Those with power are likely to be able to set the rules.

 

These words are not too excessive in the reality of how relations have worked from the past to the present. Rules are what are always referred to in order to claim legitimacy for any action. So it should be no surprise when countries with high levels of power in the world after the Cold War set the rules for world relations by using the word ‘democracy'. But in Thailand, this same word has to be followed by the expression ‘with the King as Head of State' in order to specify another kind of power status in another context in order to set another kind of rules.

 

Therefore the meaning of a word like ‘democracy' is fluid, depending in who has the power to determine the rules. Especially at the present, the clash between definition and fluid power continues to be complex. Kasian Tejapira, an academic from the Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University, has pointed to the ‘Thai social prism model' of Prof. Fred Warren Riggs of the University of Hawaii in his 1966 book Thailand: the Modernization of a Thai bureaucratic polity, to explain the complexity of Thai society. This is likened to a beam of white light which strikes a prism and cannot fragment into separate colours or turn into a modern society. But in that case that it cannot return to the state of white light, or a traditional rural society. In the end it is confined inside the prism and may stay there for a long time.

 

Following from this, when rules are unclear, it will be even more confined ... for example, there is an incompatibility when global power establishes relations by the rules of democracy using a (neo-) liberal capitalist economic system, but the highest cultural power in the form of a monarch as head of state advises operating by the principles of the sufficiency economy. These are moving in opposite directions. The impact of resistance is widespread; this creates pressure which breaks out in the form of various conflicts between social classes, economic systems and politics. These conflicts are at present intensive.

 

This narrative is being played out in some places in the country which were forgotten by those with power, both external and internal, and which struggled by themselves until they were beginning to breathe easily. They are now spinning into the whirlpool of struggle in legitimizing rules from both inside and outside.

 

This report will raise the noteworthy example of Mae Tha community, Mae On District, Chiang Mai Province, which once almost collapsed from following extreme free-market capitalism until they learned their lesson and, by their own decision, turned back on a path that took them to an older form of capitalism in order to get back to the white light form of capitalism. Since then, their idea has been to practise traditional agriculture, to the point where the community can look after itself and can disseminate its ‘alternative'.

 

 

Agriculture that Rejects Capitalism

 

On 9-14 October 2007, the College of Social Administration took a group of reporters to Mae Tha Subdistrict, Mae On District, Chiang Mai Province, as part of the Gross National Happiness conference. At the same time, the state sector and one large NGO were constructing the discourse of ‘poor, stressed, drinking' in advertising spots.

 

This definition of poverty seems to take a simple view by aiming at a way of life outside the moral code of labour or agriculture, which appears through the portrayal of lower class people in popular entertainment. In particular, this clearly points to the drinking of alcohol as the sole cause of poverty and indebtedness. But it seems that it doesn't go as far as pointing to the structure of poverty which lies behind this and which the state itself is creating, even though it is seen as a much more significant cause.

 

In Mae Tha, ‘hard-working, poor, stressed' is, on the contrary, something that Pho¹ Phat Aphaimun, an important leader of Mae Tha community, used to describe mainstream agriculture, which he has turned his back on. This definition comes from his own experience of mainstream agriculture, which the state supports as the structure of the demon kingdom concealed inside neoliberal capitalism.

 

Mae Tha community used to be called a ka faak² community, because it was so far from Chiang Mai town that it was a forgotten and almost disappeared form the map of Thailand. The community was so deep in the forest that the government wasn't interested in it as much as it should. But later, when logging concessions were being given out, lines of communications were set up and traders began to bring in the seeds of commercial crops to sell. From then on, commercial crops for the market started to take over. At different times, tobacco was grown, or red onions, or baby corn. The Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC) provide loans. So Mae Tha changed to modern agriculture, monocropping with rather a lot of artificial fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals.

 

Pho Phat says that before 1986, he was farming no differently from the way other people were farming, which was monocropping with hard work. Almost all of this time was spent on his land and even though he certainly earned a lot of money from selling his produce, he was beginning to have serious questions. If it was like this ‘why was our debt getting higher all the time?'

 

In terms of social relationships Pho Phat thought about his parents' time. Why, at the time, did people get on together?

 

Thinking about it, Pho Phat arrived at the answer that his parents' generation thought about food security first. The meant they produced to eat and any surplus they sold. As his suspicions grew about his ancestors' approach, Pho Phat decided to keep an account of his earnings and expenses. When he subtracted his investment costs for monocropping from his income, the result was debt.

 

The debt structure that Pho Phat discovered was that even though monocropping brought in a lot of money, investment costs was high. This was because of the huge trade in fertilizer and pesticides. What was important was that the expenses were always increasing to make up for the soil and water degradation caused by the use of chemicals.

 

The debt structure that affected Pho Phat and other in Mae Tha community is similar to what happens in agriculture in general, both in this country and in the world. What is even worse is that the process of creating debt comes from neoliberal capitalism, using the new face of the ‘kind capitalist', who provides the seeds and buys the produce. But as far as labour, or controlling quantity and quality, this is left to the farmers to take care of with their own sweat and money. So they get strangled by the banks in a way that keeps theme ensnared from then on.

 

A present, the methods of Pho Phat and his followers don't use big fields or orchards, but have many kinds of trees and vegetables, integrated on the same plot of land. Planting in this way can't create the same quantities as monocropping. People's first reaction to this kind of planting is that it's as good as killing yourself because it doesn't yield any income that looks substantial. But this is a trick that once fooled the people of Mae Tha. Today, Pho Phat and the group that practises this kind of agriculture, apart from having food for their families, still have a surplus for sale in the market. Also, this income can release them from the debt they acquired from being so hard-working in the past. What is important is that there is money left over that they can save to provide welfare for themselves and their families.

 

Kind Capitalists

 

The overall picture of Mae Tha community as described by Pho Phat represents one reality. This is the option of rejecting the drift towards a society divided almost into colours after passing through the prism according to the mechanism of rules of the power system of the world. But this rejection by the Mae Tha community is not an excessive overreaction, if we go back to the pain of his experience of the mask-like justice of the market system. Pho Phat shows us a picture of enormous hidden debt from which only large-scale capitalist groups profit, while claiming that market competition will create quality and the best deal for consumers. But in fact this is a world of monopoly where rules decide which person or which group is looked after.

 

The ‘kind capitalists' that Pho Phat talks about are nothing very different from contract farming, which has been criticized since 1967 as a strategy of profit accumulation by large-scale agricultural businesses. This is very effective in turning ‘free farmers' who are poor, into ‘labourers' in heir own fields, shouldering an overwhelming burden of debt. (For details see the special report Contract Farming: When Capitalists Volunteer to Solve Poverty.)

 

In Thailand, if you mention the name of the high-powered private company CP, or the Charoen Phokphan conglomerate, it will be the first name to come to mind in vertically integrated agriculture, ranging from seed production and livestock breeding to marketing. The general model is that farmers sign a contract with the company but have to pay their own investment costs. This means that they have to maintain quality by themselves, while the company is the one with the power to check or even trick farmers in many ways by forcing down he prices paid to them.

 

In 2003, CP alone had contracts with 12,000 chicken farmers, 5,000 pig farmers, 10,000 rice farmers, and 10,000 corn growers (from From small farms to fast food chains and supermarkets in "Occasional Paper #2 Contract Farming in Thailand: A view from the farm" by Isabelle Delforge, Focus on the Global South, 2007)

 

Data from 2001 show that in one year, Thailand imported 55,444 tonnes of chemical pesticide with a value of 8,550.74 million baht (Office of Agricultural Economics with the cooperation of the Department of Customs).

 

Among well-known pesticide importing companies, Monsanto (Thailand) imported 789 million baht worth, or 16.03% of the market, based on sales of its herbicide Roundup (glyphosate). The herbiside Spark (glyphosate) has been exempt from import duties since 1992 during the Anand Panyarachun government which passed a cabinet resolution to reduce the duties on agricultural imports in order to prepare domestic industry for entry into the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) and to promote free market competition. Import duties on pesticides were reduced from 5% to 0%.

 

The effect of this policy was to distort real prices of chemical pesticides. Pesticides sold in Thailand became cheaper than hey should have been. This encourages farmers to solve pest problems by using ever larger amounts of chemical pesticides. Exemption from import duty is believed to have been of indirect assistance to imports and helped lower the price of chemical pesticides. Apart from this, Thailand has no system of taxing chemicals according to their toxicity. It is as if the government is happy to see the import of cheap, highly toxic pesticides into Thailand.

 

The spread of chemical pesticides is inevitable with contract farming, whether it is through companies that promote agriculture, or export agricultural products, or agricultural processing companies, which need agricultural produce that meets quality standards.

 

Therefore the ability to sell produce to the companies in conformity with their demand, most farmers under production contracts to the companies will follow the companies' recommendations. These include use of chemical pesticides of a certain type, in quantities and at times that are recommended by the companies. So apart from the finding that farmers use chemical pesticides more than necessary and in correct ways, production to the quality standards demanded by the companies is something that compels farmers to use more pesticides.

 

 

Royal Projects ... Kind Capitalists (in the same way)

 

In the Mae Tha area, there are many farmers apart from Pho Phat who have turned back to the way of farming of their ancestors. Some have only a rai or more of land, but in no more than 3 years after conversion, they can pay off their debts. Indebtedness pushes some people into despair about agricultural life almost to the point where they want to give up. They see a future for their children where they have to study so that they can become ‘masters'. But traditional agriculture which can limit your life is beginning to change people's ideas as it is seen to be the best agriculture because you are no one's subordinate, no one tells you what t do. This is happiness that cannot be compared to money.

 

However, apart from the people in Mae Tha who practise agriculture supported by capitalists, some have grown produce for Royal Projects. These are monocrops that are no different from contract farming. Farmers have to pay for their own investment in ensuring the quality of their produce. If, in any one year, prices are bad, this means misfortune, because they have to shoulder the responsibility for their own investment. Many have therefore given up growing for Royal Projects as well. For the people of Mae Tha, the basic problem is the need for ‘food first'; money can come later. And happiness comes from freedom in everything.

 

Royal Projects are projects of HM the King which promote temperate crops among the hill peoples as an alternative income to opium. They were set up in 1969 with MC Phisadej Ratchanee as president of the Royal Project Foundation.

 

However, although Royal Projects have a rather good image, when you have the face the reality of rules which are more powerful, it doesn't mean that Royal Projects can operate in special conditions. For example, when an FTA was signed with China, Royal Projects themselves had to adapt for a time. Thansettakij newspaper published an interview on 6-9 February 2005 with Assoc. Prof. Nipon Jiyamangkala, head of the Vegetable Working Committee of the Royal Project Foundation.

 

"Royal Projects are beginning to feel the impact of the Thai-Chinese FTA. After the two countries piloted a reduction in duties on vegetables and fruits in customs tariff schedule 07-08 on 1 October 2003, and opened free trade in agricultural goods in customs tariff schedule 01-08 on 1 January 2004, the result has been that lots of Chinese vegetables, fruits and flowers have poured into the Thai market at very much higher quantities and value. This flood of Chinese imports began to affect Royal Projects in two areas, carrots and lettuce, which are also produced by Royal Projects. The imports were distributed to our regular customers and more generally. The Chinese imports have much lower prices. This large price differential led to Royal Projects customers asking to negotiate prices that were 5-10% lower, because otherwise it would be difficult to compete with Chinese produce."

 

Assoc. Prof. Nipon went on to talk about his organization's adaptation to competition in the investment system. He explained that the response to this impact was to accelerate the process of adapting production systems to met European Union (EU) standards. The EU standards system would now be used as the target for exports of Royal Projects products to the EU in the near future. The new target groups for Royal Projects markets are countries in the EU where many Thais live. If plans to export to the EU are successful, the consequence will be an adjustment in the production systems of farmers who join big projects. The will have to produce to quality standards specified by consumers and adjust cultivation methods to a completely closed system.

 

Small-scale and poor farmers in Royal Projects are partly debtors to the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC) in the same way as other small-scale farmers growing commercial crops and use revolving funds for seed costs until they incur debt in the Royal Projects in the same way as some people in Mae Tha in the past. As far as the development of higher quality to meet higher market standards is concerned, this report has not followed up on the impact after the adjustment of production standards, but it should be asked whether, in an every-changing global business system, poor farmers will have to shoulder higher investment costs under the kind concern of the Royal Projects.

 

 

Sufficiency and GNH

 

Since 1986, Mae Tha community has been working with NGOs, but can explain clearly that the many changes came from inside. It has become a demonstration site for study tours by others, after the Mae Tha community added their name to the sufficiency economy principles and became a site for the conference on Gross National Happiness or GNH.

 

Chanida Chitbundid, a Thammasat University researcher, has observed that the sufficiency economy is a set of principles that came from HM the King's speech at the time of the 1997 economic crisis. It has since been widely accepted and began to synthesize the sufficiency economy ideology and community culture, although in fact these are not the same, because the sufficiency economy has a specific context and provenance and a political meaning. It is only that some characteristics are coherent in some aspects and everyone accepts this as the sufficiency economy.

 

Apart from government agencies, academics and intellectuals have also the belief that the country has taken the opportunity after the economic changes in 1997 to apply the development principles of HM the King, or the sufficiency economy, to confront the ideas of community culture that have been around since 1977. They have assumed the responsibility of interpreting the sufficiency economy so that it is integrated into their own ideas, such as the concept of Dr Prawes Wasi, of the supreme power of the land and the people, which criticizes the government, supports NGOs, with the King at the centre. (For details see ‘Elite NGOs: their Birth and Growth in the Political Context of the Past 60 Years')

 

Since then, the latest idea that complements this, accompanied by the image of a young prince who has recently become monarch of a land of dreams, is the combination of ideology with the concept of happiness, or the Gross National Happiness of Jigme of Bhutan.

 

It an therefore be said that in the past 10 years since they started practising sustainable agriculture and self-sufficiency, like their ancestors, they have evolved the power to define themselves into the hands of those who seize cultural power through intellectuals who have high-level roles in NGOs. And since the term GNH appeared, the definition of this new indicator has been used in a concrete way in organizations that work at the community level.

 

This report has no conclusion, but I want to leave behind this question. Is there a gentle intervention in the struggle to create a definition of ‘rules' through one's own power by some power which is struggling to maintain special conditions? And what will this lead to?

 

While the world is turned by rules strictly, assiduously and very unequally in bargaining power, the lessons learned and the progress in the search for solutions by oneself is therefore not a matter of correctness, of being ‘free in every way'. It is still something that is truly and certainly beautiful and can bring happiness. But it is better if we discuss at the level of ‘alternatives' which are an inspiration, not ‘solutions' which are being dictated until it seems as if people must freeze and not move forward, which is impossible in the context of a world which is continuously in motion.

 

This position may only be an anaesthetic which numbs the mind and brain in some cases. But highly unequal ‘having' between those who give orders and those who take orders to be sufficient is a matter that is not acceptable, because while some have opportunities to compete and have advantages in capital in every way, others are told to ‘stop' and not take part from the outset. To determine special rules which tell them to freeze like this, in the end the indicators of happiness that will emerge will not be anything else other than sitting down and squeezing toothpaste tubes flat and smiling day after day. That's all.

 

 

References

 

Face to face with Kasian Tejapira: Thai society in the ‘prism' under constant stress and tension. 9^th Annual Meeting of the Phrapokklao Institute 2007, 9 November 2007.

 

Jutamart Taka, ‘Policy and legislation mechanisms for promoting pesticide reduction', Health Systems Research Institute, 2003

1 Pho, literally ‘father', is an honorific for respected older males.

2 This refers to parasitic plants on e.g. mango trees, implanted by birds on the outer branches.