I don’t have any direct experience with these rat population explosions, but Bertil Lintner attributes the end of the CPB’s opium crop substitution program to the 1976 outbreak (see pg 266 in “Land of Jade”. I think the Kachin State was also affected in 1976.
[…] Go back to the post immediately before this one about the roadside traders in northwestern Laos. Follow that road north, cross the border at Boten-Mohan and keep going until you reach Kunming. And this is what is what you may find. Thanks Bernard! Another sighting of NewMandala’s favourite clown. […]
Recently, the effect of China’s commercial logging ban on regional Southeast Asian forests has been well documented. However as we all know, in this region, the question of forest sustainability cannot be separated from rural livelihood sustainability. Here in Yunnan Province, China, it’s a complex story. Until the logging ban in the late 1990’s, it was widely known that the “forest destroyers” were State-sponsored commercial logging firms. Many community forests were razed, however the rub was that many local communities gained some benefit from being involved in the industry, not only through direct employment or contracting with their tractors or trucks, but also by undertaking their own smaller-scale logging operations. Consequently the logging ban in 1998 has greatly affected livelihoods in some areas. Current forestry policies are attempting to counter this by encouraging participation in afforestation activities by planting tree-crops or pine. However, this is having its own livelihood side-affects – much of the afforestation is on previously cultivated or so-called “barren” grazing land, and there have been problems with farmer compensation and subsidies. The combination of logging restrictions and afforestation implementation problems are narrowing livelihood options in many areas. Also, the style of afforestation may not have the desired benefits to watershed hydrology. While forestry polices allow for villagers to harvest timber for house building, fencing, etc, several researchers are now calling for a more flexible and diversified approach, eg. removing the logging ban from community forests (for more information on this, see the work of Xu Jintao).
Evans seems to downplay the monarchy’s role in politics, Evans is talking about the 50s and 60s and then in the same paragraph says that “[a]t no time was the palace in a position to challenge the successive military regimes itself”. I don’t doubt Evans is correct about the 50s and 60s time period – after the monarchy’s power had waned between 1932-1957. However, by the early 70s, the monarchy had regained a lot of power and had become very popular – largely due to the rituals reintroduced during Sarit’s rule and development projects which also (from memory) started during Sarit’s rule.
Evans briefly talks about the military’s role in 1973 and and then 1976, he largely ignores the rest of the 70s, 80s, and 90s (disclaimer: I haven’t read Handley’s book so it might be because of this). I wonder because of Evans lack of mention of events after 1976, does Evans now think that the monarchy was now in a position to challenge the successive military regimes?
Evans also states “[t]ypically Mr. Handley overestimates the political power of the monarchy. But as in all constitutional monarchies, the Thai King is strictly constrained”. According to the Constitution, yes, the King’s power is strictly constrained, but I think Evans seriously underestimates the political power of the monarchy if he is to think the Constitution reflects the King’s actual role in Thai society and influence in politics. Handley is not the first person to examine the role of the monarchy in Thai politics. McCargo’s recent article in the Pacific Review, “Network monarchy and legitimacy crises in Thailand”, also looks at the monarchy’s behind the scenes role – largely through Gen. Prem – in politics.
Btw, a few years ago, Evans also reviewed Bowie’s “Rituals of National Loyalty.”
[…] But there is a broader point. As Nicholas Farrelly notes in his post of earlier today, the Thai royal family is largely an academic no-go area. There is a limited and restrained body of scholarship on this important aspect of the Thai polity. In this context, Handley’s contribution is significant (a significance underlined by the banning of the book in Thailand). Of course, a good number of his sources are undocumented, but given the restrictions within Thailand on open discussion of royal matters this is hardly surprising. Evans’ acknowledges the value of Handley’s “important remarks on the uses and abuses of the lèse majesté laws.” But it is a much bigger issue than this. Handley has helped to open a discussion in which the royal imagery of “political and cultural unity” is put in its place, making room for a compelling account of political and economic partiality. If there has been some cultural insensitivity in the process, then so be it. […]
[…] Grant Evans doesn’t like the book. I did, as I indicated in an earlier post. Grant’s review makes me want to go back and take another good look (a sure sign of a good review and, perhaps, a good book). I haven’t yet had a chance to do so, and given the pile of student essays I am slowly working my way through I don’t think I will have a chance any time soon. So, a couple of quick comments will have to do – one specific and one more general. […]
I am not worried about knee-jerk put-downs, but having my blog blocked by the Thai government. No doubt there is a reason the author of the piece was not based in Thailand after the problems that Rodney Tasker and Shawn Crispin faced a few years ago.
On lese majeste, Streckfuss’ Ph.D dissertation (“The poetics of subversion: Civil liberty and lese-majeste in the modern Thai state”) is the most comprehensive I have read.
[…] Readers interested in this issue are also likely to be interested in my earlier post on Peter Warr’s economic modelling of the impact of Nam Theun 2 on Lao poverty. Peter Warr also emphasises the importance of good governance. […]
[…] Thanks for the comments and interest on my earlier post titled “Thais Love Tesco”. Further to the ideas that have been raised, it is probably worth highlighting one important way that the Tesco Lotus juggernaut markets itself to potential customers. […]
Thanks for the link. If it helps, I do have some familiarity with the top floor of the BPB, particularly a room next to the staff room, and have spent way too much time in a certain library named after an Australian Prime Minister. I just prefer to remain anonymous.
I prefer to characterise myself as anti the anti-Thaksin movement and share some feelings as Andrew does in this post. I just see Thai Rak Thai as the lesser of two evils as the Democrats still disappoint me.
Btw, anyone really interested in the the violence in the 3 southern border provinces should check out Deep South Watch. Any website which Dr Srisompob Jitpiromsri (a lecturer of political science at the Prince of Songkhla University in Pattani) is involved in is worth a look. They have a treasure trove of material, most of it in Thai though.
Perhaps, I should clarify what I mean. The situation of foreign hypermarkets/retailers will not go away, but I believe it has been raised as an issue now because the election is coming up. The government will (or has?) be forced to act to alleviate some fears.
Further restrictions on the operation of such retailers won’t really help the situation as more and more people are shopping at such retailers as you point out. The situation won’t go away, but after the election it will die down again and drop out of the news cycle until it raised again in a year or so. The cycle will then repeat itself.
Sometimes I am unintentionally a master of under-statement. You are right that the current wave of expansion does target non-municipal areas in many provinces. Koh Samui – in the Thai province that I know best – is, as you know, one current frontline of anti-Lotus/Big C campaigning. A few years ago, it had no foreign hyper-market retailers flooding its district level market with desirable consumer items.
So, yeh, I agree with you. District level centres are obviously a growth segment for Lotus and pals.
While I see the argument, I don’t completely agree with Bangkok Pundit that this issue will inevitably evaporate if/when the political situation calms down.
Deep-seated resentments are bubbling in many areas. Foreign retailers are but one easy target, and a free kick for other interests looking to score points for their base. The conditions that have led to this, admittedly minor, backlash are not, I’m afraid, going anywhere, anytime soon.
What’re you talking about Nick! Major international retailers, like Tesco Lotus, are trying to corner in every ‘province’ of Thailand? That is not true. In Chiang mai, for example, Tesco are now taking over most of the local district markets already. You go to San Kampang, Hang Dong, or Mae Rim and you can still shop at different Tescos. So I rather say they are, in fact, trying to corner in every ‘district’ of the country. Agree?
I got to know you from your work on the transborder trade in Laos during my thesis proposal writing, it is a good book, and I am also interested in the part of your blog related about China, I am Chinese, I hope you can touch upon about Chinese trade in your research and share information with students like me, but I found your research about China might not as much as your research in Thailand, or other southeast asia countries, especially about the market and trade, hope I can read more in the future.
[…] In both of the case studies an overwhelming percentage of households are listed as either farm operators or farm labourers. But at the same time it is reported that a substantial number of families send have young members working in urban factories (such as garment factories in Vientiane). This move off-farm is interpreted as a response to under-producing farming systems rather than as an active pursuit of alternative sources of income. This may well be the case, but a more concerned emphasis on what Rigg call “pluriactivity” (see my post of earlier today) may be useful. […]
[…] Todays Nation reports that an “academic coalition calls on Thaksin to quit.” These are clearly academics with their finger on the pulse of public opinion and fashion: Anti-Thaksin campaigner Sangsit Piriyarangsan urged government opponents around the country to put on yellow shirts on September 9 to coincide with an opposition rally in Bangkok. “Yellow is the colour of the anti-Thaksin campaign,” he said. […]
Nich, I don’t want to get into the habit of commenting on our own blog too much. But this really is an amazing picture! Like some sort of bizarre kitchen scene. Fantastic.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Bamboo and Rats and Famine
I don’t have any direct experience with these rat population explosions, but Bertil Lintner attributes the end of the CPB’s opium crop substitution program to the 1976 outbreak (see pg 266 in “Land of Jade”. I think the Kachin State was also affected in 1976.
Would you like McKulture with your McGai?
[…] Go back to the post immediately before this one about the roadside traders in northwestern Laos. Follow that road north, cross the border at Boten-Mohan and keep going until you reach Kunming. And this is what is what you may find. Thanks Bernard! Another sighting of NewMandala’s favourite clown. […]
Call me a cynic…
Recently, the effect of China’s commercial logging ban on regional Southeast Asian forests has been well documented. However as we all know, in this region, the question of forest sustainability cannot be separated from rural livelihood sustainability. Here in Yunnan Province, China, it’s a complex story. Until the logging ban in the late 1990’s, it was widely known that the “forest destroyers” were State-sponsored commercial logging firms. Many community forests were razed, however the rub was that many local communities gained some benefit from being involved in the industry, not only through direct employment or contracting with their tractors or trucks, but also by undertaking their own smaller-scale logging operations. Consequently the logging ban in 1998 has greatly affected livelihoods in some areas. Current forestry policies are attempting to counter this by encouraging participation in afforestation activities by planting tree-crops or pine. However, this is having its own livelihood side-affects – much of the afforestation is on previously cultivated or so-called “barren” grazing land, and there have been problems with farmer compensation and subsidies. The combination of logging restrictions and afforestation implementation problems are narrowing livelihood options in many areas. Also, the style of afforestation may not have the desired benefits to watershed hydrology. While forestry polices allow for villagers to harvest timber for house building, fencing, etc, several researchers are now calling for a more flexible and diversified approach, eg. removing the logging ban from community forests (for more information on this, see the work of Xu Jintao).
New book on Southeast Asian “margins”
No anthropologists from Australia! How could they be so insensitive?!
A royal Grant
Evans seems to downplay the monarchy’s role in politics, Evans is talking about the 50s and 60s and then in the same paragraph says that “[a]t no time was the palace in a position to challenge the successive military regimes itself”. I don’t doubt Evans is correct about the 50s and 60s time period – after the monarchy’s power had waned between 1932-1957. However, by the early 70s, the monarchy had regained a lot of power and had become very popular – largely due to the rituals reintroduced during Sarit’s rule and development projects which also (from memory) started during Sarit’s rule.
Evans briefly talks about the military’s role in 1973 and and then 1976, he largely ignores the rest of the 70s, 80s, and 90s (disclaimer: I haven’t read Handley’s book so it might be because of this). I wonder because of Evans lack of mention of events after 1976, does Evans now think that the monarchy was now in a position to challenge the successive military regimes?
Evans also states “[t]ypically Mr. Handley overestimates the political power of the monarchy. But as in all constitutional monarchies, the Thai King is strictly constrained”. According to the Constitution, yes, the King’s power is strictly constrained, but I think Evans seriously underestimates the political power of the monarchy if he is to think the Constitution reflects the King’s actual role in Thai society and influence in politics. Handley is not the first person to examine the role of the monarchy in Thai politics. McCargo’s recent article in the Pacific Review, “Network monarchy and legitimacy crises in Thailand”, also looks at the monarchy’s behind the scenes role – largely through Gen. Prem – in politics.
Btw, a few years ago, Evans also reviewed Bowie’s “Rituals of National Loyalty.”
Lese Majeste
[…] But there is a broader point. As Nicholas Farrelly notes in his post of earlier today, the Thai royal family is largely an academic no-go area. There is a limited and restrained body of scholarship on this important aspect of the Thai polity. In this context, Handley’s contribution is significant (a significance underlined by the banning of the book in Thailand). Of course, a good number of his sources are undocumented, but given the restrictions within Thailand on open discussion of royal matters this is hardly surprising. Evans’ acknowledges the value of Handley’s “important remarks on the uses and abuses of the lèse majesté laws.” But it is a much bigger issue than this. Handley has helped to open a discussion in which the royal imagery of “political and cultural unity” is put in its place, making room for a compelling account of political and economic partiality. If there has been some cultural insensitivity in the process, then so be it. […]
The King Never Smiles?
[…] Grant Evans doesn’t like the book. I did, as I indicated in an earlier post. Grant’s review makes me want to go back and take another good look (a sure sign of a good review and, perhaps, a good book). I haven’t yet had a chance to do so, and given the pile of student essays I am slowly working my way through I don’t think I will have a chance any time soon. So, a couple of quick comments will have to do – one specific and one more general. […]
Lese Majeste
I am not worried about knee-jerk put-downs, but having my blog blocked by the Thai government. No doubt there is a reason the author of the piece was not based in Thailand after the problems that Rodney Tasker and Shawn Crispin faced a few years ago.
On lese majeste, Streckfuss’ Ph.D dissertation (“The poetics of subversion: Civil liberty and lese-majeste in the modern Thai state”) is the most comprehensive I have read.
On the monarchy and its role in politics, Duncan McCargo’s paper in The Pacific Review (“Network monarchy and legitimacy crises in Thailand”) is well worth a read. Handley’s book is referred to.
Lese Majeste
Er…so where is this bold piece of yours, calling it exactly as you see it on the Feer article? Or is that it?
Nam Theun 2 – good for the Lao poor?
[…] Readers interested in this issue are also likely to be interested in my earlier post on Peter Warr’s economic modelling of the impact of Nam Theun 2 on Lao poverty. Peter Warr also emphasises the importance of good governance. […]
Thais love Tesco
[…] Thanks for the comments and interest on my earlier post titled “Thais Love Tesco”. Further to the ideas that have been raised, it is probably worth highlighting one important way that the Tesco Lotus juggernaut markets itself to potential customers. […]
More on Thaksin and the South
Thanks for the link. If it helps, I do have some familiarity with the top floor of the BPB, particularly a room next to the staff room, and have spent way too much time in a certain library named after an Australian Prime Minister. I just prefer to remain anonymous.
I prefer to characterise myself as anti the anti-Thaksin movement and share some feelings as Andrew does in this post. I just see Thai Rak Thai as the lesser of two evils as the Democrats still disappoint me.
Btw, anyone really interested in the the violence in the 3 southern border provinces should check out Deep South Watch. Any website which Dr Srisompob Jitpiromsri (a lecturer of political science at the Prince of Songkhla University in Pattani) is involved in is worth a look. They have a treasure trove of material, most of it in Thai though.
Thais love Tesco
Perhaps, I should clarify what I mean. The situation of foreign hypermarkets/retailers will not go away, but I believe it has been raised as an issue now because the election is coming up. The government will (or has?) be forced to act to alleviate some fears.
Further restrictions on the operation of such retailers won’t really help the situation as more and more people are shopping at such retailers as you point out. The situation won’t go away, but after the election it will die down again and drop out of the news cycle until it raised again in a year or so. The cycle will then repeat itself.
Thais love Tesco
Thanks Jakkrit!
Sometimes I am unintentionally a master of under-statement. You are right that the current wave of expansion does target non-municipal areas in many provinces. Koh Samui – in the Thai province that I know best – is, as you know, one current frontline of anti-Lotus/Big C campaigning. A few years ago, it had no foreign hyper-market retailers flooding its district level market with desirable consumer items.
So, yeh, I agree with you. District level centres are obviously a growth segment for Lotus and pals.
While I see the argument, I don’t completely agree with Bangkok Pundit that this issue will inevitably evaporate if/when the political situation calms down.
Deep-seated resentments are bubbling in many areas. Foreign retailers are but one easy target, and a free kick for other interests looking to score points for their base. The conditions that have led to this, admittedly minor, backlash are not, I’m afraid, going anywhere, anytime soon.
Thais love Tesco
What’re you talking about Nick! Major international retailers, like Tesco Lotus, are trying to corner in every ‘province’ of Thailand? That is not true. In Chiang mai, for example, Tesco are now taking over most of the local district markets already. You go to San Kampang, Hang Dong, or Mae Rim and you can still shop at different Tescos. So I rather say they are, in fact, trying to corner in every ‘district’ of the country. Agree?
Burma-China Commentary
I got to know you from your work on the transborder trade in Laos during my thesis proposal writing, it is a good book, and I am also interested in the part of your blog related about China, I am Chinese, I hope you can touch upon about Chinese trade in your research and share information with students like me, but I found your research about China might not as much as your research in Thailand, or other southeast asia countries, especially about the market and trade, hope I can read more in the future.
Thais love Tesco
What surprises me is that mom-and-pop stores compete more with 7-11 and such franchise minimarts than they do with the large hypermarkets?
The Nation had an editorial on the issue last week and The Bangkok Post (link expired) had one a few days ago.
Once the election is over the issue will die down again.
“Living with transition in Laos”
[…] In both of the case studies an overwhelming percentage of households are listed as either farm operators or farm labourers. But at the same time it is reported that a substantial number of families send have young members working in urban factories (such as garment factories in Vientiane). This move off-farm is interpreted as a response to under-producing farming systems rather than as an active pursuit of alternative sources of income. This may well be the case, but a more concerned emphasis on what Rigg call “pluriactivity” (see my post of earlier today) may be useful. […]
Yellow Fever
[…] Todays Nation reports that an “academic coalition calls on Thaksin to quit.” These are clearly academics with their finger on the pulse of public opinion and fashion: Anti-Thaksin campaigner Sangsit Piriyarangsan urged government opponents around the country to put on yellow shirts on September 9 to coincide with an opposition rally in Bangkok. “Yellow is the colour of the anti-Thaksin campaign,” he said. […]
Rubber dub dub
Nich, I don’t want to get into the habit of commenting on our own blog too much. But this really is an amazing picture! Like some sort of bizarre kitchen scene. Fantastic.