In today’s Bangkok Post, Les Thompson has a short letter to the editor titled “Theory and Practice”. Given the recent conversations here on New Mandala about sufficiency economy and the Crown Property Bureau the letter is worth reading in full. Thompson writes:
Wednesday’s edition of the Bangkok Post carried a story about the Crown Property Bureau planning to “turn away from small lessees and instead invite large-scale property developers to build mega-projects… for the sake of bigger returns”.
I can clearly understand that “gathering small plots of land in the Lang Suan area would create great development potential for property projects”. This is an excellent opportunity in any market-based economy.
However, I am a little confused as to how the Crown Property Bureau can reconcile its plans with the theory of a sufficiency economy, a concept based on the idea that “Small is Beautiful”. Any explanation would be helpful.
Much of this ground has already been covered in comments here on New Mandala.
What is most interesting is that this letter, as subtle as it is, was published at the present time. We will have to wait and see whether further public discussions or investigations follow Thompson’s effort to garner an explanation on the theory and practice of royal sufficiency economy.
The whole episode leads one to ponder – will the Crown Property Bureau ever be prompted to publicly account for its “practice” of the King’s theory?
19 responses so far ↓
1 nganadeeleg // Mar 17, 2007 at 10:08 am
There seems to be a deliberate distortion by certain posters on this site as to what the royal sufficiency economy is about, so I will again post a link to HMK’s 1988 clarification speech:
http://www.kanchanapisek.or.th/speeches/1998/1204.en.html
The CPB plans would not necessarily be incompatible with sufficiency economy principles UNLESS they involved excessive borrowings or ‘taking advantage of others’.
2 nganadeeleg // Mar 17, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Actually 1998 speech (not 1988)
3 polo // Mar 17, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Ngana: Umm sorry, but, if we are to descend into the silliness of what is “sufficiency” — it obviously depends on who’s doing the interpreting — your definition hardly measures up. You said:
“The CPB plans would not necessarily be incompatible with sufficiency economy principles UNLESS they involved excessive borrowings or ‘taking advantage of others’.”
Since when are “excessive borrowings” and “taking advantage” the limits of sufficiency? The king has related suffienciency to those, but more often tied it to one’s needs as opposed to one’s desires.
In the CPB case, they are already earning an astounding return on property mostly never paid for (at leat in the past century)and, at any rate, their cost basis is in the 1940s and 1950s. There is no “sufficiency” guideline on what is an appropriate return on investment, to be sure. But they have raised rents regularly — their Langsuan rents might be slightly lower than market but are not outrageously so — and so there needs to be a measure of what constitutes “taking advantage” of a renter: market price? below market price but too high for them to sublet? Or would it depend on the renter’s business income/profits?
None of that really matters, though. What is important is, does the palace need all that income from the new developments? Just what is sufficient income for the palace? Why isn’t what was sufficient five years ago not sufficient now?
4 21Jan // Mar 17, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Come on nganadeeleg, if it’s just that then it is only what our parents have told us, it’s plain common sense (as Tosakan has written several times on his blog) – but the current government is using it as a propaganda-tool and as a big stick to scare away critics, because if you are against the “juntanomics” (TM) you are against the ideas of the king.
Btw. I have a nice anecdote from our village: There seems to be a craze about women looking for richer men right now (well not really, probably mostly gossip from my mother-in-law) and I asked my wife how this goes together with the sufficiency-economy – she just laughed and said that they won’t have to borrow money if they have richer (maybe even caucasian) husbands and so it is perfectly in line with the sufficiency economy.
5 Srithanonchai // Mar 17, 2007 at 4:00 pm
nganadeeleg: Thanks for the link. “The CPB plans would not necessarily be incompatible with sufficiency economy principles UNLESS they involved excessive borrowings or ‘taking advantage of others’.” That’s the reason why rich people can still buy their Rolexes and Porsches at Paragon. Moderation strictly is relative to the means a person or a company has. One needs to moderate one’s needs only when they surpass one’s means. Sufficiency economy is not about moderating needs in general (no Rolex, no Porsche, no consumerism), but about the relationship between ends and means (that’s what moms tell their kids: keep your expenses within the amount of your pocket money). Thus, CPB is right within the confines of sufficiency economy principles, even if it pushes a consumerist mindset to its extremes, UNLESS…
Readers might also turn to a speech Prem gave on this subject in 2001: http://www.generalprem.com/Speech5.html
I am not so sure about the issue of “deliberate distortion.” What might be perceived as such might result from the fact that you can’t publicly discuss, analyze, and criticize the suffciency economy in Thailand. When the UNDP report, in its forword, says that “these ideas have been widely and intensively discussed within Thailand in recent years,” then this simply is untrue.
The entire situation concerning sufficiency economy, among other things, serves to underline why concepts of democracy place so much importance on unrestrained public deliberation not hampered by the exercise of power (borrowing from Habermas, Dryzek).
6 nganadeeleg // Mar 17, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Srithanonchai: Thanks for the link to Prem’s speech.
The ‘deliberate distortion’ goes both ways:
- The junta trying to prescribe sufficiency economy when it should really be left as common sense advice from HMK to temper the worst effects of modern capitalist globalized economies.
- Certain academics trying to create confusion about sufficiency economy because it allows them to score points in their ideological arguments concerning the role of the moarchy in Thailand.
Polo: As I’ve said before, I think the operations/finances of CPB should be transparent for all to see because I’m of the opinion that it is state wealth rather than private family wealth.
7 21Jan // Mar 17, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Without lèse-majesté and with transparency of the CPB the king would be most probably a more european-style constitutional monarch (concerning his then limited powers) then he is now.
We also have to take the speech into the historical context of the asian financial crisis of 97 – so the theory becomes more or less a kind of “opium for the masses”
8 Srithanonchai // Mar 18, 2007 at 12:37 am
“fish and water are inseparable and depended on one another, yet they are not the same” > That’s a really deep insight, on which I would like to congratulate you heartily. And if the fish is on land, it will die. Sometimes, it will even die when in water (see the recent newspaper reports). But it might still be edible. Just the same as with theory, right? Or was it practice? All so confusing…
9 Jon Fernquest // Mar 18, 2007 at 2:20 am
I really don’t see what is wrong with the CPB or any other owner selling it.
As cities grow, the land in the center of the city grows in value and is put to more important uses. In fact, you can’t really go from sprawl to a well-defined center without some consolidation.
In San Francisco revelopment projects were also controversial but eventually ended in the renewal of the downtown area, trees and more livable open spaces, rather than the hot crowded concrete sidewalks of Bangkok.
Without these projects SF would still have a South of Market Skid Row instead of the Bay Area’s second computer software development area.
The beautifully landscaped Embarcadero Center area is full of parks that people can eat lunch in or walk their dogs in or just hang out. Bangkok has several parks and convention centers that were products of revelopment projects.
Furthermore, these people were renting and knew that the lease would end. If you wanted to redistribute it to needy poor then there should be a search for needy poor, why would you assume that all the people who are currently renting are members of the needy poor. Interview two or three people in the area with businesses who are not doing well, who complain and that constitutes a proof? I bet you anything some of these leasees are profiting from the expectation that the lease will never come to an end. Maesai’s river front park is a good case in point.
Also, in Maesai the road past Wat Tham Pajom going over the hills back to the Chiang Rai hospital used to have clear signs planted all along it saying “Do not build here.” Everyone built and started trading the land and now it is worth millions, big profits. Profits to people who just disregarded the law, often very rich people.
Why should leases or temporary use rights always be expected to turn into permanent property rights as they did in Bobe market in Yaowarat?
On the other hand, Hernando de Sot, who Thaksin used to invoke, argued that property rights are a good thing because they allow the poor to get business loans. Fuzzy non-well-defined property rights like you see in much of Thailand do however keep people attached to the land since their continued possession of the land depends on their use of the land, so the land cannot be repossessed and accumulated by the wealthy in big piles of deeds for inactive land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hernando_de_Soto_(economist)
10 Tosakan // Mar 18, 2007 at 3:05 am
Good discussion.
I agree there needs to be distinction between theory and practice, rhetoric and action.
From the evidence that we have, there is no sufficiency “theory”(what exactly is the hypothesis and evidence of this theory) and nobody has been practicing this non-existent theory, at least in terms of private behavior and public policy.
Other than draconian measures to kick the evil foreigners out of the Thai economy, what other public policies have been implemented in the name of sufficiency theory?
I can’t think of anything this government has done in the last 5 months that is consistent with anything that king has said regarding sufficiency theory.
To me, what is sufficiency theory?
It is one royal trend in a long list of many royal trends exploited by elites in order to justify whatever policies they want to implement(even if they are contrary to the king’s rhetoric), as well as to come across as an ass kisser of the monarchy.
Put simply, sufficiency theory is nothing but an empty political slogan.
Also, Thais have a long history of taking a simple idea and turning into a bunch of meaningless bullshit in order to come across as looking smart and sophisticated. Also, if this slogan can be used to justify blaming all of Thailand’s problems on foreigners and foreign influences, then that is an extra bonus.
21 Jan-Sorry, I have the trademark to “juntanomics.” You can make out the royalty check to…
11 Jon Fernquest // Mar 18, 2007 at 3:36 am
I can think of two notable cases of suboptimal non-market allocation of resources:
1. The TRT MP near Prachinburi shot down in cold blood for supposedly trying to open a rival market, the right to run a market being a concession that they had the exclusive right to, at least someone’s head. Assume case never solved, since there was never a follow-up article.
2. The Burmese guy who used to hold the electricity concession in Tachileik across from Maesai who got shot down in cold blood, supposedly for stealing, again, a concession from its “rightful” owner. This murder, resulted in turn, in the murder of the murderer at the hands of the son, I lost track of what happened after that. THis was hearsay based on actually knowing the family of the murdered man.
Would plain vanilla, open and transparent market transactions with rule of law would have been better than naked assertion or contestation of one’s rights with a gun? Or with the help of powerful people which is the discrete and common norm?
12 21Jan // Mar 18, 2007 at 7:36 am
Tosakan, I forgot to write (TM by Tosakan), probably because I pointed to your blog in that post and I thought (TM) would just mean that there is a trademark – but if we’ll ever meet I’ll buy you a sufficiency-beer
13 Sawarin // Mar 19, 2007 at 10:39 am
And if the fish is on land, it will die. Sometimes, it will even die when in water (see the recent newspaper reports). But it might still be edible. Just the same as with theory, right?
You got it Srithanonchai. People have been eating dead fishes for ages, what difference will this ’sufficiency’ make? The point is to keep the water running, which it will, but this won’t have anything to do with you, me, or well educated readers of this website. The river will flow as it usually does.
No matter what ancient Greeks (who weren’t so Greek) and some elusive German chaps with capital h told us about theory, I prefer to call it ”Mind at work’. Mind shapes the world but practice keeps it turning. Just sit back and enjoy the show. I’ll give this ’sufficiency’ five years at maximum. It’ll fade away as soon as the next reign begins.
14 patiwat // Mar 19, 2007 at 2:29 pm
From today’s Nation:
During separate visits by Gen Sonthi Boonyaratgalin and Gen Surayud Chulanont to her province [Nakhon Rachasima] earlier this month, all villagers who were willing to participate received Bt80 along with their round-trip bus ride.
The villagers were also asked to bring crops to demonstrate their commitment to the sufficiency economy.
“We brought our corn, bananas and a variety of vegetables, but this was all grown under a community agricultural project initiated by Thaksin,” Sompit said with a chuckle.
“Even though the government preaches sufficiency economy all the time, we’ve never been told what it’s all about, much less received any support to practise it.”
15 Srithanonchai // Mar 19, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Practice keeps the mind turning, right? On the other hand, the mind also has an effect on practice.
Anyway, you might well be right re the sufficiency economy.
On this matter:
1) Amartya Sen will receive a Lifetime Achievement Award from UNESCAP, with Princess Sirindhorn giving a key note address, and PM Surayud being in attendance. Sen will speak about “welfare economics.” Since UNDP praised the king’s sufficiency economy, and having all the above people in one event, one wonders how sufficiency economy will figure in this context.
2) Suriyasai Katasila suggested that the coup government should implement the sufficiency economy so that they would have something to show for. These democracy advocates must really be confused these days. They advise a military-appointed government on how to win the hearts and minds of the people, instead of demanding that the sufficiency economy be allowed to be democratically discussed by the public, and then discoursively be decided upon.
(both Bangkok Post, 19 March)
3) From The Nation, same day:
During separate visits by Gen Sonthi Boonyaratgalin and Gen Surayud Chulanont to her province earlier this month, all villagers who were willing to participate received Bt80 along with their round-trip bus ride.
The villagers were also asked to bring crops to demonstrate their commitment to the sufficiency economy.
“We brought our corn, bananas and a variety of vegetables, but this was all grown under a community agricultural project initiated by Thaksin,” Sompit said with a chuckle.
“Even though the government preaches sufficiency economy all the time, we’ve never been told what it’s all about, much less received any support to practise it.”
16 Sawarin // Mar 19, 2007 at 10:02 pm
‘Amartya Sen will receive a Lifetime Achievement Award from UNESCAP, with Princess Sirindhorn giving a key note address, and PM Surayud being in attendance. Sen will speak about “welfare economics.” Since UNDP praised the king’s sufficiency economy, and having all the above people in one event, one wonders how sufficiency economy will figure in this context’.
Amartya’s going to join this circus? What a tosser. Perhaps McCargo should extend his ‘network’ thesis (with details of how he built his Leeds-King Prachatipok network would also be nice). Anyway, I’ll be waiting to hear Amartya’s speech. keep me posted. Cheers Srithanonchai.
17 Srithanonchai // Mar 19, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Hopefully, Amartya Sen will come better prepared than he was in 1999, the last occasion that he gave a major address in Thailand. At that time, being questioned about sufficiency economy by Somkiat Onwimon, he professed ignorance. Cheers Sawarin.
18 Srithanonchai // May 11, 2007 at 7:29 pm
sufficiency economy web site
http://www.sufficiencyeconomy.org/en/
This site features a number of Thai and English language articles.
19 Srithanonchai // May 13, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Sufficiency Economy and capitalism are the same. Read more about some Thai’s bizarre attempts at transforming the SEP into the apex of globalization and capitalist philosophy.
“Pipat believes that the SEP is neither anti-globalisation nor anti-profit-maximisation, as feared by some Western observers. Instead, the SEP is helpful for businesses adapting changes resulting from globalisation because it minimises the downside risk while increasing the upside potential.
The SEP also helps businesses optimise their profit-making capability so that growth is more sustainable and risk is further reduced.
After all, elements of the SEP, when translated into business action, are not new, since enterprises have been using modern management practices such as EVA, Balanced Scorecard, key performance indicator and scenario-planning for years.
It is just that the SEP views the application of these practices in a more integrated and holistic manner.”
WOW!
The Nation, 13 May 2007
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.