It has been a long day, so here is just a quick report on day 1 of the Thai Studies Conference. The openning by Princess Sirindhorn was brief and to the point. Plenty of sitting, standing, sitting and standing, presentation of gifts and various suited officials crawling around on stage. Her opening address was formal and very brief - certainly no exposition of her own views on Thai society or culture. The turnout from the conference’s international academic committee was rather thin. There was a fair media scrum, so it will be interesting what coverage this gets and to what extent the conference features in the royal publicity machine. The opening was followed by three keynotes, the highlight of which for me was Charles Keyes’ important reminder that rural people in Isan do act according to moral precepts alongside (despite?) their enthusiastic embrace of capitalism.
In the afternoon I was involved in two sessions which discussed sufficiency economy. A lot of ground was covered and I think it fair to say that the sessions provided for an open and frank critical discussion of the royal theory. One hardened critic even commented to me afterwards that for a period during the session he actually felt sorry for sufficiency economy!
Those who are attending the conference are very welcome to provide their own comments, thoughts, reflections or reports from specific panels. It would be useful if New Mandala readers could also provide details of any media coverage the conference receives in local or international media.
41 responses so far ↓
1 saraburian // Jan 10, 2008 at 3:52 am
I would like to quote Ajaan Chaiyan Ratchakool of Chiang Mai University who said:
“Sufficiency Economy is the consolation for the poor. And it’s a poor consolation.”
2 Joel // Jan 10, 2008 at 11:09 pm
http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/10Jan2008_news04.php
3 Fab-bob // Jan 10, 2008 at 11:31 pm
I’m happily surprised to see that the Bangkok Post is reporting on how academics in the panels on SE have “lashed out at the inapplicability and irrelevance of the sufficiency economy concept in Thailand, saying the promotion of the principle was a political manoeuvre of the coup-installed government and Thailand’s elite. ”
Based on these panels, I guess it would be relatively easy to have 50+ academics signing a common statement publicly criticizing a few key aspects of SE and its political utilization. Such a statement could then be sent out to newspapers and published in Thai and English.
As to the discussion of Paul Handley’s book, I’m a bit disappointed that the most important points of the book - in particular on the influence of the King in limiting the advancements of democracy - have not really been discussed directly. My guess is that the numerous Thai students who attended the panels and have never read the book probably don’t know more about it now than they used to.
4 Andrew Walker // Jan 11, 2008 at 1:58 am
Here is the Bangkok Post report of the first day of the conference:
THAI STUDIES / INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
Princess: Outsiders’ views useful
SANITSUDA EKACHAI & ACHARA ASHAYAGACHAT
Academic research and diverse views on Thailand supplied by foreign scholars help Thai society see itself more objectively, Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn said yesterday.
”As outsiders, they can see us from afar more clearly because we ourselves are too close to the subject,” the Princess said while addressing some 500 academics at the opening of an international conference on Thai Studies at Thammasat University.
A wide range of topics and papers will be presented and discussed over the three-day conference, including the ‘’sufficiency economy”, censorship, the southern violence, Buddhism, sexuality, gender inequality and the monarchy.
In the seminar yesterday, academics lashed out at the inapplicability and irrelevance of the sufficiency economy concept in Thailand, saying the promotion of the principle was a political manoeuvre of the coup-installed government and Thailand’s elite.
One of the critics, Peter Bell from the State University of New York at Purchase said the principle was not a coherent and viable economic theory. The United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) recommendation for other countries to apply the approach was not relevant, he added.
”The concept is simply a strong critique of Thai capitalist development. It comes with a sense of anti-globalisation in light of the financial crisis in 1997,” Mr Bell said.
Andrew Walker of the Australian National University’s Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, said the sufficiency economy had become an ideological tool used by the elite to take the pressure off them to address any serious redistribution of income or resources.
HRH Princess Sirindhorn said Thai scholars should conduct their own local research to compare notes with foreign academics’ work because better understanding can help the country solve its problems more effectively.
Prof Charles Keyes, a respected anthropologist at the University of Washington, traced the changes of Thailand over the past 40 years in his keynote speech.
He said that Thai villagers had left the sufficiency economy behind to unequivocally embrace the global capitalist system, but their economic decisions, aspirations and life choices remain significantly tempered by the Buddhist teachings based on moderation and self-reliance.
Piriya Krairiksh, an art historian, said that although research on Thailand has shifted from the hands of amateurs a century ago to professional academics, their common aim to create a ”united, free and good” Thailand remains elusive.
5 Republican // Jan 11, 2008 at 2:04 pm
“…As outsiders, they can see us from afar more clearly because we ourselves are too close to the subject,” the Princess said…”
Although superficially modest and framed in the form of a compliment - i.e. the foreigners may have a thing or two to tell us Thais about our nation - this statement is obviously designed to portray foreign academics as forever “outside” Thai studies, and by so doing to subtly attack the legitimacy of their criticisms. At the same time it ties the monarchy with the nation - “insiders”. Why else do you have the Crown Princess so intimately associated with the International Thai Studies conference over so many years?
Rather than emphasising the unity of scholars working together within the same field the statement reinforces the separateness of “foreign” and “Thai”. The monarchy, as it has done since the colonial era, portrays itself as defender of the nation. You can see this in the king’s speeches which are full of accusations of how the foreigners are “saying bad things about the Thai”, trying to take advantage of “us”, etc.
The Princess’s sponsorship of the ICTS is is a good example of the political strategy of the monarchy: identify a potential enemy (the military, leftist students, pro-democracy monks, parliamentary parties, NGOs, environmentalists, ethnic or religious minorities, foreign academics, etc.), isolate the most radical of them (by killing them, exiling them, etc.), while developing political and patronage connections with the rest.
6 Joel // Jan 11, 2008 at 5:02 pm
The Paul Handley book can be accessed online (without violating any intellectual property rights) at: http://www.shop.ebrary.com. If you sign up for an account and put at least 5USD on (which you never have to use), you can read the full book on your computer screen. A good option for those interested in reading it in the Kingdom without carrying around a banned book.
7 Frank Lee // Jan 11, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Although I haven’t made a study of the Sufficiency Economy concept, I get the impression that it boils down to the old saying, ‘Don’t put all your eggs in one basket’ - and what’s wrong with that?
In my opinion, King Bhumipol himself can be seen as ‘consolation’ for the rabid capitalism/ materialismthat is destroying Thailand, as the king has said many times. So if you feel that’s ‘cold comfort’ for the poor, well it’s better than none - which is what the elite as a class provide.
Actually, it is all that the elite as a class provide, because the king’s power/influence is very circumscribed. For example, if you want to petition the king you have to go through the government.
Of course, between the elite and the monarchy there is a mutually legitimizing relationship, but from listening to the king’s speeches in the original Thai over the years and comparing his words and deeds, I remain firmly convinced that, as a nation, Thailand has been much better off with the king around than without him.
Seriously, who would say the same about Thaksin Shinawatra - Paul Handley?
Frank Lee / Bangkok
I hope the govt. doesn’t wish to sue me for this comment under the ‘ lese majeste’ law.
8 Dog Lover // Jan 12, 2008 at 1:12 am
Republican: I agree with your comments. However, I have some questions:
You say, “Why else do you have the Crown Princess so intimately associated with the International Thai Studies conference over so many years?” I have only attended conferences in London, Amsterdam, DeKalb and Bangkok (1984) and did not see the princess as “intimately associated” with these (I think she showed up at the London event).
You say, “The Princess’s sponsorship of the ICTS”. Did she sponsor? Or should I take this term to mean no more than just doing an opening speech?
As I said, I agree with your points, but these words could begin the creation a myth of her intimate involvement with ICTS.
You also forgot another political strategy used for academics. The various royals are used to charm them. Think of the way this princess has been able to befriend and beguile academics. I have had two senior farang SE Asia scholars point out to me how “nice” she is (the unspoken comparison being to the prince): “I’ve met her and she was so nice and down-to-earth” stuff. Forget her political position and the role her family plays because she is polite and “nice”. Shows a decided lack of critical attention to Thai politics and history, but it is a strategy that works.
9 Srithanonchai // Jan 12, 2008 at 2:09 am
Rep: “Rather than emphasising the unity of scholars working together within the same field the statement reinforces the separateness of “foreign” and “Thai”.” >> Exactly, and this is why the organizers at Thammasat University had no qualms to chage different “us” and “them” registration fee, bordering on the racist. This made it impossible for me to attend the conference, although it would have been very important to me.
What hope can we have for “academic unity” if even those Thammasat people could not bring themselves to see foreigners as academic colleagues, but merely as “foreigners”? Obviously, “we” (foreigners) and “them” (Thai academics” still live in different worlds, and our communications and interactions are still fundamentally cross-cultural, i.e. “them” have not yet become part of the “world system of science.” But don’t tell them, because the Thais will not like it, and complain that you look down on them. Anyway, it was “them” who were in charge of organizing the conference and setting the fee, right?
10 Republican // Jan 12, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Reply to Dog Lover: she certainly attended the one in Chiang Mai in 1996 (she opened it); I recall (but could have it mixed up with another ICTS) that she also attended the one at SOAS in 1993. By “sponsorship” I meant giving royal support/approval/presence, not financial support.
Maybe “intimately” was too strong, but what I meant was that in my opinion it is no accident that the royal family should take a special interest in an academic event that is, to a certain extent, about defining the Thai nation (which is precisely the problem of the concept for this conference). Management of the monarchy’s external image, as I’ve said before, is very important to their overall political strategy and you have to admit that they have been very successful at it.
Agree with the rest of your post.
11 Teth // Jan 13, 2008 at 2:13 am
Frank, that is the twist you are getting out of it. First, I must ask you, are you assuming the Thai King is all-wise and benevolent? If not, then that’s a good start to critically exploring his deeds and misdeeds.
Perhaps the main facet of Sufficiency Economy you would have picked up from the King’s speeches is the idea of inhibiting your desires (which extends to the desire for social mobility, equality, etc), in this case, the King paints it as “greed” even though it may simply mean social equality. Yet the King does not recommend how to develop Thailand’s human resources, he emphasizes how one should remain fixed in what you do and rely only (hence the term sufficiency) on one’s farm, little pond, resources, etc. That is why it can only ever be a cold consolation to the poor: he does not demand better governance, he does not encourage development or any sort of social justice or rule of law to his own people. Instead he advocates “sufficiency”, a vague, ill-defined, pseudo-philosophical, unquantifiable term.
That sufficiency should be touted as an economic theory is not entirely the King’s fault. But nevertheless, it is not anything new and it doesn’t really qualify as a theory of economics.
The irony of all this is that the King himself is the foremost capitalist of Thailand and a participant in the crony capitalism and indebtedness (mostly by proxy) that plunged the country into the economic crisis. Else, would there be reason for Siam Cement to take on a foreign partner or the SCB to receive emergency loans from the government at the expense of smaller faltering enterprises?
I would also like to stress that capitalism is not bad, contrary to what some leftists will say. Crony capitalism and capitalism without any social safety net is bad. Rampant, uncritical material is detrimental as well.
May I ask the question how long does “over the years” mean? Have you observed Thailand and her monarch’s constant and overt interventions in the 1960s and 1970s?
Myself having been raised a fervent fan of the King, until only recently, always made an effort to listen to the birthday speeches of our benevolent and all-wise King. Sufficiency sounded good and defensible, but even then, I asked myself whether it was wise for such a King to advise “sufficiency” to the nation when other things were much more pressing. Surely, I asked, doubting the propaganda having been inserted into my head, the King should be emphasizing rule of law and due process, not extrajudicial killing (even for drug dealers), sustainable development and not merely inward-looking, stick-to-the-status-quo sufficiency, and more.
With such tremendous soft power, power which he does use (ie. building the Industrial Ring Road, Royal Development Projects, his birthday speech and the subsequent clamor to “obey”, speeches to military generals and high ranking judges, etc), I have always wondered why he has not done more effective things for the country, after all he is advertised as such a hardworking genius. So why has he not encouraged (at least one of these would’ve been nice) the rule of law, spoken out against police corruption and abuse of power, social justice, income inequality, improvement of education and Thai critical thinking standards so we can finally get rid of “The Thai Way to Democracy”, improving economic competitiveness instead of using protectionist policies, inhibiting the role of the military, telling the military to strictly conform to the Constitution, and emphasizing the importance and sanctity of the Constitution, which he himself signed into law, reforming the bureaucracy into more efficient organization, etc etc etc? Instead, we get the same vague rambling speech about “good morals”, “sufficiency”, and some general economic comments he doesn’t fully comprehend the nuance of. Of course, there are little gems here and there that seem to suggest what I wrote above, but in the end, most speeches’ have been a disappointment even for the formerly King-loving me because he seems to comment on the irrelevant details but is vague on things that matter. If you’re going to interfere and start nitpicking at government official (unlike a Constitutional monarch should), why not do it well? Of course, I now understand why, but you should read the King Never Smiles, Frank.
12 hrk // Jan 13, 2008 at 4:18 am
The “fee issue” raised by Srithanonchai:
This issue had been discussed already with regards to another conference dealing with the
sufficiency economy, but I think, the main point has been missed.
I do not think that the differences actually express racism or recognition of differences with regards to economic means to participate in a conference. I take it as ethnological data indicating certain cognitive structures quite prevailing in Thailand, which do not leave scholars unaffected. Cognitive structures define what makes sense within a social and cultural context, and thus if these are shared, they work very well and are enforcing themselves. This is a reason, why scholars working on Thailand, who lived here for a longer time quite often share these structures when looking at Thai culture.
The distinction between Thai and foreigner is common in Thailand. (In fact, far more common then it is f.e. in Malaysia! When I worked there, I was even asked to get financial support from the university to participate in a conference). The differentiation between Thai and non-Thai (just to include certain non-Thai minorities in Thailand) is based on ascribed characteristics, which, in the case of “farang”, are connected to a phenotype. As we know from the introduction to sociology, differentiations within a society along ascribed characteristics are a feature of a feudal social order. Does this feudal based cognitive structure fit into the current conditions? If we look at the importance of rents, of patronage and of personal relations (well described in the new book edited by Pasuk and Baker), which are, as Terray and others pointed out already during the seventies, aspects of feudalism, we certainly recognize that a personal based status accommodation makes a lot of sense. In consequence, to follow this mind set even in a conference makes sense as well. (There are a few more indicators of feudal structures including academia to be found on which a lot has been written already in other contexts).
But it is definitely misleading to discuss Thailand in terms of feudalism (only). Globalization in terms of integration into a world economy, consumerism etc. can hardly be ignored, even if global dynamics are often connected to local translations and dynamics. How can both be taken into consideration?
During the eighties there was a very fruitful debate in Thailand on how to understand what is going on. Namely the Journal of Political Economy, the Thammasat University Journal, or the works of Preecha Piangpongsan (just to mention a few) come to mind. I still regard these discussions together with the discussion on civil society (on which I’am nevertheless very critical) as a high time of academic studies. Even the current neo-romantic post-modern nationalism of Thirayud can hardly compete with these older analysis’. One leading argument was of the “half feudal, half colonial (or later capitalist)” society. This certainly needs to be modified. But, in this tradition I think that speaking of “half feudal, half neo-liberal globalized” does make some sense.
Coming back to the fees: Isn’t the interesting mix between differentiation based on ascribed characteristics (Thai – foreign) connected to the use of two different currencies (one local, one global) quite telling? Does this - perhaps - provide some explanation for different worlds in which scholars live? Globalized academia is increasingly now living in the neo-liberal globalized world, in which universities are to compete on a market for degrees and education. This market economy of education and science is one reason why many universities now charge different fees for national and foreign students, and why research that can not be easily translated into monetary denominations (like regional studies) becomes ever more marginalized compared to MBA, IT etc. This trend is of course found in Thailand as well (see neo-liberal globalization). Thus, scholars (regardless of nationality, ethnicity etc.) face a quite similar task in developing a new critical science, although in different contexts. Perhaps the ICTS did provide new perspectives?
P.s.: The argument that Thai scholars tend to have less economic means is not convincing. If economic means play a role, which they certainly do, then a distinction between those having well paid positions and do even receive funding (Prof. lecturer etc.) and those who do not (Ph.D. students, other scholars) would make sense, combined with transparently defined regulations concerning reduction of fees or even waiving them.
13 Srithanonchai // Jan 13, 2008 at 3:33 pm
hrk — Welcome to another German on this blog!
14 Grasshopper // Jan 13, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Republican and Dog Lover: Words are always loaded, if this is a game of chess why not just see it as a game of chess. It seems that you both see that good politics and power are results based increments of liberal enlightenment. The only result of good politics is sustained order.
Republican, to take the bullet you have metaphorically loaded from the gun of Princess Sirindhorn, wouldn’t these seminars at the international Thai conference create chaos from rejection of tradition if they were able to be overtly influential? They are views from confused chaotic academics from the baby boomer generation suffering all sorts of arrested development problems. As hrk explores, if academics and their ideas and critiques were focused upon by society at large, then reason itself would certainly be the great victim because who would it be to establish whose reason greater than another? Elites?!? There are elites everywhere, so I don’t see how you can reasonably judge that foreign academics are always on the outside when academics are on the outside even in their own countries. Obviously this rhetoric stems from personal desire to be a philosopher king! Denying elitism and in doing so, confirming it.
Frank, I am pretty sure sufficiency economy is a fantastic order maintaining instrument.
15 Frank Lee // Jan 19, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Teth,
I remain unconvinced by your argument, mainly because the king DOES say regularly and often (albeit not as often these days - one gets the strong impression that, to paraphrase Mark Twain, the more he gets to understand the nature of people, the more he prefers the company of dogs) that “the country will continue down the road to self-destruction” if, for example, the rule of law is not followed (e.g. ” Judges do your job - or get out ” loose quote, 2007) and “the biggest problem in this country is the double standard” (note: the BIGGEST)
As a keen observer since the early eighties (when Michael Handley’s articles in the FEER were my best scource) and having worked in Bangkok since 1990, I am always willing to listen to people who were, unlike me, born and raised here. But you seem to see the hand of the king everywhere - yet the examples you provide seem weak to me. As a local, I well remember the king tutoring Thaksin on TV, to the effect that we all (Thais) know that Thailand is not a properly civilized country (yet) so he did not condemn Thaksin outright for his ruthess crackdown against the out-of-control ‘yah bah’ industry, but implored him that in the name of common decency and there should be a proper accouting of the victims and how they met their fate. Of course, Thaksin responded that the King’s advice was very wise and commonsense - and thought no more about it. Why? Because Thaksin can do no wrong: Tremble and obey, weaklings!
16 Teth // Jan 20, 2008 at 1:08 am
Frank, let me summarize how you think for you: “I’m Frank, your local Thai expat, and I love the King. I’ve been reading and observing things for years and so that qualifies me to speak about this matter. I’ve also participated in much barbershop gossip so that also gives me an edge above all you fancy academics: I know and love the people of Thailand (or, only those middle class Bangkok folk who I mingle with at least). So I try my best to be a decent Thai and that means loving the King no matter what. I’ll interpret everything he says to keep up that positive image of the King, even though I’m actually supposed to review the evidence then conclude. And, not to forget, actions speak louder than words, but why, I’ll ignore what I wasn’t here to observe and just concentrate on the propaganda I did observe! So Long Live the King! P.S. I also write lengthy, intelligent letters to the Bangkok about Bangkok soi dogs.”
Er, Frank, if you would kindly indulge me by reading my replies, you will see that I explicitly say the King cannot be held solely responsible for everything, but that his involvement is clear in many instances. The rhetorical questions I asked were merely to highlight the logical inconsistency of King worship: for him to be so wise and philosophical as to conclude “raising dogs is better than people” then surely he would not be so brash as to say a few deaths is a sacrifice that must be made in the drug war. But you have missed the point and continue to argue from the stance of “the King is good” rather than from the evidence. Obviously no one can be at fault for simply stating their opinions, but surely you must factor this in to your considerations, but oh wait, to you the King is go no matter what (unless Thai middle class opinion changes, maybe you’ll reluctantly follow too).
As many Thais would argue, though, that the King’s “small” imperfections do not detract from his overall sageliness, but if you look past the 1980s you will see the deeds of him and his henchmen in 6 October. You will see his willing cooperation with disgusting tyrants like Sarit, Thanom, Praphas, and Narong or generals like Prem, Suchinda, and now Sonthi, which brings me to my point about actions speaking louder than words. This is where my actual criticism of the King begins, not just of the brouhaha of King worship, but of his actions.
“Accounting” is nowhere near his urge for “rule of law.” So now common human decency it is then, ignore all that stuff about rule of law. But oh wait, he didn’t ask for rule of law, he just talked about being “just” which is surely something a three year old would also want from a judge. What about law enforcement and police, isn’t that part and parcel of the rule of law? No mention of that eh.
This is ironic because the King and Thaksin are so similar. Multibillionaires widely supported by the rural masses, great manipulators of PR, both pay lots of lip service to democracy, both have a large network of cronies, and both try to make themselves impenetrable to criticism, but one is clearly more successful than the other. What’s that you say? The King has done more for the country? But what about Thaksin’s universal healthcare scheme, OTOP, village funds? Oh wait, that’s harmful populism! But hang on, have the King’s projects been all successful? Or why is it that 60 years later Thailand is still a third world country? Surely 60 years of hardworking, long term strategies would have produced the result worthy of a genius.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not blaming him for anything in the last paragraph, I’m just wondering out loud again how ridiculous King worship can be.
Lastly, Frank, if you don’t read anything from my post, or consider anything “worthy” of reply, just ask yourself whether you are looking at the King from an immovable opinion, or are you actually looking at things from the facts. I can tell you that as a real local, Thai born and bred, I used to look at things from the basis of “the King is good” before all the inconsistencies and the evidence piled on to the point where I could no longer look at things that way any longer without deluding myself.
เชื่อในสิ่งที่เห็น เห็นในสิ่งที่เชื่อ คุณต้องดูเหตุการณ์ตามเนื้อผ้า และจากทุกๆ ฝ่าย อย่าเอาแต่เชื่อว่ากษัตริย์นั้นดี เพราะมิเช่นนั้น คุณก็ตกเป็นเหยื่อของการโฆษณาชวนเชื่อไปแล้ว
ด้วยความปราถนาดี
Teth
P.S. Apologies for all the ad hominem there but, purposefully or not, you do know how to wind people up and I’m pretty sure I’ve done the same to you.
17 Land of Snarls // Jan 20, 2008 at 7:11 pm
‘What’s that you say? The King has done more for the country? But what about Thaksin’s universal healthcare scheme, OTOP, village funds?’
Teth - I hope you’re not citing these 3 as evidence of Thaksin’s success. The healthcare scheme is a failure, due to the fact that the necessary sums weren’t done in advance. OTOP looks good (on the surface: nice packaging; good P.R.), but is, as yet, far from successsful, due to all the usual reasons. And as for the village funds…!
18 Taxi Driver // Jan 21, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Reading the above posts and other discussions on New Mandala over the past year+, I notice an constant underlying premise. It goes something like this:
On the one hand, Thai folk are smart and are not duped by vote buying…
On the other hand, Thai folk are not smart enough and are duped by lese majeste-protected royalist propaganda.
Can both be true? Doesn’t it smack of convenient inconsistency?
I personally think Thai folk are smart enought to not be duped by vote buying NOR royalist propaganda.
19 Frank Lee // Jan 21, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Land of Smirks and Rich Jerks - We Love You:
Can anyone remember Thaksin ever introducing a policy that wasn’t botched?
Teth: Ask yourself why do you insist on playing the man and not the ball.
FYI: Yes I was a fairly unabashed admirer of the king - about a DOZEN (12) years ago, but “I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now”.
20 nganadeeleg // Jan 22, 2008 at 9:08 am
Taxi Driver: You have raised a good point, but is it also possible that many Thai folk (the majority?) are duped by BOTH ?
21 Taxi Driver // Jan 22, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Ngarn #20…sure its possible, but I don’t think its the case. I wouldn’t sell my vote for a few hundred baht, but if someone offerred me a million baht…well, I might. I think its a rational decision making process. No duping is involved (except, ironically, maybe the vote buyer is the one who is duped since the vote seller might still tick a different box to the one he’s supposed to).
As to royalist propaganda, sure there is asymmetry of positive vs negative information due to Lese Majeste, but it just seems to me that the crucial information still seem to get through to enough people anyway. Just ask Vachiralongkorn if he thinks LM has been effective.
I also think that mania for Bhumipol (which seems to have reached hysterical levels only over the past few years) is skin deep. Scratch the surface a little and you might find most people’s regard for, and expectation of, the King is no different to their regard for and expectation of an ‘amulet’. They view this king as a ‘good’ lord, but a lord nevertheless, and superstitiuously lords might protect and give them luck, but lords aren’t interested in concepts like ’social equality’, ‘equality under the law’, or ‘fair distribution of wealth’.
22 Grasshopper // Jan 22, 2008 at 7:07 pm
nganadeeleg, depends what type of person you are; an empiricist or someone who makes an assumption based on other peoples generalisations.
23 Ladyboy // Jan 22, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Frank Lee
From my reading of the discussion, Teth is putting up strong arguments and you are failing to respond.
24 Teth // Jan 22, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Teth: Ask yourself why do you insist on playing the man and not the ball.
Because you’ve thrown the ball out of the court already.
If only you’d listen or go around searching for evidence that disagrees with your propaganda which is well discussed here before whether between me and Jeru or nganadeeleg or anyone else. In fact, I’ve thrown you a few balls but (such as the 6 Oct issue) but will I have to repeat myself ten times before you decide to listen to whatever it is that goes against your barbershop views? Again, you bring up nothing but hypocrisy.
So I suggest you ask yourself why do you insist on playing the man and not the ball.
25 Paul L // Jan 22, 2008 at 10:09 pm
You all (Thai and foreigners posting here) fail to properly grasp the King’s context and who his intended audience is.
When the King speaks, his audience is mostly his loyal followers, which basically means the whole population of Thailand.
But simplified for the poor and those who have not had a chance of formal education.
When they suffered due to an economic collapse the magnitude of 1997, they looked to the King for advice. The advice was delivered in the simplest form possible for that intended audience.
The king framed his ideas under sufficiency theory in an attempt to bring comfort to those who were financially distressed and feared losing their well-being. He promised them that if they followed his simple advice, which meant falling back on the family unit and on finding modest earnings enough to feed oneself, or the family, they could survive the downturn and hopefully come thought the downturn intact.
Good advice it was.
Don’t read too much into it. Just take it at face value.
26 Land of Snarls // Jan 23, 2008 at 12:36 am
Teth - I do understand your outrage at discovering that the Thai royals may not be the angels you were brought up to believe they were, but I think you’re being rather naive if you believe that one man could possibly have Made Everything All Right in the last 60 years & changed Thailand from being ‘a third world country,’ as you state, into a marvelously functioning developed one. How do you know to what degree he gave ‘his willing cooperation with disgusting tyrants like Sarit, Thanom, Praphas, and Narong or generals like Prem, Suchinda, and now Sonthi’? We’re talking about The Real World here, in fact the S.E.Asian Real World: complex, super-energized Machiavellian politics, where everyone has political rabies, where there are mega-fortunes to be made or lost under the table, and where ordinary people don’t matter a damn…
I’m not a Royalist, by the way. I’m not an anti-Royalist either. I don’t have to be – I’m not Thai, so it’s not my struggle. And it’s not a football match, either. I think that to be vigorously barracking for either team is to be missing the point & misapplying energy. It’s escapist.
What Thailand needs more than anything is more people with basic ethics, and more people who will stand up and support its social critics and those who are working at the grassroots level to make its institutions more decent and more effective. People like Pasuk, for example, who does honest and constructive research into abuses of various parts of the economy, should be valued. Is she? Not much, not enough. I’ve heard other academics revile her, stupidly really (no counter-argument. But that seems to be quite normal in Thai academia. Not many who could argue their way out of a 2nd-hand Chinese condom. “Not a friend of Thailand,’ they shriek.) When I hear people condemning people like her as socially divisive or deviant, I can’t help wondering what they’re hiding. And what about Sulak? Well, he is rather apt to point the finger very bluntly and publicly, and he does scare a lot of people with his preaching of celibacy – in a country where sex of all kinds is traditionally one of the main industries, and a major export commodity – but his basic message is undeniably fair and good: clean up the sangha and the society by living according to the simple principles of Buddhism. In other words, cut all the stupid “Do you like Thai culture” bullshit and ‘walk the talk.’ There are others like them, and their message is always ultimately about taking personal responsibility. The countries in the world that are enjoying a measure of democracy and freedom all had to fight for it (they were killed, tortured, reviled), and their people have to continue to do so, and many who stand up as whistle-blowers today suffer for it.
When there is a freer press, a more independent and honest judiciary, sangha, and public sector, when the military and police force can be distinguished from the criminal classes, that will be a time when ordinary people have become so sick of the corruption and brutality that they will refuse to participate in it.
I was speaking to one of my friends, who has lived here about 20 years, recently about the repugnance & hypocrisy of Thai social body-language. Earlier that day I had, in a fit of frustration, yelled ‘Get up, get up!’ to some students who had knelt beside my desk. Then, of course, I had to spend 20 minutes apologizing & explaining that in my culture, such an act symbolizes a completely unacceptable social gulf, & I would not want to teach them if I saw them as inferior, I don’t & I’m dying for my students to celebrate their intelligence, individuality, etc. My friend said, ‘Yeah, they look like whipped dogs when they waih some hi-so creep. How can you respect that?’
27 Mariner // Jan 23, 2008 at 12:40 am
‘The king has done so much for the country!’
I couldn’t agree more. I knew nothing of the king before I came to Thailand. Since then I have read the bangkok Post and Nation newspapers everyday and not once have I ever come across any criticism of a royally funded project. You have to be amazed at the planning and attention to detail that surely goes into theses schemes. Ask yourself this: How many western agencies can boast initiatives which neither harm the environment not have any human costs?
28 Srithanonchai // Jan 23, 2008 at 1:56 am
z”You have to be amazed at the planning and attention to detail that surely goes into theses schemes. ” >> And into their favorable reporting…
29 Teth // Jan 23, 2008 at 2:21 am
I couldn’t agree more. I knew nothing of the king before I came to Thailand. Since then I have read the bangkok Post and Nation newspapers everyday and not once have I ever come across any criticism of a royally funded project. You have to be amazed at the planning and attention to detail that surely goes into theses schemes. Ask yourself this: How many western agencies can boast initiatives which neither harm the environment not have any human costs?
Mariner, ask yourself if you would feel the same about Kim Jong Il or Kim Il Sung. After all, if you were to live in North Korea, read the North Korean press, and talk to North Korean barbers, I’m sure you would think the same about the Kims. Oh wait, lese majeste isn’t the same as censorship then?
Snarls, what I find repugnant about the King is a combination of his image and how far it is from the truth. The propaganda is over the top while those who subscribe to it are devout and zealous enough to threaten violence whenever anything bad is said about the King. What’s more, they’re willing to turn a blind eye to reason simply to continue living in their delusional, spoonfed beliefs. I say this in a general sense because if you ask most Thais, they will not even know that the King has only one usable eye, because the fact is not publicized on television. I stress this because there is nothing wrong with loving the King, but that most King-worshippers are ignorant and just plainly brainwashed. A smaller minority know their facts but excuse him with shifty morals while there are possibly those extreme rightists who simply love monarchy and mob violence.
In anycase, I was simply attacking that wide gulf between image and reality by trying to show the logical inconsistencies in them. Obviously I am aware that one man could not be expected to change an entire country over 60 years or do everything right, but isn’t that what the telly is saying about him? Again, when I was growing up I used to ask why we didn’t return to absolute monarchy when we had such a great King, or why the King did not participate in politics since he was universally loved and was perfectly virtous: he would’ve gotten a stable parliamentary majority plus no corruption. That nobody around me, to this day, could give me an answer goes to show why the propaganda is ridiculous.
To get back to the point you were making, it seems to me that you’ve been living in Thailand for quite a while, and I agree with your long middle paragraph about what Thailand needs. I would like to add, however, that the King and all the associated feudal practices is exactly what you are moaning about. Why the deference to unelected, hereditary Kings who sits atop the “hi-so”/patronage/elders/feudal system. That age or money or heredity should supercede merit as the gauge for respect is the fetters of our modern day feudalism. The denial, hypocrisy, and inability to critically listen to what other people has to say also arises from this feudal “do you know who I am?” mentality as well. The recent case of the Canadian shot by the police also reeks of this. “Do you not know that I’m a police officer. Die.”
The West is not immune to this either as evidenced in the stiff upper lip of the upper classes, police brutality, ridiculous court cases (resulting from an ill-proportioned sense of entitlement), racism, etc. But as we all know the West is doing much more about it than Thailand is.
P.S. Should you wonder about the King’s meddling in politics and involvement with the military, find some of the excellent academic articles (McCargo, Network Monarchy), Paul Handley’s the King Never Smiles for a start, or if you would like first hand historical information, check out the newspaper archives for first hand images of the King visiting Thanom published in the papers, read his speeches at that time, or simply look at what organizations have “royal patronage” and were involved in events such as the 6 Oct massacre. Alternatively, search for the “Young Turk rebellion” against Prem in the mid-1980 and how Prem had to run off to stay with the King in order to stay in power or even more recently, see the flowing words of praise he had for the Surayud cabinet (and their subsequent idiocy).
What you won’t find, though, is the King condemning a military coup or demanding the military abstain from politics, except, of course, when those military men were not in his pocket (Pibulsonggram’s first premiership).
30 Teth // Jan 23, 2008 at 2:25 am
BTW, I find it odd that on one hand you decry the lack of virtuous Thais but seem to excuse the Machiavellian politics of the King. You say you’re not royalist, but I sense that you’ve absorbed quite a bit of the belief that the King is essentially a good man. Once again, I urge you to abandon that belief and study it based on the evidence and reconclude.
31 Land of Snarls // Jan 23, 2008 at 11:49 am
Teth, you say, ‘ you decry the lack of virtuous Thais but seem to excuse the Machiavellian politics of the King.’
Nowhere did I use the term ‘virtuous.’ My point was simply that democracy is a process that requires a ‘hands-on’ participatory approach from a significant number of people in a society. In Thailand it is obvious that entrenched corruption of many kinds is a very major factor in preventing the development of democracy. So, it seems obvious that this is a good place for ordinary people to start doing something that will begin a process of change. To sit back & blame the big players, while waiting for a squeaky-clean hero to come along & save the situation won’t do anything. There’s been ample evidence that this merely perpetuates the situation.
‘…excuse the Machiavellian polititics of the King…’ is a blatant misquote. I don’t infer that I excuse anyone for anything, nor do I refer to ‘politics of the king.’ I talk about politics of S.E.Asia, & of Thailand, & suggest that you should get away from blaming one person, because it’s a complicated, intricate, duplicitous, cunning(Machiavellian) situation, where we know very little about what’s really going on.
I’ve read TKNS, & participated in discussing it. I think it’s great. Haven’t read McCargo, though. Where can I find it?
32 Dickie Simpkins // Jan 23, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Teth,
RE: Your criticism of Mariner’s post.
re-read his post till you get the sarcasm laden words he used.
I have a hint on how you might just get the sarcastic wit and humor.
Get off your moral high horse! Mariner’s final quote was the confirmation of sarcasm: how can any project not have consequences?
ahaaa
maybe too blind by your perception, you don’t read things with an open mind and take it for what it is, rather for what you would prefer it to be, so you can claim the moral high ground and score points.
don’t be a poster like Republican or Somsak….
have they (or you) even gone so far as congratulating Thongchai on this historic ICT where they *gasp* debated the role of HMK, and the discussion, while not open, was a step forward in the direction of debating Royal roles in public discourse.
33 Teth // Jan 23, 2008 at 8:23 pm
“What Thailand needs more than anything is more people with basic ethics” - I read that as virtuous people. On the other hand you urged me to put things in the perspective of complex SE Asian politics, which I do understand, but not sympathize with. Again, that BTW addition to my reply to you was only a minor point, and certainly not a misrepresentation as the word “seem” renders it accurate while the lack of quotation marks makes it a paraphrase, not a misquote. You did seem to be excusing in my eyes, mentioning SEA politics in a discussion about the Thai monarchy. . .
I agree with you on this point, but I am not simply sitting back and doing nothing, sir. Plus, regardless of what I decide to “start doing”, is my argument still valid?
34 Teth // Jan 26, 2008 at 12:14 am
No, sir, its more that I am unfamiliar with Mariner and what he posts. You, however, didn’t manage to avoid the high horse when criticizing me either. Surely with your open mind, you did not assume that sarcasm is unable to fly above others heads. As for “sarcasm laden”, Mariner’s post was far more understated and satirical (if it is, and I still debate that until I get to see more of Mariner’s posts) than your regular sarcastic piece for you seem to underestimate the ignorant and delusional views I’ve experienced (and once held on to). Sometimes the lines are very difficult to spot won’t you say?
RE: scoring points, please find out where it is that I attack Mariner to score points. I questioned what I believed were to be his views and put forward those questions. I’d like to think that I argue with people not for the benefit of observers, scorekeepers, or the “I’m-more-anti-monarchist-than-thou” brigade but to iterate, argue, and exchange views with whomever it is I reply to. But as this is a public forum (of sorts) I must also listen to your criticism and to others’ comments about what I say.
I haven’t been criticizing how anti-royal academics are and personally do not want to join that debate. I haven’t congratulated them yet, so let me do that now. Yes, it is a step forward for more openness and rational discussion and infinitely more courageous than what I am doing here and yes their actions deserve this praise.
35 Teth // Jan 26, 2008 at 3:27 am
BTW, just to be perfectly clear that last paragraph of mine was NOT sarcasm a la Mariner.
36 Dickie Simpkins // Mar 4, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Teth,
Never got to see your reply here.
your post #34 was spot on
I stand corrected, you had no idea he was being sarcastic in his tone.
I do ask you read the last sentence that was the giveaway to his sarcasm when mariner wrote:
“How many western agencies can boast initiatives which neither harm the environment not have any human costs?”
Since nothing and no one in life is perfect….
37 Teth // Mar 5, 2008 at 11:08 am
Dickie,
I shall tread with caution here because I don’t detect sarcasm in your post, but do suspect it… In any case, in my time of trawling the internet, so many things are said tongue-in-cheek that are not meant to be tongue-in-cheek…
38 Dickie Simpkins // Mar 6, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Teth,
No tongue-in-cheek, although literally speaking the tongue can never be on the cheek…
I was not being sarcastic in my post, I totally was being sincere in my wrong call made about your wrong call.
39 Teth // Mar 7, 2008 at 1:40 am
Funny how the situation has turned so humorous. Anyhow, a happy Thursday night to you.
40 Frank Lee // Apr 15, 2008 at 12:56 am
To Teth and Ladyboy Friend,
Teth: your summary of how YOU think I think is half ripe and half raw i.e. half-baked. Strong confirmation that you WERE telling the truth about being Thai born and bred. Sorry about that.
Frank Lee
PS: BTW do you prefer Thaksin these days? A lot of my friends do.
41 Teth // Apr 16, 2008 at 11:21 am
Frank, thank you for being patronising. I appreciate it seeing as it comes from a suitably senior and experienced expat. A deserved stance of a phuyai.
I try to be amicable, but how am I supposed to defend my views when my mature opposition simply calls it half-baked and that’s it. What’s more how have you defended your own ill-founded opinions by saying that? You once got the matter of my background wrong, so I guess I have a little bit more of a basis for using the word “ill-founded” than you with “half-baked”. You do realize this debate could be so much more than a mud-slinging match if there was content to be debated. But I still don’t even know if the half baked comment was directed to Ladyboy or me, I’m assuming at my own risk here.
Strong confirmation that you WERE telling the truth about being Thai born and bred. Sorry about that.
Apology accepted, but I reserve the right to bring it up to against you at all times. Nah, that would be childish wouldn’t it.
PS: BTW do you prefer Thaksin these days? A lot of my friends do.
What do you mean by prefer? If I could pick anyone to be Prime Minister I wouldn’t pick Thaksin, not by a million miles. If I am constrained by whatever reason to pick between Thaksin and a royally appointed Prime Minister, I would pick Thaksin based on HMK’s track record with royally appointed prime ministers.
I think you will find it difficult to categorize where I stand, but one thing’s for sure, I am definitely for the curtailment of royal powers and influence, for the repeal of lese majeste, and the opening of all royal activities to public scrutiny as well as forcing royals to pay taxes and swear allegiance to the Constitution.
At the same time, I support bringing Thaksin to trial for his crimes and clearly enforce the rule of law. However, as much as the curtailment of royal powers will not happen anytime soon, same is with Thaksin. At this point for Thailand I don’t believe any politician will make much of a difference. The people must do it for themselves. We have to change as a nation in order to reach the point where the rule of law or curtailment of extra-constitutional powers is a feasible dream rather than hope some preferred big guy will do it for you.
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.