Christine, I was interested to read how IX transitioned from dilettante to money-maker. Did this transition occur over a long period of time or was there some significant event that caused the transition to take place? What was the catalyst?
Siam (and subsequently Thailand) has been home to a rich and diverse landscape of Buddhisms for centuries. Well, forever, actually. And while some central Siamese religious authorities may have dreamed of purging regional traditions of Buddhism, they failed to a very large degree. Similarly, the modernizing absolutist and post-absolutist state may have dreamed of creating a single official Buddhism within the country’s borders, but that project similarly remains a dream. There is considerable pluralism within contemporary Thai Buddhism – whether in terms of theology, practice, sectarian identification, regional identity, etc.
Thais and Thailand already tolerates more than one form of Buddhism. The provocative title of this post seems quite misplaced, therefore. The question is why so many Thais, and so many socially and politically powerful Thais, find it difficult to tolerate Dhammakaya. More than just the innovations in doctrine and technology that the author correctly points to, one might also consider its innovations in cultural forms, ritual practices and social organization which have also challenged conventional models of Thai Buddhist religiosity, and especially the vision and interests of establishment state Buddhism and its still influential actors and institutions.
It’s important, I think, to acknowledge that this banks really were operating as banks in the post-1945 decades. Otherwise, some of the activities, not least in provincial Thailand, that Dr Gray documented in her work would have made no sense.
“Chinese” would have been better, far better. I also wonder if the article does not implicitly suggest far more unproblematic continuity between the “Sino-Thai” business interests (and their relationship to the rest of the society) in the era in which Dr Gray did her superb original research and more recent times.
No, I am not “blasting the Thais”. I’m just pointing out that the crown prince threw everything into confusion with his decision to postpone being named king, nobody in the junta dared contradict him, and so the theatrics of this week are just trying to give faux legitimacy to something that should have happened with much less fanfare on the evening of October 13, and it is inaccurate for media to report on this week’s events in a reverential tone as if this process is an ancient tradition or following some kind of constitutional script.
In other words, the “formality based on law and tradition” is totally bogus because it is not following law or tradition.
You are, of course, correct. McVey, Suehiro and Hewison are the bibles in this regard, plus Yoshihara.
It’s interesting that the Japanese scholars were in there first, with the least illusion, or perhaps the most inside knowledge.
Speaking if I may for those of us who’ve spent a lot of time going cross-eyed trying to trace the interconnections among these businesses and families with royals and the Crown properties, much effort was expended in disguise. I’m not sure why you would belittle this since the principals certainly did not. So much so that one might say the business pages of Thai newspapers are themselves a kind of myth, like official history.
My brilliant career was whacked at the point where I was exploring connections between the monarchy and the rise of commercial banks post-war (THAT WAS A JOKE, people, from the Australian movie… ) As I’ve stressed previously, one less popular point of my dissertation was that it demonstrated ritual links between commercial banks, Bangkok Bank, Ltd., in particular, with the monarchy at a time when the king was considered both “above politics” and business. These links, for obvious reasons, would not appear on the business pages of the newspaper. Pointing them out was not popular because it challenged underlying premises of various areas of scholarly studies.
Several key bank-monarchy alliances were and probably continue to be undergirded by quite meticulous ritual performances. Why would the Lord Chamberlain also be head of the Crown Properties? Why would he backtrack on his connections to other royally-endorsed banks? Who’s paying to play in the R IX mourning ceremonies?
Since I am a cultural anthropologist exploring connections between language and political economy, my focus was on mechanisms of disguise, including silence, the power of names and images, etc., involved in the evolution of the modern Thai economy. Included therein would be the quite exhausting (to study) naming and renaming of various Sino-Thai individuals, families and business ventures throughout the 20th century in order to disguise business-bureaucratic connections and much, much more.
I once spoke to a FORBES researcher, since we were in search of the same information. Founders of these Sino-Thai business empires never cooperate in revealing the extent of their business holdings. Some even refuse to have their pictures taken. If they cooperate, it’s part of the show.
Secrecy was always a major theme of Sino-Thai banks and the monarchy. Why would that be?
What the above scholars miss is the role of women in building these fortunes, royal women especially. Much of it harks back to the intermarriages a.k.a. harem of King Rama V. Quite enterprising, those serving ladies. The point of the above discussions about sexism, besides being inherently disgusting, is that it quashes knowledge.
These businesses did not achieve success without connection to the throne, some hidden, some not hidden. How did that come about?
The question is: What will happen to these meticulously cultivated relationships in the Xth reign? No ritual, no patriotism, no secrecy.
One of the saddest developments of the past couple of decades is that the radically improved access to information that the internet has facilitated does not seem to have disempowered dictators who seek to restrict information, and it does not seem to have empowered ordinary people. Information flows are being democratised but this does not appear to have helped democracy. On the contrary, as the events of 2016 have shown, there is a global retreat from democracy and we appear to be living in a “post-truth” world.
One unexpected development of the rise of the internet and social media is that they have given a voice to a millions of angry men (invariably men) who appear to feel the need to be as loudly and gratuitously unpleasant as possible in order to help them come to terms with socio-economic inferiority. This is why it has become so difficult to try to have any kind of civil discussion in most online forums. As Jessica Valenti wrote in 2015, the comments sections beneath most articles these days have become so full of bile that it is best to just ignore them: “sexism, racism and homophobia are the norm; threats and harassment are common”. Instead of debating your views with some semblance of civility — even if they strongly disagree — a lot of men seem to feel the need to unleash exaggerated derision and bile. It’s not enough for them to disagree with you, they have to denounce you as a disgusting person. Commenting on this depressing situation, Mary Elizabeth Williams despaired that “the trolls, racists and abusers won”.
I don’t take your vitriol personally, Michael, because I know this is how you behave towards everybody online. You are so convinced of the rectitude of your own views that you appear to be unable to debate them without descending into gratuitous abuse of anybody you disagree with. It’s clearly pathological behaviour, perhaps connected to frustration that so few people pay any attention to you, and you don’t seem to realise that your own behaviour is why nobody wants to have any contact with you online even though you sometimes have sensible and interesting things to say amid all the bile.
I get it, you don’t agree with my views on Thailand, and for some reason you also hate me even though we never met. That’s fine, you are entitled to your views. The most sensible way for me to respond is just to ignore you, as I usually do. I’m making an exception in this case, just to publicly correct a couple of your more egregiously inaccurate statements.
Firstly, you seem to believe that some of my opinions are not sincerely held and that I just promote them for financial reasons and to promote my book. I get this kind of criticism a lot, a common attack from Thai royalists is that I am making vast sums of money by “defaming Thailand”, either via book sales or because Thaksin Shinawatra is funding me. This is, of course, absurd, and your comments betray a total ignorance of the economics of book publishing in the 21st century. I can assure you that writing a book on a niche subject like Thai politics is far from lucrative — in fact, in terms of the financial return for hours worked, it is considerably worse than even the most unskilled job, and I would have made much more money if I had spent the time I worked on my book flipping burgers in McDonalds instead. I’m not complaining about this, I find it rewarding in other ways to write about Thailand, but in financial terms it earns a pittance and I make my living in other ways.
Secondly, I understand that one of the tactics of online trolling is to try to be so offensive that it compels a response from people who otherwise ignore you, and congratulations, with your comments on my work in Iraq you succeeded. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think you know anything about my conduct during my two years as Reuters bureau chief in Baghdad, or my subsequent time as managing editor in the Middle East. This was a period in which we faced extreme dangers, and several of my colleagues were killed by U.S. soldiers — Taras Protsyuk and Mazen Dana in 2003, Waleed Khaled in 2005, and most notoriously Namir Noor-eldeen and Saeed Chmagh in 2007. Three of my Iraqi staff were also tortured and abused by U.S. forces in 2004, a case that predated the Abu Ghraib revelations. Several more of my friends and colleagues have been killed in Iraq, over the years. I don’t mind you writing gratuitous abuse about me, from the safety of your keyboard in Nonthaburi, but I’m particularly disappointed that you also seem to want to denigrate the bravery of my friends and colleagues by claiming — totally wrongly — that we were kowtowing to anybody.
As everybody knows, I support freedom of speech, and I totally support your right to say what you want about me, however absurd and offensive it may be. But it’s sad that the comments section in New Mandala has become so bilious, when previously it used to be a space for worthwhile debate. I know for a fact that it discourages some people with worthwhile things to say from contributing to the site, and that is sad, it is a loss for everyone.
Well he said plenty trough other people. Notice how right after all the politicians, armed forces and police meet Jokowi, the government immediately proposes changes to mass organization (organisasi massa) law? Proposing to made it easier to disband them?
This is all moves and counter moves. Someone moves against Jokowi with these demonstration (it is too organized for a rag tag band of protesters), and Jokowi counter moves is gaining political support to create a law that made it easier to disband mass organization.
And as for why SBY is not yet invited, obviously he will be invited last because Jokowi suspect (rightly) that SBY benefits from loose governing of mass organization (ormas). Remember that it is during SBY rule that FPI and FBR prosper. I still remember FPI vandalize “nightclub” in some part of Jakarta during Ramadhan of 2007. SBY is last because Jokowi want to make sure when he’s invited, he won’t have any power to resist.
The crown prince now known as X understands the value of silence, in some ways that his father sometimes did not. There was never much latitude for him over the past few decades, any more than there was for Prince Charles. He was brought up in this system. Note that he does not mess up in diplomatic interactions, with a few dramatic exceptions, meaning whatever slights he administers are probably carefully thought out.
Thank you. The present situation and these particular historical developments have put much of the citizenry and certainly any genuinely democratic movements in a vise. Everyone is scared right now, or everyone I know. And disheartened.
You are correct. it went in variously as “Chinese,” then nothing, then Sino-Thai and in other work I break it down by specific language group. I was thinking more of Skinner’s work. Most if not all of these fortunes are post-WWII. Many/most were built in necessary association with the monarchy in order to de-stigmatize Chinese ‘cin’/’cek’ identity, since extortion and discrimination were facts of life and drove the alliances that underlay the creation of nation’s key commercial banks.
Where these fortunes stand now under X is a big question mark as demonstrated by the death of the prince’s fortune teller in conjunction with the Bike4Mom donation debacle. Stay tuned, one might say.
Thank you. A lot of teamwork went into the piece, including from the very kind editors. It helps we that we all care passionately about the same thing, about trying to get it right.
Michael Wilson’s cynical tone is at its best when dealing with the rich and powerful.
In economic parlance, the rich and powerful “invest” in royal families, and are the source most of their wealth. The may also “invest” in religion, but the mumbo-jumbo is best cut away to reveal economic motives.
In democratic systems, the rich and powerful “invest” in political parties, and are the source of most of their electoral success.
“…Thailand’s amazing Sino-Thai billionaires, whose empires, under his father’s steadfast rule, rose to the same unimaginable heights as the Crown Properties, in the identical, somewhat mysterious way. That is, if the billionaires wish to remain “Thai” and patriotic as currently defined by the junta.”
The “way” Thailand’s billionaires rose to such heights is only “somewhat mysterious” to those too lazy to follow the business pages I imagine.
And in spite of the decided lack of “oogey-boogey”, some of the fans of this cabalistic “othering” of Thai politics and capital might actually learn something from reading such things as Capital Accumulation in Thailand 1855-1985 or Thai Capital After the 1997 Crisis.
The lack of emphasis on ritual and ancient cosmologies may put some readers off, of course, but that’s how it goes in the hybrid neoliberal-crony capitalism aggressively transforming the capitalist landscape in SE Asia today.
I highly recommend following the developments in the retail sector both in Thailand and around the region.
The juggling around of huge swathes of Thailand’s consumer market by and between the Chirathivat, Sirivadhanabhakdi and Chearavanont family empires is no doubt connected to politics and to banking interests connected to politics just as such major capitalist surges always have been in Thailand.
The only “meticulous performances” involved in these major financial shifts are those relating to acquiring credit and performing backhanders to all the right people.
Thaksin, whose various administrations since the turn of the millennium have mystically acquired the bogus reputation of having been the dying breaths of Thai democracy, got his start and achieved the heights of his power and wealth in much the same way.
Although I will admit he did visit “ET” in Burma on more than one auspicious occasion.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Ritual and the demise of Thai democracy
Maybe there is a Marxist in our midst?
Ritual and the demise of Thai democracy
Christine, I was interested to read how IX transitioned from dilettante to money-maker. Did this transition occur over a long period of time or was there some significant event that caused the transition to take place? What was the catalyst?
Can Thailand tolerate more than one form of Buddhism?
Siam (and subsequently Thailand) has been home to a rich and diverse landscape of Buddhisms for centuries. Well, forever, actually. And while some central Siamese religious authorities may have dreamed of purging regional traditions of Buddhism, they failed to a very large degree. Similarly, the modernizing absolutist and post-absolutist state may have dreamed of creating a single official Buddhism within the country’s borders, but that project similarly remains a dream. There is considerable pluralism within contemporary Thai Buddhism – whether in terms of theology, practice, sectarian identification, regional identity, etc.
Thais and Thailand already tolerates more than one form of Buddhism. The provocative title of this post seems quite misplaced, therefore. The question is why so many Thais, and so many socially and politically powerful Thais, find it difficult to tolerate Dhammakaya. More than just the innovations in doctrine and technology that the author correctly points to, one might also consider its innovations in cultural forms, ritual practices and social organization which have also challenged conventional models of Thai Buddhist religiosity, and especially the vision and interests of establishment state Buddhism and its still influential actors and institutions.
Ritual and the demise of Thai democracy
It’s important, I think, to acknowledge that this banks really were operating as banks in the post-1945 decades. Otherwise, some of the activities, not least in provincial Thailand, that Dr Gray documented in her work would have made no sense.
Ritual and the demise of Thai democracy
“Chinese” would have been better, far better. I also wonder if the article does not implicitly suggest far more unproblematic continuity between the “Sino-Thai” business interests (and their relationship to the rest of the society) in the era in which Dr Gray did her superb original research and more recent times.
What next for the theatrics of Thailand?
No, I am not “blasting the Thais”. I’m just pointing out that the crown prince threw everything into confusion with his decision to postpone being named king, nobody in the junta dared contradict him, and so the theatrics of this week are just trying to give faux legitimacy to something that should have happened with much less fanfare on the evening of October 13, and it is inaccurate for media to report on this week’s events in a reverential tone as if this process is an ancient tradition or following some kind of constitutional script.
In other words, the “formality based on law and tradition” is totally bogus because it is not following law or tradition.
Hope that clarifies. Have a nice day.
Can Thailand tolerate more than one form of Buddhism?
So, how would you explain about hostility toward Bukkhunee, Santi Asoka, Phra Prachak, and many more?
Ritual and the demise of Thai democracy
You are, of course, correct. McVey, Suehiro and Hewison are the bibles in this regard, plus Yoshihara.
It’s interesting that the Japanese scholars were in there first, with the least illusion, or perhaps the most inside knowledge.
Speaking if I may for those of us who’ve spent a lot of time going cross-eyed trying to trace the interconnections among these businesses and families with royals and the Crown properties, much effort was expended in disguise. I’m not sure why you would belittle this since the principals certainly did not. So much so that one might say the business pages of Thai newspapers are themselves a kind of myth, like official history.
My brilliant career was whacked at the point where I was exploring connections between the monarchy and the rise of commercial banks post-war (THAT WAS A JOKE, people, from the Australian movie… ) As I’ve stressed previously, one less popular point of my dissertation was that it demonstrated ritual links between commercial banks, Bangkok Bank, Ltd., in particular, with the monarchy at a time when the king was considered both “above politics” and business. These links, for obvious reasons, would not appear on the business pages of the newspaper. Pointing them out was not popular because it challenged underlying premises of various areas of scholarly studies.
Several key bank-monarchy alliances were and probably continue to be undergirded by quite meticulous ritual performances. Why would the Lord Chamberlain also be head of the Crown Properties? Why would he backtrack on his connections to other royally-endorsed banks? Who’s paying to play in the R IX mourning ceremonies?
Since I am a cultural anthropologist exploring connections between language and political economy, my focus was on mechanisms of disguise, including silence, the power of names and images, etc., involved in the evolution of the modern Thai economy. Included therein would be the quite exhausting (to study) naming and renaming of various Sino-Thai individuals, families and business ventures throughout the 20th century in order to disguise business-bureaucratic connections and much, much more.
I once spoke to a FORBES researcher, since we were in search of the same information. Founders of these Sino-Thai business empires never cooperate in revealing the extent of their business holdings. Some even refuse to have their pictures taken. If they cooperate, it’s part of the show.
Secrecy was always a major theme of Sino-Thai banks and the monarchy. Why would that be?
What the above scholars miss is the role of women in building these fortunes, royal women especially. Much of it harks back to the intermarriages a.k.a. harem of King Rama V. Quite enterprising, those serving ladies. The point of the above discussions about sexism, besides being inherently disgusting, is that it quashes knowledge.
These businesses did not achieve success without connection to the throne, some hidden, some not hidden. How did that come about?
The question is: What will happen to these meticulously cultivated relationships in the Xth reign? No ritual, no patriotism, no secrecy.
What next for the theatrics of Thailand?
One of the saddest developments of the past couple of decades is that the radically improved access to information that the internet has facilitated does not seem to have disempowered dictators who seek to restrict information, and it does not seem to have empowered ordinary people. Information flows are being democratised but this does not appear to have helped democracy. On the contrary, as the events of 2016 have shown, there is a global retreat from democracy and we appear to be living in a “post-truth” world.
One unexpected development of the rise of the internet and social media is that they have given a voice to a millions of angry men (invariably men) who appear to feel the need to be as loudly and gratuitously unpleasant as possible in order to help them come to terms with socio-economic inferiority. This is why it has become so difficult to try to have any kind of civil discussion in most online forums. As Jessica Valenti wrote in 2015, the comments sections beneath most articles these days have become so full of bile that it is best to just ignore them: “sexism, racism and homophobia are the norm; threats and harassment are common”. Instead of debating your views with some semblance of civility — even if they strongly disagree — a lot of men seem to feel the need to unleash exaggerated derision and bile. It’s not enough for them to disagree with you, they have to denounce you as a disgusting person. Commenting on this depressing situation, Mary Elizabeth Williams despaired that “the trolls, racists and abusers won”.
I don’t take your vitriol personally, Michael, because I know this is how you behave towards everybody online. You are so convinced of the rectitude of your own views that you appear to be unable to debate them without descending into gratuitous abuse of anybody you disagree with. It’s clearly pathological behaviour, perhaps connected to frustration that so few people pay any attention to you, and you don’t seem to realise that your own behaviour is why nobody wants to have any contact with you online even though you sometimes have sensible and interesting things to say amid all the bile.
I get it, you don’t agree with my views on Thailand, and for some reason you also hate me even though we never met. That’s fine, you are entitled to your views. The most sensible way for me to respond is just to ignore you, as I usually do. I’m making an exception in this case, just to publicly correct a couple of your more egregiously inaccurate statements.
Firstly, you seem to believe that some of my opinions are not sincerely held and that I just promote them for financial reasons and to promote my book. I get this kind of criticism a lot, a common attack from Thai royalists is that I am making vast sums of money by “defaming Thailand”, either via book sales or because Thaksin Shinawatra is funding me. This is, of course, absurd, and your comments betray a total ignorance of the economics of book publishing in the 21st century. I can assure you that writing a book on a niche subject like Thai politics is far from lucrative — in fact, in terms of the financial return for hours worked, it is considerably worse than even the most unskilled job, and I would have made much more money if I had spent the time I worked on my book flipping burgers in McDonalds instead. I’m not complaining about this, I find it rewarding in other ways to write about Thailand, but in financial terms it earns a pittance and I make my living in other ways.
Secondly, I understand that one of the tactics of online trolling is to try to be so offensive that it compels a response from people who otherwise ignore you, and congratulations, with your comments on my work in Iraq you succeeded. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think you know anything about my conduct during my two years as Reuters bureau chief in Baghdad, or my subsequent time as managing editor in the Middle East. This was a period in which we faced extreme dangers, and several of my colleagues were killed by U.S. soldiers — Taras Protsyuk and Mazen Dana in 2003, Waleed Khaled in 2005, and most notoriously Namir Noor-eldeen and Saeed Chmagh in 2007. Three of my Iraqi staff were also tortured and abused by U.S. forces in 2004, a case that predated the Abu Ghraib revelations. Several more of my friends and colleagues have been killed in Iraq, over the years. I don’t mind you writing gratuitous abuse about me, from the safety of your keyboard in Nonthaburi, but I’m particularly disappointed that you also seem to want to denigrate the bravery of my friends and colleagues by claiming — totally wrongly — that we were kowtowing to anybody.
As everybody knows, I support freedom of speech, and I totally support your right to say what you want about me, however absurd and offensive it may be. But it’s sad that the comments section in New Mandala has become so bilious, when previously it used to be a space for worthwhile debate. I know for a fact that it discourages some people with worthwhile things to say from contributing to the site, and that is sad, it is a loss for everyone.
Have a nice day.
Keep calm, carry on, and drink tea
Well he said plenty trough other people. Notice how right after all the politicians, armed forces and police meet Jokowi, the government immediately proposes changes to mass organization (organisasi massa) law? Proposing to made it easier to disband them?
This is all moves and counter moves. Someone moves against Jokowi with these demonstration (it is too organized for a rag tag band of protesters), and Jokowi counter moves is gaining political support to create a law that made it easier to disband mass organization.
And as for why SBY is not yet invited, obviously he will be invited last because Jokowi suspect (rightly) that SBY benefits from loose governing of mass organization (ormas). Remember that it is during SBY rule that FPI and FBR prosper. I still remember FPI vandalize “nightclub” in some part of Jakarta during Ramadhan of 2007. SBY is last because Jokowi want to make sure when he’s invited, he won’t have any power to resist.
Can Thailand tolerate more than one form of Buddhism?
I often wonder what “Thai Buddhism” still has to do with Goutama Buddha’s doctrine of:
skandha (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha)
anatta (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta)
and dukkha (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha)
Keep calm, carry on, and drink tea
Good piece!
Ritual and the demise of Thai democracy
The crown prince now known as X understands the value of silence, in some ways that his father sometimes did not. There was never much latitude for him over the past few decades, any more than there was for Prince Charles. He was brought up in this system. Note that he does not mess up in diplomatic interactions, with a few dramatic exceptions, meaning whatever slights he administers are probably carefully thought out.
Ritual and the demise of Thai democracy
Thank you. The present situation and these particular historical developments have put much of the citizenry and certainly any genuinely democratic movements in a vise. Everyone is scared right now, or everyone I know. And disheartened.
Ritual and the demise of Thai democracy
You are correct. it went in variously as “Chinese,” then nothing, then Sino-Thai and in other work I break it down by specific language group. I was thinking more of Skinner’s work. Most if not all of these fortunes are post-WWII. Many/most were built in necessary association with the monarchy in order to de-stigmatize Chinese ‘cin’/’cek’ identity, since extortion and discrimination were facts of life and drove the alliances that underlay the creation of nation’s key commercial banks.
Where these fortunes stand now under X is a big question mark as demonstrated by the death of the prince’s fortune teller in conjunction with the Bike4Mom donation debacle. Stay tuned, one might say.
Ritual and the demise of Thai democracy
Thank you. A lot of teamwork went into the piece, including from the very kind editors. It helps we that we all care passionately about the same thing, about trying to get it right.
Ritual and the demise of Thai democracy
Michael Wilson’s cynical tone is at its best when dealing with the rich and powerful.
In economic parlance, the rich and powerful “invest” in royal families, and are the source most of their wealth. The may also “invest” in religion, but the mumbo-jumbo is best cut away to reveal economic motives.
In democratic systems, the rich and powerful “invest” in political parties, and are the source of most of their electoral success.
Myanmar’s Rohingya need tomorrow’s fairer world today
10,000 Rohingya from Myanmar Have Landed in Bangladesh: UN
http://www.rfa.org/english/news/myanmar/myanmar-bangladesh-11302016164938.html
Ritual and the demise of Thai democracy
Indeed no one has ever been gifted Democracy , it has always been fought for and must be protected endlessly .
there will be more blood on the streets of Thailand , this is inevitable as the knowledge of the injustices increase .
It is a FACT that a lid can not be kept on a pot of boiling water and the current ruling class will find this out at some stage .
This is not an IF rather the question remains when ?
Ritual and the demise of Thai democracy
“…Thailand’s amazing Sino-Thai billionaires, whose empires, under his father’s steadfast rule, rose to the same unimaginable heights as the Crown Properties, in the identical, somewhat mysterious way. That is, if the billionaires wish to remain “Thai” and patriotic as currently defined by the junta.”
The “way” Thailand’s billionaires rose to such heights is only “somewhat mysterious” to those too lazy to follow the business pages I imagine.
And in spite of the decided lack of “oogey-boogey”, some of the fans of this cabalistic “othering” of Thai politics and capital might actually learn something from reading such things as Capital Accumulation in Thailand 1855-1985 or Thai Capital After the 1997 Crisis.
The lack of emphasis on ritual and ancient cosmologies may put some readers off, of course, but that’s how it goes in the hybrid neoliberal-crony capitalism aggressively transforming the capitalist landscape in SE Asia today.
I highly recommend following the developments in the retail sector both in Thailand and around the region.
The juggling around of huge swathes of Thailand’s consumer market by and between the Chirathivat, Sirivadhanabhakdi and Chearavanont family empires is no doubt connected to politics and to banking interests connected to politics just as such major capitalist surges always have been in Thailand.
The only “meticulous performances” involved in these major financial shifts are those relating to acquiring credit and performing backhanders to all the right people.
Thaksin, whose various administrations since the turn of the millennium have mystically acquired the bogus reputation of having been the dying breaths of Thai democracy, got his start and achieved the heights of his power and wealth in much the same way.
Although I will admit he did visit “ET” in Burma on more than one auspicious occasion.
So there is that.