New Mandala readers who can’t get enough on the place of “sufficiency” in this new era of Thai military rule will be interested in an article that Shawn Crispin has put together for Asia Times Online. In one section, Crispin writes:
Now, the country’s new military leaders are invoking the monarch’s message to help reconcile the political damage and economic distortions caused by ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s five years of divisive and some say morally corrupt rule. Yet it’s unclear exactly how much emphasis the country’s new leaders will place on the contrarian philosophy, which sends an inherently protectionist message.
The article provides a good summary of the place of “self-sufficiency” in the current context and offers some handy speculation on future directions. New Mandala will continue to follow this crucial rhetorical and practical issue. Reader comments and contributions to this debate are warmly welcomed.
26 responses so far ↓
1 Bangkok Pundit // Oct 6, 2006 at 1:36 am
Nick
I think this quote from the article sums up sufficiency economy to a tea:
Standard & Poor’s Ping Chew says he left confused after a Monday meeting with Ministry of Finance officials that spoke about the need for more sufficiency. “No one knows what [sufficiency economy] really means,” said Ping Chew, S&P’s director of sovereign ratings in Singapore.
2 Vichai N // Oct 6, 2006 at 3:31 am
Mr. Andrew Walker of New Mandala is the know-all expert on Thailand’s Sufficiency Economy. Why go to Thailand ?. . this foreigner appears to have all the conclusion ready to all who are confused. . . .
3 Ant // Oct 6, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Vichai, is it that Andrew is a foreigner claiming to know something about Thailand that offends you or is it that he doesn’t share your opinion on matters? I can see from your earlier posts that you think Thailand and Thai people are (should be) inscrutable to foreigners, would you care to clarify this some please?
4 Vichai N // Oct 6, 2006 at 6:10 pm
In not so many words what I said is that I do not trust that Andrew Walker is telling the truth . . . that he fabricates translations and interpretations on the Sufficiency Economy that to this date has not been adequately clarified or explained in Thailand.
Now may I ask from what authority does your Mr. Andrew Walker claim his so called expertise on the Sufficiency Economy subject? Another illustrous Ph.D. of something, I presume?
5 Vichai N // Oct 6, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Hello everyone? knock knock!
Earlier I posted my straight to the point poster responding to the Ant above. I said it straight: I believe Mr. Andrew Walker is not telling the truth DELIBERATELY about Thailand’s Sufficiency Economy.
Why did you remove my post?
6 Vichai N // Oct 6, 2006 at 9:12 pm
Two posts of mine you have removed where I specifically wrote that I believe Mr. Andrew Walker was deliberately bending the truth about his interpretation of Thailand’s Sufficiency Economy.
I give this website maybe a week or two before you decide to close it down.
Jeez people. I am just one guy engaging all your lies and you cannot even coherently reply.
Pathethic fools you all are wasting Thaksin’s money on this stupid website. Stupid of Thaksin too . . sign of desperation I guess.
Hi-falutin fools you all are!
7 Patrick Jory // Oct 6, 2006 at 10:49 pm
To be honest, the self-sufficiency “theory” doesn’t deserve the honour of being taken seriously by a scholarly debate. The only reason it was taken up again this year was that it provided a rhetorical weapon in the fight to the death against Thaksin. That is, purely for political effect.
Usually, theorists who intend to have their model taken up as national economic policy that will directly affect the lives of 60 million people will first be required to present their theory at international academic conferences and in peer reviewed journals (at the very least). But in this case, in Thailand no-one dares criticize the patent absurdity of self-sufficiency because of the threat of lese majeste (or worse). Such is the depth of irrationality that Thailand has sunk to under the regime of “democracy with the great king as head of state”.
THIS is what Mr. Ping Chew needs to understand (though I guess he already does and was merely being polite).
8 Vichai N // Oct 6, 2006 at 11:00 pm
Still this forum won’t publish my three posters in response to the ant above.
No guts no glory guys.
You are all just pretentious pompous pathetics good for nothing manipulataive deceivers and benders of the truth. For your patron Thaksin that is why.
Close your website guys. There is no hope for all of you.
Give my regards to your boss. He may be consulting his London voodoo advisers at this time.
9 Vichai N // Oct 6, 2006 at 11:31 pm
Boo! Got you again!
10 polo // Oct 7, 2006 at 2:20 am
Earlier Mr Crispin wrote this paragraph which suggests he has bought into the strange meanings the word “democracy” has taken on:
“Thaksin’s ouster will pave the way for important democratic reforms, which under the military’s and monarchy’s watch will broadly aim to dilute the power of the executive branch, limit the power of large political parties, and strengthen the independent checking and balancing institutions that Thaksin stands accused of undermining.”
I see: “important democratic reforms” = cutting exectuive power, reducing political party power. So where will that power accrue to — the military and the palace?
11 Nicholas Farrelly // Oct 7, 2006 at 5:05 am
For interested New Mandala readers:
We do not moderate comments based on their expression of diverse opinions or their critical content.
We do, however, operate a system where we approve all legitimate comments before they are posted. This helps us to cut down on the number of spam comments that can otherwise slip through the spam filters. Andrew and I are both currently in the same time-zone and so we do not always respond to newly posted comments as quickly as we would like.
We encourage everybody to continue to post comments to New Mandala. Thank you for all of your contributions over the past month.
We look forward to more as the site continues to expand and development.
Best wishes,
NSF
12 Vichai N // Oct 7, 2006 at 12:25 pm
I am beginning to get amused by you guys. You have a certain way of employing convoluted English designed more to impress than to present substance. Well I would to in your position I guess. How else to justiy those resume with masters or ph. d. on arcane subjects with limited or absolutely no practical use to the common villagers . . . err I mean the masses you champion for.
I will try to peek in once and a while. Maybe I’ll check how you go on articulating what your very respected and illustrous Dr. Jory describes as “patent absurdity” in Thailand’s Sufficiency Economy (TSE)
Frankly I know not much on this TSE. But I am very certain, sure to the high heavens, that your Andrew Walker was lying to his teeth when he wrote TSE was designed to keep Thailand’s poor . . . . poor. Malicious to the very least your Mr. Andrew Walker if I may say so.
13 vichai n // Oct 7, 2006 at 6:43 pm
If you can’t count Anon, I can’t either. But some reported 18, others 19. Which I interpret to mean that there were 17 SUCCESSUL Thai coups, and 2 not.
Mr. Andrew Walker will you please educate this forum from you got your interpretation that Thailand’s Sufficiency Economy was designed to keep the poor … poor?
14 Thai Who is Scared to Say His Name // Oct 7, 2006 at 8:53 pm
The great thing about the King’s Sufficiency Economy is that it is “fool proof.”
If the policy is successful, that is because of the King’s genius.
If the policy is a failure, that is because either 1) Thaksin is trying to sabotage the policy, or 2) the government is trying hard enough, or 3) the Thai people aren’t diligent enough or humble enough.
15 Ant // Oct 8, 2006 at 1:26 am
Sorry I was away for so long as to miss all the action above, temporarily preoccupied. Vichai, missing posts aside (and at the risk of unleashing a barrage of more) if I might offer an explanation in Andrew’s absence (for no other reason than I did provoke your most recent string of responses with my question to you)…What I and maybe Andrew and others are doing when we say or intimate that the sufficiency economy is directed at keeping people poor is to make a critical appraisal of the stated intention of the idea with some of the emperical evidence discernable to us, in my case the history of the rice tax and multitude of programmes aimed at taking women out of the sex work industry to where they can make a small to large fortune to return to the village under the auspices of a “ronarong” to be “opromed” into a basket weaver or silk producer…the latter sharing the same fate as hill tribe cash crops where neither the market nor the infrastructure exists to facilitate any real sale of said goods…aka kept poor…
In an earlier post Andrew provided us with the juxtaposition of the sufficiency economy ideology with the incredible wealth of the monarchy, its architect (from a Thai source) that raises some questions regarding just who exactly is the sufficiency economy for and why, the sufficiency economy idea not providing any real direction to those with a virtual monopoly on Thailand’s wealth….
So where a pattern of keeping people poor already exists inpractice and an ideology emerges from a wealthy and political influential person urging people to make do with what they have for the national good et al. it is not unreasonable to ask a few questions.
Nothing sinister or arcane in all this and certainly not an outrageous notion. Just your standard intellectual engagement with issues that are obviously of interest to a number (not all) of us. Andrew has not been malicious, on the contray in light of some of the outrageous accusations you have leveled at him I think he has been polite and restrained.
16 Vichai N // Oct 8, 2006 at 1:09 pm
But I do challenge your presumption that a “a pattern of keeping people poor already exists in practice” which none of you have substantiated in any manner. If your objective is to raise the consciousness of the Thai people that their poor are being neglected by this Sufficiency Economy you authoratively brand as dubious or ‘patently absurd’, you are doing it in a malicious manner which I perceive was deliberate.
I am angry at you people. I sense Thaksin’s shadows behind your every article, vengeful and spiteful, as norm for an arrogant and extrajudicial man brought down from his mighty high. Let your Andrew Walker defend his ‘authorative’ conclusion that Thailand’s Sufficiency Economy will keep our poor poor or poorer. Then we can have a more interesting debate on this very subject that appear to be dear to all your hearts.
17 Ant // Oct 9, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Its unfortunate that you are angry and certainly not *my* intent to make you so. Perhaps if you let go of the Tolkien-esque sentiment that has you seeing shadows of dark lords behind every free thought that is posted here and if you were to take a few steps back and look at what is being said you might be able to differentiate between a critique of an ideology and an alliance with Thaksin. I for one am glad Thaksin is gone, as are many other people I am sure, this doesn’t detract from the fact how he went is somewhat problematic and certainly linked to the monarchy.
You are arguing here that the monarchy should be treated as sacrosanct even when it has played its cards and once again allied with a military Junta (see 1976 and the results of the last monarchical alliance with the military in a coup situation). If that works for you then so be it but is it really necessary to bully us with your rampant (and somewhat fantastical) monarchist view of the world. Why not try to contribute something a little more meaningful to the forum and explain for example how you see the sufficiency economy as not perpetuating the status quo for the poor?; and how you see no pattern of this in the past to present in the face of ongoing poverty in the northeast?; and how this is so closely linked to the earlier rice tax and that “just enough” economy as it should be called resonates so closely with the policies of Phibun and Sarit etc.? it does seem to me that there is a trend here. I would really be interested in how you see the situation (less the dark lord and his shadows, of course) and how you account for these facts..
18 Confused // Oct 9, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Dr. Jory,
It seems to me you are not exactly pro-democratic and you want to badly criticize HM the king (of Thailand) for his idea on Sufficiency Economy theory (but claim that there is a lese majeste law protecting him, that is only true if you are in Thailand, here in this forum you are free to do that without fear of criticism from anyone, really).
It seems to me you are anti-dynasty and do not approve of a society where monarchy exist. You are not an economist so you don’t know the effect of the economy in any nation. You are an expert on human sociology from the like of your expert survey and theory on Southeast Asia, but still you have no idea about what coexist in Southeast Asia at all. You are an academic but I presumed that you have your own opinion which is not up to anyone to say that you are wrong. I know you are a visitng fellow in Singapore, but being a PhD doesn’t mean you know everything and with good judgement about a man whom you never knew, met or understood. You discriminate and yet hold your self-esteem so high that you don’t realize you came from a lower ground. A intelligent man like you should be able to separate facts from theory. Well, I hate to go on and on because it will take it forever to get to you to understand something so simple. You are entitle to your precious opinionbut ohters have theirs as well. That is if you think your opinion is superior than everyone else (because you have a PhD …).
19 Vichai N // Oct 9, 2006 at 7:23 pm
What bullshit are you prattling about Ant?
All I want is Dr. Andrew Walker (he must be a doctor, to be abel to make wild conclusions like that), is to articulate how he arrived at his authoritative conclusion that Thailand’s Sufficiency Economy keeps the poor POOR! So litttle Ant, don’t draw me into some subjects I have no interest at all about.
20 Anon // Oct 9, 2006 at 9:21 pm
Vichai, many foot-lickers have claimed that one of Thaksin’s crimes was to go against the principles of Self-Sufficiency by turning poor people mini-capitalists, by giving them capital (the Village Fund) and pushing them to expand their markets (OTOP program). Yet, this misguided series of policies resulted in remarkable reductions in poverty among rural Thais.
The palace wants to repeal these programs, because a prosperous rural class will realize that their development doesn’t come from the King, but from the power of their own votes.
21 nganadeeleg // Oct 9, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Quote from Anon
‘The palace wants to repeal these programs, because a prosperous rural class will realize that their development doesn’t come from the King, but from the power of their own votes.’
So you really think the King doesn’t want a prosperous rural class?
22 jem // Oct 9, 2006 at 11:50 pm
Mr. Anon surely you are not so easily fooled by such a wild and ridiculous claim by the discredited Thaksinists? If indeed the villagers can raise themselves to be mini-capitalists, what should this go against Self-Sufficiency?
Your preposterous claim defies logic.
23 Vichai N // Oct 10, 2006 at 1:40 am
How suggestive all the lies here. It is all preposterous and you are all too educated to believe that you can carry on with this malicious website suggesting that Thailand’s HMK wants to keep the rurals enslaved by poverty!
Guys . . . you claim to have ph.d.’s here and there. How can you be such fools . . . or desperate to be reduced to such ‘menial’ duties by Thaksin Shinawatra.
Find some other decent line of work guys.
24 Vichai N // Oct 10, 2006 at 1:44 am
The truth is my posters do not need ‘moderation’. It is your end of the posters . . . your malicious commentaries which need moderation – - – cloaked in pompous scholarly style which you believe would be enough to con your readers.
Pathetic to say the least that you all cannot find meaningful and more decent jobs elsewhere.
25 Confused // Oct 11, 2006 at 3:45 am
Dr. Jory,
Are you very intelligent? Are you the greatest intellectual ever lived? That is if you hope that one day your name will be in history. But I cannot see how that can be possible.
You may write with style but from your writing there are many points that you are wrong, do you think you can you accept that fact? Tell me please, why are you so certain that the “Sufficiency Economy” theory won’t work. Can you give clear explanation?
If an economist tells you that it can coexist in a society and help create progress, what would you say to him? Impossible?
Think before you leap because you may make a sweeping drop to the bottom of the cliff. Your reputation as an academic scholarly intellectual status will be ridiculed and shunned.
26 Frustrated // Oct 18, 2006 at 12:33 pm
To Khun Vichai,
I’ve listened every single words of the sufficient economy from it’s origin. I agree that it is reasonable and that people should listen and may consider applying it for their daily life as a good suggestion. But it is up to individual to take or to interpret or to adapt it in their own ways, there is no way for anyone to tell right or wrong from something that considered as relatively vague. To take it as an economic theory or a country economic policy it has be able to answer a lot of questions which many has already been asked in this forum. Many or most policies of Thaksin’s government can be considered as the policies that are in line with sufficient economy, for example village fund, and cheap health care service for all or even all the mega infrastructure projects, because the purposes of all these policies are to put in things that are needed but lacked in Thailand although many may like to think that they are just for politicians to corrupt. Please don’t be angry at those people who questioned or criticised, if it is good or genuine, it should be able to stand for itself.
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.