New Mandala

41 responses so far ↓

• 1 nganadeeleg // Jan 17, 2007 at 9:30 am

  Like you, Andrew, I’m all for a ’serious redistribution of income or resources’.

  Lets start with Thaksin & his family paying proper taxes instead of using tax havens and coerced revenue department officials to escape paying tax.
  I know he did generously do some redistribution to his maid, but then she was even more generous and redistributed back to the family.

  Are you opposed to the sufficiency principles of ‘moderation, reasonableness and immunity’ per se, or only when it is directed towards rising rural expectations?

• 2 Andrew Walker // Jan 17, 2007 at 11:59 am

  “Are you opposed to the sufficiency principles of ‘moderation, reasonableness and immunity’ per se, or only when it is directed towards rising rural expectations?”

  Surely the context is the key. As I have said several times in my comments on the UNDP report, many of the general statements about sufficiency are easy to agree with. What I am arguing against is the way these general ideas are deployed to justify a particular approach to rural development and a particular approach to economic and political participation.

  You, and others, may agree with the desirability of “sacrifice” but this does not mean you accept the particular way it is used in, for example, Thaksin’s recent interview.

  Simplified concepts are useful political tools.

• 3 nganadeeleg // Jan 17, 2007 at 12:44 pm

  Yes, context is the key, however it is also possible to identify recurring themes in the comments of most posters on this site.

  It is obvious that I do not admire Thaksin, but I am not prepared to say all his policies were wrong. In the end, Thaksin’s
  personal greed and ego let down those who supported him, and their cause may have been further set back as a result of subsequent events.

  On the other hand, I do admire the King, but I do not accept that his guidance must always become official policy.

  If only the junta could stop being spooked by Thaksin’s maneuvering, then good people could concentrate in getting things right for the next attempt at democracy.

• 4 Nirut // Jan 17, 2007 at 4:15 pm

  The appeal of the sufficiency rhetoric that you discuss here is the crux of the problem and the caveats that you apply to determine whether or not, or in what form, it is “ok” is quite telling in terms of how the people at the heart of the matter are in a very unfortunate predicament.

  The predicament is not simply the application of the ideology to the detriment of the population of Thailand but also that the critics of it can’t see beyond the alternatives that they have drawn of simplistic dichotomies that seem to be the default response to it, to see their way out of the whole farce. You see what is being said in the UNDP report, espoused by the Junta and “invented” by the King, is in structure being espoused by this blog, the struggle being which of you has the right to speak of, and on behalf of the “rural population” is what is in fact being sorted out. The King and Junta (with tacit support from UNDP) argue for one way of being, you lot argue for another, neither of you are speaking in terms reflected on the ground.

  It is clear that what constitutes the “aspirations” of the rural folk here is derived from a reflection of self through the mirror of “if I was in their position I would want” (with a touch of what is in it for me if they did want development) and for all the discussion that this and many blogs like it have contributed to the “issue” the outsider who is not sold on the limited choices the collective here operates in accordance with, is left with the uneasy feeling that the people under discussion, those who should be sufficient or developed in their lifestyles , are being run over rough shod in equal measure by the lot of you.

  Are capitalist forms of exchange of labour what “everybody wants”, if so says who? In my experience in non urban Thailand people bemoan the loss of the viability of lifestyles that would send a shiver down the World Bank’s spine (if it had one), ones that are neither totally sufficient nor totally developed but that have been turned away from through the combination of development initiatives such as the “green revolution” and the massive landlessness that this incurred, as well as rampant industrialisation for the past 36 years that effectively denuded Thailand of its vegetation and a massive source of food. Lifestyles that have possibilities of social mobility and are far richer in their day to day content than the capitalist based options that underpins both proponents and opponents of the sufficiency economy structure of class division in regards to its means of production.

  Whether one is a proponent of sufficiency, development or self determination or any combination of the above what you are arguing for and against is meaningless when you claim to be the spokesperson for the people with whom, I will wage any amount of money on, you have yet to discuss the issue with let alone listen to them on. It is not particularly illuminating to limit the issue here to the Thai context either as sustainability is the catch cry of this century and its ideology has been mobilised in a similar fashion to the Junta/ King’s use even in the west where elite groups use it to legitimate a tightening of the underclass belt in all manner of areas meanwhile they feast at never before seen rates of consumption…

  As for what the rural population might want in terms of economic and political participation I think the conceptual division that has emerged here that Thaksin represents one option (participation, poverty alleviation etc) and the Junta and King the other (perpetuation of and heightened poverty with zero participation) is a little simplistic and reflects a need for a greater appreciation of the political landscape beyond the grand rhetoric of failing states and true democracies and other such fantastical constructs that are espoused from your platforms of Tabloid understandings of politics (ie personality politics). Speaking of which what ever became of the paper you were writing on this, Andrew?

  I digress (again), to me the upshot of all the analysis here is that the Junta have a vested interest in sufficiency economy in terms of controlling for their benefit the distribution of wealth but so do their critics. Andrew is not merely an anthroplogist interested in Thailand but is part of The Resource Management in Asia-Pacific (RMAP) Program at the Australian National University, others of you are probably enjoying expatriate lifestyles that benefit from foreign economic and political involvement in Thailand. In Andrew’s case he occupies a positionality that demands he oppose sufficiency economy as it is antithetical to his career, regardless of what his personal position might otherwise have been. I use Andrew as the only clear exampl ehere as he is both very vocal about and involved in the issue as well as th eonly person whose context is as publicly accessible as the other group (Junta etc). So what we have here instead of a genuine interest in the people in question is the assertion of one’s own worlod view using other’s voices…

  One positive that has emerged I suppose is how sufficiency economy has been a catalyst for a broader realisation perhap of just how much of a farce the UN (be it UN… DP, FPA, ICEF, HCR, AIDS, TAC etc) really is.

• 5 Andrew Walker // Jan 17, 2007 at 6:55 pm

  Oh dear Nirut, it seems I have been exposed on my own blog: I speak for the villagers but have never spoken to them; and I have a vested career interest in opposing sufficiency economy and promoting capitalist social relations. And this comes on top of Vichai’s revelation that I am in the pay of Thaksin. My CV is looking rather shaky!

  Perhaps just one small point in my defence – the paper I have mentioned earlier on local political values is progressing well. I hope to have a draft (which I will make available on this blog) by the end of February. But, Nirut, as you would surely appreciate, writing a paper about local values takes a long time when you have never talked to local people!

  And as for using other’s voices …. please give my best New Year’s wishes to Saoneua, Haklao, Anarchist, Tumsom, Kradortom, Lingling and the rest of the gang. I hope you all managed to get together over the festive season.

• 6 Nirut // Jan 18, 2007 at 12:57 am

  hmmm…not quite what I meant on the voices front but never mind. Now I might make some outlandish comments ( I do so to stimulate debate…albeit more often than not rather unsuccessfully here) but I stop short of the conspiracy stuff that you are in the pay of Thaksin or the like so you can stop the comparisson with Vichai there. I Just thought I’d see if the critique can go both ways…ie middle-class have their interests as do you in this sufficiency economy debate.

  Perhaps if I were to provide you with an example of what I am talking about you will be more receptive to my perspective (or not). I looked at submitting this so you could make it a post for the political culture and vote buying you were wanting but thought it is probably not quite what you would be looking forso held off. I have framed it now in terms of the sufficiency economy debate and my ideas on it. If it is too long for the comment section here I won’t mind if you don’t include it.

  Recently much discussion on New Mandala regarding events in
  Thailand has focused on the sensational developments of the ousting of prime minister Thaksin Shinawatr by a military Junta allied closely to the Thai monarch. Analyses of the subsequent events that have unfolded have reflected, i think, a disproportionate dependency on media representations and debates have tended to allow the media to set the issues and the tone or parameters in which they will be discussed. In particular the English language newspaper The Nation has featured as a central source of issues on this blog, to the point that the Nation’s own reporting recently became a topic of discussion here (Royalty and Loyalty.).

  Interestingly and perhaps not by coincidence, much of the academiccontribution here has reflected earlier tendencies in the study of Thailand to privilege state and elite perspectives over those of the “general population”, perspectives that constitute the bread and butter of newspaper (sometimes tabloid) reporting. I wouldlike to propose a discussion that moves away from the stereotypes of media attempts to hold the politically powerful accountable, by rendering their actions as transparent as is possible (media and politics existing in sets of relations that certainly call intoquestion any notion of impartiality,)and to shift away from the predictability of the hagiography of the monarch, the institution of the monarchy, and the indulgences in predicting the future while double guessing the past and present actions of said monarch that constitue so much of the content of these ‘personality politics’ based discussions.

  As an alternative to the media and elite positions that have been amply discussed here, I propose to provide some anecdote/data on what being in Thailand during this tumultuous period was like by sharing the reflections of an informant, shared with me while spending some time recently in Nakhorn Sawan inCentral Thailand.

  Sitting in a sala on the side of the road awaiting a songtaew I
  asked Chai, an informant I had met two weeks before, while
  conducting open ended survey’s on attitudes towards Reproductive Health information programmes in a subdistrict of Nakhorn Sawan province, and who was now accompanying me to the bus station in the provincial capital, what his take on present political situation in Thailand was.

  “What do you think of the coup and how Thaksin was deposed by the military?”

  “Politics for me is uninteresting. I am concerned (”huang
  reuang”)that my family are in debt, my relatives are in debt and
  I (38 year old male rice farmer) am in debt. All of the overnment
  projects and programmes (”khrong karn saraphat khong rathaban”)to help the poor, we poor, have made more debt out of debt (”saang nee jark nee”). When Thaksin left we thought the debt would go with him but we just got a new creditor (jao nee) so we had to borrow more money to pay them. Before you could play shares(”len shae”) and if you were lucky get somewhere, pay off some debt. Now you have to porn (pon)gold as a down payment (”jamnam thong”) with your
  creditor and where in shares the interest was never more than 20% now it gets as high as 35-40%. It doesn’t matter who is in
  government , who buys your vote, you will be in debt to whoever is the government. I don’t find it boring (Naa beua) I am bored of all their faces (”Beua khi naa tang mord”)”…”Look at all the crime now. The govt tells us all is well and we are getting democracy back soon. Thaksin killed his opponents and this lot (puak nii)will kill theirs and in the meantime youth are stabbing and shooting eachother across the country, instead of celebrating the harvest we are at funerals. Our leaders (”phunam”) are crazy and now our children (”luuk laan”)are copying them. Last month three young men (”noom saam khon”)walked into our neighbours house and robbed them.
  The next day a young woman was stabbed and killed and robbed in the next village, they cut off her hands. She wore gold bracelets and necklaces. This all used to happen before, before Thaksin, even during Thaksin, but some people might say it didn’t. But now it is happening more and more and it is getting more violent. There is no point being intereted in politics, they make us in debt and then they make debt out of debt and then people kill because of the debt on debt. When they buy our votes it is like a cell phone promotion. You buy a sim card (Chai points to his Nokia cell)because they offer you some free calls, about 300 baht included in the price, then they take all your money as you are stuck with them…unless you buy another sim with another company on a another promotion. The company buys your vote and you are in debt to them. The government buys your vote and you are in debt to
  them.”

  This brief and somewhat pessimestic reflection on the state of
  affairs in Thailand since the coup was similarly reflected in
  comments made by other people I spoke with in Nakhorn Sawan and elsewhere in central Thailand toward the end of last year (2006). In particular other people were concerned with debt related crime and a perceived increase in its incidence. Of interest here however, is the particular emphasis on debt and disenchantment with the political process, two issues that have been discussed in depth here and elsewhere, but with a very different flavour. Where debates have pitted the urban middle-classes ideologically against the rural poor (etc) in terms of the poor as representing a mass
  united under the populist policies of Thaksin and with
  contradictory needs and wants politically to the the middleclasses (another group seen to be united under a banner but against him), we have here an example of how such issues are seemingly irrelevent in the face of the more pressing concerns of soaring debt and crime. The
  perspective here differing also from World Bank and UNDP
  assessments of the social, economic and political situaion in
  Thailand. Of further interest is how Chai sees vote buying as
  being like a promotional for cellphone cards in that no matter who you go with they will all drag you into debt as once ensconced changing provider/government requires more resources than seems reasonable/viable for people like him, especially considering that inevitably you end up with more of the same (boring faces).

  I would like to emphasise that the disenchantment here is not
  manifest in terms of exclusion from the political process by way of the coup and the ousting of a populist cum legitimate prime minister as understood by proponents of “democracy lost” ideas, rather it is a blanket disenchantment with politics at the level of the structural where the issues of procedure and substance are seen as being moot points and where the normative acts of power of government, Thaksins’s extrajudicial killngs, are seen to be mirrored in the staging cum potential of the coup, and are seen to be being reproduced at the level of the genral population through a ombination of being forced through soaring debt and reproduced through cultural
  emulation.

  Clearly there is a different percpetion here of what is at stake
  than the issues of democracy under threat and populist policies. In fact the popularity of the very policies themselves are in question and in keeping with other data I have collected elsewhere in the central Thailand are not as popular as the voting outcome would indicate. Hence my continued call for an on the ground perspective.

• 7 polo // Jan 18, 2007 at 6:07 am

  The king’s answer to “persistent inequality” is to tell the peasants not to aspire too much. I am not certain this is to protect the elite, though the elite certainly exploit the king’s message in this way. But non-aspiration does translate as non-desire, and is promoted to the poorest rather than the richest. But I guess it’s hard to promote non-desire to the rich when your wife and kids are out scoring new jewelry all the time.

• 8 nganadeeleg // Jan 18, 2007 at 10:39 am

  Hopefully, at least the King’s message gets people thinking about the way they live, and what their aspirations are (and why). Applies equally to rich and poor.

  At the risk of being accused of ethnocentricism again, I sometimes think many of us are on a treadmill, and never really allow ourselves to reflect of what we are doing, and why.

• 9 Nirut // Jan 18, 2007 at 1:30 pm

  Guys my point here is that it doesn’t require the King for people to reflect on their aspirations and situations and in fact his reflections don’t match theirs as you will see above. Here I am in total agreeance with Andrew’s sentiment that that the fact that the King feels a need to comment/ideologise people’s aspirations is indicative of his concern over their potential to pose a credible threat to his power base (and the elite fractions that support him). By talking about people’s aspirations the way he does the king is effectively pathologising them by presenting them as unsustainable (problematic) yet gives no sense as to why he might think so and no credible rationale for thinking so.

  Here Holly High’s ideas on blame development resonate closely in that the perceived ills of the world (over consumption of resource, flooding etc etc etc) is seen to be a result of the general population’s “unsustainable lifestyles”. Industry and elite wealth making enterprises that have far outstripped things like population pressure on resources and the environment are seen as necessary and somehow more sustainable than people’s desire for white goods and a living, for example.

  I however, find it highly problematic that you have allowed the King (aka elite concerns) to become the point of reference that define how and what people will discuss and as is evidenced throughout this blog and the media, the debate rages in terms of the limits he has set. As anthropologists we are best positioned to provide alternative and far more nuanced appreciations and representations of what is happening, in particular the sheer diversity of views rather than the simplistic homogenised models people are working with on this and other blogs, for example what are people’s aspirations (to date here we have assumptions as to what they are, no solid data, asumptions that are derived from the King’s appraisal of the situation at that), we could be asking whole sets of other questions rather than engaging with the patently ideological rubbish that the King and cronies is espousing as they attempt to reshape and maintain control over their “subjects”. Failure to let ethnographically derived perspectives to replace the patently ridiculous claims of King and friends , effectively disallowing the ideology to control cum be the debate, is remiss of us and antithesis to the anthropological project.

  Broader things are at play than the somewhat limited attempts at legitimation of an ailing King and his coup cronies and yet it is their words and their setting of the issues that are given the most “air time here”. It is hard not to wonder if this willingness to accord such legitimacy to the king and his ideologies is due to an attraction to the grandiose nature of power and hence disinterest in the nitty gritty and challenging details of the general populations own take on things and how the familiarity and ease with which talking about politics and power brokers sees you all dive into English langauge papers on a Thai language etc speaking country and UN reports and world bank statistics all the while debatig the lot of the uneducated masses that these reports and statistics and news paper articles describe in very familair language and terms….no taken for granteds are being subject to scrutiny just a challenging of the ridiculously transparent claims of a dated elite…by this I do not mean that everyone should become literate in Thai or have to be to comment (for those who might like to take a cheap shot and detract from what i am saying…) but there are other sources (specifically books written in English by Thai literate peole who study Thailand) acessible and easliy available…you don’t have to be enrolled in a course to read a good book.

  So, all I am saying hobby, is it is problematic to accept that it would take the king to make people reflect on their circumstances and aspirations, people do this all the time, the issue here is the king doesn’t want people to, so he is providing them with his blueprint for their aspirations and it is fundamentally limiting cum completley oppressive.

  I would suggest we forget about the king and his cronies for a while and discuss the people, look at the structures of inequality and asymetrical distribution of power and the effects this has on people’s ability to sufficiently survive and also the history that has placed these people in the position of subaltern to a mad monarch who has legitimated so much of their oppression…I am thinking Siamese colonialism, green revolution, rice tax, counter insurgency initiatives and US funding based massive expansion of police and military and propping up of dictators (just like Central America, south America etc), and so on, and lets look at what people are saying and doing instead of taking the elite representation at face value….

  Take for an example an extreme case I know of in Nongkhai where a young man (20year old going on 21) living in rural nongkhai, Thailand wanted to get married and had a 6 grade education, his father worked on international fishing trawllers for years at a time and has come home for two weeks between trips, bearing seacucumbers to make larb for everyone and enough money to buy a pick up truck that he has given to the younger brother so he can make money with his wife running market deliveries on weekends and operating on the local songtaew queue on weekdays. He has to date worked on his familiy’s rice paddy and occassionally done some seasonal wage labour work, to suplement his share in the family’s rice crop usually earning around 800 to 1500 baht a month for one or two months at a time. However, through his father’s connections he could borrow 150,000 baht by entering into endentured labour with another ship, the money would provide him with necessary brideprice (35000), wedding (12000) and the pay off to the military to avoid conscription (27000) in a few months time, with the rest left over for his wife to set herself up selling food from a roadside stall in town (15,000) and to give his mother the remainder as she was looking after three grand children to other siblings and was in poor health (part of money was used to pay for local labour to help with the rice fields) . Another opportunity he had was to borrow money from creditors and pay intermediary agencies to get him work in the middleeast or Taiwan . Otherwsie he can work his family’s 5 rai of rice paddy and have a share in its produce and do seasonal wage labour in the district or migrate to Bangkok in order to have a supplementary living, these latter two seeing him have to risk conscription and certaily not be able to marry for quite some time.

  What to do? What are the aspirations and circumsatnces that underpin his choices. Well clearly he wants to get married and needs (not just aspires to ) an income. In this situation he took the shipping job and loan but was crippled in an accident and had to be in a wheel chair 7 months into paying back his debt which left his family to have to pay back the remainder (just over 110,000 baht plus interest. So the family mortgaged the house and paddy to Kasikorn Thai for 60,000 baht and borrowed through other creditors the remainder. With his health related costs and the need to pay outsiders to help with the rice the family couldn’t keep up with payments and so had to borrow at higher rates of interst to keep up payments with the bank this culminated in the younger brother selling his songtaew and borrwing to get a job in Israel. First two years this was successful and he came back payments on the house were almsot complete, second trip however, the agents who were arranging his transport, visas job etc absconded with the money leaving him in debt around 180,000 baht. They lost the house and land.

  There is nothing abnormal or frivilous about the aspirations and actions taken in this story (that was relate to me by his wife and siblings) and certainly nothing about the aspirations are unsustainable. But to move away, for a moment, from the frame that the discussion of sufficiency economy has limited us to, I find it interesting how entreperneurial people are and think that the way people make sense of what hapens in these circumstances and how they continue on and what they do in order to survive is testament to an incredibly rich and creative process of reflection on their situations and circumstances. In context of the king and his Junta’s comments this is another example of just how ridiculous the whole discussion is if left on their terms, end of story.

• 10 nganadeeleg // Jan 18, 2007 at 3:45 pm

  A very sad story, Nirut, although I am sure you will find similar stories of desperate circumstances, bad luck and misfortune throughout the world – including places that don’t have kings or junta’s.
  Has it ever ocurred to you that, rather than being concerned over their ‘potential to pose a credible threat to his power base’, the King mght have a genuine concern for the rural poor?
  I’m talking about HMK in person, not the cronies and power base. Have you thought about just how much power that one man really has, and what influence he has over the cronies and power base?
  How long would he last if he persistently went against the power base?
  Do you really think the (small farm) new theory was just devised as a way to keep people poor?
  There’s only room for one Republican amongst the voices here!

  As far as aspirations go, please remember that HMK has attained a reasonable age, and with that age comes time to reflect and for some people, wisdom.
  Perhaps I am closer in age to HMK than you, and therefore much of what he says in regards to aspirations seems to resonate with my thoughts.

  Back to your sad tale, it brings me to my feeling that we are on a treadmill. The young man appeared to have fairly modest aspirations, although I wonder why it is necessary to pay a bride price and spend more than you can afford on a wedding.
  Who put those expectations there? Societal pressures?
  Those things are a small example of what is happening througout society – why do we need to have cars, mobile phones, fancy houses & large mortgages, plasma tv’s etc etc?

  Food, Education, Health & Heath Care, Legal Rights & Protections, and Security seem much more important to me than possesions.
  A wise man once said ‘Enough to live on, and enough to live for’.

  Corruption is probably the greatest problem in Thailand, and it exists whether the country is under a democratic system or not.
  Why should you have to pay off the military to avoid conscription?

  I can agree with much of what you and Andrew say, although I think it is misguided to think that the King is the problem and Thaksin style democracy is the solution.

  The stock market movements show that not even the foreign investors are concerned about democracy, and they only care about their pockets.

  Yes, I am indeed fortunate to be able to make this my hobby.

• 11 Vichai N. // Jan 19, 2007 at 1:16 am

  People try to blow HMK’s Sufficiency Economy tenets or guidance disproportionately out of context.

  For most of us in this forum, we can ALL agree we NEVER ever refer to the King’s year-end sermon of sorts for inspiration, OK? We all do what we damn well please anyway and our ’sufficiency’ is our own business, and nobody else’s.

  But there are many people who look up to HMK for guidance and inspiration. And HMK must no doubt be aware and concerned of the plight of the millions of villagers who aspire for better things, and, to villagers deeply in plight (like the example of Nirut). And HMK’s ‘Sufficiency Economy’ wants to address these people’s concerns – - people must learn to ‘live within their means’ is what is ’sufficiency economy’ is all about. Because it is a fact that many of these villagers ‘overreach’ themselves (with all those easy ‘loans’ from Thaksin era followed by his ‘anybody-can-be-as-rich-as-Thaksin’ message to these guillibles.)

  Personally I believe it is NOT realistic to literally translate HMK’s Sufficiency Economy into a detailed government platform.

  Prudent market directed economy is probably what PM Surayud’s government is trying to achieve. But anyone will tell you . . in a market economy (example the stock market) prudence varies from person to person and greed always wins (example Thaksin).

• 12 anon // Jan 19, 2007 at 7:25 am

  But the coup was executed so that the junta could implement the self-sufficient economy – the junta’s constitution says so very clearly.

  Even if you don’t want to blow the self-sufficient economy out of proportion, the military certainly did.

  By exposing self-sufficiency for the flimsy sham it is, this junta has drawn more flack to the monarchy than Thaksin ever could. Instead of protecting the throne, they have actually weakened it.

• 13 John Francis Lee // Mar 11, 2007 at 11:00 pm

  Just found this blog and was, frankly, appalled at the perspective of Andrew Walker. If this is the most sympathetic vision of Thailand available in the enlightened academies of Australia… well, he’s young yet I imagine.

  I did enjoy Nirut’s comments. And he doesn’t seem to be very old.

  Thanks for taking the time and effort, all of you, in creating this blog. I’ll surely follow it in the future.

• 14 Srithanonchai // Mar 12, 2007 at 9:47 pm

  John Francis: Would you mind telling readers what exactly it was that you found “appalling”, and what, from your perspectice, a “sympathetic vision” would look like, and what it might be good for? Thank you.

• 15 New Mandala » Sufficiency and the rich // Jun 4, 2007 at 4:41 pm

  [...] sufficiency economy theory contained in the UNDP’s Thailand Human Development Report (discussed previously on New Mandala). A key argument put forward by Kobsak was that sufficiency economy does not just [...]

• 16 win // Mar 7, 2008 at 7:47 pm

  I. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF SUFFICIENCY ECONOMY

  1.1 The Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy
  Strength of Thai Nation has been nurtured and developed by His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej, who is the soul of the nation. Through his caring leadership, His Majesty has earned the abiding love and profound respect of his people, and through his thinking he has laid the foundation for and inspired his country’s development strategy. His Majesty’s philosophy of “Sufficiency Economy” lies at the heart of Thailand’s development thinking, and indeed it can serve as guidance for the country’s economic and social developments.

  Over the past three decades, His Majesty has graciously reminded Thai people through his royal remarks on many occasions of a step-by-step and balanced approach to development, which is now known as the Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy. The philosophy provides guidance on appropriate conduct covering numerous aspects of life. The following is one example of an excerpt from His royal speech in 1974:

  “Economic development must be done step by step. It should begin with thestrengthening of our economic foundation, by assuring that the majority of our populationhas enough to live on. … Once reasonable progress has been achieved, we should then embarkon the next steps, by pursuing more advanced levels of economic development. Here, if onefocuses only on rapid economic expansion without making sure that such plan is appropriate for our people and the condition of our country, it will inevitably result in various imbalancesand eventually end up as failure or crisis as found in other countries.” (Royal Speech 1974,p.12)

  After the economic crisis in 1997, His Majesty has reiterated and expanded on
  the concept of Sufficiency Economy in remarks made in December 1997 and the
  following years. The concept points the way for recovery that will lead to a more
  resilient, balanced and sustainable development, better able to meet the challenges
  arising from globalization and other changes.

  With an aim to encapsulate this profound thinking, during the year of 1999,
  the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) invited a group ofeminent persons to construct the definition of the philosophy of Sufficiency Economy. The endeavor has resulted as the following definition:

  “Sufficiency Economy” is a philosophy that stresses the middle path as an overriding principle for appropriate conduct by the populace at all levels. This applies to conduct starting from the level of the families, communities, as well as the level of nation in development and administration so as to modernize in line with the forces of globalization.

  “Sufficiency” means moderation, reasonableness, and the need of self-immunity
  mechanism for sufficient protection from impact arising from internal and external changes. To achieve this, an application of knowledge with due consideration and prudence is essential. In particular great care is needed in the utilization of theories and methodologies for planning and implementation in every step. At the same time, it is essential to strengthen the moral fibre of the nation, so that everyone, particularly public officials, academic, businessmen at all levels, adheres first and foremost to the principle of honesty and integrity. In addition, a way of life based on patience, perseverance, diligence, wisdom and prudence is indispensable to create balance and be able to cope appropriately with critical challenges arising from extensive and rapid socioeconomic, environmental, and cultural changes in the world.”

  1.2 Interpretation of Sufficiency Economy
  In 2001, the Sufficiency Economy working group (SEWG) was informally set
  up jointly between the NESDB and the Crown property Bureau. The main task of the SEWG is to work further in interpreting and elaborating on the Philosophy of
  Sufficiency Economy, as described and defined above. The primary objective is to develop a framework of economic thoughts based on the Philosophy of ‘Sufficiency Economy’. Yet, the ultimate purpose is to further its application to the development process in Thailand as well as widening its application in daily lives and various activities at all levels as stated in the definition.

  Based on the above official definition of the Philosophy, the SEWG conducted
  the work via a deductive process ‘parsing’ the definition into syntactically and
  semantically analyzed components. The working group concluded from the
  foregoing exposition of the term ‘Sufficiency Economy’ that:

  1. Regarding the Form and Function:
  - ‘Sufficiency Economy’ is a philosophy serves as ‘guide for the way of living/
  behaving for people of all levels toward the middle path’.

  - As an agenda, Sufficiency Economy delivers the middle path as the ‘economic life guiding principle’, i.e. a secularized normative prescription, but not a religious statement of faith.

  - For application domain, Sufficiency Economy is scalable, with ‘universal domain applicability’: individual, household, community, project, business, management, institution, polity, society, nation state, region, humanity, and biosphere.

  - As the foundation for an economic framework, Sufficiency Economy is complete, governing everything from motivation (utility, drives, etc.), to criteria (goals, objectives, etc.), to behaviour (production, consumption, investment, etc.), to system (collectivity, connectivity, etc.), and can be said to, at least implicitly, address all issues within a dynamic setting.

  2. Regarding relevant contexts
  - As the past course of development, Sufficiency Economy has been put forward for quite some times, and is not initiated as a result of the Asian Crisis.
  - As the present course of development, however, in the post-crisis environment, it has been reemphasized as the solution to globalization and changes.
  - As the future course of development, the middle path remains critically needed, particularly now with the process of pursuing economic and social development to keep pace with globalization.
  - As the promise of future, Sufficiency Economy ensures balance and readiness to cope with fast/extensive changes with respect to materials, society, environment, and culture.
  - As a paradigm shift, Sufficiency Economy arises against the backdrop of globalization driven integration of the world and the pace of technological-cultural-social changes.

  3. Regarding the working definition
  - ‘Sufficiency’ entails three components: moderation, reasonableness, and requirement for a self-immunity system, i.e. able to cope with shocks from internal and external changes.
  - Two underlying conditions are necessary to achieve ‘Sufficiency:’’ knowledge and morality.
  - For knowledge conditions, Sufficiency Economy requires breadth and
  thoroughness in planning, and carefulness in applying knowledge and in implementation of those plans.
  - For moral/ethical criteria, Sufficiency Economy enforces the conditions that people are to possess honesty and integrity, while conducting their lives with perseverance, harmlessness and generosity.

  In sum, Sufficiency Economy is a holistic concept of moderation and
  contentment. It sets out to shield the people and the country from adverse shocks,
  and acknowledges interdependency among people at all levels as an approach,
  against the backdrop of interdependence and globalization. It emphasizes the use of knowledge wisely with due consideration. Its values include integrity, diligence, harmlessness and sharing. Finally, it seeks to achieve balance and sustainability.

  II. THE NEW THEORY AGRICULTURE AS ONE EXAMPLE OF APPLICATION

  The Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy calls for a balanced and sustainable
  development at all levels. As a practical example of applying the philosophy of
  Sufficiency Economy, His Majesty the King has developed systematic guidelines for proper management of land and water resources, based on His experiments with integrated agriculture over the years. This system of agriculture is commonly known in Thailand as New Theory Agriculture, which is also regarded as a new sustainable agriculture towards self-reliance for the rural household.

  The main purpose of the New Theory Agriculture is to make farmers more
  self-reliant through a holistic management of their land, while living harmoniously The complete New Theory Agriculture has three with nature and within society.stages: (1) sufficiency at the household level, (2) sufficiency at the community level, and (3) sufficiency at the national level.

  2.1 The Three Stages New Theory Agriculture
  The first stage of the New Theory aims to create self-reliance and self-
  sufficient at the household level; the so-called self-sustaining agricultural landscapes. For a household with 4-5 members—an average household size in Thailand, it requires the average of 15 rai (2.4 hectares) area of land. The land shall be divided in to 4 parts with a proportion of 30/30/30/10. The first 30% segment of the land, –approximately 0.48 hectares, is for rice cultivation, while the next 30% is for field and garden crops. The third 30% is to dig a pond of 4 meters deep, which will have a storage capacity of 19,000 cubic meters. The remaining 10% or 0.32 ha are for housing and other activities.

  Furthermore, to increase the sustainability of farming systems involve
  utilizing holistic way of management practices that have multiple benefits. Among these practices is making use of interrelationships like insect and weed control, water and soil management, integrating livestock and crop production operations, and the use of non-crop species of plants for nutrient cycling and soil protection. These guidelines have wide applicability over a large proportion of the rural areas of Thailand, especially in the Northeast where water supply is relatively scarce compared to land. Where land is relatively scarce or water supply is not a problem, the same concept minus the turning of land into water reservoirs can also be implemented.

  The first stage of New Theory Agriculture allows farmers to be at least self-
  sufficient in terms of food, and can create proportionate income from selling extra
  crops and products beyond necessary consumption of the household. This way, it
  provides basic self-immunity for farmers against diverse adversities.

  The second stages aims to create sufficiency at the community or organization
  level. It is based on cooperative activities with their neighbors within community
  based on a concept of sharing excess resources of each household. The activities can be different for each community depending on their conditions; there is no blueprint of activities. They include: community enterprises or co-op based production, community saving groups, establishing community healthcare center, for example. These activities should lead to a more self-reliance of each community, while enhancing capacity of community members in reducing costs of living, or increasing income, or creating community social safety net. It can be compared to a cluster development of businesses in the same locality with similar activities, to achieve economies of scale as well as economies of scope.

  In the third and most advanced stage, the community is encouraged to expand
  their activities through reaching out to co-operative firms, banks, and other outside sources. The expansion across different levels of organizations or activities can be compared to developing a value-chain in production. The expanded activities include raising fund, creating direct sales channel, seeking fund for establishing community rice mill or cooperative stores, for example. At this stage, various institutions will join hands in a collaborative way to create sufficiency at the national Firms have to initiate corporate social responsibility to reach out to level.communities, while public sector is to promote different types of associations as well as facilitating trust among actors through institutional arrangement.

  2.2 Applying the New Theory Agriculture in empowering community
  The second and third stages of the New Theory Agriculture provided the basis
  for empowerment programs in Thailand. To implement the sufficiency at the
  community level in accordance with the decentralization policy, the NESDB has
  engaged in the program of facilitating each community to develop its own
  Community Development Plan (CDP). The program aims to strengthen people’s
  participation, and to build capacity for community’s management. The process of
  the CDP preparation is designed as follows.
  1. Community members, who are sufficiency at the household level, organize
  a consultative meeting to share the understanding of the purpose of CDP, its benefits and application for the community.
  2. After having learned the CDP objectives, community members join
  together to explore the information and data related to situations of
  community: income and expenditure, natural resources, public utilities and
  services available, etc. Some sets of data such as expenditure and income
  are collected by community committee with cooperation of all villagers,
  some are searched from government agencies; some may be extracted from
  the experiences of the community members.
  3. Then community members convene another meeting for presenting and
  discussing the obtained information/data. From such discussion, the
  members will learn the strengths and weaknesses of their community;
  4. Knowing oneself, the meeting, thereby leads to forming a shared-vision to develop one’s own community, with a work plan to make that vision comes true. The vision can range from reducing expenditure on food by producing more consuming crops or vegetables within the village that can lead to more self-reliance, setting up a saving fund within the village for members to borrow in the time in need, assisting those in the community who are in need of help to reach a self-reliant stage, for example.
  5. In case the community members cannot figure out the solutions, they may need to visit other communities, so as to learn from the experiences of
  external sources. Throughout the process of preparing CDPs, learning
  among people or learning from those who succeeded, are encouraged than
  passively listening from government officers or experts.
  The above five stages of preparing the CDP give rises to a learning process
  among members in the community. Based on the philosophy of Sufficiency
  Economy, several governmental agencies, including the NESDB, have changed their roles from directing development towards more facilitating and supporting
  communities in planning and implementing community programs and projects.
  With the NESDB as a main coordinating agency, the government plans to facilitate over 3000 communities in Thailand to prepare their CDP within the next
  three fiscal years; FY 2003/04 – FY 2005/06

  III. SELECTED LITERATURE RELATED TO SUFFICIENCY ECONOMY
  On the occasion of His majesty’s 72 birthday in 1999 several institutions and
  government agencies jointly organized a conference on Sufficiency Economy. As the conference was coincided with the 1999 Year-End Conference of Thailand
  Development Research Institute (TDRI), numerous scholars in various fields
  contributed their research papers and articles on the subject. In 2002, the Sufficiency Economy working group at the NESDB conducted a national survey of all academic and research institutions to review the state of knowledge regarding this subject. Based on the studies, literature on Sufficiency Economy can be reviewed and categorized as follows.

  3.1 Conceptual/Theoretical Interpretation of Sufficiency Economy

  Several Thai academics have contributed the work related to the conceptual
  interpretation of Sufficiency Economy philosophy. Samutvanich (1998) asserted that the philosophy opened a new paradigm of thinking in a multi-dimensional and holistic term, while can be implemented step-by-step. Senanarong (1999) emphasized that Sufficiency Economy implied self-reliance in 5 aspects: psychological, social, natural resources, technology and economy.
  Panthasein (1999) proposed two conceptual papers: (1) a synthesis of
  Sufficiency Economy from economists’ perspective; and (2) an analysis of Sufficiency Economy. He claimed that the Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy was based on Buddhist economics. Susangkarn (1999) noted that the philosophy of Sufficiency Economy was consistent with neo-classical economics, by comparing moderation with diminishing marginal utility and reasonableness with rationality.

  3.2 Application in Development and Management
  This category of literature includes application of Sufficiency Economy at the
  level of international relationships–political and economic, application in
  development of the country, application in a level of organization, and at the
  community level.
  We have traced related literature back to a manuscript by Wibulsawasdi
  (1987). The manuscript noted that a middle-way monetary policy has three
  principles: appropriateness, flexibility, and prudence. Wasi (1999) explained that the Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy was a middle-path development strategy, which interconnected all related factors in a holistic way. Thus it can be used for
  revitalizing the socio-economy, which had been under the 1997 crisis and imbalance development strategy over the past decades.
  Several researchers at TDRI and National Institute of Development
  Administration (NIDA) contributed the works on how to apply Sufficiency Economyto create self-immunity in the economic system in the changing global conditions.Manuscripts and speeches by Sumet Tantivejkul in many occasions during 1998 suggested how to apply the philosophy of Sufficiency Economy in different levels.Among recent works, a working paper by Isarangkul Na Ayuthaya and Pootrakul (2002) examined an application of the philosophy of Sufficiency Economy in defining sustainable development in Thailand’s context.
  A number of researches also assess an application of Sufficiency Economy in implementing poverty reduction programs/projects, especially in household and
  community levels. Songerd et al. (2001) summarized that integrated plan with
  collaboration among agencies; along with a participatory process and knowledge/
  understanding are key factors for the success implementation of the projects.
  There are also on-going research projects on application of the philosophy of Sufficiency Economy. Selected examples include the work of Local Development Institute and Nedtayarak, et al. at Thammasat University, which seek ways to apply Sufficiency Economy in community development.

  3.3 Application in Sectoral Management
  The literatures in this category include application in both agriculture and
  industrial sectors. For example, Na Ranong (1999) asserted that the New Theory
  Agriculture could be applied in risk management context as a way to develop
  external and internal self-immunity. Puapongsakorn (1999) also noted that an
  application of the philosophy would strengthen industrial sector, in particular the
  SMEs, by reducing risk.
  Meanwhile, Suranaree Technology Institute, in Nakorn Rajasima Province, has established a coursework on Sufficiency Economy in its Master program in
  Management and Rural Development Planning, starting from 2002. At the recent
  seminar on Sufficiency Economy, organized by the NESDB in January 2004, we find that there are increasing numbers of universities in Thailand, e.g. Mae Jo University, Kasetsart University, NIDA, etc., establishing similar coursework related to Sufficiency Economy in the graduate level.

  3.4 Politics, Administration and Government
  Ananthakul (1998) considered the Philosophy of Sufficiency Economy as a
  basis for political development of the country, due to its encouragement of people
  participation along the process of development. In addition, the philosophy also
  emphasizes geopolitics, sustainable development, community empowerment, and
  social capital development and as well as good governance.

  3.5 Application in Natural Resources and Environmental Management
  Peng-Aun et al. (1997) elaborated how to apply New Theory agriculture by
  His Majesty the King in an area around Mae-Jo University. The projectrecognized
  the utilization of local wisdom in achieving sustainability; particularly a holistic management of soil, water and air, in order to bring microorganisms and
  earthworms back to soil.

  3.6 Application in Daily Lives
  This category comprises of literature related to moral/ethics, culture/custom,
  and local wisdom. Selected example is an article by Eaewsriwong (2000), in which the author considered Sufficiency Economy as a culture and moral standard that emphasizes on non-greed and sharing, based on the interdependence principle among people and with nature. Eaewsriwong asserted that main objectives of Sufficiency Economy are to be sufficient of basic needs, while being sustainable in ecological system and lifestyles. Additionally, he convinced that sufficiency economy should be introduced and applied to both national and international levels, in which the world is presently dominated by consumerism and globalization culture.

  IV. NEXT STEP: SUFFICIENCY ECONOMY MOVEMENT
  Based on the work of SEWG and the proliferation of Sufficiency Economy in many areas and sectors, the NESDB initiated a process of sufficiency economy
  movement in September 2003. The movement aims to raise more awareness of the concept and create a learning process regarding the application of the philosophy of sufficiency economy. It hopes that an enhancement of the right understanding among people will lead to broad recognition and extend pragmatic application in broader scale of Thai society. The main driving force of this movement is the sub-committee of Sufficiency Economy movement, which is appointed by the Chairman within the NESDB supporting of the NESDB, with the Sufficiency Economy Unit the work of the sub-committee.

  The Movement expects to create a learning network of Sufficiency Economy in all sectors and all levels. At first, there will be four main implementing programs,
  which accompanying each other; (1) developing and coordinating the learning
  network, (2) creating new knowledge through study and research, (3) producing
  curriculum and learning process, and (4) disseminating the information and
  knowledge to the public.

  The establishment of the Sufficiency Economy Movement aims to enable
  Thailand to pursue a balanced and sustainable development in the globalization
  world. It is expected to develop the strong foundations of society, through
  enhancing the ability to adapt and adjust for any changes occurred. Ultimately, these will lead to the well being of Thai people as a whole.

  REFERENCES
  Ananthakul, Anan, 1998, “Development philosophy: new theory by H.M. the Kingroyal initiative, in jurisprudence and political dimension”. Civil Services
  Training Institute. Special lecture. Bangkok, November}

  Eaewsriwong, Nithi, 2000 “Cultural dimension in Sufficiency Economy: its definition {No.4, February, P. 78-86}. and importance” Silapra-Wattanadhamma Magazine

  Isarangkul Na Ayuthaya, Chairayu, and Pootrakool, Kobsak, 2002, “Sustainable
  Economic Development through the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy”, Paper
  for internal discussion, Crown Property Bureau and NESDB. November.

  Local Development Institute, 2003, “A model of local economy in 200 districts based on Sufficiency Economy,” An action research project: The Office of Village Fund National Committee, Bangkok, 2002-2003.

  Na Ranong, Wiroj, 1999, “Risk and self-immunity of Thai agriculture.
  Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI).

  Nedtayarak, Prayong; Manee-preuk, Chusri; and Preedasak, Paradon. 2002, “How toapply HM’s initiative on the New Theory.” Bangkok: Faculty of Economics,
  Thammasat University.

  Piboolsravut, Priyanut, The Sufficiency Economy Working Group. 2003a,“Economic Theoretical Framework of the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy” Bangkok: Office of National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB).

  Piboolsravut, P., Artisuda Na Nakorn, 2003b, “Literature Review on Sufficiency
  Economy (in Print and CD-ROM).” Bangkok: Office of National Economic and
  Social Development Board (NESDB).

  Panthasen, Apichai, 1999, “H.M. the King’s Sufficiency Economy, analyzed by
  economist’s definitions,” Bangkok: Thailand Development Research Institute
  (TDRI).

  Peng-Aun, Danuwat, 1997, “Research and development on sustainable agriculture
  towards environmental study and conservation: A new paradigm for
  agriculture for health and survival,” Mae Jo University, Chiang Mai.

  Puapongsakorn, Nipon, 1999, “Indusrial Development in Thailand and Sufficiency Economy,” Bangkok: Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI).

  Royal Speech , December 4, 1974. Bangkok: Amarin Printing and Publishing.

  Senanarong, Ampol, 1999, “A Direction of Rural Development,” in Papers for
  , Khon Kaen University. Annual Conference of Development Research Institute
  January.

  Songerd, Manoon, Suthirat Hongsamad, (2001), “Poverty Reduction Strategy at the st Interdisciplinary Household Level towards Sufficiency Economy,” in
  The 1st Conference among Research Institute, Bangkok.

  Sumutvanich, Chaiyanan, 1998, “The Great Thinking Paradigm,Training Institute. Special lecture. Bangkok, November.

  Susangkarn, Chalongpop, 1999, “Sufficiency Economy and the Economic Crisis,”
  Bangkok: Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI).

  Tantivejkul, Sumet, 1998, “Sufficiency economy lifestyles according to H.M. the
  th on the 5 of December King’s royal initiative”, published in Matichon Weekly
  1998.

  United Nations Conference on Trade And Development (UNCTAD), 2000,
  Th “Expression of appreciation to His Majesty the King of Thailand,”
  The 10 Session UNCTAD Conference, 12-19 February 2000, Bangkok.

  Wasi, Prawase, 1999, “Sufficiency Economy and Civil Societies: The Way to
  Revitalize the Economy and Society.” Bangkok: Rural Doctor Printing.

  Wibulsawasdi, Chaiwat, 1987, “An implementation of the monetary policy based on the middle path concept,” (Internal memo, Bank of Thailand, Bangkok.

  Wong Cha-um, Sansern (2001), “Sufficiency Economy: Basis to the Sustainable
  Development,” Bangkok: Office of National Economic and Social Development
  Board (NESDB).

• 17 Teth // Mar 8, 2008 at 2:37 pm

  Lovely piece of propaganda. Thanks for your nuanced contribution to the debate.

  A brilliant demonstration of your critical thinking skills.

• 18 nganadeeleg // Mar 8, 2008 at 8:07 pm

  Teth: Your comment #17 where you ‘play the man’ instead of ‘play the ball’ is fairly typical of those who attack the ‘Sufficiency Economy’ theory.

  I will ask again:
  - What’s wrong with moderation, reasonableness & immunity?

• 19 Teth // Mar 8, 2008 at 11:19 pm

  Hobby, moderation, reasonableness, and immunity is not wrong. But the above piece of propaganda is quite misleading. Furthermore, is moderation, reasonableness, and immunity really something new that it should be enshrined as a theory by a genius?

  Not only that, but are those three values really what you can derive from that man’s rambling speeches?

  If you are really fond of moderation, reasonableness, and immunity, promote such things instead of promoting a vague “new” economic theory that is really more useful as a propaganda tool and was probably intended as such. For instance, start advocating a purer form of Buddhism, a religion which already enshrines those values you speak of in much clearer, purer terms than that “new” theory. Just look at the elites using sufficiency economy as a justification for the status quo!

• 20 nganadeeleg // Mar 9, 2008 at 9:51 am

  Teth: IMO it’s a good theory, and I don’t really care whether it is new and original, or not.

  Just look at the elites using sufficiency economy as a justification for the status quo!

  I agree that is a problem, but it still does not mean the theory is wrong.

  Our friend, Dr Thaksin, is somehow seen by many on this site as the man to change the status quo, but I fail to see how his example is any better than that of the old elite.

  Extra judicial killings, Corruption, Tax avoidance (evasion?), interference in Media, Judicial, Military & Police matters etc etc.

  I don’t see a change, just more sophistication at playing the same old game!

• 21 Teth // Mar 9, 2008 at 4:41 pm

  The bigger point is, hobby, not about whether the theory is good or not. As I have said, moderation, reasonableness, and immunity are good principles to live by, but can you conclusively say that your interpretation is the correct one?

  This is where the vagueness of the theory weakens it. Its ambiguity is exploited for propaganda purposes as a one-size-fits-all solution for the country, with some undesirable results as I have mentioned above.

  So, as I have asked above, would it be better to promote moderation, reasonableness, and immunity as desirable values on its own (via the teachings of Buddha for a quick example) or would it be better to promote them shrouded in a vague mist of royalist propaganda that also promotes the elite’s status quo and whose only explicit example of practical application was a one-size-fits-all farm (there was a previous NM post that discussed this wasn’t there?).

  What’s more, what about values such as justice, rule of law, or income equality? To me, these are much too important to miss out on in an economic theory of such great importance or at least they tell me its such.

• 22 Srithanonchai // Mar 9, 2008 at 6:10 pm

  Sufficiency economy seems to be like an ideological monster of Loch Ness — many claim to have seen it, but nobody can provide proof that it really exists. Why not just separate it from the king altogether and categorize it as one of the many varieties of alternative development ideas, or perhaps even as one sub–idea of the mainstream idea of sustainable development? Including the king in all this only serves to obscure things.

  There now even is a foreign PhD student working at Thammasat on a thesis concerning sufficiency economy. Will take some more years time, I guess.

  There is also a new book on the theme: “Sufficiency Economy: A New Philosophy in the Global World. 100 Interviews with Business Professionals.” Oh sure, these people will know… , and even the title doesn’t conform to the principle of moderation!

• 23 nganadeeleg // Mar 9, 2008 at 7:55 pm

  …but can you conclusively say that your interpretation is the correct one?

  I’ve argued all along that moderation, reasonableness, and immunity are good principles to live by, and therefore don’t think they need to wrapped up in royalist (or Buddhist) propaganda .

  Correct me if I’m wrong, but I do not recall HMK saying it had to be mandated as government policy (nor should it be).
  You agree that the principles are good ones to live by, so what’s the problem?

  Are you really trying to say HMK should never offer any commentary on how peoples lives could be improved, or give people the benefit of his accumulated wisdom?

  Has it ever occurred to you that he might be trying to help?
  (I concede he might be going about it the wrong way, as he is, after all, mainly a product of his upbringing, surroundings & circumstances)

  According to the anti-monarchists, he is a rambling fool and yet at the same time he is also so manipulating that he has formulated a theory to justify and maintain the status quo. Which is it – you cannot have it both ways?

• 24 Teth // Mar 10, 2008 at 12:09 am

  Whether or not HMK has mandated it is irrelevant. Why is it that some people will always argue the argument about the King’s intent even though we all know very well that none of us can know that intent. We only ever interpret it based on what he says and personal bias more often than historical perspective.

  Again, you’re missing the point, nganadeeleg. Regardless of whether HMK should be allowed to pass comment, sufficiency theory is certainly not the best way to promote moderation, reasonableness, and immunity. In fact, I would say it has done more harm than good, again, irrespective of whether “he wanted to help” or not. (I might add that he should help by strictly sticking to his duties as constitutional monarch).

  Last, “anti-monarchists” do not exist as a singular person. Most see this old man as a vulnerable fool compared to the propaganda that exists about him. Yet at the same time, how he has managed to stay on for 60 years shows the cunning of the entire Establishment and network monarchy, which is represented solely by HMK. We could debate about HMK’s “genius” later by judging his achievements and speeches, but surely you get the point now that SE is not the best for your three beloved principles.

• 25 nganadeeleg // Mar 10, 2008 at 12:40 pm

  “We only ever interpret it based on what he says and personal bias more often than historical perspective..”

  ‘What he says’:
  - That’s a good starting point, isn’t it?

  ‘Historical perspective’:
  - That’s also important, and often provides clarification.

  ‘Personal bias’:
  - I try to be objective, but I will admit that, at this point in time, I prefer the older ‘white knight’ over the contenders.

  …but surely you get the point now that SE is not the best for your three beloved principles

  No, if you have the patience, will you please spell out in simpler terms (for me) why, somehow, talking about 3 principles is not good for those 3 principles.

• 26 Teth // Mar 11, 2008 at 2:48 pm

  Because what he says is ambiguous and often more harm done than good. Like Srithanonchai says, its Nessie.

  How many would be able to distill “moderation, reasonableness, and immunity” from SE?

  To answer your question, misusing, misinterpreting, or abusing those 3 principles is not good for it.

  Shall I repeat it again?

  Yes: when you hear something and choose to only focus on a tiny part, why on earth would you continue saying the whole speech, or worse, why would you repeat someone’s propaganda about the piece?

• 27 nganadeeleg // Mar 11, 2008 at 7:24 pm

  Teth: Not much more I can say about this subject that I have not already said across several threads here…..It seems we each get what we want out of the speeches, so I’ll just go back to trying to maintain my personal practice of moderation, reasonableness, and (hopefully) immunity.

• 28 Dog Lover // Mar 14, 2008 at 12:56 pm

  Why is it that sufficiency economy considered a theory? (#20) Perhaps it is because, in common parlance, “theory” means something like an opinion or some kind of speculation. In other words, this kind of “theory” is conjecture and not necessarily based on any facts.

• 29 nganadeeleg // Mar 15, 2008 at 10:08 am

  Dog Lover: Are you talking about economic ‘theories’, or something else? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_economics

  Hobby

• 30 Dog Lover // Mar 17, 2008 at 12:42 pm

  I am observing that the attachment of “theory” to SE is giving it a status that is undeserved unless theory is considered nothing more than opinion or speculation. In other words, it is conjecture and not necessarily based on any facts (like much in the underdeveloped parts of Wikipedia).

• 31 nganadeeleg // Mar 17, 2008 at 6:54 pm

  Dog Lover: Whether it is a ‘theory’ or not, I have yet to see anyone here prove that the advice is wrong (and I don’t think Lese Majeste is the reason)
  

• 32 Dog Lover // Mar 18, 2008 at 4:55 am

  Maybe you only see what you want to see and are blinkered to critical comment on SE. I have seen plenty of critical comment that makes sense to me. You will probably reject most of that criticism (based on your numerous posts to this blog). Hence SE cannot be a theory but merely conjecture and opinion. In your case it is politicised opinion.

• 33 nganadeeleg // Mar 18, 2008 at 9:28 am

  Dog Lover: I also have seen plenty of critical comment about the proponents of SE, but I do not recall anyone proving that the moderation, reasonableness and immunity advice was wrong.

  In fact, each time I ask what is wrong with that advice, all I get back is more criticism of the proponents of SE.

  I admit I am a blinkered simpleton, so can you please indulge me with specific details of what is wrong with that advice , or at least provide the links if it has already been posted.

  Thank you in advance.

  btw, the advice seems all the more relevant to me as I watch the global credit crisis unfold (must be my blinkers, I suppose).

• 34 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Mar 18, 2008 at 9:52 am

  Re: nganadeeleg
  Correct me if I’m wrong, but I do not recall HMK saying it had to be mandated as government policy (nor should it be)….I have yet to see anyone here prove that the advice is wrong [emphasis mine].

  The conversation between nganadeeleg and Teth and Dog Lover highlight a problem in discussing culturally specific topics in a language with such a radically different pragmatics. When nganadeeleg argues that His Majesty the King merely “advises” his subjects to adopt the principles of SE, the word “advice” carries with it a pragmatic sense of “I’m telling you this because I think it’s a good idea and I am concerned for your well-being, but you are free to ignore me [i.e. it is not a command]“. However, since socio-relational deixis in Thai is so radically different than in English, the innocous word “advice” doesn’t really represent what is being said in Thai. In short, His Majesty, does not “แนะนำ”, nor does His Majesty “เสนอ”, for such words are too common. In Thai, His Majesty “ตรัส”, as in ในหลวงทรงตรัสเศรษฐกิจพอเพียง. The closest you can get in English to represent the full meaning of “ตรัส” is, perhaps, “royal proclaimation” or “pontificate” [in the word's original sense].

• 35 nganadeeleg // Mar 18, 2008 at 11:14 am

  Lleij: I accept your point about “ตรัส”, but irrespective of whether it is mere advice or even a command, the practical effect is more like advice, because on the ground it is either followed or ignored.

  Hobby

  PS. I hope you don’t mind me addressing you as Lleij (I thought it might be better than the usual LSS, but still saves on typing)

• 36 Srithanonchai // Mar 18, 2008 at 4:42 pm

  Advice or command: The powered (vermachtet, in Habermas’ sense) discourse that had developed following the king’s utterances about suffiency econonomy was strong enough to make it impossible for some members on the Constitution Drafting Assembly to reject the notion that sufficiency economy should be enshrined in the constitution. It was also impossible for the observing public to criticize this. Thus, sufficiency economy has become part of Thailand’s highest law (quoted from the Council of State’s translation).

  Part 3
  State Administration Policy
  Section 78. The State shall act in compliance with the State administration policy as follows:
  (1) carrying out the administration of State affairs with a view to establish sustainable development of social, economic and security of the nation and strengthening an implementation of the sufficient economy philosophy with due regard to general benefits of the nation materially;

  Part 7
  Economic Policy
  Section 83. The State shall encourage and support an implementation of the sufficient economy philosophy.

  Obviously, whether anybody will follow the king’s behavioral requests, here as stipulated in the constitution, is a very different matter. For example, regarding the elections planned for October 2006, the king had attached a handwritten “Royal Message” (phraratchakrasae) when he returned the royal decree on the election to the government. It expressed his wish to see the nation swiftly to return to peace and order. Moreover, the king expressed his wish that the election should proceed truly orderly, cleanly, and fairly (Matichon, July 23, 2006:13).

  The military did not care that much, just like most Thais do not care about phraboromarachowat.

  After all, much in this area is merely ceremonial.

• 37 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Mar 26, 2008 at 6:00 am

  re: nganadeeleg
  PS. I hope you don’t mind me addressing you as Lleij (I thought it might be better than the usual LSS, but still saves on typing)

  I don’t mind at all.

  I see what you and Srithanonchai are saying about ignoring commands. My main point is the danger in translating words that carry a pragmatic force that are untranslatable in a certain sense.

• 38 Dawid // Mar 26, 2008 at 6:22 pm

  like the blog!

  As ‘Lord of the Land’, since early on in his reign, I suppose the king had to come up with some sort of scientific/Buddhist/nostalgic sounding philosophy, to illustrate his all-wiseness, his legitimacy over the mandala- particulary the rural masses. It’s just part of the whole royal neo-Hindu/Buddhist mythological, cultural and ideological complex that possesses and inspires the psyche of the Thai nation.

  If I’m not wrong many Thais know that the world is chaotic and capitalist, that greed and ambition are the reality. It’s the ‘kali yuga’ , the age of materialism and lack of self-restraint. Many of the older generation may still however if even subconsciously nostalagise for the good old days, back on the rice farm, a paternal all-wise and moral king, the rule of the dhamma, the millennial golden age.
  I do too, even though I’m not Thai!

  “When the the ninth King passes into his heavenly abode
  may Maitreya Buddha come to rule the kingdom of the Thais.”

• 39 Land of Snarls // Mar 26, 2008 at 10:12 pm

  Dawid #38: Nice quote at the end of your post. Where is it from?
  (full details, if possible) Thank you before…

• 40 Dawid // Mar 27, 2008 at 2:23 pm

  Land of Snarls # 39

  sorry, I made it up, It just came into my head, I was getting carried away with millennial fervour and it was an attempted joke on the latent anxiety about the future of the monarchy.

  But I won’t do in future,
  this is a very reputable blog
  as i’m finding out.

• 41 Land of Snarls // Mar 27, 2008 at 8:46 pm

  Dawid #40 – thanks for your honesty. We don’t want any more urban myths! (What a pity, it was so nicely phrased.)

Leave a Comment