Srithanonchai said: “Sen a proponent of self-sufficiency? He rather seems to be a proponent of capitalism and democracy. I once attented a lecture given by him. In the question-answer part, woolly-headed Paiboon Wattanasiritham (minister in the present government, and former helper of Thaksin) asked something to the effect of sufficiency economy, i.e. community, small-scale, anti-capitalist stuff. Sen coolly answered that it was difficult to imagine a state providing hospitals, schools, and other social services without a capitalist economy first producing the surplus”
Those hospitals, schools and other social services will only be provided if the surpluses (profits) are taxed, but to most people ‘tax’ is a dirty word, and something to be avoided whenever possible.
Perhaps it’s human nature to never know when enough is enough, and that’s why Santi Asoke values are important.
Not everyone can strictly adhere to the principles immediately, and if they did, the economy probably would collapse – but those ideals may help to moderate peoples behaviour.
It’s a bit like Buddhism in general – if everyone became monks and attained enlightenment, the world would grind to a halt.
Sufficiency economy is easy to understand. If you are poor, just accept what you have and try to make do or even do a bit better. If you are fabulously wealthy, then don’t flaunt it too much and try to make merit by being nice and content. All very simple and simplistic.
So the sufficiency economy is about poverty, but not necessarily doing anything about it.
The king came up with this idea in 1997, fearing social conflict after the crisis hit. He revised it in 1998. Attempts to link it to his earlier ideas seem to be intellectually weak, especially when seen in the context of the huge investments in infrastructrure required for irrigation and related dams. Sure, one may find earlier statements about being content with what one has (one’s karma, presumably). The idea was taken up in the 9th NESDB plan, but no one took any notice of that.
The problem now is that the military-backed government has elevated themoral and normative idea up as a way to organise the Thai economy, so someone needs to operationalise it. This is where it all gets very silly and uncomfortable, and it will go on for some time. This is especially the case as nationalism is fanned by the junta and its government.
This is another good and interesting volume. First of all, I doubt if many tourists know or even care about political situations of Burma. Second, how much of their money goes to the people. It would be nice if communitiy-based and ethical toruisms kinds of travelling are major forms of tourism so that oridinary people can earn income.
Third, in terms of culture, most of my experiences have been that tourists, especially from Europe, North America and Australia, little respect local culture. “Virgin” women seem to be something they have in mind. I am not sure what Aung Zaw means by “exotic” place. I hope he is aware of the critiques of that term. Perhaps, expectation to help local people should not led to ‘brotheling’ the ‘exotic’ land. But to go or not to go is individuals’ decision. Ethical tourism must be in their mind though.
Finally, Burma is a multi-ethnic country. But it is disappointing as aways that discussions on Burma in journals including Irrawaddy focus on Burman and Buddhist perspectives and show the images that reflect Burman and Buddhism alone, even when talking about places in ethnic areas. Remember, this is partly the reason ethnic people, young people of my generation, don’t want to associate themselves with Burma/Myanmar becuase representation of Burma/Myanmar is ethnically and religiously alien to most of them.
The Nation of today carries yet another column on the sufficiency economy, this time by Medhi Krongkaew, a member of the NCCC, and former professor of economics, first at Thammasat and then at NIDA. See his article at http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/02/03/opinion/opinion_30025855.php
He seems to try to combine mainstream economic ideas with sufficiency economy, mixing some platitudes on the latter with some elements of a centrally administered economy (more benevolent: technocratic planning, such as under NESDB).
If nothing else, “sufficiency economy” has certainly succeeded in producing a number of funny attempts at exegesis.
Siam Sport: Stimulating domestic demand is a no-no in sufficiency economy, because it supposedly goes beyond phophiang and phopraman. I share your hope re globalization. But as you can see from the quote, a lot of people here seem to be rather confused about this issue. Let’s wait for the next government. Maybe, it will arrive at the same division of labor that we had under Thaksin, with Thaksin promoting the idea that everybody should get rich, while Pojaman would open one suficiency economy study center after another.
Johpa: Sen a proponent of self-sufficiency? He rather seems to be a proponent of capitalism and democracy. I once attented a lecture given by him. In the question-answer part, woolly-headed Paiboon Wattanasiritham (minister in the present government, and former helper of Thaksin) asked something to the effect of sufficiency economy, i.e. community, small-scale, anti-capitalist stuff. Sen coolly answered that it was difficult to imagine a state providing hospitals, schools, and other social services without a capitalist economy first producing the surplus. On another occasion (also in 1999), Sen was provocatively asked by Somkiat Onwimol what he, as a world-famous Nobel laureate in economics, thought about “HMK” sufficiency economy. Sen tried to be diplomatic saying that, unfortunately, he had never heard of such a thing.
I’m with you Jopha. It’s good to see an economic policy that does not espouse consumption as the engine of GDP growth and our means and measurement of happiness. This is perhaps why we cannot relate it to our narrow economic paradigms. Hopefully the King, his cronies and middle class followers will practice what they preach. i doubt it.
Thailand definitely has to stimulate its domestic demand.
Reliance on exports is not a goal in itself.
It should be a stepping stone for further development.
So far, globalization has mostly been a win-win situation for Thailand. I hope nobody is aiming at killing the goose that lays the golden eggs…
I must agree with Nicholas that the concept of the “Sufficiency Economy” is being placed out there in the public arena as often as a tactic to divert attention from other issues, by leaders who have no clue about economics at all. And let me be the first to confess that I find the subject extremely complex and bewildering and quite the challenge
That being said, I believe there are some positive concepts encapsulated within this Sufficiency Economy and it is a shame that there are those who use the current hapless government’s support of the Sufficiency Economy to attack the government when there are other reasons to critcize the current regime, although removing Thaksin is not one of those reasons in my book.
It is a shame that the government, and even the UNDP, suggest that the Sufficiency Economy is an original thought of HRM, thus stifling internal discussion within Thailand. Although I may be critical of HRM on other issues, clearly HRM has long been reading the growing number of economists who espouse a more humanist based approach to global economics, such as recent Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, as well as his having read earlier proponents of self-sufficiency such as Schumacher. And perhaps he has read the recent economist critics of globalization such as Jospeh Stiglitz or the meandering John Raulston Saul. What HRM has done, befitting the Dhamma Raja aspect of his persona, is give it all a strong Therevada spin.
I have no doubt that those with vested interests in the current economic model, The Economist and the other modern economic jounals have their panties out of alignment over the slow lean of the new regime away from the previous economic models favored by the the western governments. But I think that Crispin has got it right that, with patience, there is hope in the direction the government is taking. But he is wrong to claim that Thailand is in the forefront regionally as Mahathir (crazy has he may be on some other social issues) rejected the US based global economic institutions after 1997, and the economy in Malayasia has not fallen apart as predicted.
Thailand is part of the world economy, yes. 70% of its GDP are generated by exports. But in the present atmosphere, this is seen negatively by many. Consider the following quote.
“The Thai economy depends on foreign investment, depends on tourism from abroad, depends on foreign borrowing, depends on foreign technology, depends on foreign brands, depends on foreign advisors, depends on foreign lobbyists. Thailand is under the influence of foreigners. ….
We accept that we are dependent on foreign investment. But we must not be too dependent. We must depend only sufficiently, only moderately. Don’t let evil capital, evil globalization dominate and dictate us.
We are Thais, are Thailand. We have 63 million people. We have sufficient natural resources, work force, knowledge, wisdom, experience, and capability in order to build, provide and distribute so that everybody can live stable and secure, and can immunize himself, can depend on himself. If we have rulers who have virtue and knowledge, we must have confidence in ourselves. Do not be filled with awe of foreigners too much.”
That was not written by some sectarian dimwit, but by Dr. Narong Phetprasert, professor of economics at Chula (printed in Krungthep Thurakit, 1 February 2007, p. 11; title: “Dependence on foreigners and the sufficiency economy.”)
All right, the Lord Buddha might have taught all this. But since when is Thailand a Buddhist country, as opposed to an animist one? Also, the phrase “values of Thai society” strikes me as odd. If this was the case, why then don’t the Thais follow their supposed values in their daily lives? plaek jing jing.
The bottom-line with “sufficiency economy” is that, in a democratic country, you cannot try to push it through as a totalitarian brain-washing project. Any policy trying to impact on the people cannot be imposed by extra-constitutional bodies or persons, but must pass through the open discussion of the public sphere. In addition, it must be subjected to electoral accountability. There must not be any attempt to return to absolute monarchy.
Co-incidentally, the “liberal” Matichon newspaper (February 3), in its editorial (!) also urged the government to urgently anchor “sufficiency economy” in the people’s minds so as to prevent it from easily being up-rooted by any following government put into office by elections.
I agree that it is a case of “lost-in-translation” like fall and David Mc have stated; however, I believe the translation errors arose when going from Pali to Thai.
What I mean is that for many Thais, their understanding of the Dharma has been obfuscated by unscruplous, but charismatic monks and lay leaders, who twist the true Dharma to suit their own ideological hobby-horses and political agendas. On the one hand, you have Buddhadasa Bhikku and the Santi Askoe sect who have managed to convince a large portion of the population that Buddhism is nothing more than a glorified, “holy” Communism. On the other hand you have the Dhammakaya cult…err…sect, which will sell you a ticket to heaven for just a small donation.
What does the Lord Buddha truly say about managing one’s money? Did he truly teach that we should live in one giant hippy commune? or Did he teach that we can buy indulgences? The answer can be found in the Sigalovada Sutra. In this sutra, we learn how a householder is supposed to conduct his or her life. Using the translation by Narada Thera, we find this teaching:
“He who acquires his wealth in harmless ways
like to a bee that honey gathers,
riches mount up for him
like ant hill’s rapid growth.
With wealth acquired this way,
a layman fit for household life,
in portions four divides his wealth:
thus will he friendship win.
One portion for his wants he uses,
two portions on his business spends,
the fourth for times of need he keeps.”
We can see that for a householder, there is nothing wrong with trying to accumulate wealth, as long as it is done ethically. This is far from the ascetic self-flagellation advocated by the likes of Buddhadasa and Chamlong Srimuang. Secondly, a layman is instructed to invest 50 percent of his income into his business and save 25 percent; leaving another 25 percent to be used as he wishes. Again, sound advice and far different from investing your entire life’s savings to sponsor a golden Buddha image to be placed on a UFO-shaped building (which of course is touted as an act of dana so potent as to wash away your sins forever).
The sutra further defines the Buddhist view of work and the responsibilities of the employer:
In five ways should a master minister to his servants and employees as the Nadir:
i. “by assigning them work according to their ability,
ii. by supplying them with food and with wages,
iii. by tending them in sickness,
iv. by sharing with them any delicacies,
v. by granting them leave at times.
The first tenet Lord Buddha teaches is that an employer should run his or her workplace as a meritocracy. Nepotism and bribery should have no place in Buddhist values. The second tenet supports the “wage slavery” that Marxists deem to be the source of all evil. The third tenet can be translated into modern times as the employer’s responsibility to provide medical and dental insurance for his or her employees. The fourth tenet seems to me to advocate things like profit sharing and stock options. The final tenet is self-explanatory. Now, I ask you, how many Thai corporations provide the 5 rights, as taught by the Lord Buddha, to all of its employees, right down to the Issan factory girls? I’d be willing to bet a precious few, I’m afraid.
From this cursory explication of the Sigalovada Sutra, we can see that Buddhist values are not incompatible with globalized free-market Capitalism, indeed, they provide the ethical foundation of the “invisible hand” that, if properly observed, prevents the excesses that nganadeeleg rightly criticized.
The Lord Buddha taught that a householder should manage his or her wealth in according to Right View, that is in how the world really works. Basing economic practice on utopian visions and inane platitudes (such as the utterly insipid “Gross National Happiness”), will only bring one suffering (i.e. dukka).
A serious “Lost-in-Translation” case.
Surayud’s explaination base heavily on intertwining sufficiency-principle with Buddhism middle path self-restrain. A concept that indoctrine in Thai student since youth does not necessarily equate to global norm. What he fail to realise is, not every foreign investor is Buddhist, or familiar with Buddhism context.
For foreign investor(and many Thais), they need a line. Draw them a line how far “sufficiency” economy is the junta willing to go. Because there are openess scales in the world market. Either your country are open, partial-open, or close. Without a concrete line, of course, other country would say Thai lean heavy on close-door policy.
This is also another case of “Lost-in-Translation”. Thai people fail to see they live in global economy, we fail to study other’s countries history and system. Junta government fail to realize that foreigner are comparing Thailand, according to their global experiences, with other countries.
If we keep asking ourselves, why cant foreigner understand? What we need to do is: Why cant we understand?
I think part of the confusion is the English translation of “sufficiency economy”, which the King of Thailand himself gave to this set of principles. He should have simply called it sufficiency principles or something like that and people wouldn’t have freaked out as much.
The only question is, who’s got the guts to tell him?
As long as we look at this as a model of Buddhist-influenced principles of moderation that the king would like to see instilled in the peasantry (especially) and all Thai people in general, I think this is perfectly in line with the values of Thai society and should be promoted.
When people start trying to create a micro/macro-economic model from this theory and start using and adapting the King’s theories for their personal advancement not in line with the theory, this is where everything goes wrong. It’s the people who interpret the message for the masses that are more of a problem, not the message itself (in my opinion).
Of course the Asian Wall Street Journal, Newsweek and The Economist are going to criticise a theory that tries to moderate the excesses of the traditional capitalist/free market/globalized/greed economic system. The agenda of such publications is well known.
What’s more interesting is why some academics refuse to to understand the basic theory as proposed and clarified by HMK, and seem to revel in the confusion and distortion.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The business of sufficiency economy
р╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╕гр╕▒р╕Бр╣Гр╕Щр╕лр╕ер╕зр╕З р╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╣Бр╕Б!
Defending the sufficiency line
Srithanonchai said: “Sen a proponent of self-sufficiency? He rather seems to be a proponent of capitalism and democracy. I once attented a lecture given by him. In the question-answer part, woolly-headed Paiboon Wattanasiritham (minister in the present government, and former helper of Thaksin) asked something to the effect of sufficiency economy, i.e. community, small-scale, anti-capitalist stuff. Sen coolly answered that it was difficult to imagine a state providing hospitals, schools, and other social services without a capitalist economy first producing the surplus”
Those hospitals, schools and other social services will only be provided if the surpluses (profits) are taxed, but to most people ‘tax’ is a dirty word, and something to be avoided whenever possible.
Perhaps it’s human nature to never know when enough is enough, and that’s why Santi Asoke values are important.
Not everyone can strictly adhere to the principles immediately, and if they did, the economy probably would collapse – but those ideals may help to moderate peoples behaviour.
It’s a bit like Buddhism in general – if everyone became monks and attained enlightenment, the world would grind to a halt.
Sufficiency economy = poverty?
Sufficiency economy is easy to understand. If you are poor, just accept what you have and try to make do or even do a bit better. If you are fabulously wealthy, then don’t flaunt it too much and try to make merit by being nice and content. All very simple and simplistic.
So the sufficiency economy is about poverty, but not necessarily doing anything about it.
The king came up with this idea in 1997, fearing social conflict after the crisis hit. He revised it in 1998. Attempts to link it to his earlier ideas seem to be intellectually weak, especially when seen in the context of the huge investments in infrastructrure required for irrigation and related dams. Sure, one may find earlier statements about being content with what one has (one’s karma, presumably). The idea was taken up in the 9th NESDB plan, but no one took any notice of that.
The problem now is that the military-backed government has elevated themoral and normative idea up as a way to organise the Thai economy, so someone needs to operationalise it. This is where it all gets very silly and uncomfortable, and it will go on for some time. This is especially the case as nationalism is fanned by the junta and its government.
The Irrawaddy on Burma tourism
This is another good and interesting volume. First of all, I doubt if many tourists know or even care about political situations of Burma. Second, how much of their money goes to the people. It would be nice if communitiy-based and ethical toruisms kinds of travelling are major forms of tourism so that oridinary people can earn income.
Third, in terms of culture, most of my experiences have been that tourists, especially from Europe, North America and Australia, little respect local culture. “Virgin” women seem to be something they have in mind. I am not sure what Aung Zaw means by “exotic” place. I hope he is aware of the critiques of that term. Perhaps, expectation to help local people should not led to ‘brotheling’ the ‘exotic’ land. But to go or not to go is individuals’ decision. Ethical tourism must be in their mind though.
Finally, Burma is a multi-ethnic country. But it is disappointing as aways that discussions on Burma in journals including Irrawaddy focus on Burman and Buddhist perspectives and show the images that reflect Burman and Buddhism alone, even when talking about places in ethnic areas. Remember, this is partly the reason ethnic people, young people of my generation, don’t want to associate themselves with Burma/Myanmar becuase representation of Burma/Myanmar is ethnically and religiously alien to most of them.
The business of sufficiency economy
р╕гр╕▒р╕Бр╣Гр╕Щр╕лр╕ер╕зр╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Гр╕Кр╣Ир╕лр╕бр╕▓р╕вр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕▓р╕зр╣Ир╕▓ р╕Ир╕│р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Ыр╕┤р╕Фр╕кр╕бр╕нр╕Зр╕Щр╕░р╕Ир╕░wave
Defending the sufficiency line
The Nation of today carries yet another column on the sufficiency economy, this time by Medhi Krongkaew, a member of the NCCC, and former professor of economics, first at Thammasat and then at NIDA. See his article at http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/02/03/opinion/opinion_30025855.php
He seems to try to combine mainstream economic ideas with sufficiency economy, mixing some platitudes on the latter with some elements of a centrally administered economy (more benevolent: technocratic planning, such as under NESDB).
If nothing else, “sufficiency economy” has certainly succeeded in producing a number of funny attempts at exegesis.
Defending the sufficiency line
Siam Sport: Stimulating domestic demand is a no-no in sufficiency economy, because it supposedly goes beyond phophiang and phopraman. I share your hope re globalization. But as you can see from the quote, a lot of people here seem to be rather confused about this issue. Let’s wait for the next government. Maybe, it will arrive at the same division of labor that we had under Thaksin, with Thaksin promoting the idea that everybody should get rich, while Pojaman would open one suficiency economy study center after another.
Johpa: Sen a proponent of self-sufficiency? He rather seems to be a proponent of capitalism and democracy. I once attented a lecture given by him. In the question-answer part, woolly-headed Paiboon Wattanasiritham (minister in the present government, and former helper of Thaksin) asked something to the effect of sufficiency economy, i.e. community, small-scale, anti-capitalist stuff. Sen coolly answered that it was difficult to imagine a state providing hospitals, schools, and other social services without a capitalist economy first producing the surplus. On another occasion (also in 1999), Sen was provocatively asked by Somkiat Onwimol what he, as a world-famous Nobel laureate in economics, thought about “HMK” sufficiency economy. Sen tried to be diplomatic saying that, unfortunately, he had never heard of such a thing.
Defending the sufficiency line
I’m with you Jopha. It’s good to see an economic policy that does not espouse consumption as the engine of GDP growth and our means and measurement of happiness. This is perhaps why we cannot relate it to our narrow economic paradigms. Hopefully the King, his cronies and middle class followers will practice what they preach. i doubt it.
Defending the sufficiency line
>>Srithanonchai
Thailand definitely has to stimulate its domestic demand.
Reliance on exports is not a goal in itself.
It should be a stepping stone for further development.
So far, globalization has mostly been a win-win situation for Thailand. I hope nobody is aiming at killing the goose that lays the golden eggs…
Defending the sufficiency line
I must agree with Nicholas that the concept of the “Sufficiency Economy” is being placed out there in the public arena as often as a tactic to divert attention from other issues, by leaders who have no clue about economics at all. And let me be the first to confess that I find the subject extremely complex and bewildering and quite the challenge
That being said, I believe there are some positive concepts encapsulated within this Sufficiency Economy and it is a shame that there are those who use the current hapless government’s support of the Sufficiency Economy to attack the government when there are other reasons to critcize the current regime, although removing Thaksin is not one of those reasons in my book.
It is a shame that the government, and even the UNDP, suggest that the Sufficiency Economy is an original thought of HRM, thus stifling internal discussion within Thailand. Although I may be critical of HRM on other issues, clearly HRM has long been reading the growing number of economists who espouse a more humanist based approach to global economics, such as recent Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, as well as his having read earlier proponents of self-sufficiency such as Schumacher. And perhaps he has read the recent economist critics of globalization such as Jospeh Stiglitz or the meandering John Raulston Saul. What HRM has done, befitting the Dhamma Raja aspect of his persona, is give it all a strong Therevada spin.
I have no doubt that those with vested interests in the current economic model, The Economist and the other modern economic jounals have their panties out of alignment over the slow lean of the new regime away from the previous economic models favored by the the western governments. But I think that Crispin has got it right that, with patience, there is hope in the direction the government is taking. But he is wrong to claim that Thailand is in the forefront regionally as Mahathir (crazy has he may be on some other social issues) rejected the US based global economic institutions after 1997, and the economy in Malayasia has not fallen apart as predicted.
Defending the sufficiency line
Thailand is part of the world economy, yes. 70% of its GDP are generated by exports. But in the present atmosphere, this is seen negatively by many. Consider the following quote.
“The Thai economy depends on foreign investment, depends on tourism from abroad, depends on foreign borrowing, depends on foreign technology, depends on foreign brands, depends on foreign advisors, depends on foreign lobbyists. Thailand is under the influence of foreigners. ….
We accept that we are dependent on foreign investment. But we must not be too dependent. We must depend only sufficiently, only moderately. Don’t let evil capital, evil globalization dominate and dictate us.
We are Thais, are Thailand. We have 63 million people. We have sufficient natural resources, work force, knowledge, wisdom, experience, and capability in order to build, provide and distribute so that everybody can live stable and secure, and can immunize himself, can depend on himself. If we have rulers who have virtue and knowledge, we must have confidence in ourselves. Do not be filled with awe of foreigners too much.”
That was not written by some sectarian dimwit, but by Dr. Narong Phetprasert, professor of economics at Chula (printed in Krungthep Thurakit, 1 February 2007, p. 11; title: “Dependence on foreigners and the sufficiency economy.”)
The business of sufficiency economy
р╣Ар╕гр╕▓р╕гр╕▒р╕Бр╣Гр╕Щр╕лр╕ер╕зр╕З
Defending the sufficiency line
Much ado about nothing tomy viewpoint…
The ‘sufficiency economy’ is just cosmetics:
hopefully things are not going to change.
Thailand is definitely part of the world economy.
Defending the sufficiency line
All right, the Lord Buddha might have taught all this. But since when is Thailand a Buddhist country, as opposed to an animist one? Also, the phrase “values of Thai society” strikes me as odd. If this was the case, why then don’t the Thais follow their supposed values in their daily lives? plaek jing jing.
The bottom-line with “sufficiency economy” is that, in a democratic country, you cannot try to push it through as a totalitarian brain-washing project. Any policy trying to impact on the people cannot be imposed by extra-constitutional bodies or persons, but must pass through the open discussion of the public sphere. In addition, it must be subjected to electoral accountability. There must not be any attempt to return to absolute monarchy.
Co-incidentally, the “liberal” Matichon newspaper (February 3), in its editorial (!) also urged the government to urgently anchor “sufficiency economy” in the people’s minds so as to prevent it from easily being up-rooted by any following government put into office by elections.
Defending the sufficiency line
I agree that it is a case of “lost-in-translation” like fall and David Mc have stated; however, I believe the translation errors arose when going from Pali to Thai.
What I mean is that for many Thais, their understanding of the Dharma has been obfuscated by unscruplous, but charismatic monks and lay leaders, who twist the true Dharma to suit their own ideological hobby-horses and political agendas. On the one hand, you have Buddhadasa Bhikku and the Santi Askoe sect who have managed to convince a large portion of the population that Buddhism is nothing more than a glorified, “holy” Communism. On the other hand you have the Dhammakaya
cult…err…sect, which will sell you a ticket to heaven for just a small donation.What does the Lord Buddha truly say about managing one’s money? Did he truly teach that we should live in one giant hippy commune? or Did he teach that we can buy indulgences? The answer can be found in the Sigalovada Sutra. In this sutra, we learn how a householder is supposed to conduct his or her life. Using the translation by Narada Thera, we find this teaching:
“He who acquires his wealth in harmless ways
like to a bee that honey gathers,
riches mount up for him
like ant hill’s rapid growth.
With wealth acquired this way,
a layman fit for household life,
in portions four divides his wealth:
thus will he friendship win.
One portion for his wants he uses,
two portions on his business spends,
the fourth for times of need he keeps.”
We can see that for a householder, there is nothing wrong with trying to accumulate wealth, as long as it is done ethically. This is far from the ascetic self-flagellation advocated by the likes of Buddhadasa and Chamlong Srimuang. Secondly, a layman is instructed to invest 50 percent of his income into his business and save 25 percent; leaving another 25 percent to be used as he wishes. Again, sound advice and far different from investing your entire life’s savings to sponsor a golden Buddha image to be placed on a UFO-shaped building (which of course is touted as an act of dana so potent as to wash away your sins forever).
The sutra further defines the Buddhist view of work and the responsibilities of the employer:
In five ways should a master minister to his servants and employees as the Nadir:
i. “by assigning them work according to their ability,
ii. by supplying them with food and with wages,
iii. by tending them in sickness,
iv. by sharing with them any delicacies,
v. by granting them leave at times.
The first tenet Lord Buddha teaches is that an employer should run his or her workplace as a meritocracy. Nepotism and bribery should have no place in Buddhist values. The second tenet supports the “wage slavery” that Marxists deem to be the source of all evil. The third tenet can be translated into modern times as the employer’s responsibility to provide medical and dental insurance for his or her employees. The fourth tenet seems to me to advocate things like profit sharing and stock options. The final tenet is self-explanatory. Now, I ask you, how many Thai corporations provide the 5 rights, as taught by the Lord Buddha, to all of its employees, right down to the Issan factory girls? I’d be willing to bet a precious few, I’m afraid.
From this cursory explication of the Sigalovada Sutra, we can see that Buddhist values are not incompatible with globalized free-market Capitalism, indeed, they provide the ethical foundation of the “invisible hand” that, if properly observed, prevents the excesses that nganadeeleg rightly criticized.
The Lord Buddha taught that a householder should manage his or her wealth in according to Right View, that is in how the world really works. Basing economic practice on utopian visions and inane platitudes (such as the utterly insipid “Gross National Happiness”), will only bring one suffering (i.e. dukka).
Defending the sufficiency line
A slightly different analysis of the Thai economy and sufficiency economy in an interesting article by Shawn W Crispin in Asia Times:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/IB02Ae01.html
I still wonder if it is only economic fundamentals and a weaker USD that is driving the strength of the baht, or are speculators at play?
Defending the sufficiency line
A serious “Lost-in-Translation” case.
Surayud’s explaination base heavily on intertwining sufficiency-principle with Buddhism middle path self-restrain. A concept that indoctrine in Thai student since youth does not necessarily equate to global norm. What he fail to realise is, not every foreign investor is Buddhist, or familiar with Buddhism context.
For foreign investor(and many Thais), they need a line. Draw them a line how far “sufficiency” economy is the junta willing to go. Because there are openess scales in the world market. Either your country are open, partial-open, or close. Without a concrete line, of course, other country would say Thai lean heavy on close-door policy.
This is also another case of “Lost-in-Translation”. Thai people fail to see they live in global economy, we fail to study other’s countries history and system. Junta government fail to realize that foreigner are comparing Thailand, according to their global experiences, with other countries.
If we keep asking ourselves, why cant foreigner understand? What we need to do is: Why cant we understand?
Defending the sufficiency line
I think part of the confusion is the English translation of “sufficiency economy”, which the King of Thailand himself gave to this set of principles. He should have simply called it sufficiency principles or something like that and people wouldn’t have freaked out as much.
As the King even admitted in his , the King “can do wrong”.
The only question is, who’s got the guts to tell him?
As long as we look at this as a model of Buddhist-influenced principles of moderation that the king would like to see instilled in the peasantry (especially) and all Thai people in general, I think this is perfectly in line with the values of Thai society and should be promoted.
When people start trying to create a micro/macro-economic model from this theory and start using and adapting the King’s theories for their personal advancement not in line with the theory, this is where everything goes wrong. It’s the people who interpret the message for the masses that are more of a problem, not the message itself (in my opinion).
Diplomatic exchange carried by The Nation
hpboothe said: “….. though I see a lot of farang-worship as well as farang-hating. The hating i can understand – how do you explain the worship?”
Is that worship of farang in general, or some individuals?
I can understand if it is some individuals, because obviously not all farang are in Thailand for the usual exploitation/sexploitation etc
If it is worship of farang in general, the only explanation I can offer is that they see the $ signs.
Defending the sufficiency line
Of course the Asian Wall Street Journal, Newsweek and The Economist are going to criticise a theory that tries to moderate the excesses of the traditional capitalist/free market/globalized/greed economic system. The agenda of such publications is well known.
What’s more interesting is why some academics refuse to to understand the basic theory as proposed and clarified by HMK, and seem to revel in the confusion and distortion.