Through his ongoing efforts to clarify “sufficiency economy“, junta-installed Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont has inspired a brief article by MCOT. It reads, in part:
Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont on Thursday reiterated the sufficiency economy concept is not only an economic theory, but it is also a philosophy of life that could be applied to various matters.
The premier’s remark was made in an apparent response to an attempt by some people to distort the concept of the sufficiency economy and compare it with other economic theories.
He said the sufficiency economy concept given by His Majesty the King is the philosophy of life. A main point of the concept features a way to work and live the life, which could be applied to various matters, especially the management.
2 responses so far ↓
1 Srithanonchai // Feb 2, 2007 at 1:33 am
Given all these additional explanations, “clarifications”, and extensions, I wonder whether “sufficiency economy” really has a hard core. Or is it more like a set of hyped-up common-sensical platitudes? Or can everybody come up with his or her own ideas — as long as they are different from Thaksinomics, and normal economic textbooks? Maybe, we should ask our resident royalist expert, Chris Baker?
2 polo // Feb 2, 2007 at 3:33 am
Too much is being made over the definition of sufficiency. The king has always promoted the interchangeable ideas of sufficency, moderation, adequacy, appropriateness, to everything: profits, consumption, democracy, dictatorship, change, law, punishment, eating, playing, watching tv, dog breeding, whatever. This is his way of translating Buddhist non-desire into modern life.
The only real issue is, who is doing the interpreting of sufficiency/moderation in each field and how are they using it, and to what ends. Surely the Surayuth junta is interpreting it not in the economy but in “democracy”.
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.