In a move that some commentators will find rather bewildering the UNDP’s 2007 Human Development Report for Thailand provides a strong endorsement of the sufficiency economy approach. The report was launched yesterday and is available here. The UNDP website for Thailand reports:
Thailand’s “Sufficiency Economy” holds the key for reducing poverty, combating corruption, and buffering the country against financial crises, according to a timely report launched today in Bangkok. Sufficiency Economy and Human Development demystifies this economic philosophy and shows how its practical applications in business, politics, education, farming, and even everyday conduct have a wide global relevance.
There is much to read in this report and when I have some time to digest it I will provide some further posts. For now, just one quick comment.
On initial inspection there does seem to be an inverse relationship between adherence to the principles of sufficiency economy and a positive performance on UNDP’s Human Achievement Index. The top two performers, Phuket and Bangkok, are hardly paragons of sufficiency economy. Advocates of sufficiency economy are much more likely to find what they are looking for in two lowest ranked provinces: Tak and Mae Hong Son. Note that 9 of the 10 lowest ranked provinces are in the north and the northeast.
Not quite sure why it is “bewildering” that the report should give a strong endorsement of self-sufficiency theory:
(i) ‘Copyright 2007′: well that just about says it all. But for those “commentators” who may still be in doubt:
(ii) As it is the King’s “theory” (I hesitate to give it that honour)any criticism of it would by definition count as an act of lese majeste, which carries a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison. Strange they didn’t mention that in the report. If one had the choice of criticising the King’s theory, thereby risking one’s professional position, at best, and at worst a jail term, or collecting what must have been a very nice UN pay cheque, it is not difficult to guess what most of the contributors’ choice would be. Looks nice on the CV too.
(iii) The report is endorsed by PM Surayudh, the former privy councillor and King’s nominee for the prime ministership after the royalist-military coup d’etat. He’s hardly going to endorse a report critical of his master.
(iv) As the Acknowledgements points out, the report was “guided by” an Advisory Panel, chaired by H.E. Kasem Watanachai, Privy Councilor, and co-chaired by H.E. Dr. Chirayu Israngkun Na Ayuthaya, Director General of the
Bureau of the Crown Property, which is made up of a who’s who of “network monarchy” – Crown Property Bureau people, Royal Project people, etc. Contributors also include Sumet Tantivejakul, Secretary-General, of the monarchy’s Chaipattana Foundation and one of the leading anti-Thaksin campaigners.
I mean, this is the absurdity that is Thailand in today’s modern dark ages; the DG of one of the largest business conglomerates in the country singing the praises of self-sufficiency. The King waxes lyrical about the virtues of his theory while members of his own extended family travel around the world virtually every week, and then force their Thai subjects to watch their holiday movies on the 8pm TV news. This is the stuff of Marie Antoinette. And the reason no-one kicks up a fuss (openly)? lese majeste, and since September 19, the little matter of living under a royalist-military dictatorship.
But what is worse than that is how the UNDP can prostitute itself by lending its brand to the Thai King, who has just endorsed the overthrow of a government elected overwhelmingly by his own people, and who is now backing an increasingly ruthless military dictatorship. Funny the report didn’t mention that either. How can we explain this? Like so many idiot farang expats who get used by the Thai phu yais (and get paid very well for it!) to give their endorsement (as “Western experts”) to projects which in their own countries would be crucified in the media? (No doubt they are all very much in love with “Thai culture”, and the love is surely reciprocal). Or worse than that, they actually believe that it is OK for dictatorships to treat their people in this way?
As I’ve said before, if self-sufficiency is a theory that you are going to force upon the Thai people then let there be an open debate about it, get rid of lese majeste, and apply the principles of reasoned, vigorous debate. Let the world see just who is really behind the industry of producing the discourse of self-sufficiency, and whose interests this discourse is really protecting.
Quality comment or not?
2 
2
Thailand is probably a good example for other countries of what it is feasible to achieve, however…
When I saw Chiang Rai rank so low in so many categories I couldn’t help but think of all those conversations in Burmese I had with the literal ***army of Burmese workers*** that built Thailand’s newest university in Chiang Rai. Wages are near zero for Thais in Mae Sai unless they have a little store selling things to tourists.
There is a **fundamental disconnect between appearance and reality**. I remember the way were given a list of things to say to the accreditation board that visited the university.
***I have the utmost respect for His Majesty the King*** but not those who use the hallowed institutions of royalty to build up their own absolute power which is probably why the truth so often remains concealed under the veneer of slick brochures.
The university I worked at had an annual “Tham Hua” ceremony where all the staff grudingly had bowed and reaffirmed their loyalty to the **president of the university** who is not royalty. This is too much. This is right out of the Burmese chronicles that I translate and publish at the University of London:
http://web.soas.ac.uk/burma/bulletin.htm
Of course, by even pointing this out I could get sued for defamation (or deported because I am a foreigner) fairly obvious reasons why the truth never gets out.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Actually this economic approach is very simple. fairly speaking, the King proposed it during the economic crisis years ago. And it is so true that one of main causes here was the Thai ambition to be a new ‘NIC’. But in fact Thailand was so weak in economic infrastructure, as lots of economists explained for long time. The center of his idea is just to be prepared when we have to go for some new change and first we have to fill our ‘stomach’ first. Do not too ambitious. And be highly cautioned for changes in the future.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0