[Tlc] Thaksin, Bunchu, usw.

Tue Dec 12 01:28:54 PST 2006

Dear Biff,

Thanks very much for the reply, and for the posting to the TLC list.
Your long-term research in Mahasarakham puts you in a position to
approach some of these issues with exceptional clarity.  And I am not
going to take issue, directly, with what you say.  Nevertheless, a
number of observations.  

First, I would argue that Bunchu's approach to rural poverty was a
comprehensive one, with firm ideological foundations and a coherent
design.  In this regard, it differed considerably from Thaksin's.  This
point relates to two others.  While the Bunchu-Khuekrit programs are
most commonly understood to consist essentially of "ngoen phan", they
were in fact far more extensive. To use ngoen phan and its successors,
all of which were just as top-down as you state, to represent the entire
Bunchu-Khuekrit agenda is not to do it justice.  And, while in the event
political turmoil in Bangkok meant that neither the Bunchu nor the
Thaksin programs ever really had a fair chance to prove its long-term
value, one does have to wonder whether the former may not have proved
more sustainable than the latter.

A fourth observation relates to the BAAC.  To be sure by 2001 many BAAC
borrowers needed debt relief very badly.   But their indebtedness
related above all to rather abrupt changes in the structure of Thai
agriculture, not least in the context of international competition, and
to the failure of the BAAC to keep up with these changes.  Again,
however, the post-1975 BAAC and its use of borrowers' groups were long
and justifiably seen by students of rural financial markets as a
relative success.  And in the first decade or so of that success,
Bunchu's design for the channeling of commercial-bank funds into the
rural sector was the key factor.

Fifth, these observations notwithstanding, rural people's sense of
"ownership" of programs intended for their benefit is a phenomenon of
great political importance.   The stress that you place on it is
important for any understanding of recent events in Thailand.

For now, thanks again,

Mike Montesano

________________________________

From: Charles Keyes [mailto:keyes at u.washington.edu] 
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 8:25 AM
To: Michael Montesano; ralbritt at olemiss.edu; justinm at ucr.edu;
tlc at lists.ucr.edu
Cc: jpatrick at wu.ac.th; Jirawat Saengthong; mike.malley at yahoo.com; Ben
Wilkinson; Samson Lim
Subject: Re: [Tlc] Sondhi Limthongkul in Seattle

Dear Mike,

    I realize that I never responded to this comment of yours. There is
a need for a study of all programs that were supposed to benefit the
rural poor going back to at least the 1960s with the promotion of the
government savings bank and the so-called Tambon Development Program.
These were almost totally ineffective in offering villagers
opportunities to make decisions about how government monies should be
used to improve their lives. I agree that the Kukrit government's ngoen
phan program was a significant change and I take your point about the
role Boonchu played. However, I also know from my own study of the
successor programs in the late 1970s and early 1980s that villagers
(whom I interviewed in several parts of the NE and North and in Songkhla
in the south) still found these to be overly managed by the government,
and especially by the district office. In other words, most programs for
the rural poor up to the Thaksin government were manifestations of haut
en bas rather than ones which villagers felt they had any input into.
While it may be possible to find linkages at the policy level between
Kukrit/Boonchu and Thaksin, from the perspective of villagers -- based
on my restudy in 2005-06 of a village in Mahasarakham where I had
carried out fieldwork first in 1963-64 -- it was only under the Thaksin
regime that villagers really felt that they had ownership of programs
under the Tambon Administrative Authority. I observed villagers deciding
how loans should be made and pushing strongly on representatives of the
BAAC for debt relief. This sense of ownership was the primary basis for
rural support of TRT, not payments by huakhanaen.

Biff (Charles Keyes)

From: Michael Montesano <mailto:seamm at nus.edu.sg>  

	To: ralbritt at olemiss.edu ; Charles Keyes
<mailto:keyes at u.washington.edu>  ; justinm at ucr.edu ; tlc at lists.ucr.edu 

	Cc: jpatrick at wu.ac.th ; Jirawat Saengthong
<mailto:sjirawat at wu.ac.th>  ; mike.malley at yahoo.com ; Ben Wilkinson
<mailto:BenWilkinson at fetp.vnn.vn>  ; Samson Lim
<mailto:sawan11 at gmail.com>  

	Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 12:57 AM

	Subject: RE: [Tlc] Sondhi Limthongkul in Seattle

	Whatever one's views of Thaksin or the putsch that has, at least
for the present, ended his premiership, it is high time to put an end to
these very curious "Thaksin was the only politician in my memory who did
anything for the poor." lines.   In the mid-1970s, Prime Minister
Khuekrit Pramot and his finance minister Bunchu Rotchanasathian
introduced a raft of policies aimed at Thailand's rural poor.  In
comparative perspective, the thoughtful design and frankly progressive
rationale (little surprise, in view of Bunchu's very long association
with the Thai left) of these policies set a standard not equaled till
today.  In the event, Khuekrit and Bunchu had only a brief period in
office to implement their policies.  Nevertheless, many have endured,
both as specific measures (consider, for example, the Thai rural credit
system) and as examples to leaders like Thaksin and his advisors.   As
luck would have it, too, last year saw the publication of Nawi
Rangsiwararak's excellent Bon thanon sai kanmueang khong Bunchu
Rotchanasathian.  From this book one can learn much about that way that
a sophisticated, committed man engaged with the problem of social
inequality in Thailand in an era neglected by all too many commentators
on recent events.

	Mike Montesano

	Bangkok

________________________________

	From: tlc-bounces at lists.ucr.edu
[mailto:tlc-bounces at lists.ucr.edu] On Behalf Of ralbritt at olemiss.edu
	Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 8:47 PM
	To: Charles Keyes; justinm at ucr.edu; tlc at lists.ucr.edu
	Subject: Re: [Tlc] Sondhi Limthongkul in Seattle

		Thanks very much for thi, Biff. There must be some
voices that give lie to the oft-repeated charge that rural people are
not sufficiently competent to exercise the vote. For all his faults,
Thaksin was the only politician in my memory who did anything for the
poor. More seriously, what I find is that much of what is taking place
is largely a reaction to the sense of loss of power and prestige among
the traditional elites (this includes intellectual elites). For example:

		A few years ago, I heard Prawasi Wasi give a talk (in
English) in which he said that the problem for Thailand was that people
aspired too much, that they should go back to planting their rice fields
and be happy. I have held him in contempt ever since, but he is honored
by the intellectuals;

		Thirayuth's comment in March is another blow to
democracy: "What is worrisome is that Thaksin has mobilized the poor and
gotten them involved in politics....And what is worrisome about that is
that the poor vote differently from the middle class." So, he loses all
credibility in my book.

		I must say that Thongchai and Giles Ungpakhorn seem to
be among the few Thai intellectuals who can think clearly about the
issue. They both suffer from taking rather courageous positions. I hope
that we can provide them with sufficient support to continue.

		RBA

		> On November 14, 2006, Khun Sondhi Limthongkul spoke on
		> the campus of the University of Washington in Seattle
		> about the Thai political situation. His visit was
arranged
		> by Thai students at the University. An audience of
		> approximately 350 people attended the event; most were
		> Thai by origin who live in the Seattle area, although
some
		> came from as far away as Vancouver, British Columbia.
		> There was also a scattering of non-Thai in the
audience,
		> including the former US Ambassador to Thailand, Darryl
		> Johnson, who is currently a lecturer at the Jackson
School
		> of International Studies at the University of
Washington.
		> Khun Sondhi first spoke in English for about 45
		> minutes and then took questions from the audience for
		> another 20 minutes. He then turned the microphone over
to
		> Khun Karun Saingam, a former MP and former senator
from
		> Buriram. Khun Karun spoke in Thai for about 45
minutes.
		> After a break, Khun Sondhi then spoke and answered
		> questions in Thai for another hour.
		> A few Thai students, led by Khun Anusorn Unno, a PhD
		> candidate in anthropology at the University of
Washington,
		> distributed a handout in both Thai and English,
entitled
		> "9 Myths about the September 19, 2006, Coup." Although
a
		> brief dispute arose because the organizers demanded
that
		> the protestors not have their signs in the foyer
outside
		> the lecture hall which had been booked for the event,
this
		> was resolved when the protestors moved outside the
front
		> door of the hall. A photo of Khun Sondhi, Khun Karun,
and
		> Khun Anusorn appeared with the story published the
next
		> day in the online edition of the Thai newspaper The
		> Manager. (For this story, see
		>
http://www.manager.co.th/Politics/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9490000141271).
		> Khun Sondhi said that while he was not happy with the
		> coup, he was very happy it had happened. He reiterated
the
		> reasons he has presented many times before about why
		> former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra had so abused
		> power that only a coup could remove him. He said that
if
		> the coup had not happened on September 19th there
would
		> have been bloodshed the following day in a
confrontation
		> between those attending a rally to protest his
continuing
		> in office and Thaksin's supporters.
		> He argued that there cannot be electoral democracy in
		> Thailand such as is found in the West because most
people
		> outside the middle class lack sufficient knowledge to
		> understand how power can be abused. The rural people
only
		> vote, he claimed, for those who pay them either
directly
		> through party organizers (hua khanaen) or indirectly
		> through the populist programs. He compared the
populist
		> programs of Thaksin to those of Peron in Argentina.
Khun
		> Sondhi said that in the future he himself will work
only
		> with the middle class who have sufficient education to
		> truly understand how populist politicians can abuse
power.
		> He added that while the middle class is found
primarily in
		> Bangkok, it is also represented in the urban areas of
each
		> province.
		> Khun Sondhi said that politicians of all parties in
		> Thailand are characterized by kilet, a Buddhist term
that
		> in Thai means greed for power, wealth and fulfillment
of
		> sexual passion. He was quite dismissive of a written
		> constitution as the basis for governance in Thailand.
He
		> said that only if the people have a spirit of
democracy
		> can democracy truly exist. Without a constitution, the
		> only institution that can assure good governance is
the
		> monarchy. He said that 'royal prerogative'
		> (phraratchamnat) is deeply respected and embodies the
		> spirit of the nation.
		> The audience was generally very receptive to Khun
		> Sondhi's interpretations.
		> My own assessment is not so positive. I am aware that
		> I am not a Thai, but I have been involved in studying
Thai
		> society, particularly in rural areas, for many
decades. I
		> find very disturbing Khun Sondhi's assumption that
rural
		> people are ignorant and are not capable of making good
		> political choices unless they are 'bought'. I have
found
		> just the opposite. Rural people today are not the
peasants
		> of yesteryear and it is a myth that they are ignorant
		> (ngo). Villagers today are very much aware that unless
		> political leaders are chosen who will respond to their
		> needs for government services such as healthcare,
		> education and government-sponsored loan funds they
will
		> continue to be very disadvantaged in Thailand's
capitalist
		> economy. Khun Sondhi's position seems to me to
contribute
		> to the growing class division of Thai society. I also
		> found his dismissal of a written constitutional basis
of
		> governance and emphasis on 'royal prerogative' to, in
		> effect, turn back the clock on the governing of
Thailand
		> to the sys tem that existed prior to the revolution of
		> 1932. 
		> I am happy, nonetheless, that Seattle and the
		> University of Washington should have been put on the
map
		> of Thai politics through Khun Sondhi's visit.
		> 
		> Charles (Biff) Keyes
		> 
		> _______________________________________________
		> Tlc mailing list
		> Tlc at lists.ucr.edu
		> http://lists.ucr.edu/mailman/listinfo/tlc
		> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucr.edu/pipermail/tlc/attachments/20061212/ac2f6012/attachment-0001.html