AGAIN …Too much is being made over the definition of sufficiency. The king has always promoted the interchangeable ideas of sufficency, moderation, adequacy, appropriateness, to everything: profits, consumption, democracy, dictatorship, change, law, punishment, eating, playing, watching tv, dog breeding, whatever. This is his way of translating Buddhist non-desire into modern life.
The only real issue is, who is doing the interpreting of sufficiency/moderation in each field and how are they using it, and to what ends. Surely the Surayuth junta is interpreting it not in the economy but in “democracy”…. as in, the current state of democracy and rule of law is sufficient for Thais.
“What was the point of the decree in the first place?”
The point of the decree was to move away from the use of martial law which is under military rule with no judicial oversight on any matter. To detain someone under martial law, no judicial permission in needed whereas under the Emergency Decree it is. Evidence must be provided to a judge before someone can be detained for questioning and strict records have to be kept (at least they are meant to be). There are no records under martial law. Anyone can be arrested, for any reason whatsoever. The military arrested 1300 people at Tak Bai under martial law, but this couldn’t happen under the Emergency Decree (well unless they had evidence against all 1300 and judicial permission to arrest people).
Martial law is declared by the military and is often open ended. It is frequently used throughout the whole country and there a myriad of provisions which can be used by the authorities whenever they want. Many are not actually used, but could be used by any individual officer if they wanted. The Emergency Decree is fully under the power of the Prime Minister or a designated Minister. Only the provisions and the provinces which they specify can be used and be applied to respectively. It has a 90 day time limit before it is renewed. Before the coup, martial law was actually in place in most border provinces in Thailand has been since the 1991 coup. It could be used at anytime by the military.
“All those are subjective words that can be interpreted to mean anything you want them to mean.”
Ok, here is the Wikipedia entry for self-defence in Australia:
“In the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Howe (1958) SASR 95, Mason J formulated six propositions on the law of self-defence which were accepted as a model direction on self-defence in murder trials. Thus, a full acquittal was achieved if the jury found that the accused had reasonably believed that he or she was being threatened with death or serious bodily harm and, if so, that the force used was reasonably proportionate to the perceived danger.”
Reasonably believed… reasonably proportionate. Both are subjective as well. Self-defence allows you, literally, to get away with murder. Law is subjective, if not we would have computers for judges. Objective/reasonable person tests are a mainstay of the legal system in every country I know of.
Section 17 is basically a defence. I don’t think it is has much application in criminal trials, more for civil actions. People can still bring an action against the state, but it is just more difficult to bring an action against the individual officer.
What was the point of the decree in the first place?
It makes the wording so vague that anybody can get away with torture.
It is an intentional loophole.
Dude, it gives the police and military carte blanche.
Please, explain what this means: “provided that actions are honest, not discriminatory, and not in excess of what is necessary and appropriate to the situation.”
All those are subjective words that can be interpreted to mean anything you want them to mean.
And this is Thailand we are talking about, where the meaning of words are always up to subjective interpretation. In Thailand, sometimes 2 plus 2 doesn’t equal 4.
I’m not trying to be contentious. I just disagree with you and agree with AHRC.
nganadeeleg: Your post seem to be on general principles, and it did not even specifically mention the poor. You really don’t even have a TV and a mobile? Or do you still have all those non-essential toys of modern consumerist society, just that you or your parents bought them with cash, and not by borrowing, and certainly not “overextended” borrowing? At least, you have access to the Internet to waste your time with something as non-essential as chatting on a gossip blog.
My question was: “Mr. Thaksin admitting now in hindsight that unboundless greed was indeed your honest mistake, would you then also admit to the virtue of ‘Sufficiency Ethics’ as learned by personal experience?”
Since the latest abuse occurred on 30 October 2006, this occurred after Thaksin so my criticism of AHRC shouldn’t be seen as pro-Thaksin propaganda. I have followed what AHRC have been saying for a while now particularly on the legislation used by the authorities in southern Thailand. I find their statements and conclusions unreliable. They make outrageous allegations on many issues which do not reflect reality as it fits their political and ideological agenda.
Now, I am not saying that this instance doesn’t occur, but AHRC
“The Emergency Decree … [i]t grants even wider powers to the army and police than martial law and gives them complete impunity from prosecution for any actions taken under it,”
There is no impunity from prosecution. Chang Noi translates the provision as:
“”An official or other person appointed to exercise the decree is not subject to civil, criminal, or disciplinary liability arising from the conduct of duty, provided that actions are honest, not discriminatory, and not in excess of what is necessary and appropriate to the situation.”
In order for a government official to be able to rely on this provision (as a defence), their action has to be “not in excess of what is necessary and appropriate to the situation”. The mention of what is “necessary” incorporates proportionality (to cut a long story short this has been adopted from German law) which is essentially similar to most western countries. So unless the officials actions where proportionate they cannot rely on the provision. This is not impunity from the prosecution and to suggest so is more than misleading, but completely wrong.
Srithanonchai: I was refering to poor people in response to 21 Jan’s post no 7 above.
IMHO only a fool would borrow for such a non essential item, and it would be even more foolish if that person was poor.
You are most welcome to come and take all non essential goods in my home that I have purchased by over extended borrowing, however you will go home empty handed.
“It would also mean not borrowing for consumption or non essential ‘toys’ of modern society.” (nganadeeleg) But if that person has the means for borrowing, for example for buying a car, a stereo, a computer, a flat-screen TV, and aircon, etc., why should such a person not borrow? The way you put, “sufficiency economy” doesn’t look like “responsible (financial) conduct”, but like a potential totalitarian model of society. After all, in a free society, everybody can determine what he or she wants to consume (as long as it is not legally prohibited, such as drugs), or what he or she thinks is “essential” for his or her life–as long as he or she has the means to buy that stuff and show “responsible conduct” concerning their financial resources and their acquisition (no corruption, e.g,!). What would you think if I turned up at your home and take away everything I define as being “non-essential” to your life? (Can you live without a TV, e.g.?)
P.S.: Some months ago, you announced that you would write an article on local political structures and action. Has this piece been posted somewhere already?
21 Jan: The Sufficiency theory does not stipulate no borrowing, but rather it recommends taking the middle path – moderation, reasonableness, immunity etc.
In relation to borrowing, that would mean not over extending.
It would also mean not borrowing for consumption or non essential ‘toys’ of modern society.
Borrowing for a business opportunity would be OK provided you have done your homework and the business has a reasonable chance of success and you were realistic & did not put your everything at risk. Likewise, I think borrowing for education would be acceptable if the above criteria were followed.
It’s all common sense really, and it is clear that HMK is trying to help people by providing sensible advice & guidance – it applies equally to rich or poor, urban or rural.
I think the ‘enough to live on and enough to live for’ line is the King’s way of providing a counter balance to the mindless pursuit of non essential ‘toys’ that seems to pervade our consumer societies.
If the current investigations assert that Muslims activists are indeed guilty of Bangkok’s bombings I fear that such events will happen even more often…
That’s welcome news indeed. Maybe, the full paper will be available at the same time that Thaksin or one of his nominees in a post-coup elected coalition government will have resumed power?
“A few initial notes”! Ouch! That’s all there is at this stage. There is talk of various edited volumes coming out of the conference in which case the conference paper would be reworked and expanded.
Perhaps things in the south will stop when the islamist militants would stop shooting and bombing people? Or, maybe, if Thailand agrees to let them have their Islamic Republic of Patani? But most Muslims in the south won’t like living in such a republic either, I guess.
Mr Veera tries to explain “sufficiency economy”. This has been tried many times now, but the concept has remained unclear. Now, luckily Mr Veera is showing us the light: On the private level, it is about not spending the whole salary but saving _ and don’t use credit cards. Okay.
Mixing the concept with the more cloudy parts of Buddhism is also okay, but calling this a philosophy is really an overkill and an insult to Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard. We are talking about an ordinary proposal for responsible conduct, nothing more.
FLEMMING
How true!
How come that, in Thailand, such an ordinary thing is treated as “Sufficiency Economy is a philosophy, graciously bestowed on us by our beloved Monarch, His Majesty the King.” This is quoted from a speech Prem gave on the subject in 2001. Follow the link http://www.generalprem.com/Speech5.html.
Part of a letter to the editor of Bangkok Post (Febr. 6) has this to say on Veera:
” Mr Veera tries to explain “sufficiency economy”. This has been tried many times now, but the concept has remained unclear. Now, luckily Mr Veera is showing us the light: On the private level, it is about not spending the whole salary but saving _ and don’t use credit cards. Okay.
Mixing the concept with the more cloudy parts of Buddhism is also okay, but calling this a philosophy is really an overkill and an insult to Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard. We are talking about an ordinary proposal for responsible conduct, nothing more.
This piece looks like a few initial notes put together for the presentation at the conference. Could you please also post the full paper on this web site? Thank you.
nganadeeleg, you are right borrowing might let you stay poor – if you spend the money for consumption, but a lot of times – be it for a business idea or for the education of their children – the poor don’t have a choice but to take out a loan. What is your advice for these people to advance?
Spending all your earnings, or borrowing against them using credit cards, or being seduced by advertising, are all usually sure ways of staying, or becoming, poor.
Absolutely! Look at how borrowing against assets and long-term debt has driven Americans into the poorhouse!
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Sufficiency Supreme Command Headquarters
AGAIN …Too much is being made over the definition of sufficiency. The king has always promoted the interchangeable ideas of sufficency, moderation, adequacy, appropriateness, to everything: profits, consumption, democracy, dictatorship, change, law, punishment, eating, playing, watching tv, dog breeding, whatever. This is his way of translating Buddhist non-desire into modern life.
The only real issue is, who is doing the interpreting of sufficiency/moderation in each field and how are they using it, and to what ends. Surely the Surayuth junta is interpreting it not in the economy but in “democracy”…. as in, the current state of democracy and rule of law is sufficient for Thais.
Why do we even call it ‘Thai’-land?
“What was the point of the decree in the first place?”
The point of the decree was to move away from the use of martial law which is under military rule with no judicial oversight on any matter. To detain someone under martial law, no judicial permission in needed whereas under the Emergency Decree it is. Evidence must be provided to a judge before someone can be detained for questioning and strict records have to be kept (at least they are meant to be). There are no records under martial law. Anyone can be arrested, for any reason whatsoever. The military arrested 1300 people at Tak Bai under martial law, but this couldn’t happen under the Emergency Decree (well unless they had evidence against all 1300 and judicial permission to arrest people).
Martial law is declared by the military and is often open ended. It is frequently used throughout the whole country and there a myriad of provisions which can be used by the authorities whenever they want. Many are not actually used, but could be used by any individual officer if they wanted. The Emergency Decree is fully under the power of the Prime Minister or a designated Minister. Only the provisions and the provinces which they specify can be used and be applied to respectively. It has a 90 day time limit before it is renewed. Before the coup, martial law was actually in place in most border provinces in Thailand has been since the 1991 coup. It could be used at anytime by the military.
“All those are subjective words that can be interpreted to mean anything you want them to mean.”
Ok, here is the Wikipedia entry for self-defence in Australia:
“In the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Howe (1958) SASR 95, Mason J formulated six propositions on the law of self-defence which were accepted as a model direction on self-defence in murder trials. Thus, a full acquittal was achieved if the jury found that the accused had reasonably believed that he or she was being threatened with death or serious bodily harm and, if so, that the force used was reasonably proportionate to the perceived danger.”
Reasonably believed… reasonably proportionate. Both are subjective as well. Self-defence allows you, literally, to get away with murder. Law is subjective, if not we would have computers for judges. Objective/reasonable person tests are a mainstay of the legal system in every country I know of.
Section 17 is basically a defence. I don’t think it is has much application in criminal trials, more for civil actions. People can still bring an action against the state, but it is just more difficult to bring an action against the individual officer.
Why do we even call it ‘Thai’-land?
Bangkok Pundit-
What was the point of the decree in the first place?
It makes the wording so vague that anybody can get away with torture.
It is an intentional loophole.
Dude, it gives the police and military carte blanche.
Please, explain what this means: “provided that actions are honest, not discriminatory, and not in excess of what is necessary and appropriate to the situation.”
All those are subjective words that can be interpreted to mean anything you want them to mean.
And this is Thailand we are talking about, where the meaning of words are always up to subjective interpretation. In Thailand, sometimes 2 plus 2 doesn’t equal 4.
I’m not trying to be contentious. I just disagree with you and agree with AHRC.
Sufficiency Supreme Command Headquarters
nganadeeleg: Your post seem to be on general principles, and it did not even specifically mention the poor. You really don’t even have a TV and a mobile? Or do you still have all those non-essential toys of modern consumerist society, just that you or your parents bought them with cash, and not by borrowing, and certainly not “overextended” borrowing? At least, you have access to the Internet to waste your time with something as non-essential as chatting on a gossip blog.
Sufficiency economy: ‘Why we are grateful to Thaksin’
There is a nice teaser question at Nation News: “What would you like to ask Thaksin” and readers are invited to pitch in:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/02/06/headlines/headlines_30026115.php
My question was: “Mr. Thaksin admitting now in hindsight that unboundless greed was indeed your honest mistake, would you then also admit to the virtue of ‘Sufficiency Ethics’ as learned by personal experience?”
What would be yours?
Why do we even call it ‘Thai’-land?
Since the latest abuse occurred on 30 October 2006, this occurred after Thaksin so my criticism of AHRC shouldn’t be seen as pro-Thaksin propaganda. I have followed what AHRC have been saying for a while now particularly on the legislation used by the authorities in southern Thailand. I find their statements and conclusions unreliable. They make outrageous allegations on many issues which do not reflect reality as it fits their political and ideological agenda.
Now, I am not saying that this instance doesn’t occur, but AHRC
One example from their latest report:
“The Emergency Decree … [i]t grants even wider powers to the army and police than martial law and gives them complete impunity from prosecution for any actions taken under it,”
There is no impunity from prosecution. Chang Noi translates the provision as:
“”An official or other person appointed to exercise the decree is not subject to civil, criminal, or disciplinary liability arising from the conduct of duty, provided that actions are honest, not discriminatory, and not in excess of what is necessary and appropriate to the situation.”
In order for a government official to be able to rely on this provision (as a defence), their action has to be “not in excess of what is necessary and appropriate to the situation”. The mention of what is “necessary” incorporates proportionality (to cut a long story short this has been adopted from German law) which is essentially similar to most western countries. So unless the officials actions where proportionate they cannot rely on the provision. This is not impunity from the prosecution and to suggest so is more than misleading, but completely wrong.
Sufficiency Supreme Command Headquarters
Srithanonchai: I was refering to poor people in response to 21 Jan’s post no 7 above.
IMHO only a fool would borrow for such a non essential item, and it would be even more foolish if that person was poor.
You are most welcome to come and take all non essential goods in my home that I have purchased by over extended borrowing, however you will go home empty handed.
Sufficiency Supreme Command Headquarters
“It would also mean not borrowing for consumption or non essential ‘toys’ of modern society.” (nganadeeleg) But if that person has the means for borrowing, for example for buying a car, a stereo, a computer, a flat-screen TV, and aircon, etc., why should such a person not borrow? The way you put, “sufficiency economy” doesn’t look like “responsible (financial) conduct”, but like a potential totalitarian model of society. After all, in a free society, everybody can determine what he or she wants to consume (as long as it is not legally prohibited, such as drugs), or what he or she thinks is “essential” for his or her life–as long as he or she has the means to buy that stuff and show “responsible conduct” concerning their financial resources and their acquisition (no corruption, e.g,!). What would you think if I turned up at your home and take away everything I define as being “non-essential” to your life? (Can you live without a TV, e.g.?)
Lessons from the Thaksin era
P.S.: Some months ago, you announced that you would write an article on local political structures and action. Has this piece been posted somewhere already?
Debating tours to Naga country, and other topics
Naga? Is this in Burma? In thought it was a place in the Philippines.
Good read and Interesting topic..
Sufficiency Supreme Command Headquarters
21 Jan: The Sufficiency theory does not stipulate no borrowing, but rather it recommends taking the middle path – moderation, reasonableness, immunity etc.
In relation to borrowing, that would mean not over extending.
It would also mean not borrowing for consumption or non essential ‘toys’ of modern society.
Borrowing for a business opportunity would be OK provided you have done your homework and the business has a reasonable chance of success and you were realistic & did not put your everything at risk. Likewise, I think borrowing for education would be acceptable if the above criteria were followed.
It’s all common sense really, and it is clear that HMK is trying to help people by providing sensible advice & guidance – it applies equally to rich or poor, urban or rural.
I think the ‘enough to live on and enough to live for’ line is the King’s way of providing a counter balance to the mindless pursuit of non essential ‘toys’ that seems to pervade our consumer societies.
Why do we even call it ‘Thai’-land?
If the current investigations assert that Muslims activists are indeed guilty of Bangkok’s bombings I fear that such events will happen even more often…
Lessons from the Thaksin era
That’s welcome news indeed. Maybe, the full paper will be available at the same time that Thaksin or one of his nominees in a post-coup elected coalition government will have resumed power?
Lessons from the Thaksin era
“A few initial notes”! Ouch! That’s all there is at this stage. There is talk of various edited volumes coming out of the conference in which case the conference paper would be reworked and expanded.
Why do we even call it ‘Thai’-land?
Perhaps things in the south will stop when the islamist militants would stop shooting and bombing people? Or, maybe, if Thailand agrees to let them have their Islamic Republic of Patani? But most Muslims in the south won’t like living in such a republic either, I guess.
Sufficiency Supreme Command Headquarters
Bangkok Post (letter to the editor, Febr. 6):
Mr Veera tries to explain “sufficiency economy”. This has been tried many times now, but the concept has remained unclear. Now, luckily Mr Veera is showing us the light: On the private level, it is about not spending the whole salary but saving _ and don’t use credit cards. Okay.
Mixing the concept with the more cloudy parts of Buddhism is also okay, but calling this a philosophy is really an overkill and an insult to Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard. We are talking about an ordinary proposal for responsible conduct, nothing more.
FLEMMING
How true!
How come that, in Thailand, such an ordinary thing is treated as “Sufficiency Economy is a philosophy, graciously bestowed on us by our beloved Monarch, His Majesty the King.” This is quoted from a speech Prem gave on the subject in 2001. Follow the link http://www.generalprem.com/Speech5.html.
Defending the sufficiency line
Part of a letter to the editor of Bangkok Post (Febr. 6) has this to say on Veera:
” Mr Veera tries to explain “sufficiency economy”. This has been tried many times now, but the concept has remained unclear. Now, luckily Mr Veera is showing us the light: On the private level, it is about not spending the whole salary but saving _ and don’t use credit cards. Okay.
Mixing the concept with the more cloudy parts of Buddhism is also okay, but calling this a philosophy is really an overkill and an insult to Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard. We are talking about an ordinary proposal for responsible conduct, nothing more.
FLEMMING
Very agreeable, indeed.
Lessons from the Thaksin era
This piece looks like a few initial notes put together for the presentation at the conference. Could you please also post the full paper on this web site? Thank you.
Sufficiency Supreme Command Headquarters
nganadeeleg, you are right borrowing might let you stay poor – if you spend the money for consumption, but a lot of times – be it for a business idea or for the education of their children – the poor don’t have a choice but to take out a loan. What is your advice for these people to advance?
Sufficiency Supreme Command Headquarters
Spending all your earnings, or borrowing against them using credit cards, or being seduced by advertising, are all usually sure ways of staying, or becoming, poor.
Absolutely! Look at how borrowing against assets and long-term debt has driven Americans into the poorhouse!