David Steinberg
Georgetown University

It seems Republican thinks the mere use of the term SE equates to legitimizing it and bringing increased political support for the king.

He’s making quite a fuss about a theory of how reasonableness & moderation can provide some immunity.

Republican describes it as an above criticism, “pseudo-economic theory”. Then he proceeds to disagree with an academic giving his support to such a topic which cannot be publicly explored in a critical (even in an academic setting) manner in Thailand or in Thai studies, which, renders it a tool for propaganda.

It is not wrong for an academic to agree with the King, but how can such a conclusion be reached when the other side of the debate is silenced? In such a case, the said academic’s support for the policy would be tantamount to propaganda.

But where Prof Keyes ever granted his support for SE is what I am still pondering about. Or is the mere use of the word (except with the qualifying words “pseudo-economics”) wrong?

Republican: I am having trouble understanding the logic of your statement above.

Is your concern about the “sufficiency economy” concept, or are you concerned that an academic might agree with the king on something? (not necessarily SE)

If it is the former, then why not just make your case against SE and let individual academics say whatever they want to?

If it is the latter, then there is no logic at all to your argument as academics would be precluded from ever agreeing with the king, which is nonsense.

(Fortunately, it was not printed in The Nation so there is no need to turn this into a > 100 post thread !)

First, let me say that I have enormous respect for Prof. Keyes’ pioneering work in Thai Studies. This includes not only his own path-breaking research but his training of so many graduate students who themselves have shaped and are shaping the field of Thai Studies.

It is because of Prof. Keyes’ prominence in the field that I believe it is important to criticize his use of the king’s “sufficiency economy” language:

“…What is striking is that the village still remains a viable community. Non-residents return regularly for festivals and many come back to settle permanently in the village. It remains because it provides a moral world centred on Thai-Lao Buddhism which people find meaningful. This is why in my keynote address for the International Thai Studies Conference in Bangkok in January I argue that the northeastern village economy is both a capitalist and a sufficiency economy….”

I question why Prof. Keyes should make use of the “sufficiency economy” discourse of the king, and especially in the keynote address at an international conference that is being held in honour of the king. While I have not seen the paper, even from this section of the interview one can sense the positive associations inherent in his use of the concept, “sufficiency economy”.

I have no problem whatsoever with academics pointing out the deficiencies of capitalist economies, or the advantages of pre-capitalist, alternative or hybrid forms of economic organization.

But please, don’t call the latter “sufficiency economy”.

What is the effect of Prof. Keyes’ use of the key term in the king’s “sufficiency economy” discourse? It will be taken to mean that one of the most prominent academics in the field of Thai Studies is giving intellectual support to the king’s concept of “sufficiency economy”. This gives the discourse increased legitimacy, which naturally transforms into political support for the king in the current political crisis.

It will lend support to the relentless propaganda in Thailand that the king is a genius (since no-one can criticize him because of lese majeste) which is itself one of the main obstacles to democratization in Thailand (put bluntly: why let the ignorant, uneducated villagers who sell their votes govern themselves when the genius king and his officials are so much better informed? – just read the king’s “Mahachanok” and you can see that this is exactly the way the king sees things).

Prof. Keyes says in the interview that “…I feel it is imperative to speak out when one is aware of situations that clearly are unjust…”

There is no more unjust situation in Thailand today than the king’s abuse of democratic principles.

Given the king’s staunch support for the dictatorship in Thailand and the disenfranchisement of the Thai population, together with the fact that Thais themselves are forbidden from questioning publicly anything that the king says, even when it is a pseudo-economic policy that affects the lives of the entire population, I urge Prof. Keyes not to use the term or the concept “sufficiency economy” in his keynote address. I urge him to change the title of his address.