The Thai government’s Public Relations Department has used the post-coup period to put out a continuous stream of reporting and commentary on “sufficiency economy”. Recently they have devoted some attention to a small island off the coast of Phuket where “villagers…live today in happiness under the principle of self sufficiency economy”.
According to the recent report:
Showing strength in their community, the Koh Maphrao village is selected as one of Phuket’s pioneer villages to successfully practice self-sufficiency economies. Recently it received a budget of 200,000 baht to maintain and extend the career group within the community. This comprises home stay facilities and activities for housewives to earn extra income: “We unite and cooperate well among the local community.” The Koh Maphrao Village is another good example of living in Thai lifestyle with self sufficiency economy as pioneered by His Majesty the King.
Readers hoping to learn more about the government’s many model “sufficiency economy” villages will find the Thai-language offerings at the Public Relations Department even more interesting. Under the headline “sufficiency supports community” examples are offered from throughout the provinces. There are “sufficiency communities” in the northern (17 villages), northeastern (19 villages), southern (14 villages) and central (25 villages) parts of the country.
Unfortunately I don’t have up-to-date knowledge of the nitty-gritty local economy of any of the villages that are profiled on the site. Many in our audience would be delighted to hear from New Mandala readers who know more about the adoption of “sufficiency economy” in the specific villages highlighted by the Public Relations Department. Is there real substance behind the “sufficiency” of these model villages?
9 responses so far ↓
1 Srithanonchai // Oct 9, 2007 at 12:09 am
The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration also had an advertisement on “self sufficiency economy” in the Bangkok Post (can’t anybody tell these people that “self-sufficiency” has a very specific meaning?). Now it looks as if the separation and recycling of garbage is a direct outcome of this approach. My mom back home in Germany, who has been doing this for so long, will be glad to know that, in fact, she does this on the initiative of the Thai king. This might not be obvious to most Germans.
2 Historicus // Oct 9, 2007 at 3:34 am
A quick look at the listing seems to indicate that the return to the “bureaucratic polity” version of administration is continuing. The bureaucracy has regularly come up with “model villages” for all kinds of policies that were in vogue at the time. This seems little different as a bureaucratic strategy for promoting fads and propaganising.
3 Sidh S. // Oct 9, 2007 at 7:02 pm
As stated in a previous post, “Sufficiency Economy” is a ’sub-set’ of the global narrative of “Sustainability” (which is unfortunately being hijacked and narrowed by “Climate Change”). The terms arose independently but the concepts are cogent. Sustainability is not about keeping the undeveloped countries undeveloped as SE is not about keeping poor villagers poor. The aim is the same to mitigate the excesses of aggressive capitalism that severes both social and ecological ties. SE seem to propose a ‘return’ to a rural society of smallholder organic farmers and that could be a viable alternative to the process of overreliance on chemical fertilizers, genetically modified seeds/food, indebtedness and landlessness. Who knows, in the process of ecological and social solidarity, a stronger glassroots political movement may arise that gives godfather and urban-based politicians a run for their money. The danger is as Historicus points out (and this is not limited to Thailand), if patronizing, self-serving bureaucrats and businessmen exploit and twist the concept and practices of whether ’sustainability’ or ‘SE’.
Srithanonchai, in recycling your mom is doing what people have been doing time-immemorial. Just that, as a consumerist society, we have lately forgotten that. Sufficiency Economy is just a reminder, specifically to the Thai people, of how things can alternatively done. It is what the environmentalists/Greens were already doing for German society. I don’t think HM the King would claim credit for that and I don’t think anyone should be precious about ‘green’, eco-friendly knowledge and practice. If the Japanese practice of sorting their rubbish into 5-6 categories for recycling proves to be most environmental friendly, there shouldn’t be any issue with other societies adopting it…
4 Restorationist // Oct 10, 2007 at 1:04 am
Sidh’s comments on politicians misusing the king’s ideas are one way in which the monarchy is protected in Thailand, and are disingenuous. SE is the king’s idea and are clearly not driven by any desire to be green or anything else environmental. What of the huge polluting companies he owns? Think of Siam Cement! What of the huge dam projects he supports? Oh, yes, Siam Cement did okay out of them! What of the deforestation practiced at royal palaces? What of clearing out hill dwellers from land the royals coveted?
5 Sidh S. // Oct 11, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Restorationist, please read up on “sustainability” – it is quite a comprehensive concept and does not view the world in black and white. Sustainability acknowledges that modern industrial/postindustrial society have a very long list of negative impacts on society/environment which needs to be redressed. The social, economical, environmental, cultural components of society are intricately interrelated/interconnected. The principles of SE may or may not be driven by the ‘green’ agenda, but it has huge potential implications analysed under the umbrella of ’sustainability’.
I also don’t agree with the logic that if you don’t like a person or institution, but that person/institution happen to propose a potentially good idea, you oppose/discredit the idea straight away. I also don’t subscribe to the notion that ‘royalty’ is one homogeneous, monolithic body (even the Thai on the street can differentiate) – or even worse, as you seem to suggest that the monarchy and government (via politicians and bureaucrats) are one and the same; or that all the decisions made by directors, managers of businesses wholly or partially owned by the Crown Property Bureau are synonymous with HM the King’s. Let’s resist drawing easy conclusions on ’sustainability’/SE or blame every Thai societal/environmental ills on one person/institution without careful consideration/implications of concepts and the various agencies.
6 beth // Oct 12, 2007 at 1:13 am
During the late 80s, I visited some villages as part of the workshop I attended at YMCA, Chiangmai. I understand that those at YMCA (and other NGOs) have been active players in many rural development projects in the area. In fact, I first heard of such thing as (environmentally/ecologically) sustainable development back then. The community forest in Lamphun was quite impressive back when I visited, as well as women and youth group activities. The PR site of the government doesn’t seem to advertise previous contributions, or maybe I missed it… In terms of equal access to education and health care, I suppose to some it’s still not clear if it’s part of happiness or not. Can a village kid dream about going to Chulalongkorn University some day? When they are viewed unable to adjust to academic workload and life, and should not be supported… I hope this is not off the topic.
7 Srithanonchai // Oct 12, 2007 at 2:11 am
So, in Thailand, SD is sold as SE, with the label “royally approved”, to make it more palatable to that section of the Thai population that can never do anything if it is not “to honor the king,” “to celebrate the king’s birthday”, etc. ? As a royalist Thai friend of mine once remarked to me, “I wonder whether these people will stop doing anything when the King is gone.”
8 Sidh S. // Oct 12, 2007 at 4:41 pm
And that is a very good point Srithanonchai. Personally, if any group of people can be considered ‘disingenous’, to borrow Restorationist, it is these group of people (often elites) who have no real convictions to act for the greater good in the first place (and it usually reflects in the actions/interpretations of SE). I am inclined to judge the group of NLA members who proposed to extend the lese majeste law in that light (unless it is only a political game to contain PAD-allied members). Sadly the ‘Buddhism approved’ narrative has been greatly weakened (and Jatukam’s and the likes of commercial animism will keep making returns), “royally aproved” SE will have to do the job of a national narrative mitigating aggressive capitalism for the time being.
9 Srithanonchai // Oct 12, 2007 at 7:56 pm
“SE will have to do the job of a national narrative mitigating aggressive capitalism for the time being.” >> However, as you mention, conviction and actions are problems. Thus, they do what they have done with so many other things (democracy, planning, participation, cooperation, accountability, transparency, knowledge society, efficiency, effectiveness, monitoring, evaluation, strategy, vision, to mention just a few), that is use them as discoursive cliches that must be reproduced at the appropriate places of a “narrative” without, however, having relevance to the level of action. In this process, as you also mention, they dilute the meaning of such concepts, and might even use them as weapons against those who really adhere to such concepts in their everyday life/work.
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.