Thanks Mr. Vichai. You are right, of course. But I am not a specialist on Singapore. If you are then I encourage you to make a similar statement – but based on a good understanding of Singapore.
I can guess who feeds you all this crap. I am angry that you continue on with your nonsense interpretation of HMK’s sufficiency economy but I immediately sense your malice. But you will go on I am sure with this misinformation campaign out of desperation or spite or both.
For the benefit of whoever by chance was drawn to this website/forum, I will post the Bank of Thailand’s official release on Thailand’s Sufficiency Economy below:
———————
SUFFICIENCY MODEL
‘Economic policies can coexist ‘
Pridiyathorn, right: Sufficiency and market liberalisation are a good combination.
BOT chief: Expand within our means
MR Pridiyathorn Devakula, the head of the economic team for the new interim government, said an economic policy of sufficiency could be implemented suitably along with market liberalisation by boosting growth from existing resources.
He insisted gross domestic product (GDP) growth next year would not be lower than this year’s economic growth, expected to be 4.5-4.6 per cent. He said that next year’s GDP growth was anticipated at 4-5.3 per cent.
The new government headed by General Surayud Chulanont recently announced a key economic policy of sufficiency, focusing not only on GDP growth, but also on income distribution.
Pridiyathorn, also governor of the Bank of Thailand (BOT), yesterday defined an economic policy of sufficiency amid Thailand’s current market liberalisation.
He said a sufficiency economy and market liberalisation were a good combination.
“If we had market liberalisation without a policy of sufficiency, growth would be boosted too fast beyond our limits,” he said. “And this could lead to a crisis similar to what happened in 1997, when we grew too fast with insufficient savings. We needed to depend on foreign capital of more than US$100 billion [Bt3.76 trillion]. Then we fell down.”
Pridiyathorn said a sufficiency economy could get along well with market liberalisation if the economy did not grow to exceed its capacity; otherwise, excess growth would produce inflation and bring about capital outflows.
“As announced by the CNS [Council for National Security], Thailand is still a liberalised market, with the private sector as the key driver boosting the economy,” he said.
He said a sufficiency economy began with the individual, the smallest unit of society, who would not spend more than his income, while businesses must not expand their operations to exceed their capital limitations.
In addition, Thailand’s economy should grow within the limitations of existing resources, he said. In other words, the country will have to boost resources to support economic growth.
“Economic growth must not exceed existing savings, which would cause problems,” said Pridiyathorn. Moreover, the country must restrain the economy from expanding to a degree that creates a negative impact on the environment and finally affects people’s “balance of life”. If the environment were damaged, tourism would consequently be affected.
“How much GDP growth there should be is uncertain. It depends on how the growth would help distribute incomes. How much growth there should be depends on the environment and resources. Our economy depends on the global economy, as well. But for now, economic growth does not exceed our capacity,” he said.
The head of the new economic team said earlier-than-expected government spending and private-investment recovery, as well as higher-than-expected exports, would boost economic growth for the rest of this year and next year.
He said the government’s 2007 fiscal spending would be only three months late, rather than the nine months expected earlier.
In addition, with a clearer political situation and stable oil prices, private investment is likely to accelerate from this year’s fourth quarter rather than early next year as expected earlier.
BOT assistant governor Atchana Waiquamdee said yesterday exports were likely to grow higher than previously expected in the second half, because export growth in the first two months of the second half was higher than had been predicted. Thus, exports will be the key economic driver for the rest of this year.
Pridiyathorn also said the new government would implement only those mass-transit projects that really benefited the public. For example, the government will select and build a key electric-train route before building the next route to be connected to the first.
He added that the three earlier electric-train routes planned by the former government might be reviewed.
Atchana said the economy was still decelerating in the second half and that original forecasts of fourth-quarter results had not changed.
But there will be clear reasons for growth in next year’s first quarter as a result of declining oil prices and government budget disbursement.
She said that so far, the economy had not suffered a psychological effect from the coup. Instead, the problem is that economic growth is not broad-based, but rather based only in the export sector. This means domestic vendors do not feel good, because they do not benefit from high exports.
She added that in terms of income distribution, big companies were benefiting, but small ones were not.
Prakit Shinamornpong, deputy chairman of the Thai Hotels Association, said tourist cancellations reached 20 per cent during the coup, but now bookings have begun returning to normal. Next year, the tourism sector should improve, driven by the new Suvarnabhumi Airport and its boom effect on Pattaya. He hoped a target of 15 million tourists would be reachable.
Real-estate expert Manop Pongsawat said he predicted that by the end of this year, there would be a price war among condominiums, especially those located close to the Skytrain, because many condos were being launched simultaneously. The political factor has had only a short-term effect on the property sector. In the long term, real-estate developers fear high interest rates.
Fiscal Policy Office director Ekniti Nitithanprapas said that next year, Thai exports might face a risk from a slowdown in economic growth, which would affect the automotive and electronics sectors.
Andrew, the idea of the “sufficiency economy” , if it were actually being implemented (or possible to implement) as opposed to being merely ideological rhetoric, could be accused of being a mechanism of exclusion of the peasantry from “the market”. The idea that the coup is a replication of the same sentiment (in practice), but in the political arena, is quite a long bow at this stage of the game. The dust hasn’t settled on this coup and the power base of the rural population that you so clearly see the previous regime as having been based on have in the past resisted certain regimes and regime changes so why wouldn’t they now, if they really were being disaffected from the political process, as you claim. It would appear that in your analysis you would be in tacit agreement with certain world system models that you critique in your book. Is this your intent here or are you just expressing frustration at the audacity of the urban capital for having more of a voice in the games of political “patty cake” (such as the other two posters above)?
Speaking of which can anyone actually decipher what Anon and Vichai are talking (debating?) about here? All I can get from the not so subtle innuendos and English language affectations that so cleverly veil what they are actually trying to say is that they buy into wholesale, some rather dated ideas about “Thai people” and their special needs due to an imagined difference to the rest of the world, along with some of the old Phibun rhetoric also.
Regardless, I think all of you are a bit out of touch with the rural population that you all claim to speak on behalf of (in varying degrees) and your dependency on “elite” sources and views for your discussion, with very little or no feel for what is happening in the rural areas is patently clear. The two posts above epitomise this perspective and no where do any of you recognise just how this kind of ideological rubbish is negotiated by the “poor folk” of Thailand.
For example and representing an icon of what the “self sufficiency” ideology is aimed at controlling / excluding (I say unsuccessfully) is the entrepreneurial spirit of so many of Thailand’s rural “poor”, the women (and some men) who are through now, sheer numbers, and incredible skill bringing to the northeast tens of millions of dollars a year through working in the sex industry, marrying etc. Far more effective in bringing wealth to the area, at village levels, than the last three decades of NGO development attempts and “glum Mae bahn and Glum liang wua” type govt initiatives. For those of you who might like to dispute this claim I refer you to many of the northeast’s provincial governor’s “Farang Son in Law” “Mia Farang” days that are being held annually in recognition of the contribution of these couplings to the local economies. So come on people lets move beyond the rhetoric of nationalist pride and cultural conservatism and inject a bit of reality into the discussion. Tiger economies and unique Thai needs, or the needs for paternalistic government etc are dated notions that proved to be fallacious in their hey day, in South Korea, Inodnesia and Thailand, let them go, and have a look at what IS happening.
Apparently the blockade has been going on for awhile. A friend was up on the China/Burma border about a month or so ago, and heard that this was going on from Kachin friends. It also includes areas of the Shan State in addition to the Kachin State.
I would also point out that though this is clearly a recent intensification, it is really part of an ongoing process. Before they signed ceasefires the regime tried to undercut the economic base of the various ethnic insurgencies, and even after they signed ceasefires and were supposedly granted the freedom to pursue just about any economic activities they wanted (including drug trafficking), the regime has never hesitated to impose economic sanctions on the ethnic groups. In addition, the ethnic groups have been pitted against each other in competition, with the military regime being the ultimate arbitrator, and thereby not accidentally profiting from the competition. As David Arnott once brilliantly observed, in Burma von Clauwitz’s dictum is stood on its head, and politics is a continuation of war by other means. You can simply replace politics with economics, culture, language etc.
Hello & thankyou for brilliant coverage of what’s happening in Burma . I recorded it & have only just veiwed it .
Is there a particular organization I can contact to campaign against the U.K’s business interests in Burma ? I would appreciate a reply , thankyou for your time .
I’m not sure about this statement here: “the rights of rural people should only be fully respected provided they are willing to pursue livelihoods that make modest claims on natural resources and government budgets.”
How has any model of sufficient economy, as elitist and top-down a policy as they can be, been contingent of people giving up certain rights? I thought some models, like the one articulated in the UNDP Human Development Report is all about the empowerment of rural communities and about asserting political rights (rights to manage community forests, etc.)
Maybe some additional comments might be insightful:
“To become a tiger (economy) is not important. The important thing for us is to have a self-supporting economy. A self-supporting economy meant to have enough to survive. Each village or district must have relative self-sufficiency. Things that are produced in surplus can be sold, but should be sold in the same region.”
“Placing too much emphasis on the production of industrial goods will not succeed, as the local market has declined because the people now have lower purchasing power. Other countries also have their own difficulties and will not by our products. If there are industrial products and there are no buyers, the efforts will be of no avail. A careful step backwards must be taken. A return to less sophisticated methods.”
The solution? “If the situation can change back to an economy that is self-sufficient – it doesn’t have to be 100%, or even 50%, but perhaps only 25% – it will be bearable. The remedy will take time; it wont be easy. Usually one is impatient because one suffers, but if it is done from this moment on, the recovery is possible.”
Do you really see no similarity to what you, Vichai N, call an ethically wrong, economically unsound and absurdly divisive policy?
[…] And the second from Kasian Tejapira’s New Left Review article on “Toppling Thaksin” previously featured (before he actually was toppled) on New Mandala: After the 1997 crash royal-nationalism was supplemented by a concept of Setthakij pho-phiang, or economic self-sufficiency, in which the King promoted a simple way of life over consumerism and materialist values. Estimates of the Royal Family’s personal assets range from $2bn to $8bn, managed by the Crown Property Bureau, with equity stakes in companies such as Siam Cement and the Siam Commercial Bank. Around 36,000 of the CPB’s properties are leased or rented to third parties. […]
Dr. Jory you quickly condemn SOAS’ Seminar because you felt it will be too one-sided against Thaksin. What about Singapore’s political system that has been for too long too obliquely one-sided the LEE way? Where is your condemnation at your own backyard?
So Anon – – what is your point? I have read, I can guess who wrote it . . and I still cannot divine anything in the message that I should be alarmed about.
Any idea where I can get a transcript of this show? It was fascinating – I wanted to dig into the specific statistics deeper. Channel 4 stated that it doesn’t have transcripts and that they will not be airing the show again. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Aiontay – this is a really important point that you make. I share your feelings. I guess I just never expected that a foreign journalist will go to the far corners of the country and try to work out what is going on. Such a project would, as you know, test the limits of even the most experienced field researchers. Journalists – making such a rare program for mainstream television – are always going to be somewhat constrained in what they can and can’t do.
A documentary that took in issues in “Kachin State, the Shan State, Arakan, the Tenasserim Division, or the rural areas of Upper Burma” would be more than a little bit interesting.
I really wonder what the Thai junta’s policy will be to the Burmese junta.
We can’t assume that they’ll do a complete about-face of Thaksin’s Burma friendly policy. Even though that’s probably what the anti-Thaksin activist and former Ambassador Asda Jayanama clearly wants.
The Thai Army has historically been very pro-Burma. I remember during 1997 when they jailed over a dozen Burmese activists in Sangkhlaburi. And even more recently when they played a key role in “promoting” the Thai-Burma gas pipeline. Even Surayud started a “foreign exchange” program so that Thai officers could serve for SLORC and vice versa. That being said, he *was* pretty friendly to the Burmese students who seized the embassy in Bangkok. But it might be that there are just too many factions in Burma and too many factions among the Thai Army to make any sense or predictions of the situation.
But more importantly, the power behind the junta has, for over a decade, been pro-SLORC (as well as pro-Khmer Rouge, but that’s another matter…). Remember when 8 Nobel Peace prize winners (including the Dalai Lama and Demond Tutu) visited Thailand in 1993 to pressure Thailand to take a hard stand against the Burmese generals? He apparently told them that Su Kyi was a trouble-maker who should return to England with her half-blood children and let the military lead. Of course, even that fact can’t be taken for granted, because that same person has also be very strongly opposed to the drug trade, and seemed more than willing to use any means necessary to limit drug inflow from the western and northern borders.
The key question for the Thai people is “how to give them peace and security, have safety and live under a fair and just government.” The problem is that “Procedures and principles that we have imported for use are sometimes not suitable to the condition of Thailand or the character of Thai people.”
Thus, Thai people must be willing to “accept the acceptable. We must use what we have available. It is evident that in the past three years that several countries established on the basis of idealist theories of government have collapsed. Is Thailand going to collapse too?”
Because for Thai people, “our loss is our gain. We have enough, enough to live. We don’t want to be a very advanced country. If we become a very advanced country, then we can only go backwards. Countries such as this, they have advanced industry, are just going backwards. However, if we have a ‘poor man’ style of administrative system, that is, not too attached to dogmatic theory, but which has unity and mutual kindness, then we can survive forever.”
I wont tell you who made these comments… I’m sure you can guess.
I haven’t seen the documentary (does anyone know how to get a copy in the US?) and I am not saying this to be critical, but from reading the review, it is clear that it is very limited in scope, if only from the geographical perspective. What about the Kachin State, the Shan State, Arakan, the Tenasserim Division, or the rural areas of Upper Burma? Williams visited the easily accessable (relatively speaking) parts of Burma, and when one realizes that he was able, with great difficulty, to only present a small part of a much larger tragedy, it is truly sad.
[…] Early on, Williams calls Burma “the last true military dictatorship”. Unfortunately, since Williams made his documentary things have changed. Recent events in Thailand, demonstrate that in Southeast Asia Burma is now in good company. Thais may not like to hear it – but many have cheered on their military dictatorship. What would be worse would be to see a contest for the title of last true military dictatorship. […]
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
SOAS and the coup
Thanks Mr. Vichai. You are right, of course. But I am not a specialist on Singapore. If you are then I encourage you to make a similar statement – but based on a good understanding of Singapore.
Sufficiency and superfluity
Hello Andrew Walker – I can see you generously continue to educate on your favorite topic of Sufficiency.
You fail to include that Thailand had just successfully eradicated itself of that redundant unwanted superflous person Thaksin Shinawatra.
Now if you are really interested in the subject of Superfluity Mr. Andrew Walker, you will find lots to write about in Thaksin Shinawatra.
Sufficiency democracy
I can guess who feeds you all this crap. I am angry that you continue on with your nonsense interpretation of HMK’s sufficiency economy but I immediately sense your malice. But you will go on I am sure with this misinformation campaign out of desperation or spite or both.
For the benefit of whoever by chance was drawn to this website/forum, I will post the Bank of Thailand’s official release on Thailand’s Sufficiency Economy below:
———————
SUFFICIENCY MODEL
‘Economic policies can coexist ‘
Pridiyathorn, right: Sufficiency and market liberalisation are a good combination.
BOT chief: Expand within our means
MR Pridiyathorn Devakula, the head of the economic team for the new interim government, said an economic policy of sufficiency could be implemented suitably along with market liberalisation by boosting growth from existing resources.
He insisted gross domestic product (GDP) growth next year would not be lower than this year’s economic growth, expected to be 4.5-4.6 per cent. He said that next year’s GDP growth was anticipated at 4-5.3 per cent.
The new government headed by General Surayud Chulanont recently announced a key economic policy of sufficiency, focusing not only on GDP growth, but also on income distribution.
Pridiyathorn, also governor of the Bank of Thailand (BOT), yesterday defined an economic policy of sufficiency amid Thailand’s current market liberalisation.
He said a sufficiency economy and market liberalisation were a good combination.
“If we had market liberalisation without a policy of sufficiency, growth would be boosted too fast beyond our limits,” he said. “And this could lead to a crisis similar to what happened in 1997, when we grew too fast with insufficient savings. We needed to depend on foreign capital of more than US$100 billion [Bt3.76 trillion]. Then we fell down.”
Pridiyathorn said a sufficiency economy could get along well with market liberalisation if the economy did not grow to exceed its capacity; otherwise, excess growth would produce inflation and bring about capital outflows.
“As announced by the CNS [Council for National Security], Thailand is still a liberalised market, with the private sector as the key driver boosting the economy,” he said.
He said a sufficiency economy began with the individual, the smallest unit of society, who would not spend more than his income, while businesses must not expand their operations to exceed their capital limitations.
In addition, Thailand’s economy should grow within the limitations of existing resources, he said. In other words, the country will have to boost resources to support economic growth.
“Economic growth must not exceed existing savings, which would cause problems,” said Pridiyathorn. Moreover, the country must restrain the economy from expanding to a degree that creates a negative impact on the environment and finally affects people’s “balance of life”. If the environment were damaged, tourism would consequently be affected.
“How much GDP growth there should be is uncertain. It depends on how the growth would help distribute incomes. How much growth there should be depends on the environment and resources. Our economy depends on the global economy, as well. But for now, economic growth does not exceed our capacity,” he said.
The head of the new economic team said earlier-than-expected government spending and private-investment recovery, as well as higher-than-expected exports, would boost economic growth for the rest of this year and next year.
He said the government’s 2007 fiscal spending would be only three months late, rather than the nine months expected earlier.
In addition, with a clearer political situation and stable oil prices, private investment is likely to accelerate from this year’s fourth quarter rather than early next year as expected earlier.
BOT assistant governor Atchana Waiquamdee said yesterday exports were likely to grow higher than previously expected in the second half, because export growth in the first two months of the second half was higher than had been predicted. Thus, exports will be the key economic driver for the rest of this year.
Pridiyathorn also said the new government would implement only those mass-transit projects that really benefited the public. For example, the government will select and build a key electric-train route before building the next route to be connected to the first.
He added that the three earlier electric-train routes planned by the former government might be reviewed.
Atchana said the economy was still decelerating in the second half and that original forecasts of fourth-quarter results had not changed.
But there will be clear reasons for growth in next year’s first quarter as a result of declining oil prices and government budget disbursement.
She said that so far, the economy had not suffered a psychological effect from the coup. Instead, the problem is that economic growth is not broad-based, but rather based only in the export sector. This means domestic vendors do not feel good, because they do not benefit from high exports.
She added that in terms of income distribution, big companies were benefiting, but small ones were not.
Prakit Shinamornpong, deputy chairman of the Thai Hotels Association, said tourist cancellations reached 20 per cent during the coup, but now bookings have begun returning to normal. Next year, the tourism sector should improve, driven by the new Suvarnabhumi Airport and its boom effect on Pattaya. He hoped a target of 15 million tourists would be reachable.
Real-estate expert Manop Pongsawat said he predicted that by the end of this year, there would be a price war among condominiums, especially those located close to the Skytrain, because many condos were being launched simultaneously. The political factor has had only a short-term effect on the property sector. In the long term, real-estate developers fear high interest rates.
Fiscal Policy Office director Ekniti Nitithanprapas said that next year, Thai exports might face a risk from a slowdown in economic growth, which would affect the automotive and electronics sectors.
Anoma Srisukkasem, The Nation Oct-04/06
Sufficiency democracy
Andrew, the idea of the “sufficiency economy” , if it were actually being implemented (or possible to implement) as opposed to being merely ideological rhetoric, could be accused of being a mechanism of exclusion of the peasantry from “the market”. The idea that the coup is a replication of the same sentiment (in practice), but in the political arena, is quite a long bow at this stage of the game. The dust hasn’t settled on this coup and the power base of the rural population that you so clearly see the previous regime as having been based on have in the past resisted certain regimes and regime changes so why wouldn’t they now, if they really were being disaffected from the political process, as you claim. It would appear that in your analysis you would be in tacit agreement with certain world system models that you critique in your book. Is this your intent here or are you just expressing frustration at the audacity of the urban capital for having more of a voice in the games of political “patty cake” (such as the other two posters above)?
Speaking of which can anyone actually decipher what Anon and Vichai are talking (debating?) about here? All I can get from the not so subtle innuendos and English language affectations that so cleverly veil what they are actually trying to say is that they buy into wholesale, some rather dated ideas about “Thai people” and their special needs due to an imagined difference to the rest of the world, along with some of the old Phibun rhetoric also.
Regardless, I think all of you are a bit out of touch with the rural population that you all claim to speak on behalf of (in varying degrees) and your dependency on “elite” sources and views for your discussion, with very little or no feel for what is happening in the rural areas is patently clear. The two posts above epitomise this perspective and no where do any of you recognise just how this kind of ideological rubbish is negotiated by the “poor folk” of Thailand.
For example and representing an icon of what the “self sufficiency” ideology is aimed at controlling / excluding (I say unsuccessfully) is the entrepreneurial spirit of so many of Thailand’s rural “poor”, the women (and some men) who are through now, sheer numbers, and incredible skill bringing to the northeast tens of millions of dollars a year through working in the sex industry, marrying etc. Far more effective in bringing wealth to the area, at village levels, than the last three decades of NGO development attempts and “glum Mae bahn and Glum liang wua” type govt initiatives. For those of you who might like to dispute this claim I refer you to many of the northeast’s provincial governor’s “Farang Son in Law” “Mia Farang” days that are being held annually in recognition of the contribution of these couplings to the local economies. So come on people lets move beyond the rhetoric of nationalist pride and cultural conservatism and inject a bit of reality into the discussion. Tiger economies and unique Thai needs, or the needs for paternalistic government etc are dated notions that proved to be fallacious in their hey day, in South Korea, Inodnesia and Thailand, let them go, and have a look at what IS happening.
Bad for business in Kachinland
Apparently the blockade has been going on for awhile. A friend was up on the China/Burma border about a month or so ago, and heard that this was going on from Kachin friends. It also includes areas of the Shan State in addition to the Kachin State.
I would also point out that though this is clearly a recent intensification, it is really part of an ongoing process. Before they signed ceasefires the regime tried to undercut the economic base of the various ethnic insurgencies, and even after they signed ceasefires and were supposedly granted the freedom to pursue just about any economic activities they wanted (including drug trafficking), the regime has never hesitated to impose economic sanctions on the ethnic groups. In addition, the ethnic groups have been pitted against each other in competition, with the military regime being the ultimate arbitrator, and thereby not accidentally profiting from the competition. As David Arnott once brilliantly observed, in Burma von Clauwitz’s dictum is stood on its head, and politics is a continuation of war by other means. You can simply replace politics with economics, culture, language etc.
UK Television: Burma’s Secret War
Hello & thankyou for brilliant coverage of what’s happening in Burma . I recorded it & have only just veiwed it .
Is there a particular organization I can contact to campaign against the U.K’s business interests in Burma ? I would appreciate a reply , thankyou for your time .
sincerely
janie Still
Sufficiency democracy
I’m not sure about this statement here: “the rights of rural people should only be fully respected provided they are willing to pursue livelihoods that make modest claims on natural resources and government budgets.”
How has any model of sufficient economy, as elitist and top-down a policy as they can be, been contingent of people giving up certain rights? I thought some models, like the one articulated in the UNDP Human Development Report is all about the empowerment of rural communities and about asserting political rights (rights to manage community forests, etc.)
Sufficiency democracy
Maybe some additional comments might be insightful:
“To become a tiger (economy) is not important. The important thing for us is to have a self-supporting economy. A self-supporting economy meant to have enough to survive. Each village or district must have relative self-sufficiency. Things that are produced in surplus can be sold, but should be sold in the same region.”
“Placing too much emphasis on the production of industrial goods will not succeed, as the local market has declined because the people now have lower purchasing power. Other countries also have their own difficulties and will not by our products. If there are industrial products and there are no buyers, the efforts will be of no avail. A careful step backwards must be taken. A return to less sophisticated methods.”
The solution? “If the situation can change back to an economy that is self-sufficient – it doesn’t have to be 100%, or even 50%, but perhaps only 25% – it will be bearable. The remedy will take time; it wont be easy. Usually one is impatient because one suffers, but if it is done from this moment on, the recovery is possible.”
Do you really see no similarity to what you, Vichai N, call an ethically wrong, economically unsound and absurdly divisive policy?
Agen Domino Online yg tidak sedikit Dicari Member
[…] And the second from Kasian Tejapira’s New Left Review article on “Toppling Thaksin” previously featured (before he actually was toppled) on New Mandala: After the 1997 crash royal-nationalism was supplemented by a concept of Setthakij pho-phiang, or economic self-sufficiency, in which the King promoted a simple way of life over consumerism and materialist values. Estimates of the Royal Family’s personal assets range from $2bn to $8bn, managed by the Crown Property Bureau, with equity stakes in companies such as Siam Cement and the Siam Commercial Bank. Around 36,000 of the CPB’s properties are leased or rented to third parties. […]
UK Television: Burma’s Secret War
Hi Nancy,
I am not aware of any transcript of the show but if I become aware of one I will bes sure to post a link to it from New Mandala.
Best of luck with your search.
NSF
SOAS and the coup
Dr. Jory you quickly condemn SOAS’ Seminar because you felt it will be too one-sided against Thaksin. What about Singapore’s political system that has been for too long too obliquely one-sided the LEE way? Where is your condemnation at your own backyard?
Sufficiency democracy
So Anon – – what is your point? I have read, I can guess who wrote it . . and I still cannot divine anything in the message that I should be alarmed about.
UK Television: Burma’s Secret War
Any idea where I can get a transcript of this show? It was fascinating – I wanted to dig into the specific statistics deeper. Channel 4 stated that it doesn’t have transcripts and that they will not be airing the show again. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
“The last true military dictatorship”
Thanks for the comments.
Aiontay – this is a really important point that you make. I share your feelings. I guess I just never expected that a foreign journalist will go to the far corners of the country and try to work out what is going on. Such a project would, as you know, test the limits of even the most experienced field researchers. Journalists – making such a rare program for mainstream television – are always going to be somewhat constrained in what they can and can’t do.
A documentary that took in issues in “Kachin State, the Shan State, Arakan, the Tenasserim Division, or the rural areas of Upper Burma” would be more than a little bit interesting.
It is worth more than fleeting consideration.
SOAS and the coup
The article is well written
SOAS and the coup
Of course not. The point being…?
“The last true military dictatorship”
I really wonder what the Thai junta’s policy will be to the Burmese junta.
We can’t assume that they’ll do a complete about-face of Thaksin’s Burma friendly policy. Even though that’s probably what the anti-Thaksin activist and former Ambassador Asda Jayanama clearly wants.
The Thai Army has historically been very pro-Burma. I remember during 1997 when they jailed over a dozen Burmese activists in Sangkhlaburi. And even more recently when they played a key role in “promoting” the Thai-Burma gas pipeline. Even Surayud started a “foreign exchange” program so that Thai officers could serve for SLORC and vice versa. That being said, he *was* pretty friendly to the Burmese students who seized the embassy in Bangkok. But it might be that there are just too many factions in Burma and too many factions among the Thai Army to make any sense or predictions of the situation.
But more importantly, the power behind the junta has, for over a decade, been pro-SLORC (as well as pro-Khmer Rouge, but that’s another matter…). Remember when 8 Nobel Peace prize winners (including the Dalai Lama and Demond Tutu) visited Thailand in 1993 to pressure Thailand to take a hard stand against the Burmese generals? He apparently told them that Su Kyi was a trouble-maker who should return to England with her half-blood children and let the military lead. Of course, even that fact can’t be taken for granted, because that same person has also be very strongly opposed to the drug trade, and seemed more than willing to use any means necessary to limit drug inflow from the western and northern borders.
Sufficiency democracy
The key question for the Thai people is “how to give them peace and security, have safety and live under a fair and just government.” The problem is that “Procedures and principles that we have imported for use are sometimes not suitable to the condition of Thailand or the character of Thai people.”
Thus, Thai people must be willing to “accept the acceptable. We must use what we have available. It is evident that in the past three years that several countries established on the basis of idealist theories of government have collapsed. Is Thailand going to collapse too?”
Because for Thai people, “our loss is our gain. We have enough, enough to live. We don’t want to be a very advanced country. If we become a very advanced country, then we can only go backwards. Countries such as this, they have advanced industry, are just going backwards. However, if we have a ‘poor man’ style of administrative system, that is, not too attached to dogmatic theory, but which has unity and mutual kindness, then we can survive forever.”
I wont tell you who made these comments… I’m sure you can guess.
“The last true military dictatorship”
I haven’t seen the documentary (does anyone know how to get a copy in the US?) and I am not saying this to be critical, but from reading the review, it is clear that it is very limited in scope, if only from the geographical perspective. What about the Kachin State, the Shan State, Arakan, the Tenasserim Division, or the rural areas of Upper Burma? Williams visited the easily accessable (relatively speaking) parts of Burma, and when one realizes that he was able, with great difficulty, to only present a small part of a much larger tragedy, it is truly sad.
Ahh, “full of loopholes”
[…] Early on, Williams calls Burma “the last true military dictatorship”. Unfortunately, since Williams made his documentary things have changed. Recent events in Thailand, demonstrate that in Southeast Asia Burma is now in good company. Thais may not like to hear it – but many have cheered on their military dictatorship. What would be worse would be to see a contest for the title of last true military dictatorship. […]