“A series of seminars on His Majesty the King-initiated Sufficiency Economy Theory is going to take place this month, as the Supreme Command Headquarters (SCH) embarks on a mission to create the right understanding about this concept.The Council for National Security (CNS) has tasked SCH with the mission.
“We have worked on the promotion of the Sufficiency Economy Theory for all along,” Supreme Commander General Boonsang Niampradit said Monday.
He said the National Defence College of Thailand’s Applied Psychology Institute was already scheduled to organise the seminar on the theory this Friday.
“Now that CNS has assigned this mission to us, we will hold two more seminars next week,” Boonsang said.
For next week, he said the first seminar would be open to people in relevant positions such as provincial governors and agriculture officials.
He said the second seminar would be for foreigners living in Thailand.
“They can ask questions so that they can have clear understanding of the Sufficiency Economy Theory,” he said. He said it had yet to be determined which foreigners would be invited to attend the seminar.”
This article was recently posted on The Nation’s website.
Of course, if any New Mandala readers score an invitation to either seminar, Andrew and I would love to hear from you. A New Mandala post devoted to the substance of these seminars would be greatly educational.
17 responses so far ↓
1 Olivier // Feb 6, 2007 at 12:57 am
I don’t know yet if I will be invited to such a seminar by the Chiang Mai University (indeed I hope to be!)…for anyone who still doubts that the sufficiency economy theory is beeing used by the Thai elite as a intelectual dictature over the working class and as a way of condemning any “foreign” (e.g Western) influence or alternative critic, then the commentary of Veera Prateepchaikul (Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Bangkok Post) is a most to read (Bangkok Post 5/02/2007, page 9). The article itself is entitled “Foreign press seems to Love Taksin”.
A short quote:
“Sufficiency economy is not an economic theory but a philosophy on how to live. Like Buddhism, it preaches moderation and sustanaibility. It definitely does not reject capitalism or globalisation. For an individual, it means living within his or her means. If someone earn 10,000 baht a month, they should not spend all their earnings or borrow against them by using credit cards”
So, the working class should stay at their place, the poor should act as poor and should not be seduced by the advetisments which you can see at every corner of the street! And of course, this kind of discourse is held by the upper class!
What Thailand really needs now is studies conducted by intelligent scholars about the working class, its aspiration, its conditions of living and the way for the politicians to meet their desires. Otherwise, sufficiency economy will be another way to say to the poor: be happy with what you have, or we will have to send troops in the streets again!
Yes indeed, I really hope to be invited to a seminar about sufficiency economy !
2 Olivier // Feb 6, 2007 at 1:03 am
sorry, I just realise that my comment is reppeating nearly word by word a previous post of Andrew Walker who quote an old lady from the Chiang Mai area…sorry indeed, this was not intentional…I am delighted to realise that Thai themselves have these kinds of reaction and are sharing them openly with foreigners…there are still reasons for hope!
3 olivier // Feb 6, 2007 at 1:47 am
A third and last comment:
As a principle, sufficiency eocnnomy seems to me as common sense. It has undoubtely positive and generous aspects; for instance, if we ask the elite to follow such a conduct, there will probably be less corruption, people will be less greedy for money and material achievments, and they will also pay more attention to the need of the disadvanged peoples.
But as such, “sufficiency economy” is just common sense, or let say an utopia. It could also simply be called “sustainable development”, the idea is really the same.
Then, the efforts of the Thai elite to build such a principle into a theory (while indeed denying that this can be a theory!) or at least an intellectual framework through seminars (in revolutionary Laos, the communists also used to organise seminars for those who did not understand the principle of the new socialist thinking), articles and critics of any alternative voice are doing more harm than good to this idea. What I have read today in the Bangkok Post makes me think that there are worrying connections between sufficiency, privileges and xenophobia…
I repeat my first comment : what is urgently needed are socials studies of the Thai working class (and not only rural peoples). As far as I know (but I may be wrong), no Thai scholars did any fieldwork on that subject (Bangkok factories workers, working-class migrants in the Middle-East for instance). I have read some papers by Mary Beth Mills, a foreign anthropologist, but nothing by the Thai themselves (either in thai or in english). If anyone can give me bibliogrqaphic references here, these would be much welcome.
4 amberwaves // Feb 6, 2007 at 2:45 am
This sounds like it might be of interest to olivier and others:
New Book!! OUT NOW!!
“A Coup For the Rich: Thailand’s political Crisis”
by
Giles Ji Ungpakorn
Workers Democracy Publishing 2007
If you believe in “elite theory”, you will see all developments in Thai history and politics as being determined by great leaders and great minds. You will support the idea that Democracy is a Western concept, unsuited to Thai society. You will believe that Thais worship Kings and dictators and all political events are due to the manipulation by Kings, Generals, Bosses or rich Politicians. But a one handed clap against thin air is nothing. An analysis that does not consider the relationship between the rulers and the ruled in a dialectical fashion is worthless.
It is impossible to understand Thai society and politics without a class struggle perspective. The reform movement that led to the 1997 Constitution was led from below. It ended up being hijacked by right-wing liberals and money politicians. The Populism of Thai Rak Thai can only be explained by the power of the oppressed and their potential to revolt in times of crisis. But Thai Rak Thai Populism is a terrible distortion of class struggle because it is a mechanism to buy social peace by a capitalist party. The coup of 2006 can only be understood as a “Coup for the Rich” against the interests of the poor. Both Populism and the coup were only possible because of the weakness in politics of the Thai Peoples Movement. This weakness has historical roots in the defeat of a previous cycle of class struggle in the 1970s. Finally, the violence in the South can only be explained by looking at the repression of the Thai State against the Malay Muslim population and how that population is fighting back.
This book attempts to analyse and sharply criticise contemporary Thai politics in a time of serious crisis. It deals with the Taksin crisis, the coup, the various sections of the elite (including the Monarchy), the Peoples Movement and the violence in the South. Hopefully it will stimulate further debate and discussion which will lead to an even better analysis of events.
Contents
Chapter 1 The Taksin Crisis and the Coup for the Rich
Chapter 2 Inventing Ancient Thai Traditions: an analysis of the Monarchy
Chapter 3 The politics of the Peoples Movement and the “October People”
Chapter 4 Southern Woes: Why the Thai state is responsible for the violence in the South and the problems of the tsunami
How to buy this book
The book should be available from Chulalongkorn University bookshops from late February 2007.
You can also order the book direct by mail:
1. Within Thailand: send a Thai bank cheque or postal order for 200 baht (cost includes postage) to: Giles Ji Ungpakorn, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand .
2. From Abroad: send a U.K. sterling bank cheque for five pounds (cost includes airmail postage) to: Giles Ji Ungpakorn, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330 , Thailand. OR send cash to the sum of ten U.S. dollars to the above address.
–
5 nganadeeleg // Feb 6, 2007 at 5:50 am
Olivier: Spending all your earnings, or borrowing against them using credit cards, or being seduced by advertising, are all usually sure ways of staying, or becoming, poor.
I’m amazed at how Sufficiency philosophy, which advises against doing those things, can be turned into the ’sufficiency = stay poor’ mantra.
6 Tara // Feb 6, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Spending all your earnings, or borrowing against them using credit cards, or being seduced by advertising, are all usually sure ways of staying, or becoming, poor.
Absolutely! Look at how borrowing against assets and long-term debt has driven Americans into the poorhouse!
7 21Jan // Feb 6, 2007 at 3:18 pm
nganadeeleg, you are right borrowing might let you stay poor – if you spend the money for consumption, but a lot of times – be it for a business idea or for the education of their children – the poor don’t have a choice but to take out a loan. What is your advice for these people to advance?
8 Srithanonchai // Feb 6, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Bangkok Post (letter to the editor, Febr. 6):
Mr Veera tries to explain “sufficiency economy”. This has been tried many times now, but the concept has remained unclear. Now, luckily Mr Veera is showing us the light: On the private level, it is about not spending the whole salary but saving _ and don’t use credit cards. Okay.
Mixing the concept with the more cloudy parts of Buddhism is also okay, but calling this a philosophy is really an overkill and an insult to Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard. We are talking about an ordinary proposal for responsible conduct, nothing more.
FLEMMING
How true!
How come that, in Thailand, such an ordinary thing is treated as “Sufficiency Economy is a philosophy, graciously bestowed on us by our beloved Monarch, His Majesty the King.” This is quoted from a speech Prem gave on the subject in 2001. Follow the link http://www.generalprem.com/Speech5.html.
9 nganadeeleg // Feb 6, 2007 at 8:37 pm
21 Jan: The Sufficiency theory does not stipulate no borrowing, but rather it recommends taking the middle path – moderation, reasonableness, immunity etc.
In relation to borrowing, that would mean not over extending.
It would also mean not borrowing for consumption or non essential ‘toys’ of modern society.
Borrowing for a business opportunity would be OK provided you have done your homework and the business has a reasonable chance of success and you were realistic & did not put your everything at risk. Likewise, I think borrowing for education would be acceptable if the above criteria were followed.
It’s all common sense really, and it is clear that HMK is trying to help people by providing sensible advice & guidance – it applies equally to rich or poor, urban or rural.
I think the ‘enough to live on and enough to live for’ line is the King’s way of providing a counter balance to the mindless pursuit of non essential ‘toys’ that seems to pervade our consumer societies.
10 Srithanonchai // Feb 6, 2007 at 10:21 pm
“It would also mean not borrowing for consumption or non essential ‘toys’ of modern society.” (nganadeeleg) But if that person has the means for borrowing, for example for buying a car, a stereo, a computer, a flat-screen TV, and aircon, etc., why should such a person not borrow? The way you put, “sufficiency economy” doesn’t look like “responsible (financial) conduct”, but like a potential totalitarian model of society. After all, in a free society, everybody can determine what he or she wants to consume (as long as it is not legally prohibited, such as drugs), or what he or she thinks is “essential” for his or her life–as long as he or she has the means to buy that stuff and show “responsible conduct” concerning their financial resources and their acquisition (no corruption, e.g,!). What would you think if I turned up at your home and take away everything I define as being “non-essential” to your life? (Can you live without a TV, e.g.?)
11 nganadeeleg // Feb 6, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Srithanonchai: I was refering to poor people in response to 21 Jan’s post no 7 above.
IMHO only a fool would borrow for such a non essential item, and it would be even more foolish if that person was poor.
You are most welcome to come and take all non essential goods in my home that I have purchased by over extended borrowing, however you will go home empty handed.
12 Srithanonchai // Feb 7, 2007 at 1:23 am
nganadeeleg: Your post seem to be on general principles, and it did not even specifically mention the poor. You really don’t even have a TV and a mobile? Or do you still have all those non-essential toys of modern consumerist society, just that you or your parents bought them with cash, and not by borrowing, and certainly not “overextended” borrowing? At least, you have access to the Internet to waste your time with something as non-essential as chatting on a gossip blog.
13 polo // Feb 7, 2007 at 5:40 am
AGAIN …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”…. as in, the current state of democracy and rule of law is sufficient for Thais.
14 nganadeeleg // Feb 7, 2007 at 9:03 am
Srithanonchai: Whilst the sufficiency principles apply generally, I was specifically replying to 21Jan’s question regarding the poor.
I have mentioned before that I already practice sufficiency principles on a personal level – I do have a tv (cheap, old box style), and I have a computer and internet for work. I have no need for a mobile phone. As for chatting on this blog, well, I still think a man’s got to have a hobby!
Polo: Thanks for putting things back on track.
I agree that sufficiency is being interpreted by different groups to suit their own agenda (both pro coup and anti coup groups are putting their own spin on it)
It’s still too early to make that judgement of the junta because we have not yet seen the new constitution, and unfortunately they are still bogged down being spooked, because for Thaksin, enough is never enough (despite what he keeps saying).
15 Srithanonchai // Feb 7, 2007 at 6:35 pm
nganadeeleg: Congratulations. At least there is one person who actually does what many others only preach. Just don’t turn your broadly critical view of modern society into a missionary, ideological, or sectarian approach. In this context, I do need a mobile, but I don’t need a TV. So, I guess, we both live sufficiency lifestyles, only that mine isn’t informed by Buddhist, but by Christian principles (although I am not a Christian). And, yes, I man needs a hobby (women as well), but only in a modest way, of course. However, who knows, if we just had enough money…
16 James Haughton // Feb 13, 2007 at 12:17 pm
I find it surprising how INfrequently Buddhism is invoked in discussions of the concept of a sufficiency economy (though perhaps someone here can tell me if Buddhism is explicitly referenced more often in the Thai language media). There has been no effort that I am aware of to link the “sufficiency economy” to the various movements of Buddhist economics (Shumacher’s ‘Small is Beautiful’ is still the best known exposition – people here may also find it interesting that Shumacher, as well as a convert to Buddhism, was a passionate anti-Keynesian conservative economist, who would have hated Thaksin’s economic interventions) which would at least give it a better analytical foundation.
Instead the concept is presented as springing solely from HM King Bhumibol’s brow, like Athena, without pre-existing sources or roots – a case of the dhammaraja eclipsing the Buddha?
Offhand, two reasons for this suggest themselves:
1) emphasising the concept’s buddhist roots would play into the hands of Santi Asoke and the followers of Phra Buddhadasa, who are too radical and anti-elite for the network monarchy and its Sangha.
2) emphasising the concept’s buddhist roots would render it untenable as a pan-national strategy as it would alienate the Muslim south further.
17 James Haughton // Feb 13, 2007 at 12:21 pm
I forgot to add a third reason: Shumacher came up with the concepts after he was an economic advisor to the newly independent Burma, and we’ve all seen how their economy turned out (I doubt the junta’s buddhist socialism bore much relationship to shumacher’s principles – but then, many people say the same thing about communism and marx).
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.