. ‘Poverty of ambition’ my ass! I suspect President Obama had not met any of New Mandala’s ‘political peasants’.
Chris Baker on Thailand’s Political Peasants
I agree, the people I know out here meet the same descriptions, you cannot lump all of the people in a class together with a generality.
Chris Baker on Thailand’s Political Peasants
I have a large number of relatives who could be loosely described as “peasants”. Some of them are lazy, dumb and drunk some of the time. Most of them are, unsurprisingly, smart, aware and industrious.
I know a number of educated Thai academics. Some of them are lazy, dumb and drunk some of the time, which is also unsurprising.
ASEAN’s missed opportunities
[…] about the future of the AEC are echoed by Murray Hunter, another analyst of the region who wrote an article about ASEAN integration for the New Mandala last month. The article contains some factual inaccuracies and could have used […]
Remaking the Nam Hinboun
This is an interesting post, but there are two important points worth making.
First, Barney writes, “By the time of my fieldwork in 2005-2006, I found that the THPC project was clearly creating very significant downstream socio-ecological transformations in the inter-basin transfer recipient river– the Nam Hinboun.” This sentence implies that he was the first, or at least amongst the first, to discover the downstream impacts along the Hinboun River. The reality is that the impacts were already well documented by that time. The ADB had even admitted them by that time. On this matter, the posting is quite misleading.
Second, I would be wary of presenting Murray Watson as some sort of champion of justice fighting against the Theun-Hinboun dam. In fact, his main motivation for releasing information about the project appears to be revenge. He was angry with the THPC for dumping him as their consultant, so he went after them. His motives do not appear to have been particularly noble. In fact, a few years earlier he had threatened to sue the anti-dam NGO, International Rivers Network (IRN), in order to keep them from legitimately criticizing projects that he was involved with. I am sorry that he died in Somalia, but the record seems to suggest that he was simply a high priced hydropower dam consultant who was willing to turn on anyone who he felt was blocking his own path to advancement. He didn’t want anyone to mess with him, and he was willing to make anyone who did pay. I have no doubt that much of what he wrote against Theun-Hinboun is true, but I doubt that he would have released the information had he not had a falling out with THPC.
Red Shirts in Bang Pla
i think the turn over seems much lower than 80000,
Obama in Cambodia and Myanmar
Cambodia is becoming a Chinese stooge. The Chinese are using the 2B-tactics (bribery and bullying) combined with their basic 2Y-strategy (Yuan and Y-chromosomes) in order to split up ASEAN (a rather facile trick which the Chinese believe Sun-Tzu “invented” lol). China needs “Lebensraum” and natural resources. Southeast Asia is viewed by the Chinese as a cheap takeaway kitchen populated by “Untermenschen” happy to be ruled and dominated by the Great Han Civilisation.
Obama in Cambodia and Myanmar
So, while Obama was in Myanmar, did he meet with the country’s president? Or Zaw Zaw, the man who actually controls the country? Just curious . . .
Bhumibol, Obama, Yingluck
What is with SteveCM. Doesn’t he read the Thai news at all? It is common knowledge the whole Peau Thai Party serves (as in “servant”) Thaksin and only Thaksin.
But to satisfy SteveCM thirst for VichaiN fact, here is the link:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/322016/chalerm-sets-condition-for-interviews
“I’ve been Thaksin’s servant for a long time — don’t you know that?” Mr Chalerm told reporters on Monday (Nov. 19th).
But do you agree with me SteveCM that Jory is being stupid above with his ridiculous ‘Yingluck is a Thaksin puppet and should publicly admit it’?
Gender, sex and poetry at ANU
Highly recommended to check them out.
Chris and Khun Pasuk do a great job of describing their work and presenting the book.
Very entertaining!
Bhumibol, Obama, Yingluck
You “believe”?
Feel free to provide a credible link.
Myanmar tourism after the boycott
A few facts of ‘help
1) In Myanmar ONLY cronies, the degree of cronyism aside, can engage in ANY business. The failure and success are however never guaranteed.
2) Natural disaster as well as poverty/traditional related practices incur more damages to Myanmar ecosystem than any other practices.
3) Buddhism and the associated moral teachings have been the fabric that has held Myanmar since ~1044. Will remain so for the foreseeable future.
Within the above context, well intended ideas on Tourism, Ecosystem and Morality related fall outs all seem at best conjecture and at the worst ‘crying wolf”.
After 6 decades under Ne Win and SPDC, from the ordinary street vendors to ultimate example, Tay Za holdings, ALL must be cronies to a certain degree to do business in Myanmar.
Bemoaning cronyism yet expecting the wind fall of tourism equitably is at best wishful and self contradictory, at the worst resurrecting the raison d’etre of sanction.
Weather related events, forest fire, together with man made/slash and burn, cause as much if not more damage than the much publicized China, Thailand, Singapore and any other countries that took advantage of useless careless policy period doing business with SPDC.
Alleviating poverty alone adequately will prevent much lost of ecosystem is an established fact, applicable else where in the world as well as in Myanmar.
Buddhism enable Myanmar Citizenry to endure such adversity without becoming self predatory since the advent of colonial period. Still not frayed, even after Nargis, the useless careless treatment by the West and the results of multiple conflicts.
Until ‘cronyism’ make way for rule of laws as well as unjustified ‘poverty’ of a Citizenry is addressed by all means the consequences both will remain.
As for the most bestial form SEXUAL TOURISM the abundance of which in towns bordering China says it all.
Bhumibol, Obama, Yingluck
Rather desperate even by your usual standards, Vichai…..
Obama’s awkward cheek-peck moment with Aung San Suu Kyi was itself a cultural mis-step – albeit during a relatively informal meet with an MP at her home and not with a Thai PM on a formal state occasion at Government House.
Maybe even you get that point?
Bhumibol, Obama, Yingluck
I believe Deputy PM Chalerm Yubamrung just recently blurted to a Thai reporter that indeed Chalerm Yubamrung is merely a ‘servant’ of Thaksin. Probably the whole Peau Thai Party executive ranks and ministers are too ‘servants’ of the fugitive Thaksin S.
Jory is not stupid when he says that Yingluck is merely a puppet of Thaksin S.
But Jory is being stupid when he insists that Yingluck should publicly and proudly acknowledge that fact. A stupid mis-step like what Jory suggests would be the end of Yingluck’s regime and Thaksin’s party would be outlawed (again!).