Regular New Mandala readers may recall my commentary on the UNDP’s 2007 Human Development Report for Thailand. Kevin Hewison has also written a commentary and generously provides a preview here. The review will appear in the Journal of Contemporary Asia, 38, 1 (2008).
THAILAND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT. SUFFICIENCY ECONOMY AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT. By UNDP (Bangkok: United Nations Development Programme, 2007).
Over many years, various UN agencies operating in Thailand have sought to honour the monarchy by bestowing awards on various royals. The palace craves international honours and when international agencies recognise supposed royal greatness and brilliance, this has considerable local propaganda value.
In 2007, however, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has gone much further, devoting its 2007 Thailand Human Development Report to the alleged virtues of King Bhumibol Adulyadej’s development ideas – rendered in English as “Sufficiency Economy” (SE) or setthakit pho phiang in Thai. According to the UNDP report, the king’s ideas about the SE are potentially useful for individuals, companies and developing countries. The UNDP Resident Representative gushes that the agency is “immensely honoured” to be able to disseminate the king’s “important messages across the globe” (p. vi). Extolling the “very special uniqueness” of the king’s development thinking, SE is claimed to offer a “much-needed alternative to the unsustainable road the world is currently travelling down” (p. v).
Such grandiose claims are not substantiated by the text of the report under review. In fact, in explaining the king’s thinking, this report does little more than reproduce claims touted by fawning Thailand-based publications that glorify the king’s supposed brilliance on development issues. The UNDP report does not subject the king’s ideas to critical assessment. One gets a feeling for the nature of the report in its thin bibliography; it includes almost no serious works of social science. And, flipping back to the acknowledgements, it is clear that the palace has managed the report’s production, with an Advisory Panel co-chaired by one of the king’s privy councillors and the Director-General of the Crown Property Bureau, while the Panel is populated by a coterie of academic, business and bureaucratic acolytes (p. vii). Hence, the king is praised as a “scientist, philosopher, advocate, and exemplar of the Sufficiency Economy…. He offers … outstanding leadership that might be unique, but is still an inspiration from which the world can learn.” (p. xviii), This kind of breathless wonder for the king and his ideas abound in a report peppered by royal quotations, providing a semi-religious context, where the king’s words count for more than evidence and analysis.
Chapter 1 of the report, where the state of Thailand’s human development (HD) is assessed, is the only part of the report that can be said to avoid blind adherence to SE ideas. This is because this chapter does a good job of assessing Thailand’s progress toward meeting the UN’s Millenium Development Goals. The chapter notes substantial success in all areas – health, poverty, gender equality, and so on – while noting some important problems. In particular, rising inequality is highlighted, together with some issues related to health, education and employment. These sections provide a useful summary of Thailand’s recent development and are based on a fine collection of data (Annex II). Interesting, the remainder of the report, on SE, includes almost no data. This lack of data means that there is no way to adequately assess its outcomes, except as a philosophical, political and ideological set of ideas.
The one section of Chapter 1 that deserves criticism is the brief discussion of political participation. This section argues that “[p]olitical participation has increased markedly;” commenting that decentralisation has expanded, elective bodies increased and voter turnout risen in recent years (p. 16). This was true until the September 2006 military coup that overthrew an elected government and imposed strict controls on political freedoms. Given that the report includes a Foreword by the military-appointed Prime Minister, General Surayud Chulanont, and other comments regarding post-coup developments, the positive comments on political participation pander to the military-backed government.
This is important as the junta and its government have elevated SE to the status of national economic ideology. SE ideas are used to distinguish this military-backed government’s economic policies from those of Thaksin Shinawatra’s government that was overthrown by the 2006 putsch. While the report may have begun its life long before the coup, that the UNDP decided to promote SE when it was intimately associated with the junta and an unelected government is quite a political statement.
Chapter 2 sets out to explain the meaning of SE. Accurately pointing to the 1997 Economic Crisis as the genesis of SE ideas, there follows an unconvincing argument that SE is not about “self-sufficiency”, turning “back to the roots” or antithetical to globalisation or modern economics. These arguments are embedded in a selection of decontextualised quotations from the king. Finally, the report concludes that SE means moderation, wisdom or insight, and built-in resilience (p. 29). In other words, don’t rush to join the global capitalist system, but do so carefully by building local “sufficiency” first. SE is necessarily reduced to such trite notions because it is touted as being for everyone: a “guide to conducting life and taking decisions … [for] an individual, household, community, project, business, nation or the whole world” (p. 31). In practice, such “simplicity” is required for the transformation of royalist propaganda into a national ideology.
The people and organisations that promote SE are a contradictory lot. The king, promoting moderation, heads the wealthiest family in Thailand that own huge tracts of land and large capitalist corporations. His known institutional wealth is about US$40 billion (see Porphant Ouyyanont, The Crown Property Bureau in Thailand and the Crisis of 1997,” Journal of Contemporary Asia, 38, 1, 2008). Military-appointed Prime Minister Surayud spends considerable time talking up SE and his government has made huge budget allocations to SE activities (in one announcement, the government allocated 8 billion baht to such projects; see Bangkok Post, 6 June 2007). Meanwhile, Surayud has foreign sports cars, an expensive watch collection and luxury homes, despite having been on a relatively low military salary for his entire career. It may be argued that Buddhism’s middle path – seen in SE’s ideas about moderation – is not against great wealth or pleasure, but only attachment to wealth or the craving of pleasure. The truth that emerges from these contradictions seems to be that SE is so broadly defined that it really is whatever one wants it to be. The wealthy can enjoy their wealth so long as they do so within their means. For the poor, the advice is to do better with what they have; make do. In class terms, SE becomes an ideology to justify the very inequality the UNDP report claims is of concern.
Chapter 3 includes a series of case studies of SE. Interestingly, almost all of the examples pre-date SE and are included by arguing that these examples use ideas that are compatible with SE (p. 38). These examples are not new, and are regularly touted in the Thai media. While each example is interesting, as noted above, there is no data available that permits any real assessment. One of the contradictions of this chapter is the discussion of the king’s concern for the environment (pp. 48-9). A range of examples are provided but nothing is said about the king’s long, fervent and continuing support for large dams that displace and disadvantage communities and cause the flooding of forests. The discussion of corporate SE successes suggests that SE is a business model and even develops SE checklists and scorecards for companies. However, this simplistic discussion adds little to existing literature on sustainable business and corporate social responsibility.
The section on SE and the national economy (pp. 58-66) is interesting because it includes a critique of the Thaksin government’s policies on development and social welfare. This section reproduces many of the criticisms made by the anti-Thaksin movement that led to the 2006 coup. While grudgingly accepting that Thaksin’s policies were immensely popular, the criticisms are of a lack of “moderation” and of the central role of government. On the latter, the report is explicit, stating that interventionist governments will certainly make incorrect decisions that are “not necessarily best for society.” Rather, it is argued that governments should be limited to creating institutions that “help markets to work … efficiently…” (p. 63). The ideological nature of SE is reinforced in the discussion of how SE is being made an essential part of all levels of the national educational curriculum (pp. 66-8) and by the statement that SE “now serves as a mission statement for the nation” (p. 68).
Chapter 4 attempts to link SE with the UNDP’s agenda on HD and to draw the policy lessons of SE. One of these lessons reinforces the anti-state message of Chapter 3, asserting that redistribution and welfare should be limited so as to not “breach with the principle of self-reliance.” The report urges that government “handouts” are to be avoided and that all funds should be channelled through “existing community institutions” (p. 72). This is in line with the king’s long-held belief that welfare makes people lazy. His is a classic conservative position, arguing that social welfare reduces personal responsibility, extends the role of potentially corrupt government, and assigns tasks to the state that are rightfully those of family and community.
The report concludes by stating that SE “offers a way to avoid mindless growth…” (p. 76). While this reviewer doubts this, one of the interesting outcomes of marrying the UNDP’s HD data collection with SE is that the data do not match SE assumptions. In fact, the provinces that generally do best on HD indicators are the ones most enmeshed with the world capitalist economy. Orthodox economists might look at this as sufficient reason for sniggering about SE, but this misses the point of SE, which is to provide an ideological reference for conservative Thais working to prevent any diminution of their political and economic power. Their power was challenged by Thaksin’s massive electoral victories, popular appeal and welfare policies.
In the end, the UNDP has produced a report that purports to address critical development issues but which does little more than add to the policy nonsense that passes for the military-backed government’s development strategy. The government continually cites this UNDP report and UN awards to the royal family to justify its adherence to SE. Worse, the publication of this report provides additional support for royalist propaganda that continually assaults the senses in contemporary Thailand, on television, in schools, in newspapers and in most public places. There can be few places in the world where a constitutional monarchy has been so central to the political control of a military-directed government. This reviewer suggests that the UNDP do some serious institutional soul-searching to understand why it has been used in this way or has been complicit in promoting military-backed government.
Kevin Hewison
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
60 responses so far ↓
1 Teth // Nov 7, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I earnestly believe that the royalist propaganda has begun to bring about its own ruin. Ironically through extra-sufficient air time and over emphasis as well as over zealous portrayal of the monarchy. We can only hope the machine will fall and those hiding behind the royalist/conservative cover broken up once and for all, so this nation can start moving forward.
2 Srithanonchai // Nov 7, 2007 at 3:03 pm
“This reviewer suggests that the UNDP do some serious institutional soul-searching to understand why it has been used in this way or has been complicit in promoting military-backed government.”
This review is not too bad.
I read the quote as a message to the author of the report, whose name KH carefully avoids to mention. After all, he is a fellow Thai Studies colleague.
3 Sidh S. // Nov 7, 2007 at 5:34 pm
A good ‘political’ review of developmental issues. However this results in little space given to the actual HD issues. It is, in essence, a critical review of SE, the monarchy and the coup - probably unfairly tying them together (the Chakri Dynasty is a couple of centuries old; SE arose in 1997 during a democratically elected government; and the coup was last year). The danger is that the review could prove irrelevant if a democratically elected Thai government also take SE up (and it is likely to - at least paying lip service if anything, don’t forget that PMThaksin also did!).
I wonder myself why UNDP gives to much prominence to SE in its report (gathering from this review). Is it in hope that bigger developing countries like China and India, whose growth will have global impact on Climate Change, catch on SE - as it is initiated by a fellow developing country - as China and India seem to ignore ’sustainability’, a concept with significant overlap with SE but initiated by the developed countries? Both SE and ‘Sustainable Development’ seemed problematic for many commentators because one has been initiated by a wealthy family for a poor country, while another by wealthy countries for a poor world! (I for one believe in the importance and relevance of both SE and SD and in the good intentions of their initiators).
Or is it merely a practical move on UNDP’s part - otherwise Thai bureaucrats wouldn’t take the report seriously?! (However, I doubt they take SE seriously in the first place!)
4 Republican // Nov 8, 2007 at 12:35 am
Nothing to add. Good job KH.
Sufficiency economy is the Thai equivalent to Marie Antoinette’s “let them eat cake”. It may very well have the same consequences.
I think Thailand is closer to a republic now than at any time since 1935.
5 Kevin Hewison // Nov 8, 2007 at 1:31 am
Srithanonchai: I didn’t carefully avoid mentioning Chris Baker’s name. It is just that I wasn’t particularly interested in attacking the person listed as the writer in the report, when I know that he was essentially editing the work of others. Like others, I have wondered why he got caught up in this report. But as most of us know, Dr. Baker has been editing numerous reports and articles for Thai authors into English for many years (including for the Siam Society). I was more interested in the institutional politics of the report - the military, its military-backed government, the monarchy and the UNDP.
Sidh S.: I am never really sure that I ever fully grasp your posts to NM. But that might reflect my own failings more than yours. In this case, I would observe that all developmental issues are political. I would also reject the notion that I am unfairly tying the coup, SE and the monarchy together. It seems to me that the monarchy and the military (and its government) are the ones that have made this linkage. Sure, others have paid lip service to SE, but this government has made it a pillar of current ideology. That may well continue under an elected government, but that doesn’t negate the use of SE as a plank of a political and economic ideology by this government.
6 Srithanonchai // Nov 8, 2007 at 1:18 pm
KH: It is good to have this additional piece of information re CB merely editing a Thai[?]-produced draft of the UNDP report. Makes me wonder who those original authors were, i.e. from inside or outside UNDP. As for the last point, even institutional politics won’t work without actors. It is good that you have mentioned a few of them in your review.
7 Sidh S. // Nov 8, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Thank you for the reply ProfessorKevin.
I think our different discursive locations defines our different views - and this may even be on the level of ideology. I am a believer in sustainability, sustainable development, environmentally sustainable design and all its permutations, allied concepts, interpretations into other cultural contexts. When I started ‘believing’ in the late 90s, many of my colleagues thought it was a dated concept - but global warming and the extended drought in Australia shifted the playing field again. But, arguably, it is still an elites’ game and people in broader society and politicians that seek their votes are still not convinced - or see it as relevant to their lifes (as say, interests rates). So while the concept permeates societal narratives, it is most often only skin deep.
I will argue that the same applies to SE and PMSurayud’s government policy platform. Lot’s of SE narrative but mainly business-as-usual in practice. It is merely to shore up their legitimacy amongst the Thai populace - which is politically much more important than being a laughing stock of foriegn media and academics. It is practical, full-stop.
My point here is that in this highly globalized world, most governments, ‘democratically’ elected or not, are playing the same pro-development game. If IFCC projections prove correct, then this is a race to global environmental and societal collapse. Academics, think-tanks, research institutes who are responsible for for reports such as the UNDP’s are merely hoping that narratives may influence serious action from politicians and bureaucrats. Maybe in the context of the UNDP report, that was on AjarnChris Baker’s mind - considering he has many other more effective avenues to be critical the coup government.
8 Kevin Hewison // Nov 8, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Sidh S: I don’t want to debate this too much, for the review represents my views pretty accurately.
When I read of “discursive locations” and similar language, I readily admit that I run an hide. However, I too ” am a believer in sustainability, sustainable development, environmentally sustainable design etc….” Well, at least as far as I understand them anyway, and I am certainly not really knowledgeable in any of these areas. Yet that does not seem to me to be what SE is about (I guess you are saying that SE is about these things?). There is no consistency on this in the palace/king’s views that would lead one to accept this proposition. Big dams are just one practical example. So my point that SE is largely an ideological device is one that I am comfortable sticking with.
Srithanonchai : Chris Baker can speak for himself, but I took the acknowledgments in the UNDP report to be saying that he was the writer who put together a report more-or-less based on a string of reports authored by others.
9 Republican // Nov 8, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Forbes recently listed the King of Thailand as being worth $5 billion, and ranked him the 5th richest monarch in the world. KH, referring to Phorphant above, values his “institutional wealth” at $40 billion. Number One in Forbes’ list is the Sultan of Brunei, at $22 billion. So does this mean … ?
The Thai king’s long history of partnership with military dictatorships has no doubt greatly facilitated this massive accumulation of wealth from a position of near penury at the end of the People’s Party era. Here then is a suggestion for a headline to any Australian journalist visiting NM thinking of writing a story on the Thai king’s practice of sufficiency economics, with an eye to the future:
“After Suharto, now for the Bhumibol Billions”
(with apologies to David Jenkins)
10 Republican // Nov 8, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Link to the Forbes article: http://members.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0917/054.html
11 Sidh S. // Nov 8, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Professor Kevin, to clarify my position, I am a student of ’sustainability’ and has followed its evolution. With that as a point of departure, I view SE as an allied concept - facing similar inherent conflicts and inconsistencies while being introduced into the Thai societal context. As with ’sustainability’, I don’t think HM the King should (or would want to) retain ‘authorship’ or ‘ownership’. It is best left broad-based, a meeting point where the various components of society can democratically define their place in the name of mitigating the effects of development/modernization with social equity and environmental health. And this applies to all endeavors - building dams, power stations, new airports, roads, rail, ports, inner-city highrises, suburban subdivisions, clearing forests for new farms, mining…etc. and ideally these hallmarks of economic development must carefully consider the ‘triple bottom line’.
In that context, SE would work best, as you suggest as an ‘ideological device’ - but I observe SE is very far from being one. If it is, I maintain that this Thai government isn’t a believer - but is only adopting it out of convenience (like democratically elected PMThaksin, PMChuan governments before them). It’s best chance, as with ’sustainability’, lie with local academics and civil society (and it is hoped, businesses) prodded on by environmental and social deterioration to rigorously define SE and practical actions forward. Whether consciously following SE or not, this is already happening incrementally countrywide in other ‘guises’.
From being a student of sustainability, my other position is that it is always better to be inclusive than exclusive. There are always many ways forward if we work with overlaps between SD and SE (and then slowly address conflicts/inconsistencies). As mentioned, as with SD, it is always important to maintain flexibility to accommodate socio-economic and cultural gaps.
12 Grasshopper // Nov 8, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Sidh S, Hasn’t a defined sufficiency principle existed for 2500+ years? Why is there a need to re-market it and monistically merge it into politics? “in this highly globalized world, most governments, ‘democratically’ elected or not, are playing the same pro-development game…. Academics, think-tanks, research institutes who are responsible for for reports such as the UNDP’s are merely hoping that narratives may influence serious action from politicians and bureaucrats.” How can people in these think tanks and research institutes who themselves are subject to elites dissolving pluralistic, secular policy suddenly hope to influence a political organism which is clenching its fist ever-tighter (thanks to a Sufficiency Economy branded health food bar), so as not to lose grip on power? I don’t think you can really call what Chris Baker has (complied?) done as a toothless attempt to influence politicians, when the politicians I see and read about are clearly populist and would themselves be concerned about a public disenchanted with “Sufficiency Economy”, “terrorism” or whatever it happens to be next.. Wouldn’t that be the very same public that we are apart of ?
My point here is that if you think that the UNDP report is simply an attempt to influence persons with civic power, then you buy into being a pawn of those elite who are making pluralism and actual societal development a fleeting chance of 10 years ago by denying your own capacity to influence others.
13 Republican // Nov 8, 2007 at 9:05 pm
What a ridiculous, pretentious, pseudo-theory laced gobbledeegook of a post.
If you are a student then first learn to write in plain English.
Sufficiency economy is nothing other than a desperate political game by the king to save his own skin. The only reason his absurd, vacuous ramblings on SE have any force in Thailand is because SE is being implemented by the king’s own royalist-military dictatorship, the loyal kha ratchakan, and he is protected from any criticism by lese majeste.
In any civilized country this theory would have been laughed down long ago. Anyone who pretends to know anything about Thailand should do the same.
14 Republican // Nov 8, 2007 at 9:14 pm
In my post #13 I refer to Sidh S’s post #11
15 Colonel Jeru // Nov 8, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Must be really very frustrating to the NM forum bloggers why HMK Bhumibhol’s initiatives, including his SE tenet, gets favorable and positive responses from the general Thai population (from the very poor to the elite), and, now even international agencies are into the SE bandwagon. Thaksin Shinawatra himself could not openly disrespect SE, and why is that?
NM bloggers attribute the Thai people’s enduring respect and reverence of HMK to propaganda . . . but that could NOT be it, folks! I said ENDURING! Propaganda to propagate lies and half-truths just won’t withstand the test of time (just look at Thaksin’s propaganda and how quickly his untruths and dishonesty were easily revealed). And isn’t it preposterous to attribute Thaksin’s popularity to the poor from Thaksin’s ‘defender-of-the-poor’ credentials; yet, say it is merely propaganda myth that created these same poor people’s even more demonstrable affection, and yes deep reverence, for their King?
Personally I believe that with all Thai politicians (and their half-baked democratic credentials) all posturing mostly unproductive populist policies and give-aways to attract the votes (with the promise to hock the country even more), there is even more urgency for a counterbalancing plea for reason and moderation — exactly what HMK’s SE initiatives hope to provide.
16 Republican // Nov 8, 2007 at 11:30 pm
To put the King’s sufficiency economy propaganda campaign in context:
Crown Property Bureau: Assets worth $40 billion
Minimum daily wage in Thailand: 143-191 baht.
With respect to NM readers, this makes me want to vomit.
17 Republican // Nov 9, 2007 at 12:56 am
Further comments on KH’s UNDP report review:
While I strongly agree with the overall argument and most of the detail in KH’s review, there are a number of points on which, however, I strongly disagree. These same points are reproduced endlessly in the media reportage of the 19 September 2006 coup and its aftermath and ought to be corrected. If any media people are visiting NM please take note:
- “the military appointed PM Surayudh”: Surayudh was a privy counsellor before he was appointed PM. The basic misunderstanding about the September 19 coup held by most of the media and many academics was that it was a “military” coup. As I’ve argued before, the “military” - actually Prem loyalists - were the necessary fall guys to take the rap for the monarchy. That’s why the คมช. are basically a bunch of idiots; they are nowhere near the calibre of former military strongmen. September 19 was a Palace coup; the elements of the military involved in the coup were working for the Palace, or to use McCargo’s terminology, the “network”. The military began to lose their hold on Thai politics after October 14 1973, and this process was almost completed following the May 1992 massacre. Only the Palace could engineer this coup today because of its reserve of symbolic authority, which was used to the fullest possible extent. No other coup has been as draped in yellow and royal symbology as this one. Tanks and guns were not enough. Just look at the makeup of the สนช. or the Constitutional drafting assembly. All of them are network monarchy loyalists - bureaucrats, academics, lawyers, media lackeys, NGOs. Even the detail of the new Constitution does not provide for a strong political presence for the military, although its powers are enhanced to the extent that they are needed to protect … the monarchy, ie. not for its own sake. Look at the power-brokers in the present regime, that black-toothed monster Prasong and the ghoulish Michai. The living dead. They are the ring wraiths of the dark lord of Jitrlada. These are Palace loyalists, not military.
So let us end once and for all this fiction that September 19 was a “military” coup. Call it a “palace” coup, or “royalist” coup, or better still, a “network monarchy” coup, but please not a “military” coup. Somsak Jiamthirasakul has discussed all this at much length. It is not an original observation.
- “September 19 military coup” - ditto the above. It’s bad enough to have a “military” coup, but a coup by the monarchy …. it’s time for a French Revolution.
- the “military backed government”; ditto the above. We need to avoid honing our attention onto the military and away from the true source of power - the Palace and the royalist cronies that depend on its patronage for their survival.
I would repeat yet again the importance of academics and media outside Thailand getting the story right. The situation in Thailand is totally censored (apart from the blogs and the gossip) because of the regime’s political control, its annihilation of the opposition (Thai Rak Thai), its censorship of the media, and lese majeste. But the international community is free from these restraints. The only obstacle for the latter is the misunderstanding resulting from fairy tales told by the UNDP, and “Thai Studies” seminars organized by SOAS and the NTSC at ANU.
18 Colonel Jeru // Nov 9, 2007 at 12:59 am
Go ahead Republican and puke . . . nobody’s stopping you. But for what reason?
19 Historicus // Nov 9, 2007 at 5:28 am
Republican: Even if we agree that the coup was hatched and directed from the palace, the events suggest that the military is critical to the plan(s?) and to the post-coup implementation of the path to “Thai-style democracy”. It seems to me that you are missing too much if you ignore that the military has become a staunch supporter and instrument for the palace. That the palace had to campaign for military support and loyalty suggests that the military was critical.
20 Teth // Nov 9, 2007 at 8:59 am
Must be really … Thaksin Shinawatra himself could not openly disrespect SE, and why is that?
I honestly cannot believe that after having been on NM for as long as you have been, you can still ask that question. The answer is not “because SE is infallible” but it is “who dares, especially a politician?” Which begs the question, if it isn’t going to be criticized (or impartially evaluated), what’s the point?
And isn’t it preposterous to attribute Thaksin’s popularity to the poor from Thaksin’s ‘defender-of-the-poor’ credentials; yet, say it is merely propaganda myth that created these same poor people’s even more demonstrable affection, and yes deep reverence, for their King?
Are you saying people cannot be deluded? Your argument based on the word “enduring” is as pathetic as it is false. I for one, am not in enduring love for HMK and many in Isaan still believe Thaksin is their saviour (rather than widely discrediting him as you have so claimed). Genuinely and enduringly, of course.
Does it say anything about the character of the man? That is exactly why I am of the opinion that both Thaksin and HMK are shrewd manipulators of the media and that messages coming from both sides are propaganda.
Personally I believe that with all Thai politicians (and their half-baked democratic credentials) all posturing mostly unproductive populist policies and give-aways to attract the votes (with the promise to hock the country even more), there is even more urgency for a counterbalancing plea for reason and moderation — exactly what HMK’s SE initiatives hope to provide.
Such “populist policy” is hardly unproductive nor wasteful as you make it seem. As someone observed, the actual money Thaksin spent on his rural populism was far less than what he actually spent to bail out rich capitalists via the AMC. Of course, you might argue that it wasn’t a good thing, but even the Democrats and most economists recommended the same and our recovery since 1997 has proven so as well (kudos to Dems and Thaksin).
The 30-baht health care scheme was at least a success in its principle. OTOP was a stellar success. And the patchy record of Village Funds does not instantaneously mean populism = evil.
How does SE provide that counterbalancing plea for reason and moderation? If the Buddha can’t do it, I can’t see HMK doing it. Also, that statement of yours nicely boils down what SE actually is, a plea for reason and moderation. Not a revolutionary, new economic theory.
Lastly, I don’t see any urgency for HMK’s “SE initiatives.” The Buddha’s teaching has always been around, commonsense has always been around, I doubt SE will. Its like how the King roundly condemned those who were corrupt. Didn’t stop corruption did it? In fact, “SE initiatives” are now being used as an explanation for incompetence: “Why did you scrap that development project?” “Por Pieng. Country doesn’t actually need it. We have to be content with what we’ve got.”
21 Colonel Jeru // Nov 9, 2007 at 11:59 am
OTOP was a stellar success? Now where did that come from? - - I doubt any world class product was from OTOP born, nor, any OTOP products of ’sufficiency’ profit realized.
Me thinks all these populist policies from all these politicians eager to spend my tax money will only succeed to fire up even more wild-ass populist schemes in succeeding elections.
But Teth you could be right of course. Neither the Buddha’s nor HMK’s plea for common sense, reason and moderation may not make any impact to the parasites waiting for their handouts in exchange for their votes, and, to the generous politicos promising the gifts.
22 James Haughton // Nov 9, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I would like to know how Kevin reconciles his position on SE expressed here (especially the observation that the most globalised provinces have done better on UNDP indices) with the more or less anti-market, pro-self-sufficiency position he and Seri Phongphit advocate in the book “Village Life: Culture and transition in Thailand’s Northeast”?
23 Republican // Nov 9, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Historicus: The point I was making is that by calling it a “military” coup or a “military” regime the media and academics absolve the Palace of any responsibility. The military are cast as the “bad guys”, which follows the plot already well-known to the international media. So it can continue following the Thai media’s eulogising of the king. This positive international media coverage in turn bolsters the king’s authority in Thailand.
What the people who read the international media don’t know is the massive propaganda fog that surrounds the king, and the lese majeste law which prevents people from telling the truth about the monarchy, especially its role in the coup.
So what we want is for the international community to know that in this coup the main agent was the Palace, acting in the interests of the Palace. The military was merely an instrument.
We need the international media to know that essentially, the king ordered his military to overthrow a democratically-elected government.
So we need to call the coup by a name that will demonstrate this.
Hence, “palace coup” or “royalist coup” or “network monarchy” coup, although the latter would only work with academics.
Once it gets called by its right name often enough in the international media it will become much harder for the regime and the media in Thailand to hide the king’s support for dictatorship in Thailand.
In the same way, “sufficiency economy” should be called by its right name: “political hoax by embattled authoritarian king losing his grip on power”.
Academics and anyone who takes sufficiency economy seriously: “idiots”.
By the rectification of names the world will return to order.
24 Suriyon Raiwa // Nov 9, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Republican, you write that “Surayudh was a privy counsellor before he was appointed PM. ” This language implies that he has not remained a member of the privy council while serving as premier. I recall no announcement of his resignation or of the appointment of a replacement to fill any vacancy that that resignation would have created. But I may have missed something. I do know that Matichon ran a brilliant, mischievous article noting that, directly after his appoimtment as premier, Gen Surayut attended the regular lunch of the privy council. And the article certainly suggested that he attended that lunch as a continuing member … In short, I am not sure about this. Anyone have any idea? (It seems to me that, during the 1970s, one Thai premier did resign from the privy council to become premier. Or do I misremember this, too.)
25 Republican // Nov 9, 2007 at 7:16 pm
You’ve got me there, I’m not sure. But my understanding was that to take up the position of Prime Minister one could not simultaneously hold the position of privy counsellor. That might be too หน้าด้าน even for the royalists. But there’s no doubt that whatever his official status is, he is doing the bidding of Sauron.
As for Matichon, it is a mouthpiece of network monarchy, aimed at indoctrinating the middle class in the values of the network. Phra Thep is its “Godmother”.
By the way, I see the Godmother is also opening the ICTS conference. The network really has things sewn up. Why on earth do they need to invite a princess to open a Thai Studies conference? It’s basically like asking a mafia boss to open a conference on Italian culture. Why can’t they invite a scholar?
Is there any more evidence needed to show the true purpose of the ICTS?
26 Suriyon Raiwa // Nov 9, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Well then, someone at Matichon smuggled a sly cut on the Network into the article in question.
But I remain curious about whether Gen Surayut has left the privy council. Can anyone offer reliable information on this?
And why, Republican, so unfair to mafiosi?? . . . Their bosses are sure to have a more realistic sense of Italian realities than the Godmother has of Thailand.
27 Republican // Nov 9, 2007 at 11:55 pm
555 you’re right. I’m being very unfair to the mafia.
But maybe the Godmother does have something to teach us about modern Thai realities. I’m thinking that she could get on the cultural studies bandwagon and give her talk at the ICTS on consumerism and consumer culture, using Siam Paragon as her case study. Then somehow integrate this with Father’s sufficiency economy theory. There’s a whole new research field in this. Maybe they could get the researchers from the ANU’s NTSC on board. Who knows, the UNDP might even be interested. This is Thai Studies after all. Everything is possible. Everyone who matters is a winner - the royals, their academic lackeys, the funding organizations and the media.
28 Srithanonchai // Nov 10, 2007 at 1:11 am
The Nation Institute of Development Administration has just published a thematic issue of its NIDA Development Journal on the SE (Vol. 47, issue 1/2550). Most appropriately, the cover is yellow (printing was too late to change it to pink, I guess).
There are six Thai-language articles and a report by a NIDA librarian what books they have on SE.
I can’t list all the titles here, but one of the English translations of the titles says, “Sufficiency Economy at Individual Level: Theory and Research Findings for The Construction of Psycho-Behavioral Indicators.” Part of the English abstract reads, “The most important Thai ideology, which is highly acclaimed in the world at present, is the King’s principle of ‘Sufficiency Economy.’ This principle has been bestowed to Thai people for more than 25 years. Today, academicians in various disciplines have united to use their knowledge and expertise to increase the mobilization on this principle in various ways of life of the Thai people.”
29 Srithanonchai // Nov 10, 2007 at 1:36 am
Sorry, that’s the “National” (not “Nation”) Institute of Development Administration.
30 Republican // Nov 10, 2007 at 2:02 am
Breaking News! King Missing!
I’ve just checked out the “Sufficiency Economy” panel for the ICTS Conference. [see http://www.thaiconference.tu.ac.th/1011abstracts/SUFFICIENCY%20ECONOMY.doc.
Lese majeste has very long tentacles indeed. Neither the panel abstract nor the abstracts for two of the three papers make any mention of the king!
Admittedly these are abstracts, but the abstracts do mention “middle-class” and “Bangkok-based groups”, and SE as a “class response”. So why not the king?
If the authors don’t understand that the only reason SE has appeared is because of the king and his royalist dictatorship one doesn’t hold out much hope for the papers.
The king has much to thank these foreign scholars for providing theoretical substance to his inane ramblings. What better birthday present could they have presented him with for this year’s ICTS.
As usual we will have to rely on Andrew W. for some rational criticism of SE, and, we hope, its chief theoretician.
31 Republican // Nov 10, 2007 at 2:54 pm
For those presenting at the ICTS and sufficiency economy researchers at the ANU and elsewhere, here is some more interesting data on how the King puts his “theory” of sufficiency economy into practice:
http://www.sameskybooks.org/board/index.php?showtopic=251
32 jonfernquest // Nov 10, 2007 at 3:00 pm
I think the problem is that the elites who have taken the ideas and words of HMK and packaged it or branded it as Sufficiency Economy have **overstepped their audience** a little with the UNDP report which is directed to an international English language audience, not a local Thai language audience. [Luckily criticism of elites was not incorporated into the recent lese majeste law revisions.]
Critical readers may often find flaws in the UNDP report’s inheritance of what could only be called a “Royal Chronicle” style of writing. I experience the same phenomena with Burmese Chronicle history which is written with the Burmese king as the referent point for the whole universe. The agency of the state is taken as synonymous with the human agency of the king. All events are portrayed euphemistically, for example: “The royal desire was fulfilled” means the army won a battle. In translation, one is always having to infer and fill in pronoun referents, for example: “He” means “the King.” or “The prince was called.” means “The prince was called to the King’s presence.” This Royal Chronicle style presents problems when juxtaposed with, Ming dynasty court annals, for instance, which often paint a completely different more complicated version of events. This is **a problem that lies at the very heart of mainland Southeast Asian royal historiography**.”
This having been said, it is easy to see that Thailand has prospered during the Cold War era which is roughly contemporaneous with HMK’s reign. Thailand was not drawn into the Vietnam War as much as Laos and Cambodia were and did not become a closed socialist state like Burma did. They got rid of US military bases much earlier than Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan.
A western historian would probably be reticent about attributing all of Thailand’s post-WWII prosperity and development to the human agency of the King, **but he would surely attribute a lot of the prosperity to the King.** (Charoen, charoen!) Furthermore, to throw out the bad (events circa 1976) and only record the good, is a little bit unrealistic, but with lese majeste laws being what they are, the bad must be thrown out, unfortunately. To conclude, I would say that the very institution of kingship that has evolved in Thailand post-WWII, and that led to Cold War prosperity in Thailand, in the end also precludes an adequate description in Thailand. **This is a problem with lese majeste laws, not the institution of kingship.**
33 Srithanonchai // Nov 10, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Calm down, the King is not totally missing, although references such as “class response” might seem somewhat silly. Here is a paper that Republican will enjoy:
Setakit Popieng (Self-Sufficiency Economy) as an Alternative Approach to Economic Development: Possible Lessons for the World from Thailand and Japan
Gerald W. Fry, University of Minnesota
In the current global situation, there is excessive emphasis on materialism, militarism, and violence. It is also clear that the warming of the earth is occurring at alarming rates and that this poses major global challenges. Current approaches to development lack sustainability. A major world crisis looms ahead.
On December 5, 1997, partially in response to the Asian economic crisis which began in Thailand on July 2, 1997, King Bhumipol Adulyadej of Thailand articulated an alternative form of development which he termed setakit popieng (the self-sufficiency economy). Subsequently there have been many discussions of exactly what kind of alternative economy is represented by this new approach.
The objectives of this paper are, thus, to:
1) To explore how the King’s concept can be practically operationalized with concrete examples from the Thai development experience since 1997.
2) To investigate the relationship between Buddhist economics as articulated byscholars such as Schumacher, Apichai, and Sunai and the setakig popieng construct.
3) To review the new 2007 Thailand Human Development Report issued by the UNDP, which emphasizes setakit popieng and sustainable development.
4) Based on six months of recent field experience in Japan, identify concrete examples of setakit popieng in the recent Japanese development experience.
5) Finally, what can the world learn from the Thai and Japanese experiences in terms of moving toward more sustainable development approaches?
Fry is a very old hand in Thai studies, mainly in education, where he is said to have been very well assimiliated to the Thai education bureaucracy and its world view.
34 jonfernquest // Nov 10, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Furthermore, I would like to point out that the recent Robert Taylor interview at New Mandala clearly indicates that western intellectuals have been doing similar things with Aung San Suu Kyi’s biography as Thai intellectuals have been doing with HMK’s biography, the main difference being that in the Thai case the intellectual constructs come from within the country and make the country stronger. One can always dismiss this as being unimportant, but when a whole state falls apart and a significant fraction of the population dies (e.g. Cambodia, Iraq..+ other attempts of US foreign policy to impose iits will on places far away from home), only then is the importance very evident indeed.
35 thaipeople // Nov 10, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Republican
I think that you nerver read “Small is beautiful”
“Sufficiency Economy” is best for evryone and selt our planet in the end.
36 thaipeople // Nov 10, 2007 at 4:10 pm
I think that you never read “Small is beautiful”
“Sufficiency Economy” is best for everyone and self our planet in the end.
37 Grasshopper // Nov 10, 2007 at 9:29 pm
thaipeople, I don’t think people here who are rejecting S.E. are criticizing sustainable ideology, it is being criticized because the way it is now used to manipulate people. Perhaps an analogy could be made where promoting fitness is now associated with bad TV infomercials. That there are bad TV infomercials that are trying to get your money sucking you into self-consciousness doesn’t mean that a healthy lifestyle is wrong. Just in the same way that sufficiency economy is advertised as an altruistic path for Thai citizens by playing on guilt and loyalty, doesn’t mean that being sustainable or conscious of needs vs. wants is wrong either….
38 Teth // Nov 10, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Exactly, factor in the fact that it is above criticism and you have a situation where that information just bleats on and on onesidedly (and all day) and has promoters ranging from the prime minister to a privy councillor. Regardless of all good intentions, in the end, you get a stupid exercise machine that is worth 300 baht which doesn’t help you lose weight nor was it worth the 2,499 baht you paid for it.
39 Srithanonchai // Nov 10, 2007 at 11:54 pm
“and make the country stronger” > Don’t quite know what this means.
40 Kevin Hewison // Nov 10, 2007 at 11:54 pm
James Haughton: Good questions. Indeed, it might be better to ask more about the “World Development” debate with Rigg or even the earlier version of the book you cite. In fact, those works go back to the late 1980s, and people’s ideas change and develop, so I am pretty sure there is no exact congruency between the things I wrote back then (and with a colleague in the case of the book) and what I am writing 20 years later.
The way that you ask the question says something about how you view SE. In fact, SE is not proposed as anti-market in the UNDP report. One of the points of that report was to say that SE is compatible with the market and neo-liberal economics.
I recall that the point on “the observation that the most globalised provinces have done better on UNDP indices” is discussed in broad terms in the introduction and epilogue to the book you mention.
To trace my own thoughts and how they have changed on this topic one would need to read a number of things - those mentioned above and the papers in Pacific Review and the Singapore J. of Tropical Geography:
‘Nationalism, Populism, Dependency: Southeast Asia and Responses to the Asian Crisis’, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 22, 3 (Special Issue on Global Processes, Local Responses: Resistance and Compliance in Southeast Asia), 2001, pp. 219-36.
‘Resisting Globalization: A Study of Localism in Thailand’, The Pacific Review, 13, 2 (2000), pp. 279-96.
41 Free man // Nov 11, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Reading a number of comments above, I wonder what reasons you drew a conclusion that the King was behind the coup. This is not the ways intellectuals use: first putting the assumption, find out the reasons to come to your assumption that the King was the mastermind of the 19 Sept. Coup. Show me, anybody here, that the King was dirrectly involved in unforgivable 19 Sept. Coup
Sufficeient economy theory or philosophy whatever you like to call is not one direct way to solve all chronical economic problems in Thailand but it needs to be done in line with capitalism. Unfortunately, the bad junta Government has carried out SE policy with cunning and wicked purpose to destroy the populist policy of the former prime minister, SE policy thus does not work as it should be. However, who will be blamed, I don’t think it is the fault of the Monarch.
42 Teth // Nov 12, 2007 at 12:07 am
I wonder what reasons you drew a conclusion that the King was behind the coup.
Of course, this is all speculation based on “probable” causes and motives and of course, one’s bias. I, for one, do not consider it to be any sort of academic analysis. The first salient point is the role of Gen Prem. Why did he meet with Potjaman Shinawatra nearly immediately after the coup? Why has he been seen ushering the coup generals into the palace? Why has there been no denial? The connection between Prem and the King is also very clear over the past three decades.
Secondly, the appointment of a Privy Councillor as Prime Minister, who very likely still remains a Privy Councillor. The palace must have consented before allowing such a closely related figure to be appointed Prime Minister if it did not in fact make the decision itself. Mind you, selection of Privy Councillors is a reserved power of the throne, therefore those on the Privy Council must be extremely close to it.
Third, the constant overuse of royalist themes and propaganda. Note the original name of the coup group: “Council for Democratic Reform under the Constitutional Monarchy.” Note the use of yellow ribbons, note one of the reasons the CDRM took over: because of Thaksin’s “insults to the King.” Then, once a civilian government took over, the Sufficiency Economy was to be a major tenet of its economic policy. Was there any word of protest from the Palace?
Here is an excerpt from the King’s birthday speech of 2006:
Very clearly indicative of his mood towards the post-coup government (and perhaps to the coup itself). No words of condemnation, in fact, he is praising this illegitimate government, which is exceedingly weird. After all, the old man had refused to gratify anti-Thaksinites with a royally appointed PM for fear of being “undemocratic.” The full quote:
Why the sudden change of heart with regards to the coup? All of a sudden it becomes democratic to appoint a Prime Minister with the coup general to countersign the order? I recall somebody talking about double standards once…
In any case, Freeman, though we may never uncover the true intentions of the Palace or whether it was Prem acting to destroy the country (as pro-Thaksinites allege), I for one, have reason to believe based on history and from the news I’ve heard that this is in fact, a coup by the King for the King.
43 James Haughton // Nov 12, 2007 at 10:47 am
Re 40,
Thanks Kevin. I have read the World Development debate but not the papers you cite here, which I will do.
I do regard SE, in as much as it makes specific proposals for how to develop farms, etc, as an anti-market strategy, whatever the UNDP says. Of course this aspect has really paled compared to its use as a political catch-all/football.
44 Sidh S. // Nov 12, 2007 at 4:48 pm
“What a ridiculous, pretentious, pseudo-theory laced gobbledeegook of a post.”
Strong words Republican, but I respect your views…
I am not sure what you mean Grasshopper - from my understanding of your post I agree that the underlying spirit of “Buddhist economics”, “sustainability”, “sustainable development”, “Sufficiency Theory”, “Smart Growth” has been around since time immemorial, independent of the labels, old and new.
But frankly, I am rather pessimistic. As Teth mentioned, very few Thais listen to the Lord Buddha - and it can be assumed that even less, HMK. Globally, governments and businesses are merely paying lip service to ’sustainability” - which is losing credit again with “climate change” hegemony taking over resulting in narrow-minded policies to address it. How many million hectares of rain forests and productive farmlands needs to be cleared to produce ethanol?
As Grasshopper pointed out, SE may be used as a political tool to counter PMThaksin’s populism. But, really, reading the various political parties’ policy platforms what’s the point when society at large believes ‘large is beautiful’, SD and SE are either too idealistic or merely jokes and no fun at all…
Contrary to what the reductivists here think, it suggest a much less powerful and influential monarchy. It is purely out of deep respect and affection that people respond to HMK’s plea to tackle corruption or adopt SE - at least formally. But they are like many teenagers who love their parents but also often do not listen - only until the mistakes are already made. HM the King’s ‘power’ is that of a beloved Father while Thailand is a rebellious teenager.
PMThakin was the most powerful and dominant figure since GenSarit, not HMK. He could have easily become a Lee Kuan Yew or Dr.Mahathir and rule/govern Thailand for 30 years. He was just too greedy and amazingly stingy. I don’t think PAD would have garnered that much support had PMThaksin paid taxes on his ShinCorp sale (or just contribute to HMK’s charity!). On that note, PMThaksin could have benefited from ‘SE for billionaires’!
45 Thai not royalist // Nov 22, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Most Thai people are poor that call” roots of grass” .They have no adequate food or money.In the other hand,the royal family and high class people are very rich.The gap is very wide in thailand.
Sufficiency economics cannot support the demand of poors.It only is philosophy that teach the people save , help themself and don’t hope anything from the government ( but you must pay the tax).
You must proud of this philosophy.Because it is from the genius king idea. You cannot comment in Thailand .You must accept and be happy with it.
46 Big // Dec 4, 2007 at 11:50 pm
The King never smile are contruction imagination to Thai feel who is the most power people as the best politician that loving of Thai always and the best of King of Thailand.
Sufficiency economics is philosophy that explain everyday life is not see context of Thai social is Class struggle and Having many ” roots of grass”
47 Teth // Dec 5, 2007 at 9:27 am
Have you read the book, Big? Or perhaps you didn’t understand it like I don’t understand your post.
48 Surang Saitip // Feb 20, 2008 at 4:45 pm
And how does King Power relate to HMK? A couple of days ago HMK came out (a rare occurrence nowadays) for King Power to present him with a tidy sum to “spend at his pleasure”. Hooray for bribery!
49 Observer // Feb 22, 2008 at 9:40 pm
As far as I understand it, there is no known relationship between the king and King Power, although rumors do exist. I doubt the funds they gave him were a bribe, the sum was fairly small (<Bt1mn)and the transaction was photographed. Seems more like a message being delivered that KP is OK with HMK.
Regarding SE, is it possible to preach sustainable economy, sit in a Rolls Royce and not be a hypocrite?
50 Land of Snarls // Feb 23, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Recent background on King Power:
http://www.airportsuvarnabhumi.com/transport-minister-need-more-info-on-king-power-duty-frees-contract-termination
and
• New duty free shop operator at Suvarnabhumi Bangkok Airport could be delayed
• King Power denies its contracts abused law
• Airports of Thailand may run own commercial area after terminating King Power contracts
• King Power Duty Free back at Suvarnabhumi Airport
• Airports of Thailand terminated King Power Duty Free’s contracts
• King Power files 68 Billion Baht suit against Airports of Thailand
• New Bangkok Airport contracts to be re-examined by Gen Saprang
• Airports of Thailand to revoke permanent passes of all King Power staff
• King Power given 30 day deadline to remove parts of duty free outlets at Suvarnabhumi Airport
51 Land of Snarls // Feb 23, 2008 at 11:08 pm
re. #48 You give no attribution. Surang Saitip, where does this information come from? Is ‘ “spend at his pleasure” ‘ a quote? Who said it?
Your post doesn’t have any credibility if you don’t give a reference that can be checked.
52 Somsak Jeamteerasakul // Feb 24, 2008 at 11:13 pm
re. #48 You give no attribution. Surang Saitip, where does this information come from? Is ‘ “spend at his pleasure” ‘ a quote? Who said it?
Your post doesn’t have any credibility if you don’t give a reference that can be checked.
Actually, as I understand it, the phrase “spend at his pleasure” is one of the two standard phrases used nowsaday when someone presents money to HM the King. The phrase is a translation of “ให้ทรงใช้สอยตามพระราชอัธยาศัย” (hai-song-chai-soy-tam-phra-rat-cha-at-tha-ya-sai) literally “for His Majesty to use in any which way he wants” but “spend at his pleasure” is perfectly acceptable.
The other phrase, more “specified”, is “โดยเสด็จพระราชกุศลตามพระราชอัธยาศัย” (doei-sa-det-phra-rat-cha-ku-sol-tam-phra-rat-cha-at-tha-ya-sai) or literally “for HM’s charity work whichever one HM wants”.
53 Teth // Feb 25, 2008 at 2:44 am
Snarls, the phrase “spend at his pleasure” is generally used in the television or news report whenever somebody gives money to the royals.
Its true #48 is not verified but it sounds extremely real. These things happen all the time and money is given to “spend at your pleasure” on television even. I’ve personally watch many an 8 o’clock news piece about somebody giving something to the royals. King Power, as with thousands of other firms, probably have done it.
54 Land of Snarls // Feb 25, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Somsak & Teth, thanks for that very useful info.
Do you know where the event was publicised ? In the light of the dispute between AOT & KingPower (see links in my #50), it’s quite significant. A reference would make it kosher.
55 chris baker // Feb 25, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Vichai Raksriaksorn, chairman of King Power, presented the money to the king on 7 February 2008. A picture of the event appeared on p. 20 of Matichon daily (Prachachuen section) on 21 February. The amount was 900 million baht. This was not a donation by Vichai or King Power, but the proceeds of a charity fund-raising scheme which Vichai and King Power helped to organize – selling plastic wristbands and related material with royal insignia.
On the Forbes 2007 list, Vichai ranked 21st among Thais with a fortune of US$ 205 million (about 6.5 billion baht).
His history is pretty obscure, and I’d welcome any info from anyone who knows more than this:
He had his first duty free (DF) venture in Hong Kong airport in the 1980s. He could not break the ring at Don Muang (run by Sombun Rahong), but opened the in-town DF store at Ploenchit in 1989. He also started DF shops in Cambodia, China, and Macao. By 1995 he managed to get round Rahong, make connections in the air force and AAT, and opened a shop in Don Muang in 1995. ACM Phinit Saraithong is now on King Power board. In 2006, he got an exclusive 10-year deal to run DF and retail at Suvarnabhumi.
He likes polo. He goes to UK and plays with Princes Charles and William. He recently bought 384 rai from the Chan Issara family near the airport. On this he is building a polo field, 9-hole golf course, and forty-nine 2-rai housing plots.
He is developing a 31 rai plot in Soi Rang-ngam (near Victory Monument) with an office building for his group, a DF mall, and the Pullman King Power hotel. The land is leased from the Crown Property Bureau.
Anyone know anything more? What’s his background? What’s the HK connection? Is he another split family like Sophonphanich, Asvabhokin, etc ? Who were his key contacts in the air force?
56 Land of Snarls // Feb 26, 2008 at 1:41 am
Thank you Chris Baker!
57 Surang Saitip // Feb 26, 2008 at 12:12 pm
My only point is: this is the all-reaching, universal system of bribery in Thailand. It’s so widespread that a lot of Thai people take it for granted and look upon it quite admiringly! Actually, this is the very origin of bribery. No wonder corruption can never be done away with in the normal stream of Thai life.
58 sueksit nanhuay // May 16, 2008 at 11:54 am
Now there are news reports about the Minister to the Prime Minister’s Office Jakrapop Penkae having made speeches abroad referring to things unpleasant about the monarchy. Can anyone get hold of these texts and make them available? Many thanks.
59 Reg Varney // May 17, 2008 at 1:36 pm
On “bribery” or donations to the King, read Handley. He tries to explain the system at work. Actually, based on TV reports, it seems to be Prathep who is the face of the monarchy receiving most of these donations now.
60 Reg Varney // Jun 25, 2008 at 4:48 pm
I recently read a report, apparently based on a website account (can’t find it now). That report claims that the 2008 government commitment to the royal family/palace is Baht 6,032,097,400. This does not include royal projects and other royal expenditures in the parts of the budget kept closed. There is also some question as to whether the 6 billion total captures everything in the Budget Bureau reports. Does anyone know more about this taxpayer support of the sufficiency royals?
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.