Comments on: $ufficiency economy

By: paul

paul — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:29:35 +0000

to be fair.the pro. never get the questions about mr. sonthi lim and his PAD. who messing up this country.destroyed the government building, keep thousands of passagers in the 2 airports hostaged.and he never get to mention about the PAD .

By: ic

ic — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 03:55:16 +0000

The Nation and Bangkok Post to certain exteny are alike the totalitarian propaganda gasping for its last breath that could have been found at pages of communist periodicals of Warsaw Pact in the time of so called ‘perestroika’ . The rhetorics is strikingly similar. Far right meets far left in full circle. We should not be shocked here.

By: Ralph Kramden

Ralph Kramden — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:26:31 +0000

Why is it baffling that the Nation prints such stuff? They are engaged in a propaganda exercise that is driven by a hatred of Thaksin. Their initial hatred of Thaksin was driven by the attempts Thaksin made to silence them, so there is justification. There surely was enough material to allow serious journalists to criticize and attack Thaksin. Now, though, in order to attack Thaksin they have been prepared to promote any fellow enemy. They are prepared to make things up if necessary, and they have been prepared to allow their journalism to deteriorate to a level that it can hardly be called journalism.

By: Srithanonchai

Srithanonchai — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 04:24:05 +0000

“shallow propaganda” > The problem is that Young really believes in what he says. And he thinks that he is (almost) the only foreigner who is able accurately to understand Thailand. Yet, with connections such as Anand Panyarachun, FM Kasit, and Suthichai Yoon (and probably some higher-ups), he does not have to care about intellectual honesty and ethics… He gets access so easily, and thus can push his political interests effortlessly, while others, who know much better, have to struggle not to be submerged by the dominant elite views.

The interview is at http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/09/09/opinion/opinion_30111781.php

Reading this interview, I am really baffled about all these superficial statements, and Young’s obvious lack of factual knowledge (e.g., re Thaksin got his concession, or re Pridi’s exile). The first thing that he should probably do is to go into a library and have a good read for two or three months to bring him at last to an initial level of understanding.

It is only all the more baffling that The Nation would print stuff like this (in two installments!).

By: Ralph Kramden

Ralph Kramden — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 00:54:04 +0000

And now the Nation has the first of a two-part interview with this “old friend” of Thailand. He begins: “the New York Times especially [doesn't understand]. The Washington Post. The Economist. Foreigners don’t know the way the Thais think. I’m more worried now about Thailand than ever before.” Damned foreigners.

Fromm where I sit, while these outlets are not the deep and meaningful studies of Thailand that academics provide, the interesting change that has taken place since at least the 2006 coup is a more critical stance towards those like Young who have long claimed to interpret Thailand for foreigners, almost always from the royaloist perspective. It has taken a long time for this more mature attitude to develop.

It is a great advance that statements like the next one are now more likely to be seen for the shallow propaganda that they are: “In 1961 it was my dad, with the passion of His Majesty and Field Marshal Sarit. He was a dictator, a military dictator, he was a tough guy, but he cared about the people, especially Isaan [the Northeast], and His Majesty also cared about Isaan.”

The interview is replete with royalist twaddle: only Thaksin wants change in Thailand. The elite and aristocracy are not the princelings of the palace and so on but the unspecified monopoly Thaksin had in telecoms. You can dislike the way that business was done (before Thaksin came to power in this case) but the deflection of attention from the real, fabulously wealthy elite is a travesty of manipulation of meaning (Young must have learned at the knee of his dad’s buddy Sarit).

His history is wrong and the interview gets worse. Can’t wait for the second instalment.

By: Srithanonchai

Srithanonchai — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 04:54:26 +0000

Ralph #31

That’s indeed him.

In the Bangkpok Post of today, but in a different context, Sulak has this to day:

“The elite want to live under structural violence with inner peace and good conscience. They don’t want (radical) social change or emancipation. There’s something terribly reactionary about this position.”

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/23450/a-virtuous-life-in-the-service-of-humanity

By: reg

reg — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 03:16:40 +0000

Time for a brainstorming activity on living within your means. Collaborate, and choose a spokesman to present your conclusions . Messrs. Thaksin & Sonthi ought to be talking to Somsri and Somchai, since they are the only folks in the group who truly know what subsistence means. But no! Try to ensure that there is an interaction, and you still get the same old over-eager hand-raising race by those who think it is their prerogative alone. They are conditioned to react rapidly without considering at all what is actually being called for. It would be unrealistic to expect an opinion from Somsri and Somchai, who are themselves thoroughly conditioned into the habit of always allowing their more gregarious and rich classmates compete for all the attention. Poor classroom management, right! But stick to imposing outside approaches and you get nothing. Do what local teachers do and you get way too much ill thought-out input from the self-elected classroom cleverclogs.

It is at times like these when one is very inclined to conclude that one is thoroughly wasting one’s time. One might even wonder whether outside ways of doing stuff have any relevance at all here. Particularly since one probably ended up working here through redundancy at home. The rejects of one daft system trying to make converts among those thoroughly locked into another daft system. There is actually a lot to be said for early retirement, if one can afford the indulgence. But the grim reality is that one is locked into this bollocks until death or more redundancy do us part.

By: reg

reg — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 02:17:46 +0000

And already SE has morphed into just another form of corruption. Thailand’s finest are essentially very one trick ponies. And the pony has long been completely lame.

By: BAD DOG

BAD DOG — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:52:08 +0000

Re Thaksin’s challenge for Thailand is serious because “Thaksin does not think like a Thai” :

Hmmm…
1. ugly crony capitalism – check
2. never admits a mistake (except being too nice, of course) – check
3. a practiced liar – check
4. dodgy education -check
5. arguably never made an honest dollar in his life – check
…etc. etc.

Thaksin certainly seems to think and act a lot like many if not most of the ruling elite – red or yellow. So when the rich and powerful privelidged (?) elites openly display such gross immorality, it is no mystery why dishonesty and crime is so prevalent in the poor and middle classes who are just struggling to survive or provide for a better future for their kids.

Perhaps if there were double-sided signs at the airport reading: “MEGALOMANIACS AND PEDOPHILES NOT WELCOME HERE”

By: Ralph Kramden

Ralph Kramden — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:12:47 +0000

Is it possible that this is the very same Stephen B. Young who wrote reports on “non-partipatory democracy” for USOM in 1966 and then had it published in 1968 in Asian Survey? That article was “The Northeastern Thai Village: A Non-Participatory Democracy” in Vol. 8, No. 11, pp. 873-86. There he was listed as employed by USAID in Vietnam, and the research was said to have been financed by Havard University.

Sounds like it could be if one looks at this: http://www.asianforumcsr.com/programs/bios/Young.htm
Another biography (http://www.cauxroundtable.org/view_file.cfm?fileid=18) says this: “In 1966, Young discovered the ancient bronze age culture of Ban Chiang, Thailand, by tripping over a tree root on a small path in Ban Chiang village in Udorn-Thani province.”

His CIA links are explained in that biography: “Young served for the American Agency for International Development in the Republic of
Vietnam during the Vietnam War, working on village government reforms and economic development. Young developed unusual relationships with the Tan DaiViet Party of Vietnamese nationalists who formulated the strategy of pacification, rural development and constitutional reform that defeated the Communist insurgency in South Vietnam. Young’s work on village community development was recognized in his book on the Vietnam War by CIA Director William Colby and Young’s understanding of the realities of the Vietnam War were admired by President Richard Nixon, who asked Young to advise him in the writing of his book No More Vietnams.”

He is a Republican (not on Thailand!): “In 1996 Young ran for the nomination of the Republican Party of Minnesota for the United States Senate and in 1999 Young sought the Chairmanship of the Party on a coalition basis uniting social conservatives with moderates and independents.”

He has taught at SASIN, Chulalongkorn University, on
corporate social responsibility, something he has a deep interest in and which is reflected in an article he wrote about the economic crisis and the CPB’s businesses in 2002 as “Family Businesses and Reforms in Corporate Governance,” a paper presented at the Caux Round Table in Singapore, at the the Institute of Policy Studies (http://www.cauxroundtable.org/view_file.cfm?fileid=34).

A long and complicated history with Thailand, but just the kind of person the palace conservatives like having around.