Glad to see the conversation thread has returned to the original topic raised. I have a question for Republican: Do we have any evidence anywhere else in the world of the effects of a boycott of an academic conference, or even the viability of executing such a boycott? And I have heard of boycotts for reasons of protest over the business practices of service industries involved in conferences, but not of the politics of the governments sponsoring the conferences. Again, is there any concrete examples of the latter and of the way these have played out? I remain skeptical that this will be anything other than a weak and inconsequential statement. What percentage of foreign scholars would have to boycott to obtain an effect? How would one even determine the percentage boycotting?
I can think of two notable cases of suboptimal non-market allocation of resources:
1. The TRT MP near Prachinburi shot down in cold blood for supposedly trying to open a rival market, the right to run a market being a concession that they had the exclusive right to, at least someone’s head. Assume case never solved, since there was never a follow-up article.
2. The Burmese guy who used to hold the electricity concession in Tachileik across from Maesai who got shot down in cold blood, supposedly for stealing, again, a concession from its “rightful” owner. This murder, resulted in turn, in the murder of the murderer at the hands of the son, I lost track of what happened after that. THis was hearsay based on actually knowing the family of the murdered man.
Would plain vanilla, open and transparent market transactions with rule of law would have been better than naked assertion or contestation of one’s rights with a gun? Or with the help of powerful people which is the discrete and common norm?
I agree there needs to be distinction between theory and practice, rhetoric and action.
From the evidence that we have, there is no sufficiency “theory”(what exactly is the hypothesis and evidence of this theory) and nobody has been practicing this non-existent theory, at least in terms of private behavior and public policy.
Other than draconian measures to kick the evil foreigners out of the Thai economy, what other public policies have been implemented in the name of sufficiency theory?
I can’t think of anything this government has done in the last 5 months that is consistent with anything that king has said regarding sufficiency theory.
To me, what is sufficiency theory?
It is one royal trend in a long list of many royal trends exploited by elites in order to justify whatever policies they want to implement(even if they are contrary to the king’s rhetoric), as well as to come across as an ass kisser of the monarchy.
Put simply, sufficiency theory is nothing but an empty political slogan.
Also, Thais have a long history of taking a simple idea and turning into a bunch of meaningless bullshit in order to come across as looking smart and sophisticated. Also, if this slogan can be used to justify blaming all of Thailand’s problems on foreigners and foreign influences, then that is an extra bonus.
21 Jan-Sorry, I have the trademark to “juntanomics.” You can make out the royalty check to…
I really don’t see what is wrong with the CPB or any other owner selling it.
As cities grow, the land in the center of the city grows in value and is put to more important uses. In fact, you can’t really go from sprawl to a well-defined center without some consolidation.
In San Francisco revelopment projects were also controversial but eventually ended in the renewal of the downtown area, trees and more livable open spaces, rather than the hot crowded concrete sidewalks of Bangkok.
Without these projects SF would still have a South of Market Skid Row instead of the Bay Area’s second computer software development area.
The beautifully landscaped Embarcadero Center area is full of parks that people can eat lunch in or walk their dogs in or just hang out. Bangkok has several parks and convention centers that were products of revelopment projects.
Furthermore, these people were renting and knew that the lease would end. If you wanted to redistribute it to needy poor then there should be a search for needy poor, why would you assume that all the people who are currently renting are members of the needy poor. Interview two or three people in the area with businesses who are not doing well, who complain and that constitutes a proof? I bet you anything some of these leasees are profiting from the expectation that the lease will never come to an end. Maesai’s river front park is a good case in point.
Also, in Maesai the road past Wat Tham Pajom going over the hills back to the Chiang Rai hospital used to have clear signs planted all along it saying “Do not build here.” Everyone built and started trading the land and now it is worth millions, big profits. Profits to people who just disregarded the law, often very rich people.
Why should leases or temporary use rights always be expected to turn into permanent property rights as they did in Bobe market in Yaowarat?
On the other hand, Hernando de Sot, who Thaksin used to invoke, argued that property rights are a good thing because they allow the poor to get business loans. Fuzzy non-well-defined property rights like you see in much of Thailand do however keep people attached to the land since their continued possession of the land depends on their use of the land, so the land cannot be repossessed and accumulated by the wealthy in big piles of deeds for inactive land. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hernando_de_Soto_(economist)
The ICG (International Crisis Group) has issued a new report, “Southern Thailand: The Impact of the Coup.” Asia Report No 129, 15 March 2007. It can be downloaded at
As usual, the ICG expects everything from the state. All their recommendations are directed towards the government.
The book “Conflict and Terrorism in Southern Thailand” by Rohan Gunaratna et al might certainly be far from perfect (see Michael Connors’ critique in CAS). However, they dared printing this sentence (preface):
“It is essential for the true guardians of Islam in Thailand and Malaysia to ensure that their religion be preserved and protected, and not be hijacked by a few deviant groups. Without waiting and watching for the government to act, Muslim leaders particularly those living in the south should take on the grave challenge of fighting the ideologues and preachers of hate.”
Without waiting for the government to act… ICG still seems to be stuck in this mode. As another observer said, the Muslim population and their clerics must leave their “almost complete state of denial concerning the insurgency.”
“fish and water are inseparable and depended on one another, yet they are not the same” > That’s a really deep insight, on which I would like to congratulate you heartily. And if the fish is on land, it will die. Sometimes, it will even die when in water (see the recent newspaper reports). But it might still be edible. Just the same as with theory, right? Or was it practice? All so confusing…
“A boycott would thus by a clear statement of concern on the part of the international scholarly community; participation, on the other hand, would be a vote of confidence for the regime.”
Somebody seems to get carried away somewhat here. Moreover, at the time of the conference, we might probably have an election behind us. So, will a boycott be turned from being against the junta into being against the election and the elected government? Or should the participation of foreign scholars at that time not rather be seen as an encouragement for further democratization? Finally, Sukhothai hardly passes as “sacred kingship.”
Without lèse-majesté and with transparency of the CPB the king would be most probably a more european-style constitutional monarch (concerning his then limited powers) then he is now.
We also have to take the speech into the historical context of the asian financial crisis of 97 – so the theory becomes more or less a kind of “opium for the masses”
1. Anyone who knows anything about the politics of international conferences in Thailand would be aware that the content of what is said at the conference is irrelevant; the most important thing is to get as many foreigners to the event as possible to demonstate the international credibility of the institution. In addition, in this case whether they know it or not foreign scholars will also be demonstrating their support for the monarch at a time of acute political crisis. An international boycott of such an event, on the other hand would be a dramatic statement that the international Thai Studies scholarly community has no confidence in the scholarly credibility of a university whose rector is willing to accept a political appointment from a military junta that has just overthrown a democratically elected government, and is unwilling to “honour” a king who has shown no regard for democratic principles.
2. For a foreign scholar of course, the political situation in Thailand has not the slightest effect on their own well-being. Their books, articles and attendance at conferences are just more achievements to be recorded on their resumes. But one would hope they have some sympathy for their colleagues (and perhaps also for those still living under martial law) in Thailand who do not have the academic freedom that they enjoy – particular at this time of crisis.
3. On whether the boycott of this conference in Thailand should be extended to boycotts of academic engagement with Laos, Cambodia, or Myanmar, the comparison is a false one. These three countries have a history of comparative isolation from the international scholarly community. Engaging academically with these countries is more likely to lead to an opening up; a boycott would have little effect. The opposite is the case with Thailand; it is a country that has long been open to the international scholarly community, perhaps the most open in SEA. A boycott would thus by a clear statement of concern on the part of the international scholarly community; participation, on the other hand, would be a vote of confidence for the regime.
4. Probably not a good idea to present a list of your academic publications to give credibility to such an absurd “hypothesis” as, “peace in Thailand seems to rely on the sacred institution of kingship”. This is worthy of the head of the military junta. It’s as though nothing has changed for SEA kings and their subjects since the days of the Konbaung (or why not Sukhothai). As if no other country in the world had ever heard of sacred kingship! Have a look at Marc Bloch’s study of sacred kingship in Europe and then try to explain why the French Revolution happened. If the Thai monarchy is able to help keep the peace, apart from its “sacred powers” one would think it just might have something to do with the military dictatorships it has legitimized over the years, the Maoist style personality cult built around the king, the totalitarian control of the monarchy’s image thanks to modern media technologies, its support by the US during the Cold War, and the massive financial resources available to it.
I always assumed that the “fakes” came from the same factories that made the “real” items. In fact that the only difference between “fake” and “real” is a rake-off to Ralph Lauren, or whomever.
Srithanonchai: Thanks for the link to Prem’s speech.
The ‘deliberate distortion’ goes both ways:
– The junta trying to prescribe sufficiency economy when it should really be left as common sense advice from HMK to temper the worst effects of modern capitalist globalized economies.
– Certain academics trying to create confusion about sufficiency economy because it allows them to score points in their ideological arguments concerning the role of the moarchy in Thailand.
Polo: As I’ve said before, I think the operations/finances of CPB should be transparent for all to see because I’m of the opinion that it is state wealth rather than private family wealth.
nganadeeleg: Thanks for the link. “The CPB plans would not necessarily be incompatible with sufficiency economy principles UNLESS they involved excessive borrowings or ‘taking advantage of others’.” That’s the reason why rich people can still buy their Rolexes and Porsches at Paragon. Moderation strictly is relative to the means a person or a company has. One needs to moderate one’s needs only when they surpass one’s means. Sufficiency economy is not about moderating needs in general (no Rolex, no Porsche, no consumerism), but about the relationship between ends and means (that’s what moms tell their kids: keep your expenses within the amount of your pocket money). Thus, CPB is right within the confines of sufficiency economy principles, even if it pushes a consumerist mindset to its extremes, UNLESS…
I am not so sure about the issue of “deliberate distortion.” What might be perceived as such might result from the fact that you can’t publicly discuss, analyze, and criticize the suffciency economy in Thailand. When the UNDP report, in its forword, says that “these ideas have been widely and intensively discussed within Thailand in recent years,” then this simply is untrue.
The entire situation concerning sufficiency economy, among other things, serves to underline why concepts of democracy place so much importance on unrestrained public deliberation not hampered by the exercise of power (borrowing from Habermas, Dryzek).
Come on nganadeeleg, if it’s just that then it is only what our parents have told us, it’s plain common sense (as Tosakan has written several times on his blog) – but the current government is using it as a propaganda-tool and as a big stick to scare away critics, because if you are against the “juntanomics” (TM) you are against the ideas of the king.
Btw. I have a nice anecdote from our village: There seems to be a craze about women looking for richer men right now (well not really, probably mostly gossip from my mother-in-law) and I asked my wife how this goes together with the sufficiency-economy – she just laughed and said that they won’t have to borrow money if they have richer (maybe even caucasian) husbands and so it is perfectly in line with the sufficiency economy.
Ngana: Umm sorry, but, if we are to descend into the silliness of what is “sufficiency” — it obviously depends on who’s doing the interpreting — your definition hardly measures up. You said:
“The CPB plans would not necessarily be incompatible with sufficiency economy principles UNLESS they involved excessive borrowings or ‘taking advantage of others’.”
Since when are “excessive borrowings” and “taking advantage” the limits of sufficiency? The king has related suffienciency to those, but more often tied it to one’s needs as opposed to one’s desires.
In the CPB case, they are already earning an astounding return on property mostly never paid for (at leat in the past century)and, at any rate, their cost basis is in the 1940s and 1950s. There is no “sufficiency” guideline on what is an appropriate return on investment, to be sure. But they have raised rents regularly — their Langsuan rents might be slightly lower than market but are not outrageously so — and so there needs to be a measure of what constitutes “taking advantage” of a renter: market price? below market price but too high for them to sublet? Or would it depend on the renter’s business income/profits?
None of that really matters, though. What is important is, does the palace need all that income from the new developments? Just what is sufficient income for the palace? Why isn’t what was sufficient five years ago not sufficient now?
I was in Thailand in 1992; I was at the protests in Chiang Mai, which as Srithanonchai notes, were non-violent affairs. They were pretty fun actually. In my personal view, it appeared to me that the military overestimated its public support and the public support of its attempt to suppress protests. Quite simply they overplayed their hand, and at best the King provided a face-saving way out for the Thai military. Again, that was my view at the time, based on what I knew at the time. I could be very wrong in my perceptions.
The sacred institution of kingship may have worked fine in the past, but as noted post 1932, its record is a bit mixed, especially when grafted on to democratic institutions. And if you look at Ne Win, Saw Maung and the other would-be kings in Burma things look even worse.
I agree with Srithanonchai about people not listening to HMK:
“………However, I sometimes wished that it could be otherwise, e.g. when we think about the king’s advice about keeping bad people away from public office (politicians, soldiers, bureaucrats, etc), or of not allowing corruption………”
There seems to be a deliberate distortion by certain posters on this site as to what the royal sufficiency economy is about, so I will again post a link to HMK’s 1988 clarification speech: http://www.kanchanapisek.or.th/speeches/1998/1204.en.html
The CPB plans would not necessarily be incompatible with sufficiency economy principles UNLESS they involved excessive borrowings or ‘taking advantage of others’.
Could anybody who knows some criminal law help explain what this really means?
Was the warrant made out to somebody in particular, or was it just made out to any 25-30 years old tall thin man? This actually fits my description pretty well after a strenuous couple of hours at the gym – should I just report myself to a police station to save everybody the fuss? And is an arrest warrant really needed to make an arrest?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
A Thai Studies boycott?
Glad to see the conversation thread has returned to the original topic raised. I have a question for Republican: Do we have any evidence anywhere else in the world of the effects of a boycott of an academic conference, or even the viability of executing such a boycott? And I have heard of boycotts for reasons of protest over the business practices of service industries involved in conferences, but not of the politics of the governments sponsoring the conferences. Again, is there any concrete examples of the latter and of the way these have played out? I remain skeptical that this will be anything other than a weak and inconsequential statement. What percentage of foreign scholars would have to boycott to obtain an effect? How would one even determine the percentage boycotting?
Fakin’ it for the Thai market in Yunnan
There are different grades of fakes. There are Korean fakes and Chinese fakes. Apparently Korean fakes are supposed to be better quality fakes.
The practice of sufficiency economy
I can think of two notable cases of suboptimal non-market allocation of resources:
1. The TRT MP near Prachinburi shot down in cold blood for supposedly trying to open a rival market, the right to run a market being a concession that they had the exclusive right to, at least someone’s head. Assume case never solved, since there was never a follow-up article.
2. The Burmese guy who used to hold the electricity concession in Tachileik across from Maesai who got shot down in cold blood, supposedly for stealing, again, a concession from its “rightful” owner. This murder, resulted in turn, in the murder of the murderer at the hands of the son, I lost track of what happened after that. THis was hearsay based on actually knowing the family of the murdered man.
Would plain vanilla, open and transparent market transactions with rule of law would have been better than naked assertion or contestation of one’s rights with a gun? Or with the help of powerful people which is the discrete and common norm?
The practice of sufficiency economy
Good discussion.
I agree there needs to be distinction between theory and practice, rhetoric and action.
From the evidence that we have, there is no sufficiency “theory”(what exactly is the hypothesis and evidence of this theory) and nobody has been practicing this non-existent theory, at least in terms of private behavior and public policy.
Other than draconian measures to kick the evil foreigners out of the Thai economy, what other public policies have been implemented in the name of sufficiency theory?
I can’t think of anything this government has done in the last 5 months that is consistent with anything that king has said regarding sufficiency theory.
To me, what is sufficiency theory?
It is one royal trend in a long list of many royal trends exploited by elites in order to justify whatever policies they want to implement(even if they are contrary to the king’s rhetoric), as well as to come across as an ass kisser of the monarchy.
Put simply, sufficiency theory is nothing but an empty political slogan.
Also, Thais have a long history of taking a simple idea and turning into a bunch of meaningless bullshit in order to come across as looking smart and sophisticated. Also, if this slogan can be used to justify blaming all of Thailand’s problems on foreigners and foreign influences, then that is an extra bonus.
21 Jan-Sorry, I have the trademark to “juntanomics.” You can make out the royalty check to…
The practice of sufficiency economy
I really don’t see what is wrong with the CPB or any other owner selling it.
As cities grow, the land in the center of the city grows in value and is put to more important uses. In fact, you can’t really go from sprawl to a well-defined center without some consolidation.
In San Francisco revelopment projects were also controversial but eventually ended in the renewal of the downtown area, trees and more livable open spaces, rather than the hot crowded concrete sidewalks of Bangkok.
Without these projects SF would still have a South of Market Skid Row instead of the Bay Area’s second computer software development area.
The beautifully landscaped Embarcadero Center area is full of parks that people can eat lunch in or walk their dogs in or just hang out. Bangkok has several parks and convention centers that were products of revelopment projects.
Furthermore, these people were renting and knew that the lease would end. If you wanted to redistribute it to needy poor then there should be a search for needy poor, why would you assume that all the people who are currently renting are members of the needy poor. Interview two or three people in the area with businesses who are not doing well, who complain and that constitutes a proof? I bet you anything some of these leasees are profiting from the expectation that the lease will never come to an end. Maesai’s river front park is a good case in point.
Also, in Maesai the road past Wat Tham Pajom going over the hills back to the Chiang Rai hospital used to have clear signs planted all along it saying “Do not build here.” Everyone built and started trading the land and now it is worth millions, big profits. Profits to people who just disregarded the law, often very rich people.
Why should leases or temporary use rights always be expected to turn into permanent property rights as they did in Bobe market in Yaowarat?
On the other hand, Hernando de Sot, who Thaksin used to invoke, argued that property rights are a good thing because they allow the poor to get business loans. Fuzzy non-well-defined property rights like you see in much of Thailand do however keep people attached to the land since their continued possession of the land depends on their use of the land, so the land cannot be repossessed and accumulated by the wealthy in big piles of deeds for inactive land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hernando_de_Soto_(economist)
Intelligence?
The ICG (International Crisis Group) has issued a new report, “Southern Thailand: The Impact of the Coup.” Asia Report No 129, 15 March 2007. It can be downloaded at
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4697&l=1
As usual, the ICG expects everything from the state. All their recommendations are directed towards the government.
The book “Conflict and Terrorism in Southern Thailand” by Rohan Gunaratna et al might certainly be far from perfect (see Michael Connors’ critique in CAS). However, they dared printing this sentence (preface):
“It is essential for the true guardians of Islam in Thailand and Malaysia to ensure that their religion be preserved and protected, and not be hijacked by a few deviant groups. Without waiting and watching for the government to act, Muslim leaders particularly those living in the south should take on the grave challenge of fighting the ideologues and preachers of hate.”
Without waiting for the government to act… ICG still seems to be stuck in this mode. As another observer said, the Muslim population and their clerics must leave their “almost complete state of denial concerning the insurgency.”
The practice of sufficiency economy
“fish and water are inseparable and depended on one another, yet they are not the same” > That’s a really deep insight, on which I would like to congratulate you heartily. And if the fish is on land, it will die. Sometimes, it will even die when in water (see the recent newspaper reports). But it might still be edible. Just the same as with theory, right? Or was it practice? All so confusing…
A Thai Studies boycott?
“A boycott would thus by a clear statement of concern on the part of the international scholarly community; participation, on the other hand, would be a vote of confidence for the regime.”
Somebody seems to get carried away somewhat here. Moreover, at the time of the conference, we might probably have an election behind us. So, will a boycott be turned from being against the junta into being against the election and the elected government? Or should the participation of foreign scholars at that time not rather be seen as an encouragement for further democratization? Finally, Sukhothai hardly passes as “sacred kingship.”
Anyway: jai yen yen dee kwa na khrap.
The practice of sufficiency economy
Without lèse-majesté and with transparency of the CPB the king would be most probably a more european-style constitutional monarch (concerning his then limited powers) then he is now.
We also have to take the speech into the historical context of the asian financial crisis of 97 – so the theory becomes more or less a kind of “opium for the masses”
A Thai Studies boycott?
1. Anyone who knows anything about the politics of international conferences in Thailand would be aware that the content of what is said at the conference is irrelevant; the most important thing is to get as many foreigners to the event as possible to demonstate the international credibility of the institution. In addition, in this case whether they know it or not foreign scholars will also be demonstrating their support for the monarch at a time of acute political crisis. An international boycott of such an event, on the other hand would be a dramatic statement that the international Thai Studies scholarly community has no confidence in the scholarly credibility of a university whose rector is willing to accept a political appointment from a military junta that has just overthrown a democratically elected government, and is unwilling to “honour” a king who has shown no regard for democratic principles.
2. For a foreign scholar of course, the political situation in Thailand has not the slightest effect on their own well-being. Their books, articles and attendance at conferences are just more achievements to be recorded on their resumes. But one would hope they have some sympathy for their colleagues (and perhaps also for those still living under martial law) in Thailand who do not have the academic freedom that they enjoy – particular at this time of crisis.
3. On whether the boycott of this conference in Thailand should be extended to boycotts of academic engagement with Laos, Cambodia, or Myanmar, the comparison is a false one. These three countries have a history of comparative isolation from the international scholarly community. Engaging academically with these countries is more likely to lead to an opening up; a boycott would have little effect. The opposite is the case with Thailand; it is a country that has long been open to the international scholarly community, perhaps the most open in SEA. A boycott would thus by a clear statement of concern on the part of the international scholarly community; participation, on the other hand, would be a vote of confidence for the regime.
4. Probably not a good idea to present a list of your academic publications to give credibility to such an absurd “hypothesis” as, “peace in Thailand seems to rely on the sacred institution of kingship”. This is worthy of the head of the military junta. It’s as though nothing has changed for SEA kings and their subjects since the days of the Konbaung (or why not Sukhothai). As if no other country in the world had ever heard of sacred kingship! Have a look at Marc Bloch’s study of sacred kingship in Europe and then try to explain why the French Revolution happened. If the Thai monarchy is able to help keep the peace, apart from its “sacred powers” one would think it just might have something to do with the military dictatorships it has legitimized over the years, the Maoist style personality cult built around the king, the totalitarian control of the monarchy’s image thanks to modern media technologies, its support by the US during the Cold War, and the massive financial resources available to it.
Fakin’ it for the Thai market in Yunnan
I always assumed that the “fakes” came from the same factories that made the “real” items. In fact that the only difference between “fake” and “real” is a rake-off to Ralph Lauren, or whomever.
The practice of sufficiency economy
Srithanonchai: Thanks for the link to Prem’s speech.
The ‘deliberate distortion’ goes both ways:
– The junta trying to prescribe sufficiency economy when it should really be left as common sense advice from HMK to temper the worst effects of modern capitalist globalized economies.
– Certain academics trying to create confusion about sufficiency economy because it allows them to score points in their ideological arguments concerning the role of the moarchy in Thailand.
Polo: As I’ve said before, I think the operations/finances of CPB should be transparent for all to see because I’m of the opinion that it is state wealth rather than private family wealth.
The practice of sufficiency economy
nganadeeleg: Thanks for the link. “The CPB plans would not necessarily be incompatible with sufficiency economy principles UNLESS they involved excessive borrowings or ‘taking advantage of others’.” That’s the reason why rich people can still buy their Rolexes and Porsches at Paragon. Moderation strictly is relative to the means a person or a company has. One needs to moderate one’s needs only when they surpass one’s means. Sufficiency economy is not about moderating needs in general (no Rolex, no Porsche, no consumerism), but about the relationship between ends and means (that’s what moms tell their kids: keep your expenses within the amount of your pocket money). Thus, CPB is right within the confines of sufficiency economy principles, even if it pushes a consumerist mindset to its extremes, UNLESS…
Readers might also turn to a speech Prem gave on this subject in 2001: http://www.generalprem.com/Speech5.html
I am not so sure about the issue of “deliberate distortion.” What might be perceived as such might result from the fact that you can’t publicly discuss, analyze, and criticize the suffciency economy in Thailand. When the UNDP report, in its forword, says that “these ideas have been widely and intensively discussed within Thailand in recent years,” then this simply is untrue.
The entire situation concerning sufficiency economy, among other things, serves to underline why concepts of democracy place so much importance on unrestrained public deliberation not hampered by the exercise of power (borrowing from Habermas, Dryzek).
The practice of sufficiency economy
Come on nganadeeleg, if it’s just that then it is only what our parents have told us, it’s plain common sense (as Tosakan has written several times on his blog) – but the current government is using it as a propaganda-tool and as a big stick to scare away critics, because if you are against the “juntanomics” (TM) you are against the ideas of the king.
Btw. I have a nice anecdote from our village: There seems to be a craze about women looking for richer men right now (well not really, probably mostly gossip from my mother-in-law) and I asked my wife how this goes together with the sufficiency-economy – she just laughed and said that they won’t have to borrow money if they have richer (maybe even caucasian) husbands and so it is perfectly in line with the sufficiency economy.
The practice of sufficiency economy
Ngana: Umm sorry, but, if we are to descend into the silliness of what is “sufficiency” — it obviously depends on who’s doing the interpreting — your definition hardly measures up. You said:
“The CPB plans would not necessarily be incompatible with sufficiency economy principles UNLESS they involved excessive borrowings or ‘taking advantage of others’.”
Since when are “excessive borrowings” and “taking advantage” the limits of sufficiency? The king has related suffienciency to those, but more often tied it to one’s needs as opposed to one’s desires.
In the CPB case, they are already earning an astounding return on property mostly never paid for (at leat in the past century)and, at any rate, their cost basis is in the 1940s and 1950s. There is no “sufficiency” guideline on what is an appropriate return on investment, to be sure. But they have raised rents regularly — their Langsuan rents might be slightly lower than market but are not outrageously so — and so there needs to be a measure of what constitutes “taking advantage” of a renter: market price? below market price but too high for them to sublet? Or would it depend on the renter’s business income/profits?
None of that really matters, though. What is important is, does the palace need all that income from the new developments? Just what is sufficient income for the palace? Why isn’t what was sufficient five years ago not sufficient now?
The practice of sufficiency economy
Actually 1998 speech (not 1988)
A Thai Studies boycott?
I was in Thailand in 1992; I was at the protests in Chiang Mai, which as Srithanonchai notes, were non-violent affairs. They were pretty fun actually. In my personal view, it appeared to me that the military overestimated its public support and the public support of its attempt to suppress protests. Quite simply they overplayed their hand, and at best the King provided a face-saving way out for the Thai military. Again, that was my view at the time, based on what I knew at the time. I could be very wrong in my perceptions.
The sacred institution of kingship may have worked fine in the past, but as noted post 1932, its record is a bit mixed, especially when grafted on to democratic institutions. And if you look at Ne Win, Saw Maung and the other would-be kings in Burma things look even worse.
A Thai Studies boycott?
me: What do you think was wrong with the HMK’s actions on 25 April 2006 ?
http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/04/25/headlines/headlines_30002507.php
Would you prefer if he had simply appointed a PM?
I agree with Srithanonchai about people not listening to HMK:
“………However, I sometimes wished that it could be otherwise, e.g. when we think about the king’s advice about keeping bad people away from public office (politicians, soldiers, bureaucrats, etc), or of not allowing corruption………”
The practice of sufficiency economy
There seems to be a deliberate distortion by certain posters on this site as to what the royal sufficiency economy is about, so I will again post a link to HMK’s 1988 clarification speech:
http://www.kanchanapisek.or.th/speeches/1998/1204.en.html
The CPB plans would not necessarily be incompatible with sufficiency economy principles UNLESS they involved excessive borrowings or ‘taking advantage of others’.
Arrest warrant issued for a man with limp …
Could anybody who knows some criminal law help explain what this really means?
Was the warrant made out to somebody in particular, or was it just made out to any 25-30 years old tall thin man? This actually fits my description pretty well after a strenuous couple of hours at the gym – should I just report myself to a police station to save everybody the fuss? And is an arrest warrant really needed to make an arrest?