More Idiocy from Thailand's Academics

POLICY / NEW CONSTITUTION DEBATED

Should economic model be formally stipulated?


WICHIT CHANTANUSORNSIRI

Economists and business leaders have called for a debate on whether the country's economic model should be formally stipulated in the new constitution.

The only reason why the clause was put in past constitutions was to act as anti-Communist mechanism, because of the Cold War. Actually, they put that clause in after Pridi's plan was shot down for being communistic. Ironically, Ajarn Pridi may finally get his wish with his economic plan. To avoid lese majestie laws, maybe they should reframe sufficiency theory into Pridinomics to honor all the great Thai economics who honor him with their research.

The 1997 constitution, under Section 87, calls for Thailand to use a "free economic system" based on market forces. The state is also called to not directly engage in "an enterprise in competition with the private sector unless it is necessary for the purpose of maintaining the security of the state, preserving the common interest, or providing public utilities".

We know this is a lie. The notion that Thailand is a free economic system is a joke. The state may not be running the economy, but politicians and bureaucrats interfere to such an extent that this clause is basically meaningless. And I guess the government taking over non-military use satellites and the Shin Group assets are all about "national security."

But academics and economists have questioned whether the government's shift toward the sufficiency economy philosophy, first articulated by His Majesty the King, suggests that the new constitution should be adjusted accordingly.

I think they should do it. Why not? Get rid of democracy and the economic system in the next constitution. Go back to the absolute monarchy and sakdina. If they did that, perhaps they can stop blaming all of Thailand's problems on evil foreign influences like democracy and capitalism.

Somyos Somviwatanachai, the president of Unicon Concrete Products and a member of the constitutional drafting committee, said the 1997 constitution clearly called for Thailand to use a free-market, capitalist economic framework.

"In the past, we have looked for a perfect free-market system," he said at a conference yesterday hosted by the Faculty of Economics at Chulalongkorn University.

But an economic system based on consumption had instead fed corruption and power seeking, he said, in a veiled reference to the economic policies of the Thaksin Shinawatra government.

Gotta love this bullshit. Economics based on consumption? What does that mean? People buy, people consume. Sounds evil to me. Corruption and power seeking existed during sakdina also. Can't blame Thai political culture on capitalism.

"The economic system in turn influences public behaviour. If we want to address this, we need to change the system," Mr Somyos said.

Interpretation: Thai economics corrupts Thai politics. Ergo, change Thais. How?

He said members of the constitutional drafting committee were now focused primarily on the overall framework, including principles of human rights and the role of political institutions.

"But we should consider carefully whether we want our economic system to be based on capitalism, on market forces, or on the concept of sufficiency economics," Mr Somyos added.

This is lovely. Economic system based on capitalism, market forces, or sufficiency theory. The first two sounds similar and I thought sufficiency was supposed to be the same thing, or isn't it. No wonder the stupid farang are confused when Thais talk about economic theory. Can you understand this?

Supachai Yimprasert, a historian with Chulalongkorn University, said that stipulating the country's economic system within the law essentially limited the country's choices and the ability of political parties to offer options to the voters, whether they be under a capitalist, communist or socialist model.

I actually agree with this. Why have it in at all?

He noted that capitalism itself came in many forms, from the free-market framework practised by the United States to the more socialist principles of European countries.

Now we are back to the stupidity again. The US and Europe are both mixed systems. Anybody with half a brain cell knows this. The public sector is larger in some parts of Europe.

If Thailand wanted to focus on the principles of sufficiency economics, then it would have to be clearly defined in practice, with an implementation framework established to serve as a policy guideline for the future, Mr Supachai said.

I thought all the Thais say they understand sufficiency theory already, and it was only the stupid farang who didn't understand it, which is why Somkid was hired to educate the world about its superiority to all economic systems known to man.

Narong Petchprasert, an economist with Chulalongkorn University, said the constitution should only contain broad principles regarding the country's economic system.

A commitment to market forces, for instance, would not necessarily limit the options for policymakers, as socialist systems also rely on market forces to a certain extent.

Gotta love this. Why do Thais insist on butchering the English language? Who are the copy editors?

Napaporn Ativanichayapong, an economist with Chulalongkorn University, noted that the concept of sufficiency economics, given its association with the monarchy, had become a theory that did not brook criticism.

"We need to rethink our treatment of this theory to allow full criticism, I believe, to enable co-operation that will eventually lead to the development of practical applications," she said.

In other words, it will never happen.

I think the plan is to keep sufficiency theory a mystery, so that the Thais can pull it out of their asses every time they want to attack somebody who doesn't understand them.

Farang: Why are you taking away my company?

Thai: Sufficiency Theory

Farang: What is that?

Thai: Mai roo

Farang: So then why are you taking away my company?

Thai: Sufficiency Theory. The King make, wery gut.

Farang: So you want to kick foreigners out of Thailand?

Thai (Smiling big) : Uh, No, we like farang money, like wery mut, but we no want you to have any money also, understan?

Farang: That is sufficiency theory?

Thai: You farang ne' wer understan Thai. We tell you king make, wery gut, now here, wear a yellow shirt.

Farang: But you wrote a law that takes away my company. You take away my visa. And you are taking away my home.

Thai (Smiling big): Sufficiency theory, wery wery gut. We take company you, home you and you go home quick quick. Understan?

Farang (pulling hair out): I don't understand

Thai (pulls out telephone)

Farang: Who are you calling?

Thai: Khun Somkid

Farang: Why?

Thai: You stupid farang. He splain sufficiency theory you.

Thaksin Balanced the Budget, Junta Running Budget Deficits: Who is "Bankrupting" Thailand Now?

ECONOMY / PUBLIC FINANCE

Deficit to continue into fiscal 2008

Wichit Chantanusornsiri

The fiscal 2008 budget is expected to show a deficit for the second straight year, according to Deputy Finance Minister Sommai Phasee.

"We expect that the economy next year will not be fully recovered, and that state revenues will fall short of expenditures," he said yesterday. "But any deficit will be manageable, and not over that of the current fiscal year."

The fiscal 2007 budget ending in September currently calls for expenditures of 1.566 trillion baht and a projected deficit of 142.6 billion, equal to around 2% of gross domestic product.

This year's deficit follows two years of balanced budgets under the ousted Thaksin Shinawatra government.

Just a few weeks ago the the junta, the Thai media, and the Surayud government were screaming about how Thaksin was bankrupting the country.

Here are the facts:

1. Thaksin balanced the budget

2. The Junta runs Budget Deficits.

3. Even though the Thai Juntacracy says it believes in Sufficiency Theory, it doesn't believe in spending within its means. How come nobody is pointing this out?

4. The Juntacracy attacked Thaksin for Thaksinomics bankrupting the country, yet hires Somkid, the brains behind Thaksinomics, to sell Sufficiency Theory to the masses.

Any questions?

Deconstrucing Thanong: More Shameless Hypocrisy from The Nation

OVERDRIVE

Somkid an unlikely ally for Surayud in bid to discredit ex-PM


Thaksin Shinawatra has been kicked out of office. His Thai Rak Thai Party is about to be dissolved.

His political allies, from Somsak Thepsuthin, Pinij Charusombat to Suwat Liptapanlop, are breaking away to form new alliances. The next goal of Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont is to dismantle the legacy of Thaksinomics once and for all.

Maybe it is just me. But I find this kind of "breaking away" to be disgusting in the sense that all these former Thaksin allies could have joined forces with other unhappy factions of the Thai Rak Thai Party and dumped Thaksin and there would have never been a constitutional crisis. What was the need for a coup? These cowards could have saved the country a lot of grief if they had stood up to Thaksin.

And nobody is in a better position to poison Thaksinomics than Somkid Jatusripitak, once one of Thaksin's most trusted aides and his heir apparent.

Somkid is in the best position to poison Thaksinomics because he was the author of Thaksinomics? What kind of Thai logic is this?

Surayud's naming of Somkid as the chairman of the International Economic Coordination Committee came as a big surprise. In this fresh role, Somkid will become an official spokesman of the Surayud government in charge of propagating the sufficiency theory to the international community. He is also expected to mount road shows to explain the merits of the sufficiency theory to foreign governments, agencies and investors.

These Nation columnists are the biggest two-faced hypocrites that have ever worked in the journalism business. Thanong was wailing about how Thaksinomics was bankrupting the country a couple weeks ago, yet now he his giddy that the author of Thaksinomics, Somkid, is now the major spokesman for Sufficiency Theory. If I was Thanong and had integrity, I would be screaming from the rooftops about this kind of hypocrisy. But Thanong's hatred for Thaksin outweighs his integrity, which isn't surprising if you have been following his columns lately.

His Majesty the King has prescribed the sufficiency theory along the lines of a philosophical concept, which, similar to Buddhist doctrine, advocates a middle path. The sufficiency theory calls for Thais to adopt moderation and self-immunity from external forces as a way of life. It does not reject globalisation or the modern economy, but in a way it reflects risk management. To be sufficient is to have enough - not to have less, or not to have more than is within one's reach.

Here we go with the bullshit explanation of Sufficiency Theory. Notice how those who love this theory have no clue what it means or how to translate it into public policy. This is how Thais operate. They speak many sweet words and concepts but when you break their concepts down they have no intelligent rational meaning.

His Majesty also advocates Dharma virtue, which emphasizes a higher standard than that set by western-style good governance. According to the principles of good governance, you must simply adopt transparency and the best practices in your dealings, while others must be able to check your actions. Still, you may get away with misdeeds even if you operate according to the strict guidelines of good governance. However, practising according to Dharma virtue means that you act according to your conscience to do things well, without prejudice or greed. As such, your actions can withstand any test, moral or related to good governance.

Can the audience understand this papragraph? This paragraph is completely meaningless. This is what the government expects Somkid to explain to the idiot foreigners who just don't "get it." How can foreigners "get it" when Thais can't explain this sufficiency theory themselves?

Regardless, who really believes that the Thai government will adopt any kind of good governance, whether it be a Buddhist model or a Western model? The truth is this "sufficiency theory" is nothing but one more royal trend after a long line of royal trends that the Thais will talk big about and spend hours propagating but will do nothing about putting it into force or live by its principles. And to have the brains of Thaksinomics running around the world giving lectures and workshops to foreigners on the benefits and virtues of Thai governance only makes Thais look like bigger fools and hypocrites than they already are.

Somkid suggested in his speech delivered at the Sasin School of Business yesterday that sufficiency economics should become an integral part of Thailand's economic development.

Is he making a U-turn? Indeed, he is making a sharp U-turn for his own future.

This is the most honest things Thanong has ever said. Somkid is an opportunist.

Somkid was one of the architects of Thai Rak Thai's political marketing and populist policies, which led to the party's landslide election victories in 2001 and 2005. He served as finance minister and deputy prime minister in charge of economic affairs during the six-year reign of Thaksin. The village fund, the Bt30 healthcare programme, the debt moratorium programme for farmers comprised the policy bedrock and accounted for the political successes of the Thai Rak Thai Party.

Exactly.

Later on Thai Rak Thai added housing for the poor, cheaper loans such as those offered through the SML (Small, Medium, Large) programmes and other populist initiatives that grabbed votes. Somkid was also responsible for most of the tourism marketing programmes, which met with little success, such as the Bangkok Fashion City, Elite Card and Kitchen of the World projects.

These are all the programs that The Nation and the Surayud government said were bankrupting the country. Now they are embracing the architect of these programs like a long lost brother.

Somkid was also a hardcore capitalist, advocating free-trade agreements, stock market promotion, unheeded privatisation, and targeting top-level export and GDP growth. Somkid and the Thai Rak Thai Party held to a two-pronged strategy: populist policies for the poor and full-fledged liberalisation and privatisation for the rich.

Exactly.

Relations between Somkid and Thaksin were far from smooth. As finance minister, he made several policy decisions and appointments of key people to the capital market, state enterprises and financial institutions that irked the CEO. As a result, he was sidelined as deputy prime minister. Still, at one point, people saw him as a candidate to succeed Thaksin if something went wrong with the CEO. But it was clear that Thaksin would not tolerate any heir apparent. Purachai Piumsombun was the first to be snubbed.

Somkid was Thaksin's number one crony and policy maker for many years.

During the political crisis, Somkid kept a low profile. You never knew what was on his mind. On several occasions he wanted to break away from the dark shadow of the CEO, yet every time he could not bring himself to do so. Without Thaksin, he never could have had all of his political power and would have still been an ordinary academic.

Somkid was being a coward and trying to save his ass. During the crisis, there was a rumor that he was going to boot Thaksin, but he pussed out at the last minute. I think we all can say that Somkid was more responsible for Thaksin more than Thaksin was responsible for Somkid

For all the corruption scandals of the Thaksin regime, Somkid kept his mouth shut about the Shin Corp deal although he did come out to support Pojaman Shinawatra in her bid for the Financial Institution Development Fund's plot of land.

I think it is funny that Thanong is embracing Somkid even though he admits that he thinks Somkid knows where the bodies are buried. If the junta had any integrity or credibility at all, it would be indicting Somkid rather than be giving him a job.

Since the coup he has rarely been in the news. Somsak Thepsuthin is trying to form a new party, the Machima Party (the Party that Walks the Middle Path), and he would like to have Somkid as its head. Somkid's image somehow is still good. Recent political talks have centred around whether Somkid really wants to become his own political master or whether he will ever escape from the shadow of Thaksin. By agreeing to join Surayud, Somkid has sent a signal that it is time for him to stand on his own two feet.In the eyes of the local and international communities, the Surayud government's image has been rather poor.

I love how all the Thai Rak Thai criminals and cronies are realigning to do again what they did under Thaksin. Why isn't Thanong asking why these people aren't being indicted?

After a series of policy mishaps that hurt its credibility, from the introduction of capital controls to the draft amendment of the Foreign Business Act, Surayud has found it necessary to try to boost confidence in his leadership.

Most important of all, the propaganda war between his government and Thaksin, who is now living in exile, is not over. Thaksin has been giving interviews to the foreign media as well as hiring foreign lobbyists and Edelman, the international public relations firm, to attack the military leadership and the Surayud government, depicting them as causing both political and economic harm to Thailand.

Thaksin has never "attacked" the government. Quite frankly, for a prime minister who had illegally been ousted in a coup, he has kept his tongue in check, which is unusual for Thaksin. Indeed, one would think Thaksin would be condemning the coup every chance he can get. Afterall, he was the legitimate prime minister of Thailand, though only a caretaker. Contrarily, the coup and its government are illegitimate by any legal measurement, according to the 1997 Constitution.

Thaksin's implicit message is that the sufficiency theory, unlike his free-for-all Thaksinomics, is the root of the current fatigue engulfing the country. The foreign media have taken a big bite by supporting his claim that Thaksinomics embraces globalisation and economic liberalisation, while the sufficiency theory, which advocates moderation and self-immunity, is trying to turn the clock back on Thailand.

Here is where Thanong shows his true colors and proves what a liar and hypocrite he is. When has Thaksin ever implied the message he is alluding to? I have mentioned this before, but Thaksin criticized juntanomics. He didn't criticize the king or sufficiency theory. Except for one badly written ill-informed article in The Economist, the international press never described Thaksinomics as neo-liberal. Even in this column, Thanong runs down all of Thaksin's policies. Those policies are not neo-liberal. They are populist policies, and Thaksin's/Somkid's populist policies have never been embraced by the neo-liberal free market intelligentsia.

It will be interesting to watch how Somkid will fight the propaganda war with his former political master. Thaksin must be damn mad by now.

Thanong Khanthong

The Nation

If Thanong had an ounce of shame, he would be denouncing Somkid for his about face and yelling at Surayud for giving him a job, especially since the Surayud government condemned Somkid's policies for bankrupting the country. Instead of welcoming him into the folds of the junta, Thanong should be demanding that Somkid and the rest of the TRT cronies be investigated.

Somkid Jatusripitak: Thaksin's Number One Crony and Chief Backer of Thaksinomics Now Sells Sufficiency Theory for the Junta

Somkid appointed as sufficiency economy envoy/The Nation

Somkid Story at Bangkok Post

Newly-appointed economic envoy Somkid Jatusripitak vowed Thursday to explain sufficiency economy principle to foreign countries.

Somkid, a former finance minister and deputy prime minister for the Thaksin government was Thursday appointed chairman of a foreign economic relations committee, Deputy PM's Secretary-General Weerachai Weeramethikul announced.

Weerachai said Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont signed an order to appoint the foreign economic cooperation and relations committee.

Weerachai said the committee would be in charge of explaining to foreign governments, media and education institutions about Thailand's key economic policies.

Eight other members of the committee are Weerachai, the director-general of the Public Relations Department, the director-general of the Foreign Trade Department, the secretary-general of the Board of Investment, the director of the Fiscal Policy Office, the governor of the Tourism Authority of Thailand, the director-general of the International Economic Affairs and the secretary-general of the International Economic Affairs.

The order also appointed a team of advisors for the committee. The team members are the PM's secretary-general, Sompol Kiatpaibool, former permanent secretary for Commerce, and the president of the Thai Industry Federation, the chairman of the Thai Chamber of Commerce and the president of the Thai Bankers Association.

Somkid said after his appointment that he would work to supplement the works of government agencies to get foreign countries understand the principle of sufficiency economy.

Somkid said he still had connections with foreign countries so he would use the connections for his works. He would have to make some foreign visits.

Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said Somkid's appointment had nothing to do with politics.

He said Somkid had offered to help explain the idea of sufficiency economy to foreign countries so he appointed him as the economic envoy.

This story sums up the absurdity of Thai politics in many ways. Somkid was Thaksin's right hand man for many years and the chief advocate and policy maker for Thaksinomics. Now he has been hired by the Surayud Government to sell Juntanomics/Sufficieny Theory to the world.

Am I the only one to see the ridiculousness of this?

1. Was Somkid successful selling Thaksinonics to the world? Somkid is considered a marketing genius, yet in many ways he was a total failure in selling Thaksinocracy and Thaksinomics. Failure #1 Thaksin was overthrown in a coup and had millions of Thais who despised him. I would say that was a marketing failure. Failure #2 Outside of Thailand, Thaksinomics was derided and ridiculed by the international press. Now Somkid is going to do the same for the juntacracy and juntanomics?

2. Why would the junta hire somebody who was responsible for marketing Thaksinocracy and Thaksinomics to the Thai public? I think that is treasonous. Like one of the poster said, Thaksin would have been a nobody without Somkid. Seriously, isn't Somkid responsible for creating the Thaksin Frankenstein monster? And how can the junta trust somebody who would stab their patron in the back? I guess there is no honor amongst thieves.

Imagine Hillary Clinton hiring Karl Rove to attack and discredit George W. Bush policies that Karl Rove was responsible for formulating, then becoming the chief guru for selling Clintonomics.

Also, I have said it a million times already. There is nothing wrong with the ideas and concepts that King Bumibol proposes as part of Sufficiency Theory. I have yet to see any foreigner attack King Bumibol's ideas. Foreigners are only attacking the anti-foreigner, anti-liberal economic policies of the military government. To stop the confusion, the Surayud Government should call its economic policies "Juntanomics" instead Sufficiency Theory.

Another Explaination of Sufficiency Theory

Sufficiency versus Thaksinomics

AKE-AROON AUANSAKUL

Lack of confidence and understanding by foreign commentators about Thailand's present government's sufficiency economy-based economic policy have still prevailed although the government has tried hard to explain it since it took office in October 2006.

Lack of confidence? What the heck does not agreeing with or criticizing sufficiency theory have to do with confidence?

I love how Thai people always pull out the old "you never understand me" excuse or insults every time somebody doesn't see the world exactly the way they do.

An example can be found in The Economist (Jan 13-19 issue) in an article entitled "Rebranding Thaksinomics". The writer wrote: "The government's espousal of a 'sufficiency economy' theory, developed by King Bhumibol, further fuelled suspicions that it plans a partial retreat from Thailand's hitherto liberal economic stance."

One example in a badly written article in The Economist is not evidence of a world wide media conspiracy or misunderstanding concerning sufficiency theory. Where are the other foreign condemnations of sufficiency theory? Where are the citations?

Some currently implemented policy measures are cited as supporting evidence that economic growth will be slower. They include tighter restrictions on foreign ownership of local companies, the Bank of Thailand's curbs on currency inflows, and a planned budget deficit.

The problem was the Thai government implemented these policies while simultaneously spouting sufficiency theory. Ironically, the Thai government's policies actually caused instability and shock to the Thai economic system, which is what King Bumibol warned against. Therefore, it was the idiocy of the Thai government and not sufficiency theory or foreign actions that caused the recent problems and misunderstandings.

In parallel, the UN Development Programme was blamed for supporting such a move toward the non-objective "sufficiency economy" theory as a means to overcome national poverty without acknowledging the success of the "Thaksinomics" policy of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, which, in the author's opinion, better helped accelerate growth and cut rural poverty.

Where is the citation? Is that what the article said? The Economist criticized the UNDP for embracing "sufficiency theory" without any kind of critical analysis. And the reason there was no critical analysis is because of Thailand's restrictive lese majeste laws. Again, Thais expect the rest of the world to kow tow to whatever King Bumibol proposes, but many other people in the world are democrats and they actually believe in debating and discussing public policy.

Thailand's cabinet ministers have lately come out on the defensive, affirming that the sufficiency economy-based policy does not contradict, but rather complements the globalised market economic system. In essence, the argument was that Thaksinomics was only a policy whereas the sufficiency economy is a principle governing a broad-based management approach, including economic policy formulation, based on moderation, integrity, transparency, accountability and good governance. In other words, the sufficiency economy focuses on long-term economic growth and stability (sustainability).

Thailand cabinet ministers are the last people on the planet to speak about sufficiency theory considering the total mismanagement and corruption of the Thai state. How does sufficiency theory compliment globalization? Like I wrote before in another blog entry, capital goes abroad to look for profit; it cares about maximum profit; it doesn't want sufficiency because that contradicts the point of capital going abroad in the first place.

In response to the comments made in foreign publications and from cabinet ministers, Mr Thaksin himself has recently accepted, through adviser Noppadol Pattama, that he had espoused the sufficiency-economy concept when he was prime minister. In fact, one may recall that his government has adopted and emphasised the sufficiency-economy philosophy as a guideline used in the formulation of the present 10th National Economic and Social Development Plan (2007-11). Why did no foreign commentators raise questions at the time?

Many foreign commentators criticized the national socialist aspects Thaksinomics.

If one were to study His Majesty the King's speech on the sufficiency economy, one would understand that it provides direction on appropriate conduct that will lead to a sustainable way of living, better able to meet the challenges arising from globalisation and other changes. His Majesty's speech, as taken from the material distributed during the 1999 TDRI Year-end Conference is as follows:

"Sufficiency economy is a philosophy that stresses the middle path as the overriding principle for appropriate conduct by the populace at all levels. This applies to conduct at the level of individual, families, and communities, as well as to the choice of a balanced development strategy for the nation so as to modernise in line with forces of globalisation while shielding against inevitable shocks and excesses that arise.

"'Sufficiency' means moderation and due consideration in all modes of conduct, as well as the need for sufficient protection from internal and external shocks. To achieve this, the application of knowledge with prudence is essential. In particular, great care is needed in the utilisation of untested theories and methodologies for planning and implementation. At the same time, it is essential to strengthen the moral fibre of the nation, so that everyone, particularly public officials, theorists and businessmen, adheres first and foremost to the principles of honesty and integrity.

"In addition, a balanced approach combining patience, perseverance, diligence, wisdom and prudence is indispensable to cope appropriately with critical challenges arising from extensive and rapid socioeconomic, environmental, and cultural changes occurring as a result of globalisation."

There is nothing wrong with what King Bumibol has said. It is common sense. It is the same thing that our parents, teachers, religious texts, and many other books of wisdom have taught us for hundreds of years.

It should be noted that the sufficiency-economy concept is much broader than self-sufficiency. Sufficiency means being satisfied enough, minimising greed, being reasonable, and applying moderation. It enables people to better cope with external and internal shocks and live in a more sustainable manner.

I love how people who embrace sufficiency economy don't live the lifestyle themselves. I think anybody who speaks as an expert on sufficiency should submit a financial disclosure form. The fact is this: Sufficiency doesn't create material advancements in society. How will Thailand economically advance if it doesn't sell its surplus agricultural goods and surplus labor power? The problem is Thailand doesn't produce anything of value that advances society, because its education system is abysmal and those in political power don't want Thais to develop their mental faculties and analytical abilities, because that sort of intellectual power threatens the entrenched interests of the ruling class. Therefore, Thailand has to buy advanced technology-- computer, telephones, medicine--from the West, and to buy from the West, it must purchase it with something.

The concept of good governance embodied in the philosophy could verify that a market economy can certainly function more effectively without fraud, corruption and distortion and, hence, results in a betterment of economic efficiency and performance.

Funny, there are dozens of governments in the world that aren't totally corrupt like Thailand's government. There are many highly successful, regulated capitalist economies in the world. Thailand seems to be the country that is hopelessly corrupt in every way, so the King is right to tell his own people to stop ripping off each other. But let's face it: King Bumibol has been telling the Thai people to stop being corrupt and stop cheating each other and to be good and honest and it seems the people have refused to listen to him, because nothing has changed. The King is right. If Thais listened to him, the Thai government would function better and the economy would be better off.

To most economists, the role of good governance in a free market or a laissez-faire economy is not new but dates back to the time of Adam Smith's "invisible hand". Economic theory since then has held that the most efficient resource allocation system is achieved when individuals and firms pursue their own self-interests without any central direction. But this is valid only if one assumes good governance as a precondition. Good governance here encompasses both good government regulations and conduct, and good morality of the populace at all levels so as to be able to guide their appropriate conduct with honesty, transparency, accountability and integrity.

Actually, this is a very good summation of what Adam Smith said in "The Wealth of Nations." But unfortunately, the Thais neither listen to the King nor to Adam Smith.

Is not it a time, then, for the Thai people and the whole world to embrace the sufficiency-economy philosophy as a way of living for the betterment of life in a globalised world?

Most of the civilized world already lives by the words of King Bumibol and Adam Smith, or at least subscribe to their belief systems, which is why they are civilized, successful countries. It is the Thai people and the Thai government who have chosen to cheat, lie, steal and protect their own selfish interests rather than work for the public good or for sustainability of the state and world, and that is exactly the reason why Thailand is in the mess that it is in. Foreigners don't have a problem with the sufficiency theory per se, but rather with Thailand's apparent hypocrisy and double standards concerning how Thailand is implementing it.

Ake-Aroon Auansakul is director of the research division at the International Institute for Trade and Development. The opinions expressed here are his own. He can be reached at akearoon@itd.or.th.