“During 2005 33 loans were fully repaid…”
That statement raises the question
How many of the debtors had to resort to money lenders to repay their village fund loans?
In Isaan this is not an uncomman occurance.
Unable to repay the village fund loan the debtor must put his land up as collateral with a money lender
and borrow the funds to repay the new loan, at 2% inreest per month.
Later once again unable to repay the loan the debtor loses his land.
But, the statistics for the program still show 100% repayment.
Until schools in Thailand teach money management the cycle of debt will only continue.
I just read the book and it’s excellent. It’s beautifully written and is at times sad and poignent and at times funny and cheerful (like Burma itself, I think). It’s mainly a history (going back to ancient and medieval times) but with a lot of famly and personal history thrown in. The reviewers have focused on his last chapter (which deals with the the present situation) but there’s 12 other chapters, with a lot that connects Burmese history to international currents and events (not just for recent times but for the last 2,500 years),
The following is a quote from a Time article in 1999:
“For the most part, though, the King stays above Thailand’s messy political stage, preserving his rare elixir of mystique and power for use when it is absolutely necessary. “We keep in the middle, neutral, in peaceful coexistence with everybody,” he said in a rare interview with the BBC in 1979. “We could be crushed by both sides, but we are impartial. One day it will be very handy to have someone impartial.” ”
I think its a good article looking at the dark side of Thailand but is balanced, unlike Handley’s obvious bias.
(also seems Handley’s book title was not very original)
Anyone know if the original 1979 BBC interview with HMK is available?
On the subject of the kings wealth and paying taxes:
In a previous discussion I contended that it was unrealistic to compare the wealth of the monachy with that of Thaksin, and some disagreed (Republican & Patiwat from memory).
In my opinion, the royal wealth is almost like the national reserve, which the politicians have been unable to plunder.
In Thailand private individuals build their wealth through various means (both legitimate & corrupt) and in most cases they retain that wealth (Thaksin, for example, but also many others).
Let’s say the monachy ceases (toppled, removed, abdicated, whatever) – what happens to the royal wealth?
I think most would end up with the state (CPB etc) which is a lot different than what happens when private individuals pass on or are toppled from power.
That aside, I probably would prefer if the king was taxed because it would would set a better example for the politicians.
Could it be that the effect of lese majeste laws in perpetuating the kings popularity are overstated?
Numerous rumours & scandals involving the palace have circulated widely throughout Thailand, and it would be hard to find anyone who is not aware of them.
Despite the lese majeste laws, it is my belief that the royal gossip is more widespread than is the knowledge of Thaksin’s mis-deeds.
I think there is genuine love/affection for the present king, regardless of the persons view of the monarchy in general.
Andrew is quick to tell us how the rural poor are not ignorant voters, so why does the love for the king have to be explained by lese majeste laws and royalist propaganda?
To add to Patiwat’s comment, I must admit the book by Paul Handley turned my way of thinking (or more so unthinking) of the monarchy upside down.
I got the book in early September, read it within a week. Then came the coup.
The coup was just the final straw. I felt like I had been fooled my whole life. Now all the information is just popping up everywhere I look. In a way, the coup has been a disservice for its original cause.
You are right Patiwat. The difference is, of course, that this unprecedented rift is harder to see. I hate to keep pointing out the obvious – but for so many people it is not obvious – the reason it is harder to see is simple: lese majeste. Sondhi Lim held rallies every week for a year cursing Thaksin, and was even hosted by Thai Studies centres around the world. Can you imagine an anti-royalist (ie. a true democrat) being able to give one such address without immediately being slapped with a lese majeste charge (or worse, as someone on this website warned us earlier)?
The rift has healed quickly immediately after Thaksin was ousted Patiwat. Thaksin was a cancer. General Sonthi surgically removed the cancer and the whole body (society) had quickly recovered.
Well reasoned critique? That is a matter of opinion. I have always maintained that New Mandala (look at my first first post around Sept/06) is being financed by Thaksin and was deliberately created as an outlet for the spite and malice of Thaksin and his supporters against the monarchy and of course the junta.
So far not one of the pro-Thaksins in New Mandala including Andrew Walker, Republican, Anon, Patiwat, Jory, Jon and Fall have condemned Thaksin Shinawatra for any of his many abuses and crimes against the Thai people which provoked the coup in the first place. Why is that? Such loyalty to Thaksin must surely deserve handsome rewards this Christmas perhaps?
I’m curious – the junta’s chief reason for the coup was to “unprecedented rift in society.”
But does anybody actually believe that the rift has actually gotten any better since the coup? If anything, I think it has gotten worse.
Before, nobody would have ever posted a well reasoned critique of the monarchy, and nobody would have ever taken such a posting seriously. But today we see stuff like this in a variety of popular forums, as well as the expected displeased reaction from royalists.
If you believe the junta, the Thaksin-regime endangered the monarchy and polarized society. But the coup has endangered the monarchy even more and has polarized society to an unprecedented level.
Another 60th Anniversary. A propos of the question whether lifting lese majeste would lead to a revision of the case of the death of R. 8 in 1946 – or at least a public pardoning of the three innocent people executed, and an investigation into why they were framed for the crime – see Somsak’s article written on the 50th anniversary of their execution last year: “р╣Хр╣Р р╕Ыр╕╡р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕Кр╕╡р╕зр╕┤р╕Х р╣Ср╣Ч р╕Бр╕╕р╕бр╕ар╕▓р╕Юр╕▒р╕Щр╕Шр╣М р╣Тр╣Фр╣Щр╣Ш” at http://somsakwork.blogspot.com/2006/06/blog-post.html
Thai-style republicanism: Tony’s report seems to have missed the existence of such sentiment. An example from Prachatai [http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/board/showboard.php?QID=45449&TID=5]:
The European Union yesterday commended Thailand’s reconsideration on the deportation of 152 ethnic Hmong from a Nong Khai detention centre but expressed concern about the plight of another group of 270 displaced Hmong in Phetchabun province. Finnish ambassador Lars Erik Backstrom, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, welcomed the government’s decision not to deport the Hmong so that the United Nations refugee agency, the UNHCR, had a chance to verify their status.
“At least 104 of them are recognised by the UNHCR and if the rest of them are all refugees, the UNHCR can work further with third countries for resettlement,” Mr Backstrom said.
”Having the opportunity to get access to and dialogue with them is very important.”
Thailand has complained that the steadily increasing population of displaced Hmong that have crossed over into Thailand from Laos is posing a social and security threat, and that no country has offered to help the authorities with providing shelter or resettlement for them.
The United States’ policy towards Lao-Hmong refugees has been somewhat ambiguous given that Washington has stopped receiving family members of those who fought alongside the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the Vietnam War for fear of being a pull factor for new immigrants, sources said.
But with the recent political shift in the US Congress towards the Democrats, America may reconsider taking in more Hmong and other refugees from the fallout of US foreign policy again, the sources said.
Finland’s annual quota for receiving refugees from Thailand has been filled, with 375 Burmese refugees from Mae Hong Son currently going through process of resettlement to the Scandinavian country.
Mr Backstrom said he also looked forward to hearing some positive developments of the situation of around 270 Hmong, including children, who have been detained in Phetchabun. He said he would continue to discuss the matter with the authorities.
Laos yesterday however, blasted the UNHCR for getting involved in the plan to deport the 152 Hmong back to Laos from Nong Khai, describing the deportation as a bilateral issue.
”The issue is related to Laos and Thailand and there is no reason third parties should interfere with this,” said Lao Foreign Ministry spokesman Yong Chanhthalousy.
The UNHCR and the New York-based Human Rights Watch on Tuesday called on the government to stop the pending deportation, claiming it would be a violation of international law.
The granting of refugee status to many ethnic Hmong has irked Laos.
”There is no war, no conflict in Laos so on what criteria has the UNHCR included these people under its category of political refugees?” said Mr Yong.
”I want to know whether the UNHCR has extended its work to include economic refugees.”
Lao Defence Minister Douanggtay Phichith and his Thai counterpart Gen Boonrawd Somtas will meet Monday at the General Border Committee meeting in Bangkok.
The ongoing issue of Lao Hmong crossing into Thailand is expected to be discussed at the talks which were rescheduled from Sept 20 due to the coup.
Further comment from Charles Keyes with references to his work on northeast Thailand:
Dear Mike,
You have obviously studied the Boonchu-Kukrit project more than anyone else and you should really write a longer piece on it, ending with recommending that it be reconsidered today. It would also be useful to compare/contrast this approach and that of Thaksin with the vision of sustainable development that has been widely discussed since the King’s speech in 1997 and which is now being advocated by the present government.
I have not sought to trace the history of BAAC and clearly this is needed for me (and others) to fully understand the role it has played.
Andrew Walker informed me that one respondent to this discussion on New Mandala asked for some references to my studies of the village in Mahsarakham where I have carried out long term research. I am attaching a bibliography [inserted below] with some references. Thus far, I have only presented my findings from the 2005 study in seminar presentations at the University of Washington, Chula, and Copenhagen.
Cheers,
Biff (Charles Keyes)
CHARLES KEYES
Publications Concerning Transformation of Northeastern Thai Rural Society
1963-2006
Keyes, Charles F. 1967. “Peasant and Nation: A Thai Lao Village in a Thai State,” Unpublished PhD dissertation, Cornell University, 1966. (University Microfilms, No. 67 2710, [1967].) (Dissertation Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts, 28.1 [1967], p. 33B.)
____. 1982. Socioeconomic Change in Rainfed Agricultural Villages in Northeastern Thailand. Seattle: Thailand Project, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington (Report for the United States Agency for International Development). (Copies have been deposited in the Cornell and University of Washington Libraries).
____. 1983. “Economic Action and Buddhist Morality in a Thai Village,” in Peasant Strategies in Asian Societies: Perspectives on Moral and Rational Economic Approaches, ed. by Charles F. Keyes. Journal of Asian Studies, 42.3:851 68, 1983.
____. 1990. “Buddhist Practical Morality in a Changing Agrarian World: A Case from Northeastern Thailand, in Attitudes toward Wealth and Poverty in Theravada Buddhism, ed. by Donald K. Swearer and Russell Sizemore. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press. Pp. 170-189.
____. 1991. “The Proposed World of the School: Thai Villagers Entry into a Bureaucratic State System,” In Reshaping Local Worlds: Rural Education and Cultural Change in Southeast Asia, ed. by Charles F. Keyes. New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asian Studies. Pp. 87-138.
____. 1991. “Buddhist Detachment and Worldly Gain: The Economic Ethic of Northeastern Thai Villagers,” in Y┼л m├╝ang Thai: ruam botkhw─Бm th─Бng sangkhom pha pen kiat d─Б─У S─Бstr─Бc─Бn San─У C─Бmrik (“In Thailand: Collected Essays in Honor of Professor Saneh Chammarik), ed. by Chaiwat Satha-Anand. Special issue of Ratthas─Бts─Бn (Journal of Political Science, Thammasat University), 16.1-2:271-98.
____. 1995. “Hegemony and Resistance in Northeastern Thailand,” in Regions and National Integration in Thailand, 1892-1992, ed. by Volker Grabowsky. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Pp. 154-182.
____. 2002. “Migrants and Protestors: ‘Development’ in Northeastern Thailand,” Keynote address, 8th International Thai Studies Conference, Nakhon Phanom, Thailand, January. (Available on the disk circulated as the conference proceedings.)
____. Completed for Publication. “Communism, Peasants and Buddhism: The Failure of ‘Peasant Revolutions’ in Thailand in Comparison to Cambodia,” in Community and the Trajectories of Change in Cambodia and Thailand: Anthropological Studies in Honor of May Ebihara, ed. by John Marston.
Dear Suvimol – why not just post as Vichai? Your comments are welcome but creating multiple identities to inflate the support for your views is playing games.
Sometime in the late 1980s or early 1990s I also remember hearing of the Thais allowing the Burmese military to cross the Thai border to attack a Karen position at 3 Pagodas Pass. On the other hand, I heard of Karens being allowed to do the same futher north. I think it all sort of depended on how business was going.
Hopefully the BOT is doing more than just complaining about the speculators, and is quietly intervening to sell off THB to keep a lid on things – they should make a nice profit when things settle down.
I know they don’t telegraph such intervention, and maybe it is already ocurring but not on a sufficient scale to have an impact.
Spill over can occur in both directions. Back in 1983 I sat atop a hill north of Fang, in Amphoe Thaton, and watched Thai planes bomb lord knows what across the border due north of a rather notorious Lisu village within Thai territory. Supposedlly, I read in FEER many months later, they were bombing some outpost of Khun Sa, although Khun Sa’s equally notorious partner (also notorious for selling anthropologist E.C. a load of BS…….you grad students need to be wary of hanging out with the village headman) at said Lisu village, stayed happily in business for many more years.
Later there was the dog and pony show at Doi Lang back in the late 1980s, also in Amphoe Fang, which methinks was orchestrated solely for the benefit of the US State Department. Despite the rather orchestrated nature of the conflict which allowed Khun Sa to move further westwards to his newer headquarters, the Royal Thai Air Force somehow found a way to lose two small planes, pilot error perhaps. The worst spill over occured to the small KMT villages west of Fang where many people had never been provided Thai citizenship and alledged abuses of those villagers by Thai soldiers, mostly abuse of women, were whispered about at the time.
In the early 1990s, over west towards Mae Sot and Mae Hong Song, the Thais (Chalawit) allowed his business partners, the Burmese, to move their military forces through Thai territory, a clear violation of soverignty, and attack Karen refugee bases inside Thailand from the east. I believe Lintner wrote about this in FEER at the time.
Nicholas gives links above to more recent spillage around Mae Sai.
Before Thaksin, politicians campaigned based on their local patronage, their public image, and the organization of their canvassers. Oh, and they also bought votes.
After Thaksin, politicians campaigned based on the policy agendas, their record of policy implementation, and the organization of their canvassers. Oh, and they also bought votes.
By making promises and being able to deliver on the ones that people cared about most, Thaksin helped change Thailand’s political culture.
Take a look at the Democrats. Their campaign in 2001 was traditional – they campaigned on being a respectable party who knew how to manage things, while Thaksin promised universal healthcare and microcredit. Democrats lost, Thaksin won, Thaksin delivered. In 2005, the Democrats also did a traditional “image” campaign – they said that if you voted 201 Democrat respectable MPs, Thailand’s parliament would be stronger. Democrats lost, Thaksin won. Finally, in 2006, the Democrats started getting smart and made promises: free healthcare, Skytrain expansion, and completely free K-12 education. Using Thaksin’s techniques, they were finally gaining traction with the electorate, but the coup prevented them from finally gaining back some ground.
Who knows whether post-coup elections will see the Democrats reverting back to 2001/2005 practice, or will see them continue to make Thaksin-style promises, ala 2006.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Can farmers be trusted with debt? Part 2
“During 2005 33 loans were fully repaid…”
That statement raises the question
How many of the debtors had to resort to money lenders to repay their village fund loans?
In Isaan this is not an uncomman occurance.
Unable to repay the village fund loan the debtor must put his land up as collateral with a money lender
and borrow the funds to repay the new loan, at 2% inreest per month.
Later once again unable to repay the loan the debtor loses his land.
But, the statistics for the program still show 100% repayment.
Until schools in Thailand teach money management the cycle of debt will only continue.
New book by Thant Myint-U
I just read the book and it’s excellent. It’s beautifully written and is at times sad and poignent and at times funny and cheerful (like Burma itself, I think). It’s mainly a history (going back to ancient and medieval times) but with a lot of famly and personal history thrown in. The reviewers have focused on his last chapter (which deals with the the present situation) but there’s 12 other chapters, with a lot that connects Burmese history to international currents and events (not just for recent times but for the last 2,500 years),
Susan in SF
Against the grain?
The following is a quote from a Time article in 1999:
“For the most part, though, the King stays above Thailand’s messy political stage, preserving his rare elixir of mystique and power for use when it is absolutely necessary. “We keep in the middle, neutral, in peaceful coexistence with everybody,” he said in a rare interview with the BBC in 1979. “We could be crushed by both sides, but we are impartial. One day it will be very handy to have someone impartial.” ”
The last sentence is very telling.
Here is the article in full: http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/99/1206/thai1.king.html
I think its a good article looking at the dark side of Thailand but is balanced, unlike Handley’s obvious bias.
(also seems Handley’s book title was not very original)
Anyone know if the original 1979 BBC interview with HMK is available?
Against the grain?
On the subject of the kings wealth and paying taxes:
In a previous discussion I contended that it was unrealistic to compare the wealth of the monachy with that of Thaksin, and some disagreed (Republican & Patiwat from memory).
In my opinion, the royal wealth is almost like the national reserve, which the politicians have been unable to plunder.
In Thailand private individuals build their wealth through various means (both legitimate & corrupt) and in most cases they retain that wealth (Thaksin, for example, but also many others).
Let’s say the monachy ceases (toppled, removed, abdicated, whatever) – what happens to the royal wealth?
I think most would end up with the state (CPB etc) which is a lot different than what happens when private individuals pass on or are toppled from power.
That aside, I probably would prefer if the king was taxed because it would would set a better example for the politicians.
Against the grain?
Could it be that the effect of lese majeste laws in perpetuating the kings popularity are overstated?
Numerous rumours & scandals involving the palace have circulated widely throughout Thailand, and it would be hard to find anyone who is not aware of them.
Despite the lese majeste laws, it is my belief that the royal gossip is more widespread than is the knowledge of Thaksin’s mis-deeds.
I think there is genuine love/affection for the present king, regardless of the persons view of the monarchy in general.
Andrew is quick to tell us how the rural poor are not ignorant voters, so why does the love for the king have to be explained by lese majeste laws and royalist propaganda?
Thai style democracy
On the picture it seems to be Democracy monument in Bangkok, isn’t it?
Against the grain?
To add to Patiwat’s comment, I must admit the book by Paul Handley turned my way of thinking (or more so unthinking) of the monarchy upside down.
I got the book in early September, read it within a week. Then came the coup.
The coup was just the final straw. I felt like I had been fooled my whole life. Now all the information is just popping up everywhere I look. In a way, the coup has been a disservice for its original cause.
Against the grain?
You are right Patiwat. The difference is, of course, that this unprecedented rift is harder to see. I hate to keep pointing out the obvious – but for so many people it is not obvious – the reason it is harder to see is simple: lese majeste. Sondhi Lim held rallies every week for a year cursing Thaksin, and was even hosted by Thai Studies centres around the world. Can you imagine an anti-royalist (ie. a true democrat) being able to give one such address without immediately being slapped with a lese majeste charge (or worse, as someone on this website warned us earlier)?
Against the grain?
The rift has healed quickly immediately after Thaksin was ousted Patiwat. Thaksin was a cancer. General Sonthi surgically removed the cancer and the whole body (society) had quickly recovered.
Well reasoned critique? That is a matter of opinion. I have always maintained that New Mandala (look at my first first post around Sept/06) is being financed by Thaksin and was deliberately created as an outlet for the spite and malice of Thaksin and his supporters against the monarchy and of course the junta.
So far not one of the pro-Thaksins in New Mandala including Andrew Walker, Republican, Anon, Patiwat, Jory, Jon and Fall have condemned Thaksin Shinawatra for any of his many abuses and crimes against the Thai people which provoked the coup in the first place. Why is that? Such loyalty to Thaksin must surely deserve handsome rewards this Christmas perhaps?
Against the grain?
I’m curious – the junta’s chief reason for the coup was to “unprecedented rift in society.”
But does anybody actually believe that the rift has actually gotten any better since the coup? If anything, I think it has gotten worse.
Before, nobody would have ever posted a well reasoned critique of the monarchy, and nobody would have ever taken such a posting seriously. But today we see stuff like this in a variety of popular forums, as well as the expected displeased reaction from royalists.
If you believe the junta, the Thaksin-regime endangered the monarchy and polarized society. But the coup has endangered the monarchy even more and has polarized society to an unprecedented level.
New species of military democracy discovered in the Pacific!
Another 60th Anniversary. A propos of the question whether lifting lese majeste would lead to a revision of the case of the death of R. 8 in 1946 – or at least a public pardoning of the three innocent people executed, and an investigation into why they were framed for the crime – see Somsak’s article written on the 50th anniversary of their execution last year: “р╣Хр╣Р р╕Ыр╕╡р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕Кр╕╡р╕зр╕┤р╕Х р╣Ср╣Ч р╕Бр╕╕р╕бр╕ар╕▓р╕Юр╕▒р╕Щр╕Шр╣М р╣Тр╣Фр╣Щр╣Ш” at http://somsakwork.blogspot.com/2006/06/blog-post.html
Against the grain?
In case I should be accused of bias, this devastating critique from a Constitutional Monarchist:
р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣И 57
р╕Щр╕Щр╕Чр╣М
71.171.0.xxx
р╕Хр╕▓р╕бр╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Щр╕╣р╕Нр╕Чр╕╕р╕Бр╕Йр╕Ър╕▒р╕Ъ р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕вр╣Мр╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕нр╕вр╕╣р╣Ир╣Гр╕Хр╣Йр╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Щр╕╣р╕Н р╕Лр╕╢р╣Ир╕Зр╕Цр╕╖р╕нр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Бр╕Хр╕┤р╕Бр╕▓р╕кр╕╣р╕Зр╕кр╕╕р╕Фр╣Гр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ыр╕Бр╕Др╕гр╕нр╕Зр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Чр╕и р╕Щр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕лр╕ер╕▒р╕Бр╕Бр╕▓р╕г р╕Лр╕╢р╣Ир╕Зр╕Бр╣Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Щр╣Ир╕▓р╕Ир╕░р╕Вр╕▒р╕Фр╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕нр╕Ър╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕в р╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Др╕гр╕Бр╣Зр╕Фр╕╡ р╕бр╕╡р╕Вр╣Йр╕нр╕Бр╕│р╕лр╕Щр╕Фр╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╕бр╕▓р╕вр╣Гр╕Щр╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Щр╕╣р╕Нр╕Чр╕╕р╕Бр╕Йр╕Ър╕▒р╕Ър╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Зр╕Хр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╣Вр╕вр╕Бр╕вр╣Йр╕▓р╕вр╕Чр╕╕р╕Бр╕Хр╕│р╣Бр╕лр╕Щр╣Ир╕Зр╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╣Ар╕Йр╕Юр╕▓р╕░р╕Хр╕│р╣Бр╕лр╕Щр╣Ир╕Зр╕Ър╕гр╕┤р╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕гр╕░р╕Фр╕▒р╕Ър╕кр╕╣р╕Зр╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Хр╕│р╣Бр╕лр╕Щр╣Ир╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕З р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕вр╣Мр╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕бр╕╡р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕гр╕бр╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╣Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Вр╕Ыр╕гр╕Фр╣Ар╕Бр╕ер╣Йр╕▓р╕п р╣Бр╕бр╣Йр╕Ир╕░р╕бр╕╡р╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╣Ар╕Щр╕╡р╕вр╕бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Ир╕░р╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕бр╕╡р╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕кр╕Щр╕нр╕Зр╕п р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Фр╣Йр╕зр╕вр╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╣Ар╕Щр╕╡р╕вр╕бр╕Ыр╕Пр╕┤р╕Ър╕▒р╕Хр╕┤р╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕нр╕Зр╕Др╣Мр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Вр╕Ыр╕гр╕Фр╣Ар╕Бр╕ер╣Йр╕▓р╕п р╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Ър╕▓р╕ер╕Ир╕│р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕Ыр╕ер╕╡р╣Ир╕вр╕Щр╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╕Ър╕╕р╕Др╕Др╕е р╕Бр╕гр╕Ур╕╡р╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕лр╕Нр╕┤р╕Зр╕вр╕▓р╕Зр╕бр╕░р╕Хр╕нр╕вр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щр╕Кр╕▒р╕Фр╣Ар╕Ир╕Щр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕вр╣Мр╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╣Йр╕▓р╕зр╕Бр╣Ир╕▓р╕вр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ър╕гр╕┤р╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Бр╕Ьр╣Ир╕Щр╕Фр╕┤р╕Щр╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╕Хр╕гр╕З р╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕лр╕Нр╕┤р╕Зр╕вр╕▓р╕Зр╕бр╕░р╕Хр╕нр╕вр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╕зр╣Ир╕▓ р╕кр╕Хр╕З.р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╕Ьр╕┤р╕Фр╕Бр╕Ор╕лр╕бр╕▓р╕вр╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Бр╣Зр╕вр╕╖р╕Щр╕вр╕▒р╕Щр╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╣Ар╕нр╕Зр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░р╕бр╕╡р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕Ър╕гр╕бр╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╣Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕г
р╕Фр╕▒р╕Зр╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╕кр╕Цр╕▓р╕Щр╕ар╕▓р╕Юр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕нр╕вр╕╣р╣Ир╣Гр╕Хр╣Йр╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Щр╕╣р╕Нр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕вр╣Мр╕Ир╕╢р╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Зр╣Гр╕Щр╕Чр╕▓р╕Зр╕Ыр╕Пр╕┤р╕Ър╕▒р╕Хр╕┤ р╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕нр╕Зр╕Др╣Мр╕бр╕╡р╕Ър╕Чр╕Ър╕▓р╕Чр╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╣Гр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╣Бр╕Чр╕гр╕Бр╣Бр╕Лр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Бр╕гр╕░р╕Чр╕│р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕нр╕▓р╕Ир╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Цр╕╣р╕Бр╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕З р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щр╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щр╕Фр╣Йр╕зр╕в р╣Ар╕Кр╣Ир╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Др╕Щр╕Бр╕ер╕▓р╕Зр╣Гр╕Щр╕нр╕Фр╕╡р╕Хр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ьр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕бр╕▓р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Ир╕░р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Бр╕гр╕Ур╕╡ 14 р╕Х.р╕Д. 6 р╕Х.р╕Д р╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нр╕Юр╕др╕йр╕ар╕▓р╕Чр╕бр╕┤р╕м р╕Фр╣Йр╕зр╕вр╣Ар╕лр╕Хр╕╕р╕Щр╕╡р╣Йр╣Бр╕бр╣Йр╕кр╕Цр╕▓р╕Ър╕▒р╕Щр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕вр╣Мр╕Ир╕░р╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╣Бр╕Чр╕гр╕Бр╣Бр╕Лр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ыр╕Бр╕Др╕гр╕нр╕Зр╕Ър╣Йр╕▓р╕Щр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕З р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щр╕Бр╣Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕Хр╣Йр╕▓р╕Щ р╕вр╕▒р╕Зр╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╕гр╕╕р╕Ур╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕Фр╣Йр╕зр╕вр╕Лр╣Йр╕│р╣Др╕Ы
р╕Бр╕гр╕Ур╕╡р╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕лр╕▓р╕г 19 р╕Б.р╕в. р╕Фр╕╣р╣Ар╕лр╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Щр╕кр╕Цр╕▓р╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ур╣Мр╕Ир╕░р╣Бр╕Хр╕Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╕нр╕нр╕Бр╣Др╕Ы р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╣Ар╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щр╕бр╕╡р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╣Ар╕Др╕ер╕╖р╕нр╕Ър╣Бр╕Др╕ер╕Зр╕кр╕Зр╕кр╕▒р╕вр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Ър╕╕р╕Др╕Др╕ер╣Гр╕Щр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕зр╕Зр╕ир╣Мр╕Ир╕░р╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╕бр╕▓р╕бр╕╡р╕кр╣Ир╕зр╕Щр╕кр╕Щр╕▒р╕Ър╕кр╕Щр╕╕р╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕лр╕▓р╕г р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╕бр╕╡р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Шр╕▓р╕Щр╕нр╕Зр╕Др╕бр╕Щр╕Хр╕гр╕╡р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╣Бр╕Чр╕Щ р╕Кр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Др╕Ур╕░р╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕Бр╣Зр╕Фр╕╣р╣Ар╕лр╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Щр╕Ир╕░р╕вр╣Йр╕│р╣Ар╕Хр╕╖р╕нр╕Щр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕кр╕╢р╕Бр╕Фр╕▒р╕Зр╕Бр╕ер╣Ир╕▓р╕зр╣Бр╕Юр╕гр╣Ир╕Вр╕вр╕▓р╕вр╣Др╕Ыр╕Чр╕▒р╣Ир╕зр╣Вр╕ер╕Б р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕кр╕│р╕Др╕▒р╕Нр╕Чр╕╡р╕кр╕╕р╕Фр╕Др╕╖р╕нр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕Др╕гр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕Щр╕╡р╣Й р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Чр╕│р╕гр╣Йр╕▓р╕вр╕Ир╕┤р╕Хр╣Гр╕Ир╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щ 3 р╕Бр╕гр╕Ур╕╡р╕кр╕│р╕Др╕▒р╕Н р╕Др╕╖р╕н (1) р╕Др╕Ур╕░р╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕Йр╕╡р╕Бр╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Щр╕╣р╕Нр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕бр╕▓р╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щр╕Лр╕╢р╣Ир╕Зр╕гр╣Ир╕зр╕бр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕кр╕╣р╣Йр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╕бр╕▓р╣Гр╕Щр╣Ар╕лр╕Хр╕╕р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ур╣Мр╕Юр╕др╕йр╕ар╕▓р╕Чр╕бр╕┤р╕м р╣Бр╕ер╕░ (2) р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Вр╕▒р╕Ър╣Др╕ер╣Ир╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Ър╕▓р╕ер╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щр╕кр╣Ир╕зр╕Щр╣Гр╕лр╕Нр╣Ир╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕кр╕Щр╕▒р╕Ър╕кр╕Щр╕╕р╕Щр╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕Чр╣Ир╕зр╕бр╕Чр╣Йр╕Щ р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Гр╕Кр╣Ир╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Ър╕▓р╕ер╕Ьр╕кр╕бр╣Бр╕Ър╕Ър╣Ар╕Фр╕┤р╕бр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Др╕Щр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕г р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕ер╣Йр╕бр╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Ър╕▓р╕ер╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щ (р╣Ар╕Щр╣Йр╕Щр╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Ър╕▓р╕ер╕Вр╕нр╕Зр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щ) р╣Ар╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕вр╕Бр╣Ар╕ер╕┤р╕Бр╕Щр╣Вр╕вр╕Ър╕▓р╕вр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щр╕Др╕Щр╕гр╕▓р╕Бр╕лр╕Нр╣Йр╕▓р╕Др╕Щр╕вр╕▓р╕Бр╕Др╕Щр╕Ир╕Щр╕Кр╕╖р╣Ир╕Щр╕Кр╕нр╕Ъ р╣Бр╕ер╕░ (3) р╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Ър╕▓р╕ер╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕вр╣Мр╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Зр╕Хр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕Вр╕╢р╣Йр╕Щр╕бр╕▓р╣Бр╕Чр╕Щ р╕Щр╕нр╕Бр╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Ир╕░р╕вр╕Бр╣Ар╕ер╕┤р╕Бр╕Щр╣Вр╕вр╕Ър╕▓р╕вр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Вр╕Фр╕Щр╣Гр╕Ир╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щр╣Ар╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щ р╕вр╕▒р╕Зр╕Бр╕│р╕лр╕Щр╕Фр╕Щр╣Вр╕вр╕Ър╕▓р╕вр╣Ар╕ир╕гр╕йр╕Рр╕Бр╕┤р╕Ир╕Юр╕нр╣Ар╕Юр╕╡р╕вр╕З р╕Лр╕╢р╣Ир╕Зр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╣Гр╕Ир╣Бр╕ер╕░р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕бр╕╡р╣Гр╕Др╕гр╕Чр╕│р╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╣Гр╕Ир╣Др╕Фр╣Й р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕Чр╕╢р╣Ир╕гр╕╣р╣Йр╕кр╕╢р╕Бр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╕Др╕╖р╕н р╕Щр╣Вр╕вр╕Ър╕▓р╕вр╣Ар╕ир╕гр╕йр╕Рр╕Бр╕┤р╕Ир╕Юр╕нр╣Ар╕Юр╕╡р╕вр╕Зр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Вр╕вр╕Кр╕Щр╣Мр╣Бр╕Бр╣Ир╕Др╕Щр╕Вр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╕кр╕╣р╕Зр╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕зр╕Зр╕ир╣Мр╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓ р╕Др╕╖р╕нр╣Гр╕Щр╕Вр╕Ур╕░р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щр╕нр╕вр╕╣р╣Ир╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕ер╕│р╕Ър╕▓р╕Бр╣Бр╕кр╕Щр╕кр╕▓р╕лр╕▒р╕к р╕Др╕Щр╕Кр╕▒р╣Йр╕Щр╕кр╕╣р╕Зр╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Ър╕╕р╕Др╕Др╕ер╣Гр╕Щр╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕зр╕Зр╕ир╣Мр╕Бр╕ер╕▒р╕Ър╣Гр╕Кр╣Йр╕Кр╕╡р╕зр╕┤р╕Хр╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕Яр╕╕р╣Ир╕бр╣Ар╕Яр╕╖р╕нр╕в р╣Ар╕Кр╣Ир╕Щ р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Гр╕Кр╣Йр╣Ар╕Др╕гр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Зр╕Ър╕┤р╕Щр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Щр╕▒р╣Ир╕Зр╣Ар╕Фр╕┤р╕Щр╕Чр╕▓р╕Зр╣Др╕Ыр╕Хр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Чр╕ир╕Щр╕▒р╕Ър╕Др╕гр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Цр╣Йр╕зр╕Щ р╕Зр╕▓р╕Щр╕Йр╕ер╕нр╕Зр╕зр╕▓р╕гр╕░р╕Др╕гр╕Ър╕гр╕нр╕Ъ60 р╕Ыр╕╡ р╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╣Гр╕Кр╣Йр╕Зр╕Ър╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕▓р╕Ур╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Ир╕│р╕Щр╕зр╕Щр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕в р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ър╕гр╕┤р╕Ир╕▓р╕Др╕Хр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Ж р╕ер╣Йр╕зр╕Щр╕бр╕▓р╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╣Ар╕Зр╕┤р╕Щр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Цр╕зр╕▓р╕в р╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Ир╕│р╕Щр╕зр╕Щр╕кр╕бр╕▓р╕Кр╕┤р╕Бр╣Гр╕Щр╕гр╕▓р╕Кр╕зр╕Зр╕ир╣Мр╕Вр╕вр╕▓р╕вр╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╕бр╕▓р╕Бр╕Вр╕╢р╣Йр╕Щ р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Чр╕╕р╕Бр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕нр╕Зр╕Др╣Мр╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Фр╕╣р╣Бр╕ер╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕Фр╕╡р╣Ар╕кр╕бр╕нр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╕лр╕бр╕Фр╕Ир╕Щр╕Цр╕╢р╕Зр╕гр╕░р╕Фр╕▒р╕Ър╕лр╕ер╕▓р╕Щ р╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕▒р╕Щр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╣Гр╕Др╕гр╣Др╕Ыр╣Ар╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╕Хр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╣Ар╕Чр╕ир╕Ир╕░р╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕бр╕╡р╕Ър╕гр╕┤р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Хр╕┤р╕Фр╕Хр╕▓р╕бр╣Др╕Ыр╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕лр╕Щр╕▓р╣Бр╕Щр╣Ир╕Щ р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Хр╣Йр╕Щ р╕Др╕╖р╕нр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╕Щр╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╣Гр╕Кр╣Йр╣Ар╕Зр╕┤р╕Щр╕ар╕▓р╕йр╕╡р╕нр╕▓р╕Бр╕гр╕Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щр╕Чр╕▒р╣Йр╕Зр╕кр╕┤р╣Йр╕Щ
р╣Ар╕лр╕Хр╕╕р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ур╣Мр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Бр╕ер╣Ир╕▓р╕зр╕Цр╕╢р╕Зр╕ер╣Йр╕зр╕Щр╕Чр╕│р╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щр╕Ир╕│р╕Щр╕зр╕Щр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Щр╣Йр╕нр╕вр╣Ар╕гр╕┤р╣Ир╕бр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╕зр╣Ир╕▓ р╕кр╕Цр╕▓р╕Ър╕▒р╕Щр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕вр╣Мр╕бр╕╡р╕кр╣Ир╕зр╕Щр╕кр╕Щр╕▒р╕Ър╕кр╕Щр╕╕р╕Щр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ыр╕Бр╕Др╕гр╕нр╕Зр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Шр╕┤р╕Ыр╣Др╕Хр╕вр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Зр╕лр╕гр╕╖р╕нр╣Др╕бр╣И р╕Ьр╕╣р╣Йр╣Ар╕Вр╕╡р╕вр╕Щр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Др╕Фр╣Йр╕бр╕╡р╣Ар╕Ир╕Хр╕Щр╕▓р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Фр╕╡р╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕кр╕Цр╕▓р╕Ър╕▒р╕Щ р╕Хр╕▒р╕зр╣Ар╕нр╕Зр╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Др╕гр╕нр╕Ър╕Др╕гр╕▒р╕зр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щ Royalist р╕Фр╣Йр╕зр╕вр╕Лр╣Йр╕│р╣Др╕Ы р╣Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕вр╕▓р╕Бр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕бр╕╡р╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╕Ыр╕гр╕▒р╕Ър╕Ыр╕гр╕╕р╕Зр╣Ар╕Ыр╕ер╕╡р╣Ир╕вр╕Щр╣Бр╕Ыр╕ер╕З р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕кр╕│р╕Др╕▒р╕Нр╕Цр╣Йр╕▓р╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕кр╕Цр╕▓р╕Ър╕▒р╕Щр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕вр╣Мр╕нр╕вр╕╣р╣Ир╣Гр╕Хр╣Йр╕гр╕▒р╕Рр╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Щр╕╣р╕Нр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Зр╣Ж р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Др╕зр╕гр╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕нр╕Зр╕Др╣Мр╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╕бр╕▓р╣Ар╕Бр╕╡р╣Ир╕вр╕зр╕Вр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕З р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╣Ар╕Йр╕Юр╕▓р╕░р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╕Др╕зр╕гр╕бр╕╡р╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╣Ар╕Щр╕╡р╕вр╕бр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Вр╕Ыр╕гр╕Фр╣Ар╕Бр╕ер╣Йр╕▓р╕нр╕╡р╕Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╣Др╕Ы р╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░р╕Щр╕▒р╣Ир╕Щр╣Ар╕Чр╣Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕▒р╕Ър╕Чр╕│р╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕нр╕Зр╕Др╣Мр╣Бр╕Ыр╕Фр╣Ар╕Ыр╕╖р╣Йр╕нр╕Щр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕кр╕Бр╕Ыр╕гр╕Бр╕Чр╕▓р╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕З р╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕Зр╕Др╕╖р╕нр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕ер╕╖р╕нр╕Бр╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╕З р╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕нр╕Зр╕Др╣Мр╕Бр╣Зр╕Ир╕│р╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Хр╣Йр╕нр╕Зр╣Ар╕ер╕╖р╕нр╕Бр╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╕З р╣Бр╕ер╕░р╕Щр╕▒р╣Ир╕Щр╕Др╕╖р╕нр╕кр╕Цр╕▓р╕Ър╕▒р╕Щр╕Юр╕гр╕░р╕бр╕лр╕▓р╕Бр╕йр╕▒р╕Хр╕гр╕┤р╕вр╣Мр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Бр╕ер╕▓р╕Зр╕нр╕╡р╕Бр╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╣Др╕Ы
р╕зр╕▒р╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣И 22/11/2549 2:38
Against the grain?
Thai-style republicanism: Tony’s report seems to have missed the existence of such sentiment. An example from Prachatai [http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/board/showboard.php?QID=45449&TID=5]:
“р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Бр╕▓р╕ир╣Гр╕лр╣Йр╕Чр╕гр╕▓р╕Ър╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╕Чр╕▒р╣Ир╕зр╕Бр╕▒р╕Щ”
р╕Бр╕╣р╣Ар╕Ър╕╖р╣Ир╕нр╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╣Ар╕Хр╣Зр╕бр╕Чр╕Щ р╣Др╕нр╣Йр╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╕ир╕▒р╕Бр╕Фр╕┤р╕Щр╕▓ р╕Бр╕╣р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕Др╕▓р╕гр╕Юр╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╣Бр╕ер╣Йр╕з р╕Бр╕╣р╕нр╕вр╕▓р╕Бр╕Ър╕нр╕Бр╕зр╣Ир╕▓р╕Бр╕╣р╣Ар╕Бр╕ер╕╡р╕вр╕Фр╕Др╕╕р╕У р╣Ар╕ер╕╡р╣Йр╕вр╕Зр╣Ар╕кр╕╡р╕вр╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╕зр╕кр╕╕р╕Б р╕Чр╕гр╕вр╕ир╕Хр╣Ир╕нр╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щ р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Бр╕Чр╣Йр╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕бр╕▒р╕Щр╕Бр╣Зр╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щр╣Бр╕Бр╣Ир╕Хр╕▒р╕з р╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Ар╕Др╕вр╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щр╣Бр╕Бр╣Ир╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Кр╕Щр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕Зр╣Ж р╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╣Бр╕Чр╣Йр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕Ьр╣Ир╕▓р╕Щр╕бр╕▓р╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╣Ар╕кр╣Бр╕кр╕гр╣Йр╕Зр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Др╕Щр╕Фр╕╡ р╕Бр╕╣р╣Ар╕Бр╕ер╕╡р╕вр╕Фр╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╕Др╕╕р╕Ур╕Чр╕╕р╕Бр╕Др╕Щ р╣Др╕Ыр╕Щр╕гр╕Бр╕Лр╕░
р╣Вр╕Фр╕в : р╣Ар╕Бр╕ер╕╡р╕вр╕Фр╕Юр╕зр╕Бр╣Ар╕кр╣Бр╕кр╕гр╣Йр╕Зр╕Фр╕╡ [124.121.91.xxx]
р╕зр╕▒р╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣И : 14/12/2549 14:50 р╣Ар╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╕Кр╕б : 34
р╣Бр╕кр╕Фр╕Зр╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Др╕┤р╕Фр╣Ар╕лр╣Зр╕Щ :
See also the fascinating discussion at http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/board/showboard.php?QID=42192&TID=6
Mistreatment of Hmong refugees
From today’s Bangkok Post:
EU commends move not to deport Hmong
ACHARA ASHAYAGACHAT and dpa
The European Union yesterday commended Thailand’s reconsideration on the deportation of 152 ethnic Hmong from a Nong Khai detention centre but expressed concern about the plight of another group of 270 displaced Hmong in Phetchabun province. Finnish ambassador Lars Erik Backstrom, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, welcomed the government’s decision not to deport the Hmong so that the United Nations refugee agency, the UNHCR, had a chance to verify their status.
“At least 104 of them are recognised by the UNHCR and if the rest of them are all refugees, the UNHCR can work further with third countries for resettlement,” Mr Backstrom said.
”Having the opportunity to get access to and dialogue with them is very important.”
Thailand has complained that the steadily increasing population of displaced Hmong that have crossed over into Thailand from Laos is posing a social and security threat, and that no country has offered to help the authorities with providing shelter or resettlement for them.
The United States’ policy towards Lao-Hmong refugees has been somewhat ambiguous given that Washington has stopped receiving family members of those who fought alongside the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the Vietnam War for fear of being a pull factor for new immigrants, sources said.
But with the recent political shift in the US Congress towards the Democrats, America may reconsider taking in more Hmong and other refugees from the fallout of US foreign policy again, the sources said.
Finland’s annual quota for receiving refugees from Thailand has been filled, with 375 Burmese refugees from Mae Hong Son currently going through process of resettlement to the Scandinavian country.
Mr Backstrom said he also looked forward to hearing some positive developments of the situation of around 270 Hmong, including children, who have been detained in Phetchabun. He said he would continue to discuss the matter with the authorities.
Laos yesterday however, blasted the UNHCR for getting involved in the plan to deport the 152 Hmong back to Laos from Nong Khai, describing the deportation as a bilateral issue.
”The issue is related to Laos and Thailand and there is no reason third parties should interfere with this,” said Lao Foreign Ministry spokesman Yong Chanhthalousy.
The UNHCR and the New York-based Human Rights Watch on Tuesday called on the government to stop the pending deportation, claiming it would be a violation of international law.
The granting of refugee status to many ethnic Hmong has irked Laos.
”There is no war, no conflict in Laos so on what criteria has the UNHCR included these people under its category of political refugees?” said Mr Yong.
”I want to know whether the UNHCR has extended its work to include economic refugees.”
Lao Defence Minister Douanggtay Phichith and his Thai counterpart Gen Boonrawd Somtas will meet Monday at the General Border Committee meeting in Bangkok.
The ongoing issue of Lao Hmong crossing into Thailand is expected to be discussed at the talks which were rescheduled from Sept 20 due to the coup.
Pro-poor programs
Further comment from Charles Keyes with references to his work on northeast Thailand:
Dear Mike,
You have obviously studied the Boonchu-Kukrit project more than anyone else and you should really write a longer piece on it, ending with recommending that it be reconsidered today. It would also be useful to compare/contrast this approach and that of Thaksin with the vision of sustainable development that has been widely discussed since the King’s speech in 1997 and which is now being advocated by the present government.
I have not sought to trace the history of BAAC and clearly this is needed for me (and others) to fully understand the role it has played.
Andrew Walker informed me that one respondent to this discussion on New Mandala asked for some references to my studies of the village in Mahsarakham where I have carried out long term research. I am attaching a bibliography [inserted below] with some references. Thus far, I have only presented my findings from the 2005 study in seminar presentations at the University of Washington, Chula, and Copenhagen.
Cheers,
Biff (Charles Keyes)
CHARLES KEYES
Publications Concerning Transformation of Northeastern Thai Rural Society
1963-2006
Keyes, Charles F. 1967. “Peasant and Nation: A Thai Lao Village in a Thai State,” Unpublished PhD dissertation, Cornell University, 1966. (University Microfilms, No. 67 2710, [1967].) (Dissertation Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts, 28.1 [1967], p. 33B.)
____. 1982. Socioeconomic Change in Rainfed Agricultural Villages in Northeastern Thailand. Seattle: Thailand Project, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington (Report for the United States Agency for International Development). (Copies have been deposited in the Cornell and University of Washington Libraries).
____. 1983. “Economic Action and Buddhist Morality in a Thai Village,” in Peasant Strategies in Asian Societies: Perspectives on Moral and Rational Economic Approaches, ed. by Charles F. Keyes. Journal of Asian Studies, 42.3:851 68, 1983.
____. 1990. “Buddhist Practical Morality in a Changing Agrarian World: A Case from Northeastern Thailand, in Attitudes toward Wealth and Poverty in Theravada Buddhism, ed. by Donald K. Swearer and Russell Sizemore. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press. Pp. 170-189.
____. 1991. “The Proposed World of the School: Thai Villagers Entry into a Bureaucratic State System,” In Reshaping Local Worlds: Rural Education and Cultural Change in Southeast Asia, ed. by Charles F. Keyes. New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asian Studies. Pp. 87-138.
____. 1991. “Buddhist Detachment and Worldly Gain: The Economic Ethic of Northeastern Thai Villagers,” in Y┼л m├╝ang Thai: ruam botkhw─Бm th─Бng sangkhom pha pen kiat d─Б─У S─Бstr─Бc─Бn San─У C─Бmrik (“In Thailand: Collected Essays in Honor of Professor Saneh Chammarik), ed. by Chaiwat Satha-Anand. Special issue of Ratthas─Бts─Бn (Journal of Political Science, Thammasat University), 16.1-2:271-98.
____. 1995. “Hegemony and Resistance in Northeastern Thailand,” in Regions and National Integration in Thailand, 1892-1992, ed. by Volker Grabowsky. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Pp. 154-182.
____. 2002. “Migrants and Protestors: ‘Development’ in Northeastern Thailand,” Keynote address, 8th International Thai Studies Conference, Nakhon Phanom, Thailand, January. (Available on the disk circulated as the conference proceedings.)
____. Completed for Publication. “Communism, Peasants and Buddhism: The Failure of ‘Peasant Revolutions’ in Thailand in Comparison to Cambodia,” in Community and the Trajectories of Change in Cambodia and Thailand: Anthropological Studies in Honor of May Ebihara, ed. by John Marston.
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
Dear Suvimol – why not just post as Vichai? Your comments are welcome but creating multiple identities to inflate the support for your views is playing games.
And the border war continues…
Sometime in the late 1980s or early 1990s I also remember hearing of the Thais allowing the Burmese military to cross the Thai border to attack a Karen position at 3 Pagodas Pass. On the other hand, I heard of Karens being allowed to do the same futher north. I think it all sort of depended on how business was going.
Against the grain?
Hopefully the BOT is doing more than just complaining about the speculators, and is quietly intervening to sell off THB to keep a lid on things – they should make a nice profit when things settle down.
I know they don’t telegraph such intervention, and maybe it is already ocurring but not on a sufficient scale to have an impact.
And the border war continues…
Spill over can occur in both directions. Back in 1983 I sat atop a hill north of Fang, in Amphoe Thaton, and watched Thai planes bomb lord knows what across the border due north of a rather notorious Lisu village within Thai territory. Supposedlly, I read in FEER many months later, they were bombing some outpost of Khun Sa, although Khun Sa’s equally notorious partner (also notorious for selling anthropologist E.C. a load of BS…….you grad students need to be wary of hanging out with the village headman) at said Lisu village, stayed happily in business for many more years.
Later there was the dog and pony show at Doi Lang back in the late 1980s, also in Amphoe Fang, which methinks was orchestrated solely for the benefit of the US State Department. Despite the rather orchestrated nature of the conflict which allowed Khun Sa to move further westwards to his newer headquarters, the Royal Thai Air Force somehow found a way to lose two small planes, pilot error perhaps. The worst spill over occured to the small KMT villages west of Fang where many people had never been provided Thai citizenship and alledged abuses of those villagers by Thai soldiers, mostly abuse of women, were whispered about at the time.
In the early 1990s, over west towards Mae Sot and Mae Hong Song, the Thais (Chalawit) allowed his business partners, the Burmese, to move their military forces through Thai territory, a clear violation of soverignty, and attack Karen refugee bases inside Thailand from the east. I believe Lintner wrote about this in FEER at the time.
Nicholas gives links above to more recent spillage around Mae Sai.
Charles Keyes on Sondhi Limthongkul
I have to side with Jon here.
Before Thaksin, politicians campaigned based on their local patronage, their public image, and the organization of their canvassers. Oh, and they also bought votes.
After Thaksin, politicians campaigned based on the policy agendas, their record of policy implementation, and the organization of their canvassers. Oh, and they also bought votes.
By making promises and being able to deliver on the ones that people cared about most, Thaksin helped change Thailand’s political culture.
Take a look at the Democrats. Their campaign in 2001 was traditional – they campaigned on being a respectable party who knew how to manage things, while Thaksin promised universal healthcare and microcredit. Democrats lost, Thaksin won, Thaksin delivered. In 2005, the Democrats also did a traditional “image” campaign – they said that if you voted 201 Democrat respectable MPs, Thailand’s parliament would be stronger. Democrats lost, Thaksin won. Finally, in 2006, the Democrats started getting smart and made promises: free healthcare, Skytrain expansion, and completely free K-12 education. Using Thaksin’s techniques, they were finally gaining traction with the electorate, but the coup prevented them from finally gaining back some ground.
Who knows whether post-coup elections will see the Democrats reverting back to 2001/2005 practice, or will see them continue to make Thaksin-style promises, ala 2006.