 It's wonderful. In two years, I have been back to Australia twice, last year to Sydney, but in the middle of the semester, so once finished, I flew back. And this is in Canberra, and two years in 14, 15, right? After the previous time from Australia, in Canberra, I have been the previous time in 1987, and I left Sydney in 1988 after finish. So I just back twice, two years in a row, after almost 30 years. The topic I proposed today is not actually my current research, but it's part of it. I try to come up with a topic which is, I think, more suitable to the audience here, but at the same time, of course, has to be part of the my interest. This topic can bridge three or four issues of my interest. Intellectual foundation of modern science, as intellectual history I'm interested in, of the late 19 to early 20th century. Second one is about change. Recently, in recent years as part of the association Asian Studies job, maybe, then draw me to my interest to the changing Asian Studies and Thai Studies, Southeast Asian Studies as well. And the third, as you know, my half of my life is about politics and democratization in Thailand. Even though that half, some people say, some people assume that I can reconcile with an academic one. I won't go to details. I would say that no, nominate, leave it apart. I think the relationship between the two scholarship and my politics are a bit paradoxical. They're related, they're paradoxical in certain ways, and I think that's the best way to deal with it. So for today, I'm happy to make it clear up front that I'm not going to talk politics. Even the topic might be rich of that, but I'm not going to talk. Not because I want to avoid it. No, I can, I still keep talking about it in many places. I'm not trying to avoid anything, but just, it's just not fun. For academic, meeting like here, like in the size like this, like this. Let's have fun, rather than frustrating and having too much happiness. And so I talk about, Nugget and Nog is a Thai word for Thai educator abroad. This topic seems to be obvious, especially to many Southeast Asianists, people of South, doing Southeast Asian other countries. But somehow in Thailand, it's not that obvious. If you check how many studies are not really not in particular in Thai, in Thai in English, in Thai especially in Massachusetts, as Massachusetts, I count two. If we define it broadly, then many more, because biography of this prince, that prince, this prince, that king, then there are a lot of things about these people educated abroad. But the subject of Nugget and Nog in the center, the subject of people who study abroad and did something based on the fact that they are not great at Nog, only two. So not an obvious subject. So for me, to talk today, I divide into basically three parts. One, the implication of the active Nog or the outside, especially for intellectual history. Especially because that one I know better. And also I don't think it's applicable, the implication of the term is applicable to every aspect of social relations. But let's say many enough, I mean applicable to many aspects of the social relations, the implication of the word Nog or the outside. Then I come to the second part, I will offer a typology of Nugget and Nog. By the way, the second part, which originally was the main part of the talk, once I prepare more Nog, it's not the main part, but one of the three. But I said earlier a moment ago that it's not my research, just the idea, because roughly all three are kind of the second part, which supposedly should be the original part, the main part, is kind of sketchy. But I think I find myself, I hope, for you two interesting. But it's unlikely that I'm going to produce a big research on that, no. But you see in a moment that, wow, if you're interested, it's free. Anybody can think about it and perhaps you can produce an interesting work of this kind, not exactly this subject, but let's say I think it's applicable to many others. And the third part about the changing Thai academia and Asian studies. I attached these just because a bit part of my interest. As you see that it's a bit odd, making the whole thing not quite coherent, but let's say as a talk, I think you can connect the dots. Okay, the first part, Nog, as an outside, as a foreign, and up to a certain point, let's say by the last, for the past hundred, for about 150 years, Nog in this sense, not really Nog. Normally it doesn't, it doesn't mean that people don't think about people who study in China, in Philippines, in Burma, Bangladesh, or India. No, they think about the West. Even though the word itself doesn't imply that, but in the past 150 years, it's had that implication. Okay, Thai society and culture has been in contact with Indian and Chinese civilization for hundreds of years, as you know. To what extent those two places were the outside for entire mentality, I put this question aside. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. How much people think about Buddhism as the outside? I'm not sure because by the time I'm familiar, by the time of historical period of Thailand, they don't think about Buddhism as the outside alien culture anymore. It's the opposite. It's the opposite. You never see a Buddhist image, a face of Buddhist image that looked like Aran people, that looked like Indic people. You saw them look like Thai, look like Lao, look like Amai. So they localized the face, they localized religion. So to what extent they remain Indic, I'm not sure. I put that aside. Jama had to modern Thai history in the past 200 years, particularly intellectually, 150 to 200 years, particularly to intellectual culture. It began carrying the particular reference to the West, though it's not always, not always, but you know this term, this kind of term, not always well defined. But I believe that I have the, my argument is that the effectiveness of this kind of vague term, modern, no, old time, new time, it's effective because it's vague. It's effective because it's not really well defined. Now whenever you try to define it, so particularly you find the floor, you find the holes, you find the gaps. But let's say that doesn't reduce its effectiveness by trying to argue for well defined definition. But let's say in the culture, these terms are effective because it's vague. It's applicable a bit more widely than it should be. For the non-Western foreign, there are other terms for, such as neighbors, such as bang, but it's different. But they don't use like a, a north, not really a north. This is the past. Since, since late 19th century, you find this term particularly means the West. Even though the term itself doesn't mean the West at all. The north or the outside of the West can have and suggest the two opposite connotations. One is more civilized, better, especially in terms of material culture. On the other hand, for intellectual, spiritual aspect of Thai society, it's alien. And it could be not necessary, it could be bad influence. It could be decadence. It's basically, it's something to learn but you should not imitate. So those two, those two aspects, I believe many anthropologists here should understand quickly. It doesn't mean those two stay strictly, firmly in one place. No, it's a kind of mark the two poles, mark the perimeter of people can think which north, which nine, which should be applicable, which should not. Then the trouble with intellectual history that I have grappled with for years, 20 years and grapple and also have fun with is that in fact, all the problems happen because most of the thing in human affairs happen to be in the middle. Such as Pachatipatai democracy is an in or out. You can't say the dress is in or out. You can't tell it is in or out. A lot most 90% of things are both in and out. So then the argument is forever. But that's how society evolved, right? That's how many culture evolved. Let this debate go on. I mean, both positive and negative sense because people often mark the perimeter. Even though the perimeter is also flawed, it falls the economy. But society evolved because it allowed the debate to go on in between. It allowed the debate to happen forever. Then some kinds of most of the time, the conservative interpretation one, sometimes the liberal one, but it depends. It depends. This is how Thai society, like many other society, also grapple with and struggle with what is in and out. Even though the in and out itself is both the notion that the economy is flawed. So this bifurcation, I have written about it as kind of mark of the perimeter in a book edited by Peter Jackson and Rachel Harrison. And because Aloe of the West, so that book has many more examples and many articles in there explain Aloe of the West much better than my article in that book anyway. Let us say, in and out differentiation is easily applied to make sense or to create value judgment. Even though in itself the dichotomy doesn't make much sense and mislead to the poor judgment so many times. As I say, this is how culture works. As far as I understand as a historian, this is how it works. Among the influential one in fact, in and out, it's among the influential one, it's among influential frame. I mean, we talk about conceptual frame, normally we think how to think about this theory, that theoretical argument is a kind of sophisticated thing. Don't you think in and out is a kind of simplified, simplistic conceptual term as well. And in fact, it's so influential and widespread conceptual term because it's so easily understood. Or to put it to precisely, it's so easily misunderstood. That's how it works. So there's a lot of famous dictum in Thai which play with in and out. I raised this one issue which seems politics, but I call it intellectual history. The idea about democracy in Thailand, democracy, first we saw it appear in the text. In the late 19th century, the last decade of 19th century and become a kind of written down in a text in 1903. We saw the argument that at the time there's no Thai word for democracy, they use democracy. Democracy is suitable for the society that grow wheat. Thai society eat rice. So be careful because things that grow with wheat culture doesn't fit the rice culture. Of course, the author didn't think about the rice eating people up the mountain and rice eating people in southern China in many other places. No, this is just, that's why it's false dichotomy. But it works to warn people that, hey, don't be crazy about democracy because democracy fits the wheat culture, not the rice culture. That saying has been used so many times, the latest one that I heard is after the coup last year. So then more than a hundred years already, that exact argument that this society, we eat rice. Exactly, actually just the past few weeks, right? The one of the minister who says something against, I don't know against who the US or the EU thinks, saying that no, if you want to do, I mean, the thing we do is doesn't fit for people who grew up with the wheat culture. It's different. That's that's the way it's in and out. Or the general said that called democracy as democracy trap. That's the way they see in and out. Critical to the monarchy, if you're critical to the monarchy, one of the normal saying, you wouldn't believe that it's true, it's so widespread, people will say, get out of the country. The good thing is that they won't kill you. But they say, get out of the country. So meaning that you didn't have proper right attitude of the monarchy, the place for you is outside. It's outside. The place for you is outside. Because otherwise you're inside, you should be on trial. So they get out of the country. That's the common saying, because the country belongs to the king. As an outsider, therefore, I think Andrew is familiar with this. Westerners cannot know Thailand better than Thais. Many Thai people who do Thai study familiar with this. Even the Australian, I'm not sure it's in the West or in the East. Wonderful place. The most wonderful place is Hawaii, because the East of Hawaii is the West. The West of Hawaii is the East. Talking about the economy, we can play a lot of fun with it. Years ago, even Thai academics are not immune for this. Years ago, when Niti, as you won't, if I hope you know, famous influential historian of the current time, in 1982, when he first produced a kind of break through academic work, not even political, academic work, the response from the conservative scholars instead of arguing against him in terms of conceptual or factual or his research quality, the argument is framed by saying that Niti relies too much on theory. We rely on sources, because for them, theory belongs to the outsider. I made a criticism to another scholar years later. I didn't do any theory at all. The argument is just plain, criticize his theories of book. In fact, the book is on post-colonialism, so I criticize the way he used theory. The criticism I got, he said, oh, don't worry because Dong Chai always just work on theory. The author said, I work on reality of Thailand. That's kind of the way to apply in and out effectively, even though it's not correctly, but effectively. Then how about Nagri and Nog? Nagri and Nog is an identity. Everybody has so many identities. I'm Sino, Thai, I am a male, I'm this, I'm that, I am Nagri and Nog too. So then when they call you Nagri and Nog doesn't mean they reduce other identities, but they emphasize or they foreground the quality that you are, the particular for qualification of a local Thai who have acquired, a local Thai who has acquired foreign elements. In other words, that's why the title for today, at least at the minimal, Nagri and Nog is seen as interlocutor of the two cultures, or more than cultures of the two here. Two here doesn't mean only West and East, West and Thai, you can say that. But I think in particular, because the way is also vague, particularly in and out. The two cultures is the in and out, the inside and the outside in the past 150 years mean the Western. But the Western can be vague, can be Scandinavian, German, British, American, or Broadway, Australia too. So at this point I'd like to make a very important note that in fact, since the mid-19th century, all notable intellectual influential notable influential intellectuals in Siam, in one way or another, they have to deal with the West. Even though so many of the majority of them were not Nagri and Nog, no. That's another point why this notion of Nagri and Nog as interlocutors, Nagri and Nog are the one who acquired foreign elements. It's not exactly true because I think so many influential, I talk about if Thai intellectuals, because that's my examples most of the time, because that's how I know, what I know better, better. Let's say the father of Thai history, Prince Dhamrung, he's brilliant. As conservative, as flawed as he is, which is normal, but he's brilliant. He's never gone abroad. He never went abroad. He was never Nagri and Nog, but he's more foreign than many local Thai. In terms of his thinking, his style of historiography, King Chulal, he never went abroad. He went abroad the entirety of his life for a tour as a king. But he wrote things that particularly, in my view, I don't have time today, mark the break or mark the moment of modernity as opposed to pre-modernity. A few important texts produced by him who was never Nagri and Nog. So many more. Intellectuals of the common origin as well. So in fact, I'd like to mark this point first. In fact, I would say that the whole scene of intellectual change in the past 150 years, one way or the other, two more or less extent, everybody have to deal with waste and inside and the Thai. Everybody were interlocutors in some ways. But in terms of identity, it's more obvious for Nagri and Nog. It's more obvious for those who went to study abroad. So to talk about those who study abroad or Nagri and Nog, it's an emphasis on their obvious visible role as a trans-culture interlocutor. So, but it shouldn't mislead us that many other people are not interlocutors. In fact, they all are. They may be different because differences, even among Nagri and Nog, there's all differences. But this identity is to mark a certain kind of identity, which in itself also misleading, which is normal for identity, everything anyway. Every kind of identity is some, to some extent is misleading. But this is to tell you about how Nog and Nog work. Among the, I give you a few more examples of interlocutors who influential as intellectuals and influential in the terms of waste versus Thai, how to deal with it. I mentioned King July, I mentioned Prince Dumrung, I mentioned a few more such as the famous name, people who know Thai history know too, Gwassara Gula, Tien Wan. Both are so farang, especially Tien Wan, a so farang. Farang is a term for westerners. Tien Wan is so farang. Gwassara Gula is not farang. If you know Sulak, I often tease that Sulak is like Gwassara Gula. It's a kind of so Thai but in fact, he's so British. Gwassara Gula is so Thai but at the same time, yeah, he's a foreigner. He's the first commoner entrepreneur writer. There's no entrepreneur writer even in the West, many, many more years after him. So he's a kind of western in that sense. Live his life by producing, publishing books, which is very farang. Well, in our recent time, people like Suh Chah Tsawak Si, a famous editor and writer, he never went abroad. But his works always introduced foreign, western artists and writers to the entire literary world. Or one of the socialist thinkers, socialist journalist, socialist writer, Suh Pasili Manon. Suh Pan is not nearly enough. Although at one point, he was a diplomat for about a decade. He was posted in USSR, in Switzerland for a while when he was in foreign services. But otherwise, he was a writer, he was an editor, he was a journalist. So ultimately, in and out are simplistic but could mislead, but it's useful because exactly because it is effective. So acquiring a degree from the West, acquiring a degree from the West is good. It's international stamp of approval of a local product. People see it positively. But once you behave to western, and in terms of intellectual history, intellectual influence, once you try to advocate something which is seen to western to say that you are nearly enough, it turned to be a criticism, a satire. So the same phrase, oh, you're nearly enough, could be admiration because you finish from Harvard. You finish from this and that, A and U, whatever. But at the same, exactly the same term, oh, you're nearly enough. It's a kind of sign, oh, a criticism that's satire, okay, you're an alien. You bring out the idea that it's not suitable here. It goes both ways. It's a kind of subtle difference. You have to work it out. That's the way it's always the word. For example, the key members of 1932 revolutionaries was called since their time, since 1932 that, oh, because they are not really enough. Hey, King, what should I would also not be enough? King Rama VII, he was outshed, he was overthrown. He was not really enough. As a matter of fact, don't you know that King Rama VII, the last thing absolute monarchy, his link with Franka was English. Yeah, in his day to day talking, he can talk both Thai and English. And English, he's more comfortable. He's writing always in English. He needs people to help writing Thai. That King Rama VII. But people never say, King Rama VII, you are not really enough. No. People say, really, people, those revolutionaries in 1932, who that overthrown absolute monarchy, they are not really enough. And in the center of South Thai, in the center of stigma, that stigma stick many more decades after that. That's a way to, at primary brand, those revolutionaries that they are the outsider, they are the bad elements that ultimately doesn't really fit the Thai environment. There are many more examples. I mentioned King Wachila Wood, even though he's so British, he's Shakespearean. Yeah, and he's quite good too. I have to admire his quite good Shakespearean. He translates Shakespeare work even though, or he imitates Shakespeare work into Thai beautifully. He also introduced the notion of char satsna, pra maha gassat. Nation, God, king, God and nation, right, into Thai become nation, religion, which means Buddhism, and the monarchy. And you know how powerful that kind of ideology is, even to recent years. That introduced by King Wachila Wood because he grew up in England. His thesis is on the Polish succession. Yeah, he wrote, his historian, he wrote, but his career turned out to be quite a good literary person, a great poet, I have to say, a failed monarch, a failed government ruler, but great literary person. So, Nuri and Nau has been notable agency of in Thai history. Criticism of their roles come in two forms. One is too extreme, and I introduce another dichotomy which is false but effective. They are too Thai. Nuri and Nau, many of them, we can see too Thai as if they never learned anything from abroad. On the other hand, there can be criticism to their too farang. They forget their roots. Among those two Thai, I have I have heard very recently, for example, sorry to break my rules, going to politics a bit. People talk about former prime minister Apisit Vithachivak. How come he is Oxford? He doesn't look like learning anything from Oxford at all. True or not, that's fine. That doesn't matter, but that's the way some many people talk about him because he looks like he doesn't appreciate democracy. He doesn't understand democracy at all. That's how people say about him. How come, I mean, it never happened if people who are not Nuri and Nau, who never brag about Oxford, no, he brag about it. That's why people say, okay, you brag about it, how come you're not Nuri and Nau, but you seem like you learn nothing from the West. That also, but to say that you are too farang, you are kind of rooted from the Thai root. That's so common for people who are like me, like many other people who kind of maybe pro-democracy because democracy, as I said earlier, is kind of all Nau. Now, the second part of my talk, I have to go a bit faster now. Then how to make sense, although Nuri and Nau, when I got the email from Wixit, how to make sense of this. Me too, I struggle with this. Because you can find all variation between the two, between people like Michael Wright, the late Michael Wright who used to be he's a British who lived in Thailand for years. He became a great writer. He writes Thai, perfect Thai. He called this in Thai, but let's just translate like, those people who never left home, even though they study abroad, they call people like, people like a piece of wood fit his bill, who went abroad but never leave home, never leave Thailand, on the one hand, and people who uploaded from Thai culture. How to make sense of that when they got the email from Wixit. How to make sense of this, because we have so varieties. I try to urge that don't go to simply two poles or two dichotomy. Then the way to do is the following. I found a book unrelated to Thai or Southeast Asian studies at all by Todorov Yusuf. I introduced him briefly and then we move on. Todorov introduced different types of knowledge or different types of approaches to knowing the other. In this case, meaning the Spaniard who went, encountered, who encountered, went to the New World and encountered with the native people and then produced, made more, produced encyclopedia, produced all kind of records back to the back to Spain in the hundred years after, roughly speaking about hundred years after the, the conquest. In the book, you see all six names. In short, it is a comparative intellectual biography. You understand the words? I hope now you can think quickly. Yes, a comparative intellectual biography of six Spaniards. He never said these words. This is mine. But those six are the following. That's it. The whole book are about six Spaniards, what they write, what they explain, what the kind of knowledge, in fact, what the approach, their particular approach is to knowing the other. They approach the knowing from the first one, turn nativist, to the sixth one, bend the hair, kill them, because those are variations. So my argument is that in every single situation, you don't produce a single type of outcome. You produce many. On the other hand, it doesn't mean that those many are too much to study. Yes, you can study. If you take the right approach, you apply good methodology, you can study. Or unless they're talking about simple, especially for parents, people who have kids. I have two kids. Two kids brought up in the same way. I never think, okay, they have to take a different approach as a male or female. Just a simple approach. They're so different. This is common experience of every parent. Many kids are not the same, even though we brought them up in the same way, we thought that, at least. The same thing. Every single situation doesn't produce one. But on the other hand, don't feel this better. It's so chaotic. And so I'm systematic that we cannot understand it. At least, we cannot understand it conceptually. No, it's not true. We can. My argument is that we can. My suggestion is that in this way, in a way, type is not a real person. Type are always conceptual tools. Even though those six people in total argument is real people. But in fact, all six at the same time are real individuals at the same time are representative of type. In other words, to make it more simpler. Simplify the complexity. Yeah, you hear your argument. You hear your your advisor all the time. Complexify your simple argument. Don't simplify it. Don't make it too simplistic. Here, my argument is that simplify the complexity. Bring it down into types. But don't be trapped by types. Don't be trapped by your own typology. No. Use typology as a tool to understand the vast variation. You can stick particular people to somewhere between three and four, or exactly three, exactly five, somewhere between one and two. Then you have, you can make sense better. I don't promise that there are only six. There could be four. There could be eight. I don't know. But think about it. In this way, you can have categories of the insider as well. Of course, it depends on what criteria. In this case, you can see, just take a quick look. You can see, uh-oh, I have two criteria in mind at the same time. One is political criteria. From pro-establishment to a radical rabble rouser, or to collapse. This one doesn't fit political because collaborator can be go everywhere. But I have the second kind of, not neat, but let's say I put in one screen, a kind of, let's say you can have a, I think have it. No, I don't have. Okay. On one hand is a spectrum between pro-establishment, apologies, whatever, to the kind of collaborator. On the other hand, second criteria, you can form xenophobia to xenophilia. People who hate the West. People who love the West. That kind of range. Nobody fit exactly the types, but this is how to make sense of the differences. This is, this is a part that I say, if people interested, take this idea, develop it in much better way. I would be glad because I'd like to understand those complexity of the nuances of, I mean, in my graduate, I told many people if this is repetition, as I'm sorry, my graduate seminar, I always forbid a certain word. You cannot use the word because we use it too often. The first word is complexity. You have to spare it out. You can't say complexity, hide behind the complexity. Just spare it out. What is that complexity? The second is nuance. You cannot hide behind the word nuance. You have to spare it out. What is the nuance? Which not only students, I myself, find trouble many times because it's hard to, to spare it out. So how about nuclear now? I give you a number of examples. Even Thai, you may not be familiar with this name. Don't worry, especially people who don't know Thai, who don't do Thai study, may not, you don't know this for sure. But let's say I just give you a glance example and go quickly. You can see the range of possible types. In here I put names on. I put the first on. Even though they are types, even a single person doesn't fit a particular type. But let's say that prominent characteristic he or she is, then I can, I can, and you can see this is not a good example. All males, for example. So not good, but let's say just a quick look. With Sotisatian, it's not a famous name. He's a famous writer in the 40s, 50s. He saw Pharang more than Pharang. He wore hat suit in Bangkok. And cozy girls and had to and walk like a guest where he studied Philippines. Yeah, he's from the Philippines. That's why he comes so American. People like Tansenir, our contemporary, you can tell him, but let's say he would be stared me. Tansenir doesn't know how to joke. Tansenir, he writes Thai. You don't understand his Thai unless you translate into English. But yet, he's a champion of local wisdom. And don't tell him that. No, he never understand the local people. No, he would deny it. He would refuse it, but that's how not just me, many people see him that way. A typical technocrat, a lot of them, most of them never know. Economist, planner, those who can name them. Then you have a typical technocrat, light boy, who is technocrat. Yes, who was technocrat. But I'm typically in the sense that the emphasis he brought in up to certain point is technocrat. He's a banker. He's an economist. But up to center, he became kind advocate for liberal democracy. Too politicized in a way. That's why he got into trouble at the end of his life. Radical conservative, you know, Sulak, this one you might know more. How about brilliant, but not radical? All of this, I don't really know. For example, this name you might not know. He's an ideologue. He's a regent one time in 1940. I don't remember. And I mix up Buddhist era and common era, Sulak. Let's say in the late 40s or early 50s, he's a regent. When the king was so young, Rama VIII died. The king was so young. He was a regent. He's a great scholar, great scholar. In one of his short articles was So Influential, which I see that piece as a foundation, ideological foundation, ideological basis of the building of the current monarch. He wrote it. That piece started with Malinovsky. Yeah, that piece started with Malinovsky. The importance of magic, importance of sacredness. Then move on to King Rangkampag inscription. Yep, Malinovsky side by side with Rangkampag inscription to lay the groundwork for inter-eurology, how the modern monarchy should be built on. Or people like Kripp Pramod, popularizer of modern monarchy, not exactly student of this one, but let's say along the same line of thinking, but he's more popularizer. He's a writer, journalist, and later prime minister. King Vajra would be mentioned already, and you can see a piece, a person, an Oxford graduate who never left Thailand, as you put in court. Not a statement of fact. No, not a fact. It's just a way through Disney. You see the range of this. They also represent certain types. How do I name, how should I name different types? I don't know. I haven't gone that far. I leave it up to you to think about it. Now, the last part, and I'm going to finish. This part can be cut off, and I finish here, but I just love to add it on, so I just do it, indulge myself, adding it on. The point is that Nugri-Nog is as a category, Nugri-Nog as a category have been, let's say, have a role about late 19th century, up to about, let's say, 1960s as an identity. People call Nugri-Nog as an identity. Lately, maybe your generation, people don't call that anymore. Why? Because so many people are Nugri-Nog. It doesn't have distinctive value anymore. By 70, 80s, people type you went abroad a lot and came back in so many professions, so it lost its distinctive value, not because they disappeared. No, because it became common. Nugri-Nog in earlier period, their role or their place is not in intellectual, it's not in academia. No, it's in the bureaucracy, because Thai academia, in fact, started to expand among the first professional, full-time, academic person, was high, were high in the second half of 1960s. If you call academia as a kind of community of that kind of professional people, it's very young. But of course, if you call Thai society, including people in the bureaucracy, people who are interested in intellectual work, even though no matter profession they are, yes, of course, academia has been much longer than that. But the academia, in the way we talk about, in Thailand just about the 60s, at the time when the distinctive value of Nugri-Nog started to dilute, doesn't mean that Nugri-Nog played no role or Nugri-Nog doesn't do anything anymore. No. But people don't call that because you are not Nugri-Nog, so you have influence in such and such ways, because everybody is Nugri-Nog. Let's say most people are Nugri-Nog, so they don't call it distinctively. But let's say, the reason I put this part in, because the role, at least for mainly Nugri-Nog, many who are educated abroad from now, at least this sector, you go back to academia. Even though I put the first, I put, I just said the moment ago, in fact, so, materially, no, no, they never get to the academia. No, they go to other profession and no distinctive value anymore. So this part, to be fair, I'm not talking about the whole Nugri-Nog, just talking about people like you, many Thais here in particular. The point here is that Thai studies, Thai academia is changing in Thailand. They're changing. There are so many ways we can talk about that change. Just for example, one way that I like, I don't want to talk, but it's a huge subject. It's a huge issue. I have no time and have no knowledge enough. Just talking about the changing, the scale, the size of the academia, the number of university, the number of students, number of professors in the past 20 years. I don't know, two, four, three, four, or quadruple. I'm not sure. So fast. Just scale alone means a lot, change a lot of Thai academia. But it's too hard to grapple with. It's too hard to deal with it. So that's why I just mentioned in passing. Another thing, another role, which is not exclusive to Nugri-Nog, but let's say it's a distinctive role to Thai intellectuals, like many other intellectuals in Southeast Asia, at least according to Harry Bender since 1961. Intellectuals in Southeast Asia, active one and smart one, usually they are also public intellectuals. Unlike in the West, no. The smart one tend to be in your own home, in your own place. In Thai, the smarter one go public. In Indonesia too, I believe. In Philippines too. Not everybody, but let's say it's common. It's so common. This is also another aspect that I like to talk and I mark it here, cut. Because it's so important, but I don't have time. But it's not particularly, but Nugri-Nog anyway. The part that I like to emphasize as the last part here is that Thai studies are lacking behind, are having trouble. This is my view. I presented this the last year, Thai study confirmed exactly this point. Because the lack of engagement with scholarship of the outside. Thanks to the following barrier, maybe not these three, but I can explain these three quickly in short, language barrier. When Singapore wants to turn from teaching university from research institution, they do a number of things, but the key one of the key one of a few, not that many, there's so many things they change quickly, fast, radically. But a few things worth important, a key thing. One is reduce the teaching law. How they can reduce the teaching law from five or six down to three. Singapore NUS now is three among liberal arts. They just, they have money first. Not many countries have money. Singapore have money. Second, they do it in English. The teaching done in English. If the Thai have money, they can, they want to suddenly change the teaching law. Can they do that? No. Because they're not mean enough Thai to fill up the positions. Worth, or let's say the university would be like, like now people complain a lot about the quality of the, of the faculty already among the so many places that expanded with expansion. So it's not as easy because language barrier. But more important than that, there have been so many Thai, it's so common for Thai scholars, including in social science humanities, especially in the humanities. Historian, literature people, they can live their life after coming back from abroad. They can live their whole career in Thai. They don't have to have, they don't have to publish in English. Now maybe change. But let's say up to recently. They don't have to publish in English. They don't have to read or follow the journals in English. Many journals are not available anywhere. Library, short of budget, library kind of thing. So a lot of people, I would say typical Thai scholars in Thailand, in humanities, they don't read English regularly. So many of them don't read at all. Or read it kind of very sketchy. They don't follow the literature. You can see the period of that refuse or deny or failure to follow the literature in your field. That happened because language barrier is so common. The solution of Thai administrators by forcing young people like your generation, now you have to publish in English in ranked journal. I'm not sure that's so big. But let's say that's one effort. I think it's misplaced. I think it does something bad. But let's say this is not the place to go to that detail. It's one condition. Second economy here is not national economy. It's economy of scholarship. Meaning demand supply of your knowledge. Demand of your knowledge, most of the time, not the demand in English. Not the demand in, even not in terms of language. In some ways that you need to acquire the engagement, you need to engage with the scholarship outside. If you are fine, you are said you can be self-sufficient in terms of, you can have sufficiency knowledge. And then you can operate in the country. And of course, ideology. This kind of knowledge is so alien. So it's out. So those are three barriers result in what I call intellectual protectionism. Whenever you get to intellectual protectionism, the quality tends to go down. In Thai intellectual, Thai scholarship as well. This is the first thing I want to do about Thai studies. Then Thai studies become provincialized. The last point of today, sorry if I go a bit over time. Thai studies, that's what's going on. There may be efforts to try to change. They may be successful. They may be misplaced. How can I measure that beyond my talk here? Let's say, put that aside. But that condition is happening at the time when ancient studies is changing rapidly and actively in two ways. The second part is my presidential address that was published in JAS already in November issue. The first part I add on it because in fact, my mistake, I missed that. Presidential address, I should add this, but that's fine. The first thing also going on a longer, why maybe longer than this issue. My argument first is that it's here in a new environment. Let's put this way to make it brief. Every studies have, we know it, now dominant, influential by the American. Not entirely American, but influential by the American. It's built up based on the need of the Cold War. Don't translate too directly that so the work of scholars have to serve the American government. No, things doesn't happen that so simplistically. No, never. In fact, most of scholars or good scholars were critical to the government. But yet, the frame, the way, the funding given to you is framed in terms of different areas of studies as we know it now. That frame is collapsing partly the end of the Cold War, partly the emerging globalized economy, which I think I don't need to tell you. I don't need to describe because I can't. I'm not, I don't have expertise in that way. Both are linked. The end of Cold War, the globalized economy, both are linked in certain ways. Area studies was affected. Ancient studies were affected. At least in terms of, hey, why do we have to define it as North East, as South East, as South, as China, blah, blah, so on and so forth? Why in particular, Southeast Asian studies, we tend to be focused on nation state? By now, you realize that you have read so much work since the 80s, I would say, quite a while ago, since the 80s. Since the 80s, people try to, scholars try to transcend that kind of limit, that kind of definition. Conscious or not conscious with a big picture of the changing space, that's fine. But let's say, there's things going on. Now, among the facts, among the fashionable thing is more like transnational Asia or to make it short, trans-Asia, inter-Asia, inter-Asia, what else? And defining region in so many different ways. You might see it as intellectual fun. Yeah, it's a kind of intellectual exercise for fun, but it also has impact, it also has effect. Because suddenly, we're starting to know, you have the knowledge that Asia or different shape, different forms of Asia is possible to know. It's possible to know. It used to be the knowledge that fall into the crack because it doesn't fit the region. But now it becomes the knowledge in full bloom. Suddenly, we realize that there's so many ways of defining Asia, especially. And by those, just simply, basically, not simply, just basically by defining the space of Asia differently, you found different knowledge. I saw Ariel, I suddenly think, yeah, Ariel has done this a lot. You define cultural studies, popular culture. It doesn't fit the region that you try to fit it, even though it produces certain languages. In fact, it doesn't fit the region that we try to fit it. It costs. It less is more. Whatever, it doesn't exactly fit the region we want. We seem to know this for a long while, even before the 80s, but we didn't do it. We didn't produce the knowledge actively in the real way until maybe since the 80s, people like Tony Reed, many other people, or the famous one beyond Southeast Asia, like Ken Palmer Arms, like Sanchez Subramanyam, those people, those work, those kind of work are important. And I say it almost sarcastically as fashionable. It does not fair to them. I have to say that I love those works. It's so important. I'm not capable of doing it, but let's say it's important. It's coming like it or not. Asia is changing. Do people in Thai studies aware of this? Do they want to engage in what way they can and shouldn't get? I am happy or unfortunately, I'm unhappy to report that I don't think this has become an agenda inside Thai academia yet. It has been for Thai people outside. Yes, Andrew, Peter, I can solve the first. We know of this, but it hasn't been an issue much in Thailand. Things have changed. My last, last of the last point, the side of production of Asian studies is also changing, meaning, meaning the following. One of the privilege of being president is going around the countries to see people do Asian studies in the region. Many of them never show up in the annual meeting because they always fail to get their proposal accepted. Or so many of them are graduate students, a few places including undergrad. The privilege gave me the knowledge that I confirm my speculation but confirm even though there is no statistic. The number of faculty of scholars in Asian studies, I mean who teach courses and do research on Asian studies in the US right now, rapidly, rapidly change democracy. There are Asians, there are Asians. Think about Edward Said when he talked about Orientalism as the study of the other. Do you think those people study Asia as the other? Maybe not their insider. Maybe they were denied. Maybe many of them are like me. Maybe they are in between people like me. But let's say definitely I never studied Thailand and like the other. It may be the other of me in certain way. But they're not the other in the sense of the West versus the East like Said suggests. Areas studied for those people who become, I won't say majority, they're not yet. But let's say the number increased fast in the past, I don't know how many years, but not beyond 20 years. So many faces like me teaching courses in Asian studies, everywhere in the US. Students too. Many Chinese students take courses in Chinese history. Not that they know well, some they don't know well, some thought they know well. And they have effect from the fact that they know better to the fact that in fact they don't know much. Yeah, I have a good example I put in my article in the JAS. One of my colleagues have trouble, have so many Chinese, then they accuse the professor who is American that, uh-oh, his Chinese history is so different from Chinese history that they know. You can imagine what kind of Chinese history they know. And they accuse the professor of no, you don't know enough. The way my friend have to adjust. Have to tackle this issue, of course. Have to deal with it. You can't deny it because in that class, the majority happen to be Chinese. So this kind of news, this kind of information, not rumors, happening fast, increasingly. On the other hand, this December, the first conference of Southeast Asian studies by consortium of Southeast Asian studies, right? Southeast Asian studies everywhere pop up fast in Southeast Asia. They may try, even let's say Singapore, they may want to be Cornell, they may want to be Harvard, whatever. But in the end, consciously or not consciously, they will find that they have to find their own identity. That will take time, but that will happen. Asian studies produced in Asia would eventually, I don't know how long, have their own characteristics. I don't mean it's good. I don't mean it's bad. I really don't know. For example, if it happens today, right now, it will become policy-oriented and market-serving. A lot of them, I don't like that, of course. But let's say, don't you think colonial Asian studies or American Asian studies started the same way? Yeah. Starting by trying, making a lot of mistakes. Asian studies overall are moving towards Asia. I'm not saying that America is going over. No, when people say, so America is over, right? I ask them, do you think British education, British university have gone bad? You don't go to Britain anymore? Not true, right? So it's not that easy. But suffice to say that Asian studies in Asia, especially in China, in China is becoming forceful. Like it or not, that's happening. Then last, last, last point. Think about Thai academia that you have, many of you here have to go back and spend your career with. What kind of Thai academia do you want to produce? Do you want to share in 10, 20 years from now in the environment of Thai studies, as I told you, in the environment of Asian studies, as I just told you, I'm not sure that I'm 100 percent. I'm sure I'm not 100 percent correct. But this is just a broad trend. Think about it. How long, how long? You can avoid or you can let the situation that inadequate engagement with the outside world, outside scholarship going on, if you can't, what to do? At the institutional level and down to your own individual level, how would you do the engagement? Then back to the original issue, I start this talk. To what extent or in what way, what type of knowledge do you want to be, among those five or six? Or let's say if you happen to be, you didn't try to, you don't have a kind of design, but do eventually happen to be certain ways, make sure you're aware of who you are, what approach you take. In the end, what kind of knowledge do you want to be or introduce to Thai academia? Sorry, it'll be too long. Thank you.