Back when the generals were still running Thailand, here at New Mandala we paid almost daily attention to what then passed for national economic policy — the ephemeral notion of “sufficiency”. As a key discursive crutch it seems to have been largely folded away under the government of Prime Minister Samak. Of course, it has faded from the agenda right at the time when real economic problems are starting to bite…everywhere.
But, never fear, “sufficiency” is one of those ideas that seems to always make a comeback in one form or another.
In today’s Bangkok Post Suranand Vejjajiva, who was a Prime Minister’s Office Minister under Thaksin, provides an interesting set of “prescriptions” for Thailand’s economic woes. Among other things, he suggests that:
The sufficiency economy must be seriously implemented at the village level, providing a base for sustainable development for the rural areas.
This leaves me scratching my head. Why does he only mention “sufficiency economy” as a way of improving village life? Is he actually taking it seriously as a set of economic policies, or is he just uttering the shibboleth for good measure, or is he, in fact, using it for something else entirely?
My question for Suranand is — if the “sufficiency economy” will save rural Thailand, why shouldn’t it be “seriously implemented” across society? Why does the “village level” bear the brunt of “sufficiency” attention? Nowhere else in his article does Suranand mention the idea and, in fact, he offers a number of other suggestions for economic reform and re-structuring which, one must imagine, would upset some “sufficiency” advocates. There is no explicit mention of “sufficiency” for Bangkok or its residents. Are the questions just too hard? Under a “sufficiency” regime what would be first to go for the urban elite? Meals at posh places in Siam Paragon? Trips to Europe? Any superfluous income?
And a question for New Mandala readers — have you had enough of sufficiency?
10 responses so far ↓
1 manning sawwinner // Jul 19, 2008 at 12:53 pm
It is interesting that, while sufficiency economy is advocated by many as either lip service or something serious, we still see a lot of spending in the state sector alone by all the branches of government, of which the executive branch seems to be the most modest in comparison with the legislature (construction of new parliament facilities) and the judiciary (one fabulous courthouse after another). What should be one vital aim for all Thais is to get rid of our taste for Western luxuries and to live within our means for average Thais. Shouldn’t we build a thatch-roof parliament house for a change to make it more like a rural cafe where ordinary Thais congregate? Then we can rightly say that our M.P.’s represent the Thai people.
2 Vianney // Jul 20, 2008 at 7:50 am
I’m not a loyalist. But I would say that this concept works not for Thailand’s villages but global problems. All conflicts in the world could be solved if each of us learn to be content in what we have. I’m not that naive or dreamy to say that human beings should give in to one another. We still have to protect our rights, but not trespass others. What is ours is ours. What is not ours, we must not want to get it. Let’s say we can have fun, but we must know the limit. Thais need not cut back either trip to europe or luxuaries, so long as they can afford it.
From the context of capitalism, it may be difficult for the Bangkokian middle class to understand the sufficiency economy concept. Suranand may focus on the villages because it made it easier to communicate. If he focuses on only village, he is missing the point.
3 Observer // Jul 20, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Suranan’s comments seem pretty much par for the course. From what I have seen discussions of the sustainability economy consist almost entirely of rich Bangkok residents telling the poor to stay poor.
4 Grasshopper // Jul 20, 2008 at 6:17 pm
No I haven’t had enough of sufficiency. It is a perverse fait accompli and without it, this site would have much less content. We get to stare at stagnating development and wonder why — it is slowly becoming a part of Thai culture (or has always been? haha), which I’m not in – but am curious about. Maybe to satiate Che urges it would be better to ask this in Thai?
If a sufficiency economy was implemented in Bangkok, many tourists would have to have hotel stays without air conditioning. Could Bangkok find a different industry to butter it’s bread? I think tourism in South East Asia depends so much on all the stereotypes in that Ruby Wax article you posted and in the minds of Westerners who are captivated by seeing what they imagined in books from childhood. Exploring.
If South East Asia, and Thailand in particular didn’t look like it does, if it didn’t have the class issues, the rural poor contrasted with the Bangkok elite – if there was development like there has been in tiger economies throughout Thailand, would people still flock to Thailand in droves? I doubt it. You can’t have an ‘authentic adventure experience’ in a place where nobody starves, everyone has a tractor and air conditioning. Maybe it is the conservative elite attitude in Thailand and the nostalgic, romantic notion of what we see Thailand as that prevents practical development and promotes silly ideas like segregated sufficiency economy.
Maybe if Bhumibol didn’t buy into this sort of conservatism, he would have instead advocated for constructing solar panel factories and geothermal technology centers? This way Thailand could take advantage of a projected international business boom in being –sustainable–, rather than sufficient. Consequently allowing Thailand to emerge as the latest ‘tiger economy’.
So I am very interested in sufficiency because it fuels my inefficient digressions!
5 Reg Varney // Jul 21, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Vianney says that all the “conflicts in the world could be solved if each of us learn to be content in what we have.” Nice bit of buddhist theology but is it SE? Anyway, as I look out my window in Bangkok this morning and see yet another crane – a metal one, not the bird – rise close to my abode I know that all these Bangkok rich people are truly experiencing SE and putting it to work in concrete, steel and glass.
6 nganadeeleg // Jul 21, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Reasonableness, Moderation & Immunity – sound advice after the 1997 crash.
Simple concepts, but twisted to suit an underlying agenda – by both sides!
7 James Haughton // Jul 21, 2008 at 2:26 pm
As long as the villages are “sufficient”, they will be poor. As long as they are poor, they will migrate to the cities and work cheaply. As long as they work cheaply, Bangkok’s elite can continue to make money from export-led development, and publish newspaper articles advocating sufficiency.
8 Sidh S. // Jul 21, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Calm down people. We are all only describing the phenomenon of ‘development’ in Thailand – a country somewhere on the spectrum between a rural, agricultural society (Thailand in the 1950s) and one that is urban, post-industrialized (Thailand in 20xx?).
Similarly, on politics, we are describing a society that is somewhere on the spectrum between a monarchy (Thailand pre-1932) and one that is a liberal democracy (Thailand in 20xx?).
Most of us are doing so from the vantage points of either living or have lived in societies that is already classified as “developed” and a liberal democracy. We assume that we have all the answers and prescriptions. But we could just be dead wrong – if Climate Change extremities kicks in (e.g. already forcing Australians to be “sufficient” with their water use). Now we are telling China and India to “slow down mate” and stop polluting – which is, in essence telling millions to “stay poor longer”.
Whatever we say here, we say as total hypocrites…
9 Reg Varney // Jul 21, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Sidh: I claim to have been defamed. I most certainly do not “assume that we have all the answers and prescriptions.” And I continue to find your assertions that you know best about each bloggers motivations etc. to be little different from that position you claim to criticise. Is this the arrogance you criticise or just a case of being caught within your own “logic” and not being able to see outside it?
10 Sidh S. // Jul 22, 2008 at 12:32 am
“Is this the arrogance you criticise or just a case of being caught within your own “logic” and not being able to see outside it?”
Both Reg – I often get caught in my own logic. I try not to, but I can’t help it. I have been criticized for my arrogance too – and will readily admit to it as well… I readily admit (as I used “we”) that I write as a hypocrite.
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.