As regular contributor – Patiwat – warns, Surayud’s policy manifesto should not be taken too seriously. But, to my reading, there are a number of issues worth further discussion.
First, the overall social vision. To me, this is a vision of a virtuous and loyal populace united under benign royalist leadership. Harmony is code for limited public involvement in political affairs. This is a vision that even the elitist so-called pro-democracy advocates (Sondhi et al) may find somewhat disconcerting.
Second, there are the now familiar references to “sufficiency economy”. It is interesting that this is taking such a central place in the regime’s policy, when it is a concept that still has to be clarified. (”The government is expected to clarify the sufficiency economy philosophy…”). I see little in this policy statement to make me change my mind that sufficiency economy is primarily a regulatory concept aimed at managing the aspirations of rural people (in particular) who see an economic and political future for themselves rather different to the harmonious and virtuous future envisaged for them by the benevolent rulers in Bangkok.
Surayud and his advisors seem concerned that foreign investors may interpret “sufficiency economy” as an inward looking economic approach. How could investors get such a silly idea? Just look at this positively cosmopolitan vision from a key book about the “new (?) theory” on sufficiency economy:
As I posted a few months ago, perhaps there are more realistic, investor-friendly and people-friendly economic visions. I came across this one while undertaking ethnographic research in a popular northern Thai eating establishment:
Third, what the hell does “virtue before education” mean? Let’s hope too many resources aren’t wasted on teaching Thailand’s youngsters about “sufficiency economy, harmony, peaceful action and democracy”. Surely the best lesson for democracy would have been allowing political differences to be resolved through electoral means.
And, fourth, using the “military’s potential to support the country’s developments in all aspects” (under the sufficiency economy principle of course) sounds like a leap back to the 1980s and earlier.
This is just a very preliminary start to discussion on the new regime’s policy directions. Further contributions very welcome!
9 responses so far ↓
1 chris white // Oct 29, 2006 at 6:26 pm
All this guff being put forward by Surayad has such a familiar ring. I wonder if he is going back to the future and using Vajiravudh as his model?
2 Bangkok Pundit // Oct 29, 2006 at 10:16 pm
A new Asia Sentinel article sums it up nicely:
The junta has taken some steps to demonize Thaksin’s economic policies by calling for the use of the “sufficiency economy,” a philosophy created by the king that calls for moderation and stability. Although this initially worried foreign investors, many now see it simply as an effort to re-brand many of Thaksin’s initiatives.
Sufficiency economy is just rhetoric which is ironic as such rhetoric was meant to be done away with along with the evils of the Thaksin regime.
3 patiwat // Oct 30, 2006 at 1:33 am
That picture of the integrated self-sufficient farm sends shivers up my spine. The King’s ideas might have been groundbreaking 20 years ago, but today, raising pigs and chickens close together, and so close to humans and a fish farm is a recipe for disaster. A fundamental rethink of integrated “self-sufficient” farming is needed.
The original idea was that human shit is eaten by pigs, and a portion of the chicken/pig shit would go directly into the fish pond. The shit would either be eaten directly by the fish or would boost plankton growth in the pond. This would dramatically increase the pond’s fish population, without having to buy store bought fish food. The farmers eat the fish, sell any excess to the market, and the shit goes back to the pigs. Or so the self-sufficiency theory goes.
The problem is that pigs passively carry some variants of influenza (ไข้หวัด – the flu). And chickens passively carry some variants of influenza. And humans passively carry some variants of influenza. Shit in general carries the influenza of the host species. But when shit from one species mixes up with living beings of another species, there is a much greater chance of a cross infection. What is endemic and passively carried by one species can wipe out another species. To make matters worse, when you mix up multiple species and multiple types of shit, the influenza mutates much more easily, since they can borrow chunks of DNA from their relative variants.
This isn’t advanced science – you don’t need to be a genius in biology like Princess Chulabhorn to understand it. Even high school kids are taught this stuff these days.
The result of all of this shit is new virulent types of bird flu and the risk that 1) migratory birds can pass it on to countries thousands of kilometers away, 2) birds can pass it on to humans, and 3) humans can catch it from other humans. 1) and 2) have already happened in Thailand. If 2) occurs, millions will die worldwide. Mortality rates of 50-80%. Last time the world had a big influenza epidemic, about 100 million people died. And that was before integrated farming and international air travel. Scares the shit out of me.
(excuse me for the language used in this post)
4 Marutii // Oct 30, 2006 at 5:01 am
Self-sufficiency is really about reining in capitalism so that it does not fly much faster than feudalism can catch up with. Problem is that the genie has been out of the box for several decades now and Thaksin stepped on the accelerator just to make sure. Trying to turn the clock back by playing lots of sad and romantic numbers from the sixties on public radio is just not gonna work this time. Thailand’s finest are in for a hard landing- we just have to keep our fingers crossed they don’t crash the bloody plane. Where’s my goddam parachute?
5 FYI // Oct 31, 2006 at 2:39 am
Hot News from Thailand….
http://www.thaienews.blogspot.com/
6 James Haughton // Nov 2, 2006 at 12:43 am
Actually, promoting a “rural self sufficiency economy” serves capitalist development perfectly well – it stops any pressure for welfare and minimum wages.
7 Surang Saitip // Apr 4, 2008 at 1:57 pm
This is all a farce.
8 T. S. Puntasen // Apr 5, 2008 at 8:48 pm
“…Surely the best lesson for democracy would have been allowing political differences to be resolved through electoral means.”
I am very much struck by this statement and such firm faith in representative democracy. My opinion is that making electorial politics the sole channel for resolving conflicts and differences equates accepting the impasse, the vicious circle of “kan mueng nam nao” (polluted politics?) that has characterised Thai politics for a long time. Election after election, it is this parliamentary (macho –kindly follow the news of Karun Hosakul and Somkiat Pongpaiboon’s recent fight) politics that stands firm to protect the interests of the elite (of coures with different faces) and the aspiring (big money/mega-project addicts) middle class politicians.
Let’s not be naive by placeing too much faith in representative (of whose interest?) democracy, especially when vote buying and politicians’ selling themselves for money every election seasons are still the reality of Thai democracy. So long as electoral politics operates according to and under the dictates of capitalist democracy, I cannot be convinced to leave problems and conflicts to be resolved by electoral means.
Lessons for democracy can also be taught and nutured at home, in your communities, in some classrooms, and most importantly in protest politics, when your rights and livelihoods encounter threats and insecuirty imposed by governments. People’s politics should not be overlooked.
9 Dog Lover // Apr 6, 2008 at 9:57 am
T. S. Puntasen rejects electoral politics because it tends to be corrupt and ends by saying: “People’s politics should not be overlooked.” But T. S. Puntasen offers no insight into what “People’s politics” might be and how it might be representative, non-corrupt and “for the people.”
The alternative is the wishy-washy suggestion to teach “democracy” in classes, family and so on. But whose democracy is to be taught? And why should this version of democracy be superior to the electoral democracy that the ignorant rural savages and workers have voted for a number of times now?
Remember when the NGO leaders called on their “little people” to join them in PAD demonstrations and were met with incredulity?
Maybe if the conservatives in all arenas, including NGOs and the “people’s sector,” let electoral politics work itself out things might look better? But they won’t do that. Rather they’ll line up to support the sufficiency nonsense and the feudal detritus.
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.