K I Woo explains why some people may be misinterpreting HM the King’s sufficiency economy philosophy
On September 29, 2009 Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva suggested that nations in our globalized world should seriously consider adopting HM the King’s Sufficiency Economy philosophies. Although HM the King’s Sufficiency Economy philosophies have been credited with mitigating much of the potential damage the current global financial crisis may have inflicted on the Thai people, few foreigners understand or fully appreciate them. A major reason is the word “sufficiency” which some people have interpreted as implying an inward-looking philosophy that will return the Thai economy to the Stone Ages. Perhaps, HM the King’s Sufficiency Economy philosophy would be more widely accepted overseas if it were renamed the “Sustainable Economy” philosophy. Many well-respected foreign experts including Peter Warr, of the Australian National University have looked carefully into His Majesty’s sufficiency economy speeches over the years. “Sufficiency Economy is a philosophy that stresses appropriate conduct and way of life while incorporating moderation, due consideration in all modes of conduct, and the need for sufficient protection from internal and external shocks,” Warr quotes from a November 1999 speech. In a recently published article in the GH Bank Housing Journal, Warr said that five central themes can be seen from His Majesty’s sufficiency economy speeches during the past decades. “These include the importance of establishing sensible, non-excessive, material goals; the importance of avoiding unnecessary risk in the pursuit of material aspirations; the desirability of attaining self-reliance; while still maintaining concern for the protection of others; and remaining aware of the non-material aspects of life,” Warr said. Quotations from the King’s speeches and references to his other writings, Warr said also illustrate each of these five themes.“The Sufficiency Economy theme’s relevance can be understood at several levels. At individual levels, they provide a sensible approach to economic life and are also helpful at firm and community levels. Nationally, the themes are highly relevant for countries adjusting to rapidly changing global environments,” said Warr. According to Warr, HM the King also said that sufficiency means to have enough to live on. Sufficiency also means to lead a reasonably comfortable life, without excess, or overindulgence in luxury, but enough. Some things may seem to be extravagant, but if it brings happiness, it is permissible as long as it is within the means of the individual. Many initial critiques of the sufficiency economy philosophy read too much into His Majesty’s use of farming and agricultural analogies. Some observers began thinking that the sufficiency economy philosophy stressed going back to a self-sufficient agrarian life-style and subsisting on the bare-necessities of life. However, as time has evolved many people realized that the philosophy centers on practicing moderation around the five key themes of establishing sensible, non-excessive, material goals; avoiding unnecessary risk in the pursuit of material aspirations; attaining self-reliance; while still maintaining concern for the protection of others; and remaining aware of the non-material aspects of life. These central themes have been carefully followed by all sectors of Thai society and have insulated us greatly from the current global crisis. “To be a tiger is not important. The important thing for us is to have a sufficiency economy, which means to have enough to survive,” His Majesty said in another speech. According to Warr, the sufficiency economy message states that economic growth is not a necessity for improving human welfare. “Excessive emphasis on economic growth, to the exclusion of more important matters, can lead to suffering. In short, it is an argument for the Middle Way,” he said.Recent events in Thai history, Warr added show the wisdom of this approach and the dangers of disregarding it. “This set of ideas is strongly Minister’s Abhisit’s views on HM the King’s sufficiency economy philosophy can help others attain more sustainable economic growth and national happiness. supported by recent developments in economics and psychology,” he said.He also said that in most countries, public policy has yet to catch up with these insights. “The human value of economic growth in the rich countries is greatly over-estimated,” he said.
The Reincarnation of Buddhist Economics K I Woo looks into the revival of Buddhist Economics as a key philosophical component for sustainable economic growth The ravages of the current global economic crisis are causing many people to rethink whether capitalism and unbridled growth are the recipes for sustainable economic growth. Here in Thailand, academics and scholars have held numerous “Buddhist Economics” seminars to consider whether these set of principles first developed by British-based economist EF Schumacher more than 50 years ago are a viable alternative. In 1955 Schumacher was invited to Burma as an economic consultant where he began developing his Buddhist Economics principles that are today being proclaimed as a possible mitigator of the current global economic crisis. His essay “Buddhist Economics” which was first published in 1966 and his book “Small is Beautiful: economics as if people mattered” have now been published in 27 languages and are recognized as basic Buddhist Economics compendiums that may provide answers to the world’s current economic woes.One of Schumacher’s main arguments in Small is Beautiful is that we cannot consider our technological production problems solved if we are required to recklessly erode our finite natural capital and deprive future generations of its benefits. Modern economists, Schumacher said consider consumption to be the sole end and purpose of all economic activity, taking the factors of production – and, labor and capital as the means. They also tend to determine a nation’s standard of living by the amount of annual consumption: and assumes someone that consumes more is better off than someone who consumes less. Buddhist economics, Schumacher said believes that ownership and consumption of goods is a means to an end, and it also is a systematic study of how to attain given ends with the minimum means. The aim should be to obtain the maximum well being with the minimum of consumption,” he said. In Thailand, Venerable PA Payutto also produced a very important and widely-read book “Buddhist Economics – a middle way for the market place” in 1994. This Thai book (translated into English) offers a Buddhist perspective on the subject of economics.Payutto doesn’t try to present a comprehensive Buddhist economic theory, but his treatise provides many tools for reflecting on and ways to look at economic questions based on a considered appreciation of the way things are and the way we are.”Another striking difference between modern economics and Buddhist economics, Schumacher said arises over the use of natural resources. A modern economist, he said tends to count nothing as an expenditure, other than human effort. “He does not seem to mind how much mineral matter he wastes and, far worse, how much living matter he destroys. He does not seem to realize at all that human life is a dependent part of an ecosystem of many different forms of life,” he said.In his treatise, Payutto said that the current study of economics also avoids questions of moral values and considerations of ethics, which are abstract qualities. “However, it is becoming obvious that in order to solve the problems that confront the world today it will be necessary to take into consideration both concrete and abstract factors, and as such it is impossible to avoid the subject of moral values,” he said. If the study of economics is to play any part in the solution of our problems, Payutto said it can no longer evade the subject of ethics. “Ideally, economics should provide mankind with opportunities for real individual and social growth rather than simply being a tool for catering to selfish needs and feeding contention in society, and, on a broader scale, creating imbalance and insecurity within the whole global structure with its innumerable ecosystems,” he said.Payutto said that while our societies are certainly more complex, the propelling force is still emotion, not reason. “There is nothing inherently bad about fear and irrationality; they are natural conditions that come with being human. Unfortunately, however, fear and desire drive us to our worst economic excesses. Greed, exploitation and overconsumption seem to have overwhelmed our economies in recent decades. Our materialistic societies offer us little choice but to exploit and compete for survival in today's dog-eat-dog world,” he said. But at the same time, it is obvious that these forces are damaging our societies and ravaging our environment.In the face of such problems, Payutto said the science of economics adopts a rational approach. “Rarely, however, do economists examine the basic question of fear and the emotional needs for security that drive human beings. As a result, their theoretical models remain rational solutions to largely irrational problems."
####################
Somdet Phra Nyanasamvara (Charoen Suvaddhano) (th: สมเด็จพระญาณสังวร (เจริญ สุวฑฒฺโน); RTGS: Somdet Phra Yannasangwon (Charoen Suwatthano)) (born 3 October 1913) is the 19th and incumbent Supreme Patriarch of Thailand. Assuming such position since 1989 in the reign of Bhumibol Adulyadej.The Supreme Patriarch or Sangharaja (Thai: พระสังฆราช) is the head of the order of Buddhist monks in Thailand. The position is formally appointed by the King of Thailand, although the actual selection is made by senior clergymen. It was first established in 1782 at the founding of the Chakri dynasty by King Rama I.
The Supreme Patriarch has legal authority to oversee both of Thailand's Theravada sub-orders, the Maha Nikaya and the Thammayut Nikaya, as well as the small minority of Mahayana Buddhists in the country. He is assisted by a Supreme Sangha Council, which is led by the Sangha Nayaka (literally "director of the sangha"). In the event that the position of Supreme Patriarch is vacant, the Sangha Council also nominates candidates for a successor to the king. There has been recent discussion about reforming the Thai Sangha's leadership structure, including a 2002 proposal which would have moved many of the Sangha Council's and the Supreme Patriarch's powers to a new executive council.
The incumbent Supreme Patriarch is Somdet Phra Nyanasamvara Suvaddhana Mahathera, who has served in this position since 1989. He is currently[update] aged 96 and suffers from increasingly serious health problems1. The goal of life
The Supreme Patriarch wrote that a complete life should be the ultimate goal of life. A complete life does not depend on individual desires, which differ tremendously, as Lord Buddha said: “There is no river as large as desires”.
Basis of life
According to Lord Buddha, there are three kinds of life: Evil life (spent on committing bad and evil deeds), void life (spent on doing nothing useful), and good life (spent on doing good deeds).
It is the good life that will lead to a complete life. A complete life is the ultimate life. In Buddhism, it refers to a good life. The more good deeds you do, the better life you have. The best you do it, the ultimate life you have.
Components of goodness
There are four components of goodness: karma (work and act that is beneficial), vija (knowledge), sila (morality and virtue), and dharma (righteousness).
A good life must contain all the four components. The height of goodness in a life depends on the size of those components.
Karma: work that is apparent, both good and bad
Work done can be both good and bad. An individual’s work and deeds are an important component of his or her life. Every person is someone because of his or her work. Someone is a farmer because he works as a farmer, a merchant is engaged in trade, a doctor in medicine, a student in education, and a thief in banditry.
Bad deeds are easy to do and they have influences for people to do. Lord Buddha said: “Bad deeds are easy for bad people to do, but difficult for good people.”
Good deeds require determination and perseverance, as Lord Buddha said: “Good deeds are easy for good people, but difficult for bad people.”
People who find it difficult to do good deeds should be aware that they are not good enough and they must encourage themselves to become better.
Life is fruit of karma
Everybody’s life is related to karma, both old and new. You can say that, “Life is the fruit of karma.”
Deeds done in a previous life are old karma and deeds done in the current life are new karma. This explanation may not be able to convince people who do not believe in reincarnation. So, a new explanation regards deeds done long ago as old karma and deeds completed recently or about to be done as new karma.
The ups and downs of life depend on a person’s karma, as well as himself or herself because it is them who do the deeds. They can prevent the fruit of bad karma by keeping doing good deeds until the fruit of good karma becomes more powerful.
A mind with good intentions requires clear knowledge
To create good deeds, people need a mind with good intentions and they need clear knowledge from the beginning what is good and bad and what makes suffering and how to end that suffering.
Without knowledge, you cannot do any deeds
Knowledge is an important component in life. Any deed to be done requires knowledge, and you cannot do any deeds without knowledge. People have to learn to do something they intend. For example, people who want to do farming require knowledge about farming, people know want to be a judge or a lawyer need to study law.
Something you must learn for your survival
Another subject to learn is knowledge about how to do deeds with good intentions in order to abandon all the suffering in your mind. It is something you must learn as it was taught by Lord Buddha. Regardless of what you have learned, without this knowledge you will find it difficult to survive.
2. How happiness can be attained in life
The Supreme Patriarch wrote about how to attain happiness, as follows:
Relying on wrong thing and your life is threatened A direct threat to life is defilement (kilesa), consisting of lobha (greed), dosa (hatred), and moha (delusion). Defilement can cause people to commit dishonest acts, which in turn lead them to a life of suffering. This means those persons rely on a wrong thing; they rely on defilement. Objects that can cause greed, hatred and delusion include valuables, fortune and honour that someone does not deserve. People who rely on a wrong thing and thus bringing about threats to themselves are those whose wisdom is blocked by defilement and they are unaware those are threats. People who take refuge in Lord Buddha, the Teachings (Dhamma), and the Buddhist Order (Sangha) do not cause the threats to themselves due to the wisdom gained from the Triple Gem.
Knowledge about the Teachings (Dhamma) People who take refuge in Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha are close to the Triple Gem. They are keen to hear and learn about Lord Buddha’s teachings and they increasingly gain wisdom from the teachings. In essence, knowledge about Dhamma is to know about truths and actual states. That refers to knowing what is good and beneficial and what is bad and immoral. Ways that avoid the path to immorality lead to prosperity. That is ariya-sacca (Noble Truth), which consists of knowing about suffering, the origin of suffering, how to disband suffering, and the path of practice leading to disbanding of suffering. The principle of Noble Truth, or universal truth, can be used in disbanding the general sufferings. It was taught by Lord Buddha for people who are entangled in sufferings and desire to free themselves from those sufferings. To dispel suffering, you must first know about suffering. Then you use your wisdom, based on your knowledge about truths, to release that suffering from yourself. When you abandon suffering, you will find happiness.
Where is happiness? Happiness is desired by everybody and all of us have met happiness before. Happiness takes place in your body and in your mind.
Happiness in the mind is vital Even when your body feels good but if your mind is not well, you are unhappy. Even when your body is not well due to illness or some frustration, you do not feel much suffering when your mind is in good spirits. Properties make common people happy Common people require material objects to make them happy, such as money, gold, and consumer goods. People have those properties because they act in a way that they can acquire the properties. People who do not have those properties fail to act in that way. So, people who want to get happiness should find out first what causes happiness and what causes suffering. Some people may see that happiness is caused by external objects such as assets, honour, fame, and beautiful houses while others believe that the causes for happiness and suffering come from inside.
Conditions for happiness External objects that are sought after, such as money, honour and fame can make people happy. But they are not permanent and can change all the times. Happiness that is attached to those things has to change accordingly. This kind of happiness floats back and forth and it is “balloon-like happiness”. Many people are rich with external objects but they are sad. So, external objects are not a cause for happiness. They are just a supporting factor for happiness.
Happiness and suffering originate from inner causes Happiness and suffering originate from inner causes. External matters, such as money, honour and fame are just “tools” for you to become happy.
Basic means to create happiness The external objects that are tools for happiness belong to you because of your actions. Religious speaking, to perform your occupational duties is not good or bad. In the layman’s term, people who perform their occupations are not good or bad. People who wish to get the basic happiness should perform their occupational duties to the best of their ability, without being lazy, and they should always rectify mistakes and improve their jobs.
Smart people do well with their body, words and mind Acting in good faith (sujarit) is a way for smart people and is approved by the entire world. You need to act well bodily, verbally and mentally. Acting well bodily refers to refraining from killing, stealing and adultery. Acting well verbally refers to refraining from lying, being sarcastic, using obscene language and speaking nonsense. Acting well mentally refers to becoming aware that good deeds lead to good karma and vice versa, and refraining from wanting to get other people’s asset dishonestly. By essence, you should not infringe into the rights and peaceful life of other people. When doing so, you act dishonestly in accordance to the Dhamma and that is not a way for smart people to take. In the worldly law, the rights of humans and some kinds of animals are protected, but in religion there are no exceptions.
A mind without Dhamma leads to dishonest acts Dishonesty cannot take place without actions. You must try hard to act dishonestly, which is far different from the usual way you act. To act in good faith, you do not need to invest much labour. Just act in the usual way you normally do, without making any changes. People act dishonestly because their minds have no Dhamma (proper principles or qualities) to command their actions. As a result, they act the way their minds dictate.
Dhamma that should be followed when acting honestly There are many kinds of Dhamma. The ones recommended here should be followed when acting in good faith. They are the feeling of guilt in harming others, kindness to all kinds of animal, being considerate and generous, refraining from adultery and abiding by the good traditions. You should also speak your mind and refrain from lying, being sarcastic or inciting disunity. You should speak politely and refrain from using vulgar words. Your words should be supported by concrete facts and they should be reliable. Do not speak nonsense. Also, you should be kind to others and refrain from being vengeful.
Good Dhamma: cause for genuine happiness People who act in good faith often have no threats and they have clear mind thus are happy. People who act dishonestly get the opposite effects: they are mired in confusion bodily and mentally. Their assets, honour and fame fail to make them happy, and they face threats from all around. Lord Buddha taught that people who do good things get good results, and people who do bad things get bad results. We can imply from the teaching that doing good leads to happiness and doing bad brings about suffering. Happiness here collectively refers to properties of happiness, including wealth, beautiful skin, long life, honour and fame. All of them are results of acting in good faith (following the good Dhamma).
7. Humans who are sufficiently good must have three kinds of wisdom
The following is advice by the Supreme Patriarch.
Wisdom (panya)
Wisdom is an important quality of mind (Dhamma). To take any action, you need to act in a way that leads to wisdom otherwise it is like you walk with your eyes shut and you do not know or see anything.
Wisdom is right knowledge. Knowledge is a nature of everyone’s mind, which means anyone can know anything. But people’s mind also contains ignorance (avijja), which makes what they know to be wrong knowledge. A mind with ignorance makes delusion (moha). People with delusion have knowledge but it is wrong knowledge.
Real wisdom is knowledge about truthfulness
Real wisdom is knowledge about truthfulness (sajja/sacca), which is to know about causes and results. What you know from your senses is knowledge but you require truthfulness to get wisdom. For example, you see a road in perspective and it appears to be a single line at the end of sight. In fact, the road does not get smaller so you cannot completely believe what you see alone. Similarly you cannot completely believe in what you hear -- criticism and praise alike.
Wisdom in Noble Truth is ultimate wisdom
Humans are intelligent in acquiring knowledge from what they observe through eyes and ears. They learn that the Sun is larger than Earth and that there are many suns and planets in the outer space. Humans observe and consider about what they see and hear, then they make experiments before acquiring truths. That is the way they develop their knowledge up until these days.
Lord Buddha gradually developed the truths he learned into parami, the right knowledge, until he attained Enlightenment about the Noble Truth (ariya-sacca), which can dispel suffering. Lord Buddha’s knowledge is greater than the worldly knowledge because it encompasses the Noble Truth about suffering and means to end it.
Lord Buddha said most of the worldly knowledge often leads to suffering because humans have unending desires. To end desires and you can dispel sufferings.
Wisdom in theoretical level (pariyatti panya)
Religion is required to groom the mind of people. Wisdom and the ability to know about causes and results, can prevent people from going immoral. Wisdom and the ability of correct judgement is not something you can learn directly from school or some training course. It happens from inside people who have sila (virtue). The wisdom is knowledge in the pariyatti level, which refers to theoretical understanding of Dhamma obtained through reading, studying and learning.
Training in wisdom that helps you avoid immoral
Wisdom about the causes and effects must have one major quality: It can help you refrain from immoral conduct. For example, you are taught about the Five Precepts -- refraining from killing, stealing, adultery, lying and drinking -- and that knowledge is the theoretical wisdom (pariyatti panya).
Despite the knowledge, many people cannot refrain from those sins due to greed, hatred and delusion. They do good deeds as well as bad ones. That means the strength of their wisdom is insufficient and it is too weak to help them refrain from the sins.
What people need is the wisdom that can help them refrain from committing sins. You need to train your mind regularly, time and again, until you reach a certain level of development. When you reach that level, only a small reminder can make you attain the wisdom.
One example is the story about Angulimala. He wanted knowledge and he learned from a teacher. Some fellow students were envious of him and they wrongly told the teacher that Angulimala wanted to betray him. The teacher became convinced and told Angulimala to kill people and collect 1,000 fingers, each taken from a different victim, to be entitled to be taught the ultimate lesson.
Lord Buddha was aware that Angulimala was in fact not an evil person by nature, so Lord Buddha decided to teach him. When he saw Lord Buddha, Angulimala ran after him but he could not catch up. He told Lord Buddha to stop, and Lord Buddha replied that, "I already stopped but you do not". That message caused Angulimala to become aware that he had not stopped committing sins by killing people. So he threw away his sword and asked for Lord Buddha’s permission to be ordained as a monk. He later attained enlightenment to become an arahant (a person whose mind is free of defilement and who is thus not destined for further rebirth).
This kind of wisdom cannot be attained from learning in school or taking part in any training course. You can attain it by practicing and training yourself more and more. Then when you reach a certain level, you can get it when someone points it out.
Use wisdom to get three degrees of awareness
Lord Buddha taught about getting aware through the senses -- sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch, and mind.
The next level of awareness is through consideration, by considering what you know by its actual state and condition.
Then Lord Buddha taught about the next stage of awareness: to tell the mind to refrain from certain feelings, such as lust, indiscriminate fondness and satisfaction.
Knowing through three levels of parinya -- senses, consideration and refraining -- is wisdom in Buddhism.
Adapting wisdom to suit yourself and environment
Life can be safeguarded through wisdom. Wisdom can protect you from dangers and people with wisdom are safe anytime and anywhere. It is because people with wisdom know how to protect themselves.
The Supreme Patriarch, quoting Lord Buddha, taught that wisdom is a tool to protect people. There are three kinds of cleverness: knowing about the causes and effects of prosperity, about degradation, and how to prosper and avoid degradation.
To be clever about how to prosper and avoid degradation, you need to know about the surrounding facts, such as your capability, people involved, the causes and effects of the matters involved.
Therefore, to benefit from wisdom in real life, you need to adapt the wisdom to suit yourself and the environment. Smarter people are capable of adapting themselves to the environment or changing the environment to suit them.
People with sufficient goodness can rely on themselves and others
Goodness is something people should have with them sufficiently. People without goodness or with insufficient goodness cannot rely on themselves and nobody wants them to rely on. Goodness here refers to virtue and morality.
People with refuge can undoubtedly survive and attain victory and success.
The Supreme Patriarch taught that people dominated by defilement tend to cause trouble to themselves and other people. People whose minds are shrouded in defilement cannot be good people. People must be aware of this fact and behave in a proper way.
Good people do not want to coexist with bad people. Good people tend to avoid bad people because they are aware that bad people can bring them troubles. To have a good society, people must train themselves to become good people and free their mind from defilement as best as they can.
Bad people cause troubles so they cannot be relied on by anyone. Only good people can be relied upon. Everybody needs someone to rely on, in some matter or another. And it is thus necessary to have good people as friends.
Good people ‘don’t drown in water and don’t get burnt in fire’
There is a saying that good people do not drown in water and do not get burnt in fire. This is not about supernatural power. The hidden meaning is that when they fall into water, good people get help and are taken out of water. And when they are in fire, good people get assisted out of fire and others help extinguish the fire. In essence, the saying means when they are in trouble, good people often get help from others or something happens to bring them out of danger.
People with sufficient goodness can rely on themselves and can be relied on by others
People with sufficient goodness can rely on themselves and can be relied on by other people. You must rely on yourselves first instead of wishing for help from others.
You are the leader of yourself
People are said to be led to the good and to the bad. In fact, nobody can lead anyone to anywhere if that person does not allow himself or herself to go. Other people are just a component and if you do not allow yourself to be led towards goodness, nobody else can. You first have to agree with the idea because you are the leader of yourself.
Buddhism offers paths to goodness and Lord Buddha lit up the lights along the routes. What you do is just keep your eyes open and don’t shut them. You will see the way that is free from perils. However, it also depends on all of you, whether you will take those well-lit paths and whether you will close your eyes while walking.
Well study the paths and carefully choose one
Nobody wants to take a dark road of life. All people want to walk along a well-lit road. Therefore you must train yourself so that you know about the dark route and the bright route. To know correctly about that, you need to study the Dhamma taught by Lord Buddha. Study well enough and take the bright route. Avoid the dark route, which certainly is fraught with perils.
#########
8. Satisfied with being Thai
The Supreme Patriarch made the following thought-provoking advice.
Examine your mind
Ask yourself if you are happy with being Thai, Chinese, Indian or Western. I am confident that your sincere answer will be you are satisfied with being Thai and proud to be Thais, who are also Buddhists.
Make a commitment
With that sincere answer in mind, you should then promise to yourself that you will act as Thais and as Buddhists who take refuge in Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, which are collectively called the Triple Gem.
Incomparable blessing
Follow Lord Buddha’s teachings and practise them. Their magical powers are unbelievable but they are genuine. Just be determined and practise the teachings, and you will get incomparable blessing.
A path to splendid happiness
Lord Buddha taught people to refrain from doing all the evil things and keep doing all the good things in addition to keeping your mind free of hatred and sadness. Not a single intelligent person would disagree to that teaching. Despite its brevity, the teaching covers all the blessings desired by everyone.
Magnificent blessing
Buddhists should follow this teaching by Lord Buddha: Avoid doing all the sins, keep doing merit and cleanse your mind. That is a magnificent blessing from Lord Buddha.
Sages say ‘this life is short’
Sages say the current life is short and you do not know how long the next life is. So if you really love yourself, you should prepare for a next life. Do not just love yourself in this life only. Get yourself happiness in this present life in a way that is acceptable so that the impacts of your karma that will happen to you in this and next lives will be positive, rather than negative.
The highest point desired by everyone
Auspiciousness (mongkol) often leads to prosperity, peace and happiness. On the other hand, inauspiciousness (appa-mongkol) brings about degradation and an end to prosperity.
With no exceptions, people all over the world dislike inauspiciousness and they desire auspiciousness. So auspiciousness is the highest point commonly desired by everyone. People want to have auspiciousness with them all the times. Therefore, when you obtain auspiciousness, you must cherish and keep it with you as best as you can, in order to get prosperous and happy.
#########
Sufficiency economy may mean sustainable economy
K I Woo explains why some people may be misinterpreting HM the King’s sufficiency economy philosophy
On September 29, 2009 Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva suggested that nations in our globalized world should seriously consider adopting HM the King’s Sufficiency Economy philosophies. Although HM the King’s Sufficiency Economy philosophies have been credited with mitigating much of the potential damage the current global financial crisis may have inflicted on the Thai people, few foreigners understand or fully appreciate them. A major reason is the word “sufficiency” which some people have interpreted as implying an inward-looking philosophy that will return the Thai economy to the Stone Ages. Perhaps, HM the King’s Sufficiency Economy philosophy would be more widely accepted overseas if it were renamed the “Sustainable Economy” philosophy. Many well-respected foreign experts including Peter Warr, of the Australian National University have looked carefully into His Majesty’s sufficiency economy speeches over the years. “Sufficiency Economy is a philosophy that stresses appropriate conduct and way of life while incorporating moderation, due consideration in all modes of conduct, and the need for sufficient protection from internal and external shocks,” Warr quotes from a November 1999 speech. In a recently published article in the GH Bank Housing Journal, Warr said that five central themes can be seen from His Majesty’s sufficiency economy speeches during the past decades. “These include the importance of establishing sensible, non-excessive, material goals; the importance of avoiding unnecessary risk in the pursuit of material aspirations; the desirability of attaining self-reliance; while still maintaining concern for the protection of others; and remaining aware of the non-material aspects of life,” Warr said. Quotations from the King’s speeches and references to his other writings, Warr said also illustrate each of these five themes.“The Sufficiency Economy theme’s relevance can be understood at several levels. At individual levels, they provide a sensible approach to economic life and are also helpful at firm and community levels. Nationally, the themes are highly relevant for countries adjusting to rapidly changing global environments,” said Warr. According to Warr, HM the King also said that sufficiency means to have enough to live on. Sufficiency also means to lead a reasonably comfortable life, without excess, or overindulgence in luxury, but enough. Some things may seem to be extravagant, but if it brings happiness, it is permissible as long as it is within the means of the individual. Many initial critiques of the sufficiency economy philosophy read too much into His Majesty’s use of farming and agricultural analogies. Some observers began thinking that the sufficiency economy philosophy stressed going back to a self-sufficient agrarian life-style and subsisting on the bare-necessities of life. However, as time has evolved many people realized that the philosophy centers on practicing moderation around the five key themes of establishing sensible, non-excessive, material goals; avoiding unnecessary risk in the pursuit of material aspirations; attaining self-reliance; while still maintaining concern for the protection of others; and remaining aware of the non-material aspects of life. These central themes have been carefully followed by all sectors of Thai society and have insulated us greatly from the current global crisis. “To be a tiger is not important. The important thing for us is to have a sufficiency economy, which means to have enough to survive,” His Majesty said in another speech. According to Warr, the sufficiency economy message states that economic growth is not a necessity for improving human welfare. “Excessive emphasis on economic growth, to the exclusion of more important matters, can lead to suffering. In short, it is an argument for the Middle Way,” he said.Recent events in Thai history, Warr added show the wisdom of this approach and the dangers of disregarding it. “This set of ideas is strongly Minister’s Abhisit’s views on HM the King’s sufficiency economy philosophy can help others attain more sustainable economic growth and national happiness. supported by recent developments in economics and psychology,” he said.He also said that in most countries, public policy has yet to catch up with these insights. “The human value of economic growth in the rich countries is greatly over-estimated,” he said.
The Reincarnation of Buddhist Economics K I Woo looks into the revival of Buddhist Economics as a key philosophical component for sustainable economic growth The ravages of the current global economic crisis are causing many people to rethink whether capitalism and unbridled growth are the recipes for sustainable economic growth. Here in Thailand, academics and scholars have held numerous “Buddhist Economics” seminars to consider whether these set of principles first developed by British-based economist EF Schumacher more than 50 years ago are a viable alternative. In 1955 Schumacher was invited to Burma as an economic consultant where he began developing his Buddhist Economics principles that are today being proclaimed as a possible mitigator of the current global economic crisis. His essay “Buddhist Economics” which was first published in 1966 and his book “Small is Beautiful: economics as if people mattered” have now been published in 27 languages and are recognized as basic Buddhist Economics compendiums that may provide answers to the world’s current economic woes.One of Schumacher’s main arguments in Small is Beautiful is that we cannot consider our technological production problems solved if we are required to recklessly erode our finite natural capital and deprive future generations of its benefits. Modern economists, Schumacher said consider consumption to be the sole end and purpose of all economic activity, taking the factors of production – and, labor and capital as the means. They also tend to determine a nation’s standard of living by the amount of annual consumption: and assumes someone that consumes more is better off than someone who consumes less. Buddhist economics, Schumacher said believes that ownership and consumption of goods is a means to an end, and it also is a systematic study of how to attain given ends with the minimum means. The aim should be to obtain the maximum well being with the minimum of consumption,” he said. In Thailand, Venerable PA Payutto also produced a very important and widely-read book “Buddhist Economics – a middle way for the market place” in 1994. This Thai book (translated into English) offers a Buddhist perspective on the subject of economics.Payutto doesn’t try to present a comprehensive Buddhist economic theory, but his treatise provides many tools for reflecting on and ways to look at economic questions based on a considered appreciation of the way things are and the way we are.”Another striking difference between modern economics and Buddhist economics, Schumacher said arises over the use of natural resources. A modern economist, he said tends to count nothing as an expenditure, other than human effort. “He does not seem to mind how much mineral matter he wastes and, far worse, how much living matter he destroys. He does not seem to realize at all that human life is a dependent part of an ecosystem of many different forms of life,” he said.In his treatise, Payutto said that the current study of economics also avoids questions of moral values and considerations of ethics, which are abstract qualities. “However, it is becoming obvious that in order to solve the problems that confront the world today it will be necessary to take into consideration both concrete and abstract factors, and as such it is impossible to avoid the subject of moral values,” he said. If the study of economics is to play any part in the solution of our problems, Payutto said it can no longer evade the subject of ethics. “Ideally, economics should provide mankind with opportunities for real individual and social growth rather than simply being a tool for catering to selfish needs and feeding contention in society, and, on a broader scale, creating imbalance and insecurity within the whole global structure with its innumerable ecosystems,” he said.Payutto said that while our societies are certainly more complex, the propelling force is still emotion, not reason. “There is nothing inherently bad about fear and irrationality; they are natural conditions that come with being human. Unfortunately, however, fear and desire drive us to our worst economic excesses. Greed, exploitation and overconsumption seem to have overwhelmed our economies in recent decades. Our materialistic societies offer us little choice but to exploit and compete for survival in today's dog-eat-dog world,” he said. But at the same time, it is obvious that these forces are damaging our societies and ravaging our environment.In the face of such problems, Payutto said the science of economics adopts a rational approach. “Rarely, however, do economists examine the basic question of fear and the emotional needs for security that drive human beings. As a result, their theoretical models remain rational solutions to largely irrational problems".
http://www.manager.co.th/Daily/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9520000088756 enough
By rolfe Winker
Investors are celebrating an incipient “recovery,” but the interventions that were responsible for it are sowing the seeds of a more violent contraction down the road. The problem, quite simply, is debt. We’ve accumulated record amounts, yet many economists tell us we need more.
Leading the charge is Paul Krugman. He exhorts us to borrow our way back to prosperity, but he doesn’t acknowledge that his brand of Keynesian economics ignores the consequences of debt. If you look at a chart of America’s total debt burden, he’s leading us over a cliff.
(Click chart to enlarge in new window)
The problem begins with the flawed way Krugman and other economists measure well-being. Primarily, they look at measures of activity, like GDP. These tell us how much people spend, but say nothing about where we get the money.
Every so often, we overextend ourselves, buying too much useless stuff with too much borrowed money. So we cut back, dumping the third family car and swapping the McMansion for a townhome.
But this is problematic for Krugman and other economists. Less spending means falling GDP. It means “recession.”
They ride to the rescue with two blunt instruments — monetary and fiscal policy — that encourage more borrowing and thus more spending. More spending equals “growth” so economists congratulate themselves for engineering “recovery.”
But if recessions never happen, bad businesses and unpayable debts are never washed away. They grow like cancer inside the system.
Since the mid-1980s, we’ve intervened whenever the economy hiccuped, so sectors that should have shrunk sharply — like housing and finance — never did. Feasting on easy credit, these sectors have exploded as a percentage of the economy.
Now, since individuals and corporations refuse to borrow more, the only way to grow spending is for the government to borrow.
According to George Cooper, author of The Origin of Financial Crises, “what is missing from today’s debate is recognition that previous growth rates were artificially supported by an unsustainable credit binge, itself the result of the misapplication of Keynesian policy.”
Cooper counts himself a Keynesian but says Keynesian policy has become “dangerously distorted.”
“We should be using Keynesian stimulus only to arrest the rate of credit contraction not to reverse it. The harsh truth is that our economies desperately need a recession.”
That’s because they desperately need to de-lever. As you can see in the first chart, debt relative to GDP is at record highs.
If we want sustainable growth, spending that drives it must come from savings, not more borrowing. To get there, we must first pay old debts. And that means recession.
Krugman is clearly aware of the consequences of excessive borrowing.
“I’m terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits,” he wrote in 2003, citing a $1.8 trillion 10-year deficit projection from the Congressional Budget Office.
Fast forward six years, total debt has jumped 70 percent relative to GDP and optimistic projections put the 10-year deficit at $9 trillion.
This time, however, Krugman dismisses deficit “hysteria,” arguing that we can grow our way out of debt. “We did it during the Clinton administration,” he told me when he visited Reuters last week.
But we didn’t. While Clinton balanced the federal budget, Americans plowed through their savings. We kept growing because, in the aggregate, we were still accumulating debt.
(Click chart to enlarge in new window)
Krugman has also argued that we can handle larger deficits because we have in the past. After all, public debt peaked at 118 percent in 1945 compared with 65 percent today.
Two problems. First, the argument ignores tens of trillions of unfunded obligations for Medicare and Social Security, debt Krugman loudly lamented in his 2003 column.
It also ignores the higher private debt burden facing us today. According to economist Steve Keen, “Private sector debt accumulated in the 1920s was wiped out by the Depression, so in 1945 the private sector’s debt burden was only 45 percent of GDP. In that situation it was easy to wind down public debt from levels reached to finance WWII.”
Today, private debt is a suffocating 300 percent of GDP, making more public debt that much harder to pay down.
We know how this movie ends. Look at California — or Argentina.
We chortle from afar — “how did their budget get so out of whack?” — yet our own profligacy puts us squarely on that path. Like them, we’ve shown no political will to deal with debt. And so it will deal with us.
But we can print our own currency, you say. If all else fails, the United States can inflate its way out of debt.
Nonsense. If we try, our foreign lenders will cut us off.
As Krugman warned in 2003: “My prediction is that politicians will eventually be tempted to resolve the (fiscal) crisis the way irresponsible governments usually do: by printing money, both to pay current bills and to inflate away debt. And as that temptation becomes obvious, interest rates will soar.”
Yet today Krugman is leading the march, arguing that we can borrow indefinitely as long as deflation remains a threat.
Tell that to the Chinese.
What happens when they stop buying our bonds? To Cooper’s point, we’ll need government intervention to cushion the blow of de-leveraging. But there’s a difference between cushioning the blow and reinflating the bubble, which is what we’re doing, wasting trillions propping up housing and banking.
The risk is that we’ll have nothing left when we really need it, when the Great Leveraging becomes the Great De-Leveraging.
Goldman Sachs
A Vampire on the Jugular of America
by Darryl Schoon July 20, 2009Print
…organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy - Matt Taibbi
In Rolling Stone Magazine, Matt Taibbi wrote what would never be read in The New York Times, The Financial Times, Fortune, Barrons and certainly not in the Washington Post:
…If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain -- an extremely unfortunate loophole in the system of Western democratic capitalism, which never foresaw that in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy. Matt Taibbi, Goldman Sachs: The Great American Bubble Machine, Rolling Stone Magazine, July 2, 2009, issue 1082-83
Those at the center of power are often reticent to criticize others feeding at the same trough. It is left to those on the fringe, in this instance Rolling Stone Magazine, a reviewer of popular music, to state the ugly truth about what is happening at the center—that bank-holding company, née investment bank Goldman Sachs, engineered America’s serial bubbles in stocks, housing and commodities; and, has now profited immensely from both the bubbles and America’s subsequent collapse.
That bankers at Goldman Sachs will receive record bonuses the same year millions of Americans will lose their homes and their jobs is not by coincidence. Matt Taibbi’s article explains why and how this is so. In the game of last man standing called Western democratic capitalism the winner is clearly Goldman Sachs.
DEMOCRACY’S BIRTH WAS AN IMPROBABLE EVENT IT’S DEATH LESS SO
Taibbi’s statement, “organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy”, gives the understanding how America, once the greatest economic power in the world, lost its extraordinary productivity, wealth, and power in only a few decades.
The lofty intent of those who founded the US has today been effectively subverted. Democracy no longer serves the role intended by America’s founding fathers. Today, democracy serves instead the special interests that control America through a highly compromised, manipulated and mis-named “democratic process”.
Control of the democratic process is not difficult. It is done with money, money given to politicians who raise campaign funds by selling out those they are elected to serve. This is not only true for most Republicans and Democrats. It is true for most nations.
In this process, voters are temporarily satisfied when “their” candidate wins. In truth, “their” candidate was never theirs in the first place, already having been brokered and bought by powerful interest groups who have much to gain by their candidate’s ability to get elected.
DIVIDE AND CONQUERTHE TWO-PARTY DANCE OF DISASTER
Instead of helping to solve society’s problems, the democratic process has been diverted by powerful and well-organized special interest groups. This diversion is accomplished by exploiting the conservative and liberal tendencies of the electorate, a diversion that enables special interests to maintain control no matter what party wins.
By exacerbating the natural tensions existing within society, special interests use politicians and the media to control the political dialogue, emphasizing issues that divide and inflame the electorate thereby diverting attention away from the destabilizing, dangerous and self-serving aims of special interests.
After every election, either conservatives or liberals will feel that victory has been achieved, their ideological opponents temporarily vanquished, their political ends accomplished; but nothing could be further from the truth as both conservatives and liberals have been duped in the process, a process best described as political pornography—as the aftermath is always somehow unfulfilling, no matter how exciting the initial attraction and foreplay.
In the end, very little gets solved, problems persist and proliferate, and the electorate becomes increasingly disillusioned—that is, until a new candidate is found by the special interests to again raise the hopes of both conservatives and liberals that this time it will be different.
SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPSAND THE RISE AND FALL OF NATIONS
The ability of special interest groups to dominate democracies is surprising only because democracies are relatively new; notwithstanding the Greek city-states and the earliest reports of democracy in ancient India—and my parody of an earlier imagined attempt, http://www.drschoon.com/articles/DemocracyInTheMadhouse.pdf .
Special interest groups far predate the modern democratic state. According to American economist, Mancur Olsen (1932-1988), author of The Rise And Decline Of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, And Social Rigidities, 1982, Yale University Press, special interest groups arise in all nations and it is their presence and power that ultimately destroys the nations they dominate.
Mancur Olsen’s theory, the Logic Of Collective Action, posits the longer a nation is stable, the more likely special interest groups will rise and dominate that nation’s affairs and economy, making that nation less efficient and less productive and by so doing contribute to its ultimate downfall.
In a paper at Cornell University, Chia-chen Chou sheds light on Olsen’s Logic of Collective Action as follows:
Special interest organizations and collisions (distributional coalitions) reduceefficiency and make political life more divisive. Distributional coalitions struggle tomaximize their own self-interests, that is, share of the national income rather thanfinding ways of increasing this income. [bold mine]:
Thus, special interest groups attempting to get a bigger slice of the pie will lead to decreased societal production…The underlying logic of collective action and its implications provide a general explanation for the economic growth and decline of states. The longer the period of stable government, the more special interest groups will form to rob the economy. [bold mine]:
Olsen’s Logic of Collective Action explains the increasing divisiveness of American politics, Wall Street’s successful robbery of America’s wealth, and the military-industrial complex’s role in America’s demise as a world power; and now that these issues have been resolved, the question remains, what’s next?
GOLD AND SILVER & THE COMING COLLAPSE
Societal collapse and widespread suffering are prospects I do not enjoy contemplating; and, were it not for my deep belief that what we see is what we see, not all there is, I would face the future with far less equanimity than I do.
We are in for some truly terrible times. The green shoots “seen” by Geithner and Bernanke make the LSD-based hallucinations of my generation seem rooted in rational experience; but those believing in these hallucinatory green shoots will find reality to be far different when the banker’s world of credit-based paper disintegrates.
According to Mancur Olsen’s theory, it is the dominance of special interest groups, e.g. the bankers, the healthcare industry, the military-industrial complex, etc., that led to the demise of the power and influence of the US.
Bankers are well aware of this entropic decline and are repositioning themselves in China and other nations where expansion still seems to be the order of the day. In this, they will fail, for the collapse of the West’s paper-based financial system will affect all nations, not just those now in decline.
Credit-based capital markets are in extreme distress everywhere and were it not for heavy government aid and intervention, they would have already collapsed. The bankers’ credit-based paper money has weakened the entire global economy and when it collapses, all credit-based paper money could be virtually worthless with only gold and silver retaining monetary value.
The case for gold and silver is simple as it is old; as the same story has been repeated during the last 1,000 years, first in the East then in the West. Gold and silver were money. Then paper currencies backed by gold and silver were introduced by bankers and governments and were substituted for gold and silver. Then gold and silver were removed from paper money because governments had spent the gold while printing more and more paper money. As a result, every experiment with paper money ended in disaster.
Note: On the subject of paper money, I highly recommend Ralph T. Foster’s Fiat Paper Money—The History And Evolution Of Our Currency. To order email tfdf(at)pacbell.net, phone (510) 645-3015, address: 2189 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, CA 94704 USA.
Today, paper money is far different than paper money fifty years ago. In 1959, the US dollar was still convertible to gold and 35 US dollars could be exchanged for one ounce of the precious metal. Today, it would take 900 to 1,000 US dollars to purchase that same ounce of gold.
This is the true cost of accepting the banker’s paper coupons as money. Over time, the banker’s paper money loses more and more value. We are in the end-times of our experiment with the bankers’ paper money and the system it gave rise to, credit-based capital markets.
Those who have their wealth invested in paper-based IOUs, e.g. treasuries, bonds, etc., will suffer the most in the coming meltdown. In the coming days, paper-based IOUs will become increasingly worthless and in the coming years, most IOUs will have little or no value, including government treasuries and currencies, as IOUs increasingly become ICPs—I Can’t Pay.
This is because the largest bubble of capitalism’s end-game is being formed right now, a bubble of stupendous proportions, a bubble composed of extraordinary amounts of government debt; and, when this bubble bursts, governments and their citizens will be its victims.
Of course, Goldman Sachs and the rest of the paper boys are hoping the vast majority of investors will continue to believe in their paper promises and will continue to leave their paper money on the table, their table, and to let the bankers do with it what they will.
This is the reason that financial interest groups have marshaled their considerable resources to defend paper markets against the increasing threat of rising prices of gold and silver as the price of gold and silver indicates the level of systemic distress in paper-based capital markets.
Over the past decade, private bankers have emptied national treasuries of gold bullion, selling this bullion on the open market in order to keep the price of gold low in order to mask the increasing vulnerability of their paper-based assets.
The US claims the US Treasury still holds approximately 7,000-8,000 tons of gold but has not allowed a public audit of its reserves since 1954; and since 1999 the UK and Swiss have seen their gold reserves decimated as bankers freely sold their gold in order to cap the rise in the price of gold to keep the banker’s paper money scheme intact.
This is perhaps the last opportunity for private investors to purchase gold when it is being diverted from public treasuries in order to keep gold prices artificially low. These publicly subsidized prices will not be available forever; for when the banker’s Ponzi-scheme of paper money collapses, gold will never again be this cheap.
But most investors will continue to play the banker’s game with the banker’s paper money and continue to invest in paper assets as it is the only game they know. What they don’t know is that the banker’s game is almost over; and, for those who understand what is happening, this is the opportunity of a lifetime to profit—and to survive.
PROFESSOR FEKETE AND THE GOLD STANDARD
Understanding how this crisis occurred is of the utmost importance if we are to prevent its reoccurrence. On November 2nd through the 5th in Canberra, Australia, the Gold Standard Institute will present Professor Antal E. Fekete in a series of lectures, Peace Through Prosperity: Gold Standard In The 21st Century.
Today, there exists little understanding of the true role of the gold standard and those who benefit from our credit-driven excesses do not want us to know that such excesses were prevented in the past and can be again. This is what the gold standard is designed to do.
I cannot recommend more highly the intellectual breadth and humanity that Professor Fekete brings to the table and I encourage all who can attend to do so. I, and others, will be speaking at the event. For inquiries: email feketeaustralia@gmail.com
GOLDMAN SACHSTHE KING PIMP OF WALL STREET
Goldman Sachs is today the pre-eminent paper player in today’s paper markets, the king pimp of capitalism, Wall Street’s equivalent of Harlem’s fabled players of the past who lived opulently off the considerable labors of female prostitutes.
But the pimps on Wall Street have done Harlem’s pimps one better. Goldman Sachs and their fellow pimps benefit not just from the labor of women but from the labor of men as well.
The following is dedicated to the hard-working men and women of America:
Goldman Sachs’s your pimp Who’s put America on the streetYou do the bidding of Wall StreetPaying their bonuses and their keep
The bankers get your moneyNo matter what you sayThen they cut your creditAnd charge you more for it each day What’s a two-bit whore to do?Complain to the pimp who’s pimping you?What’s a two-bit whore to do?Complain to the pimp who’s pimping you?
The bankers print your moneyAnd charge you while they doBut the bankers at the Federal ReserveAre no more Federal than me ‘n you
You may not like the payAnd the streets are awfully badBut you’re gonna keep getting worked to death‘til you know that you’ve been had
What’s a two-bit whore to do?Complain to the pimp who’s pimping you?What’s a two-bit whore to do?Complain to the pimp who’s pimping you?
When Wall Street pimps take their cut of America’s money, they’re not alone. Without the US government, the pimps of Wall Street couldn’t do you like they do. There are two hands in your pockets—and they’re not yours.
Buy gold, buy silver, have faith
Copyright © 2009 Darryl Schoon
Niall Ferguson is one of those rare characters: a respected scholar who's also a successful popularizer. Ferguson, a Brit, has taught at Oxford and New York University and is now at Harvard. He has written about World War I, the British Empire and the Rothschilds (Europe's most powerful banking family). He has turned four of his projects into TV documentaries, the latest of which -- "The Ascent of Money," also a book -- begins airing on PBS on Wednesday. It is a program that could be usefully viewed by most of America's roughly 13,000 economists. One intriguing subplot of the economic crisis is the failure of most economists to predict it. Here we have the most spectacular economic and financial crisis in decades -- possibly since the Great Depression -- and the one group that spends most of its waking hours analyzing the economy basically missed it. Oh, a few economists can legitimately claim some foresight. But they are a handful. Most were as surprised as the rest of us.Why? This is a compelling question without, as yet, a compelling answer. Indeed, so far as I can tell, economists have not engaged in rigorous self-criticism to explain their lapse. We've had some casual theories and some partisan recriminations: "Free-market ideology" is a standard scapegoat on the assumption that most economists are "free-market ideologues." But that's not true. In any case, the crisis surprised liberal and conservative economists, Republicans and Democrats alike.This brings us back to Ferguson. The creation of money was a seminal historic event; so was the subsequent invention of finance -- the saving and investing of money. Without them, we could never have moved beyond barter to a modern economy based on specialization and building for the future. But these advances came interwoven with bubbles, crashes, swindles and hyperinflations. Finance has been a wellspring of both progress and instability.Ferguson is an able guide. He relates the creation of the bond market by Italian city-states in the 14th century as a way to finance their wars against each other; he explains the South Sea and Mississippi "bubbles" in England and France around 1720 -- stock market manipulations based on fantasized riches in the New World; and, finally, he visits the recent housing bubble.Ferguson's breezy tour suggests two reasons the present crisis embarrassed most economists. The first involves finance itself. The crisis originated in financial markets (the markets for stocks, bonds and many complex securities), and yet finance occupies a peripheral position in mainstream economics. It's studied by a subset of economists, and financial markets -- their ups, downs and side effects -- are not considered big sources of economic expansions and slumps. Economists tend to focus directly on the spending of consumers, businesses and government. It was also widely assumed that deposit insurance and the existence of the Federal Reserve would prevent financial panics.Well, if you de-emphasize financial markets and financial markets are decisive, you're out to lunch. Financial markets pumped up the real estate bubble; greater housing and stock market wealth inspired a consumer spending boom; losses on "subprime" mortgage securities triggered a collapse of confidence. Some economists have grudgingly, if obscurely, conceded error. A study by the International Monetary Fund called "Initial Lessons of the Crisis" admits: There "was an under-appreciation of systemic risks coming from . . . financial sector feedbacks onto the real economy." That's an understatement.Overshadowing the misunderstanding of finance is a larger mistake: ignoring history. By and large, most economists don't care much about history. Introductory college textbooks spend little, if any, time exploring business cycles of the 19th century. The emphasis is on "principles of economics" (the title of many basic texts), as if most endure forever. Economists focused on constructing elegant, mathematical models. "For years theorists held the intellectual high ground," writes economic historian Barry Eichengreen of the University of California at Berkeley. They were "the high-prestige members of the profession."History is messy and constantly changing, as Ferguson reminds us. It flows from institutions, technologies, laws, cultural and religious values, governments, popular beliefs, and much more. Model-building and theorizing can sometimes simplify the real world in ways that provide insights. But often, the models' assumptions depart so radically from reality that the conclusions become useless. Someone who studies history becomes humble in the face of the ceaseless changes and capricious mixing of motives.Economists thought they had solved the problem of economic stability. Their tools sufficed to prevent widespread economic collapse, even if they couldn't control every twist in the business cycle. This conceit may have once been true. No more. Markets became more complex; more money crossed national borders; people became complacent. History moved on, but economists didn't.
Contesting the Mainstream
by Sumet Jumsai
A little over a year ago, architect William Lim, the conscience of Singapore, published a book called “Asian Alterity – with special reference to Architecture & Urbanism through the lens of Cultural Studies”. The following article is a commentary published with the book. It is slightly edited and reproduced here with permission of the book’s author.
William Lim’s book has little to do with architecture and planning. But it is a tremendous compendium of the world’s woes and the direction which must be taken if the planet’s catastrophe is to be averted. It is an eschatological statement. Nevertheless it is one that has to be seriously listened to and acted upon.
The topics in this compendium mainly evolve around the conflict – intellectual, economic and military – between West and nonWest. The former began in western Europe in our epoque and culminated with the hegemony of the USA, while the latter, we are told, comprises a ragbag of the oppressed, the marginalized, the excolonies and the Islamic world. (I don’t know who colonized whom in 8th century Spain, and in half of the Mediteranean for over 800 years from the 12th century). There is, in this respect, an overflow of sympathy for the underdogs including the Mujahedin and the like (the Taliban too ?) and not a word for the poor Buddhists who had no fatwa to declare when the Bamiyan Buddha statue was blown up or when monks were decapitated in Thailand’s deep south.
The focus of attack, however, is America, especially under the Bush Administration and its firebrand evangelism. America’s value system has to be opposed, its “culture of greed” challenged, the “ferocious profitdriven US” or the “neoliberalism capitalism”, synonymous with globalization, has to be stopped. To do this the nonWest must apply a totally new strategy mainly conceptual and intellectural which is summed up in contemporary multiplemodernities, the whole under the umbrella title of Alterity, with the young people of the world as the standard bearers.
Indeed, William Lim has a soft spot for the young and their life style including their “skate boards, surfboards, graffiti…” and the Woodstock type of events. Moreover, the young people he is referring to are not only in the nonWest since they also spread out in niches throughout the West. Being inevitably the future of mankind, they must take matters into their own hands and set up alternatives to problemsolving, at the same time creating new intellectual premises with which to combat those of the mainstream whether in economics, art and architecture, or planning.
In economics, William Lim contests its Darwinian premise of the survival of the fittest and the Club of Rome’s thesis in the 60’s based on Malthus who held that the world is finite with, therefore, finite resources, which in turn implies that “it has to be either you or me”. He does not say so in so many words, but he posits that economics should be equipped with ethics as part and parcel of the discipline. This is an important point, and I think that all the school and university subjects – law, business administration, accountancy, engineering, art & architecture and urban planning should have such moral components, without religious credos, as integral parts of their curricula.
The Thai monarch’s philosophy and grassroots programme known as “Sufficiency Economy” deserve to be mentioned at this point. King Bhumibol, who has in the past 40 years initiated some 3,000 projects, mainly communitybased, counters the ever faster economic spin and the increasing frenetic pace of life in today’s globalized world with a philosophy based on the Middle Path. He practises what he preaches by setting up programmes that turn villages into sufficiencyeconomic models. Heavy debts due to consumerism are replaced by substantial community savings while the village itself institutes its own forest conservation, management of basic natural resources, forest fire fighting, vocational training (geared to local needs) and homestay scheme, which has become an attraction for tourists who wish to experience the “sufficiencyeconomy” phenomenon. All this stood opposite to the highflying economic management of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was closely connected with Temasek and whose rolemodels included Lee Kwan Yew, Silvio Berlusconi, and Mahathir Mohamad.
One of the most important points taken up by William Lim is the Chinese miracle. The main generating energy of China today is due to its history. It entails the attitude that if it has been done before, it can be done again. Which is to say that if China had once been the world leader in science and technology, as well as in art and philosophy, then it could be so again. People without history would have psychological blockage and lack such determination.
In parallel to history, the money factor looms large. Whereas before, capital was concentrated in London and then New York, money is now quickly gravitating towards Shanghai, Beijing and other Chinese cities. Globalization in about 20 years’ time will result in Chinese being a parallel global language, the computer language and beyond that, the language of the future. With money presently concentrated in the AngloSaxon world, the English language is naturally today’s common currency. With the “USA of the East” taking over the helm of globalization, school children everywhere will have to learn about besides Plato (whose Republic echos William Lim’s proposition of common property – though I don’t know whether Lim includes women in the grand scheme of sharing as Plato did), Aristotle, Pythagoras, the Renaissance scientists and artists, Shakespeare, Newton, Francis Crick, etc. medical scientist Wha Tuo who in the 2nd century BC practised inoculation, anaesthesia and brain surgery ; the 5th century mathematician Tsu ChhungChih who worked out the phi value to ten decimal places (the Arabs and the Greeks before him could not do so without the decimalized abacus, which was invented in the 14th century BC), Su Sung who, in 1088 AD built the first mechanical clock, which was originally conceived by IHsing and Lian Lingtsan early in the 8th century, and Zheng He, the navigator and explorer before the time of Vasgo da Gama and Amerigo Vespucci.
I am afraid I am going a little beyond my mandate by commenting on Alterity, whether West or nonWest, by taking modernity back quite a few millennia. I will then end, in the same spirit, by prognosticating modernity in the future context. Since the future hinges on creating more with less – to give just one example : chips are becoming increasingly miniaturized while performing more and more functions – the Chinese script, which has evolved from pictographs, happens to be in the same vein as the symbols used in the computer language, each being the condensate for a complex of meanings but otherwise instantly understood by children who have an unfettered mind. The future will forego the troublesome combination of letters to form words in order to form sentences for conveying messages. Instead, it will continue with the miniaturization of messages that leads to the pictographic language.
Quite soon, the issue in this book will be reversed namely it will be East versus nonEast. William Lim and I will be reborn to witness the turnaround, and he will have to write to contest the former on behalf of the latter, and I another commentary.
OVERDRIVE: Good governance is no substitute for virtue
The
other day Sumeth Tantivejkul, the secretary of His Majesty the King's Chai Pattana Foundation, expressed His Majesty's concern over the rampant corruption that threatens to wreak havoc on the fabric of Thai society.
"If corruption keeps going on like this, the country will be in total ruin.
This country belongs to whom? To His Majesty the King alone? We all have a responsibility to protect our land.
We now have various organisations in society that can play their appropriate role.
I have a little hope that if we can rally team spirit, we can eliminate this disease from this country," he said.
Sumeth also implied that the current level of corruption could partly be attributed to confusion over the usage of the phrase "good governance".
He said: "We embrace good governance as a craze, although it is the blueprint for wholesale corruption, as in the case of Enron .
.
.
In our country we already have good things.
His Majesty the King said he would govern with Dharma.
He made this declaration 57 years ago before the phrase good governance came into being.
We, the Thai people, don't see the good things that are near us.
But when good governance comes around, we get excited or carried away.
People try to translate good governance as thammaphibal or thammarat.
But still they don't understand what it really means.
" Sumeth added: "His Majesty the King said good governance is Dharma.
You don't have to translate it into thammaphibal or anything else and give yourself a headache.
Dharma is virtue.
" Good governance has been in vogue in Thailand since the 1997-1998 economic crisis.
At that time critics from other countries charged that the roots of the Thai crisis were to be found in nepotism, crony capitalism or outright corruption.
In other words, Thailand lacked good corporate governance in its version of the capitalist system and therefore deserved to be punished for its financial sins.
You may recall that Thirayudh Boonmee, the social critic from Thammasat University, came out during that period to advocate good corporate and public governance as a way out for Thailand.
There ensued a debate as to how to translate the word governance.
Some say thammaphibal is the right word, others thammarat.
Indeed, few have tried to understand the crisis of capitalism from the Buddhist point of view.
If we embrace Dharma as the foundation of our practices, we can be assured of getting good results.
We may summarise the Lord Buddha's teachings in three main principles: do no evil; do good; and purify the mind.
The present pace of corruption is so rapid because the people have failed in pursuing Dharma, or virtue, rather than because of some lack of good governance.
Good governance is a phrase coined by the people in the accounting world to compromise the idea of virtue.
In good governance, you only have to pursue a degree of transparency and accountability and then allow other people to cross-check your work to be considered a good corporate citizen.
From this point of view, good governance has to be qualified.
But in Dharma, virtue cannot be compromised.
Neither is it necessary to qualify virtue.
It is this underlying message that Sumeth would like to send out to the Thai people, whom he would advise not to be carried away by ideas of good governance or any form of goodness that can be compromised or camouflaged with accounting or legal tricks.
The Thai people should instead look to the Dharma and embrace it as a foundation of virtue.
Only then will they be able understand the whole situation and take part in the campaign against corruption.
Sufficiency Theory, as espoused by His Majesty the King, calls for a middle-path practice, like Buddhism, which can be applied to all the sphere of human activities.
It does not go against globalisation or the principle of a free market, but it urges moderation and "self-immunity" as pointed out by MR Pridiyathorn Devakula, the deputy prime minister and finance minister.
If you practice moderation, you should not run into debt beyond your ability to repay.
With moderation, businesses or economies should not over-leverage their borrowings, otherwise they would run into a 1997-style crisis again.
If you run your business with moderation, you reduce the chance of bankruptcy.
With self-immunity, you have to make sure that when the worst comes, you have to survive.
Again, businesses and economies must make sure that they can survive, say, a Sars epidemic, a global oil shock or terror attacks.
Thailand is now buying oil imports equivalent to 10 per cent of its GDP.
This goes against sufficiency.
For when the price of oil rises, the overall economy is hurt.
So Thailand has to find alternative resources of energy to reduce this high oil bill.
If it can cut oil imports to 3-4 per cent of GDP, then it is practising sufficiency theory.
As you can see, we don't practise sufficiency theory by cutting back oil imports 100 per cent.
We only need to bring the risk down to a level we can manage.
By practising moderation and self-immunity, you are pursuing sufficiency - not self-sufficiency.
OVERDRIVE: Good governance is no substitute for virtue
The
other day Sumeth Tantivejkul, the secretary of His Majesty the King's Chai Pattana Foundation, expressed His Majesty's concern over the rampant corruption that threatens to wreak havoc on the fabric of Thai society.
"If corruption keeps going on like this, the country will be in total ruin.
This country belongs to whom? To His Majesty the King alone? We all have a responsibility to protect our land.
We now have various organisations in society that can play their appropriate role.
I have a little hope that if we can rally team spirit, we can eliminate this disease from this country," he said.
Sumeth also implied that the current level of corruption could partly be attributed to confusion over the usage of the phrase "good governance".
He said: "We embrace good governance as a craze, although it is the blueprint for wholesale corruption, as in the case of Enron .
.
.
In our country we already have good things.
His Majesty the King said he would govern with Dharma.
He made this declaration 57 years ago before the phrase good governance came into being.
We, the Thai people, don't see the good things that are near us.
But when good governance comes around, we get excited or carried away.
People try to translate good governance as thammaphibal or thammarat.
But still they don't understand what it really means.
" Sumeth added: "His Majesty the King said good governance is Dharma.
You don't have to translate it into thammaphibal or anything else and give yourself a headache.
Dharma is virtue.
" Good governance has been in vogue in Thailand since the 1997-1998 economic crisis.
At that time critics from other countries charged that the roots of the Thai crisis were to be found in nepotism, crony capitalism or outright corruption.
In other words, Thailand lacked good corporate governance in its version of the capitalist system and therefore deserved to be punished for its financial sins.
You may recall that Thirayudh Boonmee, the social critic from Thammasat University, came out during that period to advocate good corporate and public governance as a way out for Thailand.
There ensued a debate as to how to translate the word governance.
Some say thammaphibal is the right word, others thammarat.
Indeed, few have tried to understand the crisis of capitalism from the Buddhist point of view.
If we embrace Dharma as the foundation of our practices, we can be assured of getting good results.
We may summarise the Lord Buddha's teachings in three main principles: do no evil; do good; and purify the mind.
The present pace of corruption is so rapid because the people have failed in pursuing Dharma, or virtue, rather than because of some lack of good governance.
Good governance is a phrase coined by the people in the accounting world to compromise the idea of virtue.
In good governance, you only have to pursue a degree of transparency and accountability and then allow other people to cross-check your work to be considered a good corporate citizen.
From this point of view, good governance has to be qualified.
But in Dharma, virtue cannot be compromised.
Neither is it necessary to qualify virtue.
It is this underlying message that Sumeth would like to send out to the Thai people, whom he would advise not to be carried away by ideas of good governance or any form of goodness that can be compromised or camouflaged with accounting or legal tricks.
The Thai people should instead look to the Dharma and embrace it as a foundation of virtue.
Only then will they be able understand the whole situation and take part in the campaign against corruption.
88888888888888888888888888
Sufficiency
The King delivered his royal speech to representatives of associations, religious organisations, teachers, students from schools, colleges and universities on the occasion of the royal Birth Day anniversay at the Dusidalai hall, Chitiralalda Villa, Dusit Palace on December 4, 1974.
"What others may say does not matter, whether they say that Thailand is old-fashioned or that we are outdated. Anyhow, we have enough to live on and to live for, and this should be the wish and determination of all of us to see sufficiency in this country. It is not that we will attain supreme prosperity, but we will have a sustainable and peaceful country. If we keep the sustainability, we already can be considered the top in comparison with other countries beset as they are by crises and decline due to greet and rivalry for power, economic and industrial progress and in matters of ideology. So, for me, it will prove to be a birthday present of lasting value and benefit, if each of you, with your ideas and power of persuasion, enjoin on others who also have the same intentions, the determination to preserve the community so that we are able to enjoy the reasonable way of life -- and I stress the reasonable, sustainable, and peaceful conditions -- defending ourselves against anyone who may want to rob us of our innate qualities," His Majesty said.
Buddhist economics
A revisit to Buddhist economics as a way out
THE CRASH of the Thai economy and the baht in 1997 led me to Buddhist economics. I came to know the works of the Venerable Prayudh Payutto, one of Thailand's most revered monks. Phra Payutto has sharp insight in both the religious realm and world affairs.
Based on his philosophy, I wrote about Buddhist economics in a 1998 Nation article, criticising Alan Greenspan's mode of capitalism as unsustainable. But who cared then, as Greenspan was known as the champion of the free market? Now Greenspan is accused of causing the US bubble and the current global crisis. Greenspan has recently admitted that he erred by believing that (through liberalisation and less or no regulation) bankers would look after the interests of their shareholders. That is not the case.
The latest edition of Time magazine devotes its cover to Karl Marx and asks what has gone wrong with capitalism. European leaders are now very sceptical of US-style capitalism. But they aren't sure yet of the alternative, though they have been following social democracy and market economy. Former British prime minister Tony Blair said: "Ask the experts what to do, and the most honest reply is 'I don't know'."
But in Thailand we have Buddhist economics, which has been around for more than 1,000 years, and the sufficiency economy model as championed by His Majesty the King. Going forward, more people will come to appreciate Buddhist economics and sufficiency economy, as the world is facing, as one participant at the World Economic Forum in Davos pointed out, "boom and Armageddon".
Here is what I wrote in 1998:
"The impending collapse of the global capital system could heighten the interest of economists and thinkers on Buddhist economics, expounded by Thailand's candidate for this year's [1998] Nobel Peace Prize, the Venerable Prayudh Payutto.
"A distinguished monk and a foremost Buddhist scholar, Payutto has devoted his service to the layman's understanding of the Buddhist doctrine, the foundation of which he rigorously combines with other disciplines, including economics.
Venerable Payudh Payutto
"In his remarkable, and very readable, work, 'Buddhist Economics: The Middle Way for the Marketplace', Payutto combines his interpretation of dhamma with the force of economics at work to illustrate a profound way in which economics should be treated, understood and practised.
"From the outset, Buddhist economics evokes a self-sufficient, stoic-like society, where the buying and selling, the production and consumption of goods and services adhere to strict ethical standards. But Payutto goes so far as to embrace the Buddha's teachings as the foundation of truth, relative truth or ultimate truth, which are related to good and evil. In this sense, dhamma is used to describe the conditions or the cause and effects, the process, by which all things exist and function.
"In conventional economics, when there is a demand for, say, whisky, it is supplied by production - growing grain, distilling it into liquor and distributing it to the consumers. 'When it is consumed, demand is satisfied. Modern economic thinking stops here, at the satisfaction of the demand. There is no investigation of what happens after the demand is satisfied,' Payutto says.
"By contrast, he says, economics inspired by dhamma would be concerned with how economic activities influence the entire process of cause and condition, which will essentially affect the three interconnected spheres of human existence: individual, society and nature or the environment. 'In the case of the demand for a commodity such as whisky, we would have to ask ourselves how liquor production affects the ecology and how its consumption affects the individual and society,' he argues.
"'These are largely ethical considerations and this brings us back to the more specialised meanings of dhamma, relating to matters of good and evil. It is said in the Buddhist scriptures that good actions lead to good results and bad actions lead to bad results.'
"In conventional economics, the value of goods and services is determined by the consumers' perception as to whether it serves the satisfaction or the desire. In Buddhist economics, there are two kinds of desires or two kinds of value: true value and artificial value. 'True value is created by chanda (good desire). In other words, a commodity's true value is determined by its ability to meet the need for well-being. Conversely, artificial value is created by tanha (bad desire) - it is a commodity's capacity to satisfy the desire for pleasure,' Payutto says.
"It follows that goods and services in the Buddhist society are consumed only to maintain the well-being and not to serve the pleasure of the flesh or the senses, without any specific purposes. Spiritual enlightenment is the ultimate purpose of a Buddhist society, whereas in capitalism, ever-higher standards of living, material possessions or more wealth is the final tenet.
"Payutto's explanation of production is also revealing. In general, production is understood as a process by which new things are created. But Payutto argues that, in fact, production is simply a conversion of one substance to another.
"'These conversions entail the creation of a new state by the destruction of an old one. Thus, production is always accompanied by destruction. In some cases the destruction is acceptable, in others it is not.'
"On this front, Payutto's approach is quite different from what Alan Greenspan tried to explain in a recent speech at the University of California, Berkeley. Greenspan argued that the accumulation of American wealth was not the work of a 'new economy' or any miracle, but a continuing process of 'creative destruction' whereas the old regimes are destroyed to give way for the new.
"Greenspan said the American economy, like all advanced capitalist economies, is continually in the process of what Joseph Schumpeter decades ago called 'creative destruction'.
"The capital stock - the plan and equipment that facilitates our production of goods and services - can be viewed, with only a little exaggeration, as continuously being torn down and rebuilt.
"Our capital stock and the level of skills of our workforce are effectively being upgraded as competition presses business management to find increasingly innovative and efficient ways to meet the ever-rising demands of consumers for quantity, quality and variety. Supply and demand have been interacting over the generations in a competitive environment to propel standards of living higher.
"Buddhist economics will find that this American version of capitalism not sustainable, since the wealth and the satisfaction of artificial desires, without taking into account the consequences, cannot be met forever, for it defies the law of nature. Greenspan believes that innovative technology, which helps American firms to hold down their costs, and the underlying sound financial system, will continue to drive this American wealth well into the next century.
"But to what end?"
####################################
The Thai monarchy is a revered institution that represents what Thailand is and has been for more than 700 years, since the Sukhothai era. It brings together Thai traditions and culture, and social, political and Buddhist beliefs.
Dr Sumet Jumsai, the well-known architect, once told me that he is a monarchist, not a royalist.
There is a big difference between these two words. A monarchist is a believer who has faith in the monarchy as a conceptual and structural system that embodies all the values of Thailand, or Suvarnabhumi, the Land of Gold. A royalist is one who is loyal to royalty. A monarchist embraces monarchy in a universal sense, whereas a royalist might approach the monarchy through individuals in a particular sense.
This has given rise to a widespread misconception that the Privy Council, of which former prime minister General Prem Tinsulanonda is president, is the monarchy. In fact, the Privy Council is only a functional agency that serves the monarchy. The Privy Council is not the monarchy. The Privy Council gives counsel to His Majesty the King, who will use his own judgement on whether to take or not to take that counsel.
Thaksin Shinawatra and his red-shirt supporters have been trying to link the Privy Council to the monarchy. They have been attacking General Prem as the mastermind of the 2006 coup and, by extension, giving the impression that His Majesty the King has been behind it all.
In Thaksin's latest interview in the Financial Times, he showed no restraint. He charged that the King had held an assembly of General Prem, General Surayud Chulanont and other Privy Council members and the military before approving the 2006 coup. This is far from the truth.
As a matter of fact, His Majesty did not personally approve the 2006 coup, neither did he approve the 1991 coup against the Chatichai government. But since the coup was a fait accompli, the King had to give his endorsement to keep the country moving, otherwise there would be a vacuum in the administration of the country. No government and no new legitimate government means a political void and a state of chaos.
His Majesty plays by the rules to keep the country from falling apart. Although he personally may not approve of certain legislation or coups, he has to give them his endorsement to keep the country moving. As he strictly plays by the rules, he is universally respected. So when there are no rules or unprecedented cases, he speaks out or gives his opinion. And when he speaks, the Thai people listen because they trust that his opinions are meant for the best of Thailand.
The King is at times called Prachao yu hua or Pho luang, or the "Royal Father". This term can be traced back to the Sukhothai era. Pho Khun Ramkhamhaeng was a Sukhothai king. But his relationship with his subjects was like a father governing his children.
The Thais know deep in their heart that Pho luang would never mean anything bad for Thailand. Pho luang is selfless. He is not a divine king, a demi-god or devaraja (an Indian or Hindu concept) as Paul Handley's "The King Who Never Smiles" suggests, although most of the royal or religious ceremonies associated with the monarchy are influenced by Brahminism. But rather His Majesty is a Pho luang or Prachao phaen din in the tradition of Sukhothai's Pho Khun.
King Ramkhamhaeng the Great, who ruled like a father over his children, represents an ideal concept of Thai kingship.
As a Pho luang or Prachao phaen din, the King practices the 10 virtues of Kingship. Since he has been accumulating virtue from good deeds in past and present lives, he will be born again as a higher being. This is the reincarnation of the human life. The ultimate aim is to become an Enlightened One like the Lord Buddha, so that one can break away from the cycle of life and death. The devaraja concept of the monarch is wrong because a devajara is still subject to the cycle of life and death.
Unfortunately for Thailand, recent political upheavals have tried to destroy this unique feature of the Thai political system, in which the monarchy is an integral part. Thailand has the most unique political system in the world, with the monarchy as the ultimate symbol and stabiliser of last resort. But some quarters of Thai society are intent on destroying this system due to their ignorance and arrogance, and through their belief that liberal democracy and capitalism will bring stability and prosperity to the country.
The monarchy has been conveniently branded as belonging to the elite, including the military and the bureaucracy. One cannot categorise the monarchy as belonging to the same group as the military and the bureaucratic elite. The monarchy is above both. If the monarchy had banked its survival on the military and the bureaucracy, it would not have achieved the universal respect it has, or lasted until today.
The monarchy's survival depends on the popular support of the Thai people as a whole. The monarchy must be judged by its relationship with the majority of Thais.
The Monarchy and us
The Monarchy is the Monarchy, both as a powerful concept that represents what Thailand is and always have been at least over the past more than 700 years since the Sukhothai era; and as a institution that brings together the Thai tradition, culture, social, political and Buddhistic beliefs.
Dr Sumate Jumsai, the well-known architect, has once told me that he is a monarchist -- not a royalist.
There is a big difference between these two words. A monarchist is a believer and one who has faith in the Monarchy as a conceptual and structural system that embodies all the values that are Thailand, or Suvarnabhumi which is the Land of Gold. A royalist is one who is loyal to Royalty. A monarchist embraces Monarchy in a universal sense, whereas a royalist might approach the Monarchy as individuals in a particular sense.
This has given rise to widespread misconception that the Privy Council, of which former prime minister, Gen Prem Tinsulanonda is president, is the Monarchy. In fact, the Privy Council is only another functional agency that serves the Monarchy. The Privy Council is not the Monarchy -- not even close.
The Privy Council gives counsel to His Majesty the King, who has the prerogatives to take or not to take those advices into his consideration. The Crown Property Bureau is not the Monarchy. It is a public institution, whose role is to manage the assets of the Monarchy which is itself an ultimate public institution of the highest reverence.
And the Yellow hirts are just yellowish, they are not the Monarchy.
Thaksin Shinawatra and his Red Shirt supporters have been trying, knowingly or unknowingly, to link the Privy Council to the Monarchy. They have been attacking Gen Prem as the mastermind of the 2006 coup and by extension giving an impression that His Majesty the King had been behind it all. Another disinformation that has been spreading out to the local people and foreigners is that since the Yellow Shirts held rallies in the past with pictures of His Majesty the King, they were working with the instruction from the King.
Thaksin's latest interview in the Financial Times no longer held back any restraint. He fabricated a charge that the King had held an assembly of Gen Prem, Gen Surayud Chulnanont and other privy council members and the military before approving a the 2006 coup. There is not a grain of truth in this fabrication because this incident did not take place. Thaksin based his charge on the account as related to him by Gen Pallop Pinamanee. So Gen Pallop must come forward to clarify the matter.
As the matter of fact, His Majesty did not personally approve the 2006 coup, neither did he approve the 1991 coup against the Chatichai government. But since the coup was a fait accompli, the King had to give his endorsement to keep the country moving otherwise there would be a vuccum in the administration of the country (no government and no new legitimate government turns into a state of political void and chaos).
His Majesty plays by the rules to keep the country from falling apart, although several times he personally does not approve the legislations or the coups but he has to give them the endorsements to keep things moving.
As he strictly plays by the rules, he is universally respected. So when there are no rules or cases of unprecedence, he speaks out or gives his opinions. And when he speaks, the Thai people listen to him because they trust that his opinions are meant for the best of Thailand.
The King is at times called Phor Luang, or the Royal Father. This term can be traced back to the Sukhothai era. Pho Khun Ramkhamhaeng was a Suthothai King. But his relationship with the subjects was like father governing his children. The Thais know deep in their heart that Phor Luang would never mean anything bad for Thailand. Phor Luang is selfless. He is not a divine king, a demi-God or Devaraja (Indian or Hindu concept) as Paul Handley's The King Never Smiles, Giles Ungphakorn or most foreign correspondents like to say, although most of the royal or religious ceremonies associated with the King are influenced by Brahminism. But rather His Majesty is a Phor Luang or Prachao Phaen Din in the tradition of the Pho Khun in the Sokhothai tradition.
King Ramkhamhaeng the Great, who rules like a father looking after his children, represents an ideal concept of Thai kingship.
As a Phor Luang or Prachao Phaen Din, the King practices the 10 virtues of Kingship. Since he has been accumulating his virtue or good deeds in the past and present lives, he will be born again as a higher being. This is the reincarnation of the human life. The ultimate aim is to become the Enlightened One as the Lord Buddha so that one can break away from the cycle of life and death. The Devaraja concept of His Majesty is wrong because Devajara is still subject to the cycle of life and death.
Unfortunately for Thailand, recent political upheavals have tried to destroy this unique feature of the Thai political system, in which the Monarchy is an integral part. Thailand has the most unique political system in the whole world, with the Monarchy as the ultimate symbol and stabiliser of the last resort. But we are about to destroy this sytem by our own hands, our ignorance and arrogance; and by our foolish belief that Democracy in its disguised form and Capitalism will bring stability and prosperity to the country.
The Monarchy has been conveniently branded as belonging to the Elite. Acccording to Thitinan Pongsuthirak in his article in the New York Times, the Thai elite, which consists of Monarchy, Military and Bureaucracy, is only interested in maintainin its power and interest at the expense of the poor Thais. The rise of the Red Shirts is a reactionary force against the elite, which needs to be quashed in order for the majority Thais to fulfil Democracy. This is a simple line of arguments that has been poisoning the mind of the public.
As I have argued, the Monarchy is the Monarchy. Its survival depends on the popular support from the Thai people as a whole. The Monarchy must be judged by its relation with the majority Thais. One cannot categorise the Monarchy as belonging to the same group of the military and the bureaucratic elite. The Monarchy is above the military and the bureaucratic system. If the Monarchy banks its survival on the military and the bureaucratic system, it would not have achieved the universal respect.
The King inherits a Kingdom that has gone astrayed since the 1932 coup. Then King Rama VII, his uncle, was about to embark on land and bureaucratic reform to lay the groundwork for a better economic system for the poor, but the elite and the military were afraid that they would lose their benefits, hence the 1932 coup. Then the global depression was hitting all countries in the world, including Thailand.
The King could have routed the coup makers with an army support from Nakhon Rachasima. But he did not want Thais to kill Thais. He was a gentleman. Like his predecessors, the Thai kings were self-less.
In 1935, when the King sensed that the democracy did not go to serve the interest of the Thais but only served the narrow interests of the military and the small elite, the King abdicated his throne and left the country for an exile in England.
Since 1932, the military and the politicians alternately have been sharing their power. It was not until the 1960s that we began to see the rise of the Chinese-Thai families, whose businesses started to flourish. Now the business and financial sector controls most of wealth of the Thai economy.
The middle-class benefited from the embrace of capitalism in the 1960s, with market opening measures. It was not until the 1980s during Gen Prem era that Thailand began import substitution policy and then exports flourished during the Chatichai administration. Afterwards, smaller companies started to flourish.
But the trickle down policy has never worked. The majority Thais have been left out. Now 75 per cent of the Thai population is having a share of 10 per cent of the GDP cake.
Thailand has found its new wealth at the expense of environmental destruction and the growing disparity of incomes between the rich and the poor, the urban and the rural due to the lack of proper planning during the intervening period.
We also have been facing a political overhang in power sharing. The majority Thais do not have any voices or rights in the direction of the country.
Sufficiency economics and Suvarnabhumi (Golden Land)
His Majesty the King has reached out to these underprivileged during his reign. Lately his health has not permitted him to be active in rural projects like in the past. For most of the Thais, they only expect to "pho mee pho kin" or have sufficiently to live and to eat." But the King's efforts alone can't raising the standard living of the living poor, 90 per cent of whose communities are not living sufficiently (they need to have higher incomes).
As the economy grows with global capitalism, the poor Thais are left behind with a wider gap. It will be an interesting scholar study to examine whether modern capitalism destroys the way of the rural Thais or whether the rural Thais fail to catch up with modern capitalism.
The King advocates sufficiency economics as a way to help the rural Thais live sufficiently according to their land and their environment. Once they can live sufficiently on their land and their environment, they can have savings for the future by selling the surplus.
But the system and the values of modernity keep drives the rural Thais away from their communities, resulting in a destruction of their social fabric. The local rich take advantage over them. The rural communities have become weakened further. Social inequality and injustice have been in Thailand long before the Red shirts phenomenon.
In fact, Thailand is one of the richest country in the world in term of resources. It has one of the best weather conditions, with few natural disasters. The Thai rice is the world's best. The Thai fruit is the world's best. The land is fertile and the plants can grow quite naturally. This is Suvarnabhumi, the sacred Golden Land protected by Phra Siam Thevathiraj.
In the Sukhothai period, there was a saying that nai nam mee pla, nai na mee khao (there is fish in the water; there is rice in the farmland). This implies that Suvarnabhumi was a very rich land. The ancient Thais were healthy because they ate fish and rice and vegetable, with all their herbal ingredients. Only later on with the influence of the Chinese did they start to eat pigs and chickens.
Since Suvarnabhumi is quite sufficient in itself and rich in natural resources, the people living on this land will never go poor. Yet we embrace western-style democracy and capitalism without preparing the base for the rural Thais or maintaining our agricultural strength, which is the backbone of the economy.
The value of sufficiency economics and the glory of Suvarnabhumi would only be realised after we witness the collapse of global capitalism, which is starting to happen later this year before spreading out the depression economics in the ensuing years.
The Yellow Shirts vs Red Shirts confrontation is the ultimate consequence of the disparity of the income gap, or knowledge of what is exactly going on and values in the Thai society. Now we still want democracy even though we don't know what it is or how to apply it for actual use.
No matter how perfect our Constitution is, we still will have the politicians in Parliament under the control of Banharn Silapa-archa, Newin Chidchob, Thaksin Shinawatra, Suthep Thuagsuban, Pinij Jarusombat, Snoh Thiengthong, Somsak Thepsuthin, Suwat Liptapalop, etc. They have Parliament and the executive branch in their palms. In political term, whenever we have the election, we say it nicely that finally the voice of the people has been heard because we have cast the ballots. But in reality, the Thai politics is rigged. No matter how we change or reform the politics or even have a coup, the old faces will return to haunt us. Thai democracy is hopeless.
On the other hand, if the majority Thais believe that we should not have the Monarchy, then so be it. If the majority Thais believe that we are blessed with the Monarchy and the rich tradition that no other countries in this world have, then we will continue to have the Monarchy as long as we can. The majority Thais alone will give their final say -- not the pseudo academics, foreign media, human rights advocates, NGOs, Marxists, or even Thaksin.
Some final thought
The dust is up in the air. A disinformation is being fed into the public opinion to give the impression that the Monarchy is no longer relevant to Thailand because its interest is tied to the Elite rather than the people in I-san or the North, who have been living under oppression. This disinformation banks on the existence of the lese majeste law, the 2006 coup, the censorship and the Yellow Shirt phenomenon as a violation of the democratic principles, human rights and the aspirations of the common Thais.
The propaganda is being shot out day in and day out. In the current conflict of the Romance of the Three (Thai) Kingdoms, it is all about power play and money politics. If the Blue and Red Kingdoms prevail over the Yellow Kingdom, the Blue Kingdom could go after the Red Kingdom afterward. The Red Shirt leftists are only pawns. Thaksin might still cannot make a comeback because the Blue would not want him to become their boss. The Blue and the Red are only having a shot-gun marriage, ready to break apart any time.
Still, Thailand is being trapped in the triangle of impossibility.
A tale of two floating markets
Posted by Thanong , Reader : 1297 , 13:35:11
Print
Published on February 20, 2009
ABOUT an hour-and-a-half drive from Bangkok, there is a tale of two floating markets. It tells a lot about Thailand's development and its interaction with the global economy.
At amphur Amphawa, Samut Songkhram, you can see a floating market and the traditional Thai life. There, sufficiency living is the way of life. About 20 kilometres away, you enter another province, Ratchaburi, home to the world famous Damnoen Saduak Floating Market. While the Amphawa Floating Market caters to local people, the Damnoen Saduak Floating Market attracts many foreign visitors, who are charmed by the waterborne merchants selling their farm produce and souvenirs from boats.
Easy going floating market at Amphawa, Samut Songkhram
Both floating markets are unique and may look similar on the surface. But as a Thai, you immediately tell a difference. The Amphawa market is more easy-going, kinder and gentler, while the Damnoen Saduak Market is noisier, busier and more business-like. The Amphawa market is less tainted by capitalism. Everything there is less pricey than at Damnoen Saduak, which has embraced capitalism in full force.
More capitalist version of floating market at Damneon Saduak, Rachaburi.
The Amphawa Floating Market has only come along in recent years. It started with an old lady paddling her boat along the sleepy Amphawa khlong selling Thai desserts. Somebody asked how much money she was making every day. She replied: "Sometimes I make money, sometimes I don't make any money. But money is not important. I am happy paddling along and going from place to place selling desserts. I want the Thai people to taste my desserts. I don't want to sell to the foreigners."
That was the old lady's innocent reply. But local authorities encouraged more boats on the same khlong over the weekend so that Amphawa could create a floating market. Gradually, more people brought boats to Amphawa and started to sell their wares and brought local tourists to see fireflies at night. Local banks also lent support by providing credit for small shops. Thus the Amphawa Floating Market came into being.
The people at Amphawa work during weekdays or have other businesses to attend to. But on Friday evening and over the weekend, they join the floating market by opening shops from their wooden homes. At a corner near the bridge across from the market, there is public karaoke where locals display their singing and dancing talent. You can enjoy good central Thai food there and buy local gifts at half the price as in Bangkok. You can sit and talk to the local people and they will tell you wonderful stories about their lives.
At Damnoen Saduak Floating Market, most of the shops cater to foreign tourists who come on buses from Bangkok. The local merchants do not have a pleasant look, unlike their counterparts at Amphawa. They are under more pressure to make money.
Which brings us to the question of the purpose of our life, or of our community. Should we live for happiness or should we live to make money? At Amphawa the people appear to set their aims at happiness first and money second, while at Damnoen Saduak there is a higher money consciousness. This is my general observation of the two floating markets, and it should not be regarded as a scientific discovery.
His Majesty the King has been telling us to live a sufficient life and be happy. If we know how to live sufficiently, we will demand less. And if we avoid vices and craving for world's pleasures (sil), we will have concentration (smathi). If we have concentration, we will have wisdom (panya).
This is a great philosophy of life, a living principle of Buddhism. We all have a different role to play in society. But at a certain point in life, we should learn to know when enough is enough, and to live a sufficient life.
Once back to Bangkok, you immediately plunge back into the mode of making money, without knowing when enough is enough. Global capitalism is falling apart because of greed. Most financial funds and banks are losing money because they expect unrealistic returns, accompanied by great risk. Those who lost money or life savings in the Ponzi scheme run by Bernie Madoff in the US were lured by the promise of a 12-per-cent return every year. A French nobleman shot himself to death because he lost more than US$1.5 billion (Bt53 billion) in Madoff's scheme.
The world will continue to face the boom and bust cycle of capitalism. The scale of the damage is becoming bigger, to the point where a sovereign country can easily go bankrupt. Capitalism will not go away, because greed is the dark side of human beings. It will find its way back, even though governments will introduce legislation and regulations to tame it. The problem won't go away.
If nations are to adopt sufficiency economic theory by putting happiness derived from sil, smathi and panya first before sheer greed, we will have a chance of creating a more peaceful world.
If you know the level of wealth you are happy living under, you'll be happy with yourself and adjust around that sufficient context. This is the Thai way of life that has been forgotten and that should be revived. Perhaps this should be the way of the world too.
At World Economic Foum in Davos, Switzerland,
Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard, his crimson and marigold robes standing out against the sea of dark gray and navy pinstripes at Davos, said it's time for an end to greed.
``We don't need to go back to what we had before,'' said Ricard, who gave up a career in cellular genetics 40 years ago and now is a translator for the Dalai Lama. ``This is the moment to take a more altruistic world view.''
The world has enough for people's needs, but not enough for people's greed,'' he told AP, paraphrasing Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi.
With him at the World Economic Forum, where 2,500 business and political leaders are meeting this week, stood David Green, a social entrepreneur who works to provide the poor in developing countries with basic services such as eye care.
``For too long people's objectives were all about acquiring, acquiring, acquiring. We need to look more at what we already have,'' he said.
``The world economy is in need of intense acupuncture,'' Green said.
Chinese healing methods, he suggested, could help the planet rebalance its energies and resources.
``There is a 5,000-year-old disease in progress. There needs to be a redistribution of resources among ourselves,'' he said.
This is sufficiency economics!!!!
#####################
By Thanong Khanthong
The Nation
Published on February 6, 2009
THE CRASH of the Thai economy and the baht in 1997 led me to Buddhist economics. I came to know the works of the Venerable Prayudh Payutto, one of Thailand's most revered monks. Phra Payutto has sharp insight in both the religious realm and world affairs.
Based on his philosophy, I wrote about Buddhist economics in a 1998 Nation article, criticising Alan Greenspan's mode of capitalism as unsustainable. But who cared then, as Greenspan was known as the champion of the free market? Now Greenspan is accused of causing the US bubble and the current global crisis. Greenspan has recently admitted that he erred by believing that (through liberalisation and less or no regulation) bankers would look after the interests of their shareholders. That is not the case.
The latest edition of Time magazine devotes its cover to Karl Marx and asks what has gone wrong with capitalism. European leaders are now very sceptical of US-style capitalism. But they aren't sure yet of the alternative, though they have been following social democracy and market economy. Former British prime minister Tony Blair said: "Ask the experts what to do, and the most honest reply is 'I don't know'."
But in Thailand we have Buddhist economics, which has been around for more than 1,000 years, and the sufficiency economy model as championed by His Majesty the King. Going forward, more people will come to appreciate Buddhist economics and sufficiency economy, as the world is facing, as one participant at the World Economic Forum in Davos pointed out, "boom and Armageddon".
Here is what I wrote in 1998:
"The impending collapse of the global capital system could heighten the interest of economists and thinkers on Buddhist economics, expounded by Thailand's candidate for this year's [1998] Nobel Peace Prize, the Venerable Prayudh Payutto.
"A distinguished monk and a foremost Buddhist scholar, Payutto has devoted his service to the layman's understanding of the Buddhist doctrine, the foundation of which he rigorously combines with other disciplines, including economics.
"In his remarkable, and very readable, work, 'Buddhist Economics: The Middle Way for the Marketplace', Payutto combines his interpretation of dhamma with the force of economics at work to illustrate a profound way in which economics should be treated, understood and practised.
"From the outset, Buddhist economics evokes a self-sufficient, stoic-like society, where the buying and selling, the production and consumption of goods and services adhere to strict ethical standards. But Payutto goes so far as to embrace the Buddha's teachings as the foundation of truth, relative truth or ultimate truth, which are related to good and evil. In this sense, dhamma is used to describe the conditions or the cause and effects, the process, by which all things exist and function.
"In conventional economics, when there is a demand for, say, whisky, it is supplied by production - growing grain, distilling it into liquor and distributing it to the consumers. 'When it is consumed, demand is satisfied. Modern economic thinking stops here, at the satisfaction of the demand. There is no investigation of what happens after the demand is satisfied,' Payutto says.
"By contrast, he says, economics inspired by dhamma would be concerned with how economic activities influence the entire process of cause and condition, which will essentially affect the three interconnected spheres of human existence: individual, society and nature or the environment. 'In the case of the demand for a commodity such as whisky, we would have to ask ourselves how liquor production affects the ecology and how its consumption affects the individual and society,' he argues.
"'These are largely ethical considerations and this brings us back to the more specialised meanings of dhamma, relating to matters of good and evil. It is said in the Buddhist scriptures that good actions lead to good results and bad actions lead to bad results.'
"In conventional economics, the value of goods and services is determined by the consumers' perception as to whether it serves the satisfaction or the desire. In Buddhist economics, there are two kinds of desires or two kinds of value: true value and artificial value. 'True value is created by chanda (good desire). In other words, a commodity's true value is determined by its ability to meet the need for well-being. Conversely, artificial value is created by tanha (bad desire) - it is a commodity's capacity to satisfy the desire for pleasure,' Payutto says.
"It follows that goods and services in the Buddhist society are consumed only to maintain the well-being and not to serve the pleasure of the flesh or the senses, without any specific purposes. Spiritual enlightenment is the ultimate purpose of a Buddhist society, whereas in capitalism, ever-higher standards of living, material possessions or more wealth is the final tenet.
"Payutto's explanation of production is also revealing. In general, production is understood as a process by which new things are created. But Payutto argues that, in fact, production is simply a conversion of one substance to another.
"'These conversions entail the creation of a new state by the destruction of an old one. Thus, production is always accompanied by destruction. In some cases the destruction is acceptable, in others it is not.'
"On this front, Payutto's approach is quite different from what Alan Greenspan tried to explain in a recent speech at the University of California, Berkeley. Greenspan argued that the accumulation of American wealth was not the work of a 'new economy' or any miracle, but a continuing process of 'creative destruction' whereas the old regimes are destroyed to give way for the new.
"Greenspan said the American economy, like all advanced capitalist economies, is continually in the process of what Joseph Schumpeter decades ago called 'creative destruction'.
"The capital stock - the plan and equipment that facilitates our production of goods and services - can be viewed, with only a little exaggeration, as continuously being torn down and rebuilt.
"Our capital stock and the level of skills of our workforce are effectively being upgraded as competition presses business management to find increasingly innovative and efficient ways to meet the ever-rising demands of consumers for quantity, quality and variety. Supply and demand have been interacting over the generations in a competitive environment to propel standards of living higher.
"Buddhist economics will find that this American version of capitalism not sustainable, since the wealth and the satisfaction of artificial desires, without taking into account the consequences, cannot be met forever, for it defies the law of nature. Greenspan believes that innovative technology, which helps American firms to hold down their costs, and the underlying sound financial system, will continue to drive this American wealth well into the next century.
"But to what end?" &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
sufficiency in the Thai word means "enough". If you think that you have enough, you will be alright. If you think that you must have more and more, you'll be doomed. In capitalism, all the players set out with a collective to have more and more. The basic rule is the free market. Through creative destruction, the weaker players will be weeded out. The stronger players will survive through survival of the fittest theory. But nobody ever thinks that what happens to the world when the strongest players fail? what happens when the market no longer works? What happens when there is total destruction rather than creative destruction?
O, we only have to return to the wisdom of the Lord Buddha and Thai style sufficiency theory. Ian, I appreciate your knowledge and practice now. I was only wondering about your previous writing, which talked down the sufficiency theory constantly as something of a Stone Age. People will only appreciate the sufficiency theory only when capitalism, for all of its excesses and greeds, has collapsed before their eyes. In Buddhism, excesses and greeds are the two most sinful elements of human beings and society. But in capitalism, greed is good. Greed drives growth and prosperity.But western-style of greed, governed by legal framework and governance, is not sustainable.
In Buddhism, we try to curb desire. If we have desire, we only steer the desire to do good for the society. I do not blame foreigners for failing to undertand Thailand because most of the Thais don't understand it too. They have been spoiled for too long. The Thais have also walked away from their strength.
Now we only have to re-examine our strength and values and rebuild the society again.
#######################
His Majesty the King has once again urged the Thaksin government and the Thai public to adopt his sufficiency economic theory as a way out.
In his address on Sunday on the eve of his birthday, the King said: "People who are in trouble should take a look at royal projects based on the sufficiency economy.
The prime minister and spouses of some Cabinet ministers have practised it well and there seems to be nothing to worry about.
As regards to some deputy prime ministers, they might not have yet got into sufficiency economy since they are more accustomed to a big-spending economy.
"The prime minister and the first lady might be able to advise them on how to practise sufficiency economy to help the country save money.
The prime minister himself might also educate the House on sufficiency economy and the latter can subsequently educate other people.
" We are expected to hear more about sufficiency economy between now and next year, when the King celebrates his 60th anniversary on the throne.
Sufficiency economy is a precious gift from the King to the Thai people.
Indeed, the King understands the dangers of unfettered capitalism and had been sending warning signals in this regard since 1996.
In 1997, while Thailand was suffering badly from the economic crisis, the King emphasised his sufficiency economy, in which Thailand should avoid borrowing beyond its ability to pay, learn to live within its means and learn to utilise natural resources in order to obtain optimum results.
In short, regardless of any external shocks, Thailand should be able to stand on its own feet.
Sufficiency economy helps reduce the unwanted effects of globalisation.
According to the King's idea, it would be sufficient if we can reduce our dependence on the outside world from 100 per cent to 75 per cent.
In 1997, Thailand suffered from an economic crisis because the country had been living beyond its means.
It had borrowed too much short-term foreign money.
It invested too much in projects that did not yield returns.
When investors lost confidence in the country, they took their money out en masse, creating a severe credit crunch.
The baht crashed and the banking system collapsed.
This year the King has reminded us again about how not to get carried away by big money, big projects and big borrowing.
Sometimes sufficiency might put us in an uncomfortable situation because we have to live within our means and try to save money.
Yet it will protect us from bankruptcy and external shocks.
A close look at the Thaksin government's policies clearly shows that they are all about big projects and ambitious targets.
It used to brag about achieving economic growth rates of 7-8 per cent (where were these government people when we faced the 1997 crisis?).
Now it is highlighting mega-projects of more than Bt1.
3 trillion.
This government has been spending money wastefully on other pet projects that have little impact on the country's long-term growth.
Corruption is rampant.
The quick-fix mentality is still there.
The Thai people have saddled themselves with more debt.
Consumerism is unchecked.
Initially, the Thaksin government tried to cope with globalisation through its dual-track economy.
The dual-track economy calls for a balancing out between domestic demand and exports.
As it turns out, domestic demand, buoyed by easy money, has led to indebtedness among rural people.
And it has been proved that over the past four years, the Thai economic recovery has been boosted mainly by exports.
The Thaksin government, through its populist policies, has failed to invest in people and in projects that create jobs and raise incomes.
It has only succeeded in boosting consumption and indebtedness.
To maintain Thailand's high economic growth rate, you might have already noticed that the Thaksin government has shifted its policy toward further economic liberalisation.
Bilateral free-trade agreements (FTAs) have become the weapons of choice for stimulating trade and investment.
Nobody has studied the impact of the FTAs, yet this government has already taken Thailand down the path of no return.
Second, the dual-track economy of the Thaksin government has failed in the face of globalisation.
It can't keep economic growth going.
And you have also begun to notice that the key economic policy of this government is to boost foreign direct investment, exports and tourism.
Third, democracy has also become a big challenge to the Thaksin government.
The Sondhi phenomenon has forced the government to totally rethink its approach on public policy and governance.
The King must have foreseen the difficult road ahead for Thailand if it keeps on engaging the world like this without realising its limits and potentials.
Sufficiency economy is not only the way out for the country but also for society, companies and families.
*************************
" Thanong Khanthong The Nation
This year Dr Prasert Prasattong-Osoth, the founder of Bangkok Airways Co, received some 500 to 600 New Year's cards from his friends all around the world.
But he was most impressed with the New Year's card sent to him by Khanchai Boonpan, the chief of the Matichon Publishing Group.
"It's the best card I have received this year," he said.
Khanchai is one of Thailand's literary towers.
Indeed, his New Year's card is very meaningful, although it carries a very personal message about his outlook on the world.
The card comes with a simple design.
Its cover carries his picture, taken with his wife and two children, seated in a pavilion.
The message is pretty long for a New Year's card, but it is very touching, reflecting his view of life that is very "Thai" and Buddhist in spirit.
It sums up the philosophy of the Boonpan family: "Our way of life to achieve happiness is to live comfortably.
Yet at the same time, we also have to think a great deal about other people.
We have to think quite a great deal about other people because we are invariably indebted to them.
When we want to eat rice, we have rice to eat.
Some people are growing rice for us.
When we go to have a haircut, somebody is helping us with our hair.
Some people also weave our clothes.
Other people do practically all the things for us in our life.
"If we can think of things this way, we then would want to make ourselves useful to other people.
If we can do this, we'll be happy.
"We don't have to do anything special to make ourselves happy.
What is special should be looked upon as unusual.
Therefore, we should strive for normal things.
Everything we think or do should be treated as a normal matter.
We should do things that create the least burdens and hardships for other people.
And don't forget that everything we do must be based on honesty and must benefit the majority of the people.
Our personal interest should not be our sole purpose.
"At the same time we have to understand that human beings have their own nature.
If anyone of us lacks ambition or has no dreams at all, that would sound rather unnatural.
We must have hopes to live our life.
But all of this should follow the path of righteousness.
We can only wish for the possibility.
We can't expect to achieve a 100-per-cent result.
We may get a negative returns or break even.
But nothing is everlasting.
Suffering comes and goes.
Happiness comes and goes.
We should not be preoccupied with it.
What is special is abnormal.
When abnormality arises, we suffer immediately.
"We suffer when we can't be something we want.
We suffer again when we can't get hold of what we want.
Most of us tend to think: why can't we have what others have? The best way to deal with this is to forget the word "why".
We have to be content with what we have, which is already a lot.
We have a job to do.
We can express ourselves in the profession we love.
We have good friends, a stable organisation, a warm family.
If we can think of things this way, we'll feel comfortable.
If not, we'll suffer.
"In living a happy life, we have to know ourselves.
We have to constantly ask ourselves how we are or where we are at this time or at this juncture.
We have to understand the family, the organisations, and the country.
We have to look at the world and do things in a simple way.
But people like to make things complicated.
Most people have forgotten to look at this point.
Probably we have received a high education in other fields, but we have forgotten to learn to avoid abnormality.
We should strive for the normal.
Everything proceeds with sufficiency.
If we have consume too much, we'll vomit it out.
"When we work, we should know our duty.
We should know what we should do and should not do.
Then we should bear responsibility for what we have done.
Of course, we all have flaws or make mistakes.
Nobody is perfect.
But if we do more good things than bad things and do things for other people, that would be very good.
If we think about other people, we'll be comfortable with ourselves.
Human beings have nothing to lose.
We are born into this world and get our lives.
So we have to think about other people who give to us.
We should look at ways to return them the favour.
"We should live comfortably within our means.
Life would then proceed calmly.
We have no ill feelings toward others.
If we were to get angry at someone, that would be a sin.
We should think that anger goes away quickly.
Or we should think about things that are good and beautiful.
Then our minds will be fresh.
Everything in this world changes all the time.
Even our own life, which we care for the most, will go away some day.
"So we should do things in a normal way, then happiness will arise.
" If Khanchai's card sounds like a monk's sermon, then we really need to listen to this good lesson to start our year, 2003.
And we should live with his wisdom for the rest of our short life on this small planet.
Thanong Khanthong The Naition
No comments:
Post a Comment