Let’s not forget too that King Rama VII ROSE to meet the leaders of the People’s Party: “I rise in honour of the Khana Ratsadorn.”
Why don’t we see this image plastered throughout the Kingdom? This moment was a moment of truth for Thailand discarded to make way for the Royalist Restoration after ’32.
John:- You don’t give your surname. I’d be interested in reading your research.
Nattavud:- I’m not , though if I am (and its not too expensive) I would be interested in attending. Hopefully the event will be podcast or a summary of the sessions will be put on line…
I agree with Andrew Walker’s statement “The more discussion we have on Thailand here in Australia the better.”.
I do hope the event is pod casted as it will be difficult for me to attend.
In my own research over ten years dealing with Thai social norms, I have constantly come up against barriers when I question the lack of openness, transparency and accountability of those in authority in Thailand.
It is to be expected as western and Thai social cultures are diametrically different. That Thai social culture is paternalistic, hierarchical, with authority centralized due to the ‘inferiors dependence on the superior’ makes research for a westerner problematic but non the less more intriguing .
In liberal western democracies we are given the opportunity to question authority where as in Thailand quite the opposite occurs.
For over three decades Thais from the middle and lower classes have come out in protest over the autocratic control of the country by not only the establishment but the security forces who seemingly have willingly supported the status quo.
If Thailand is to move towards a more liberal democracy and truly make an effort to join the wider democratic global community there must be a real effort to reform the entrenched ‘hierarchical and centralized nature of authority as it is the major barrier that keeps double standards in place.
There should be real opportunity for the so called inferior to not only question and argue for openness and transparency but for real accountability for those that lead and govern.
Dialogue between countries that have many Thai expats is healthy, especially in Australia as our role in ASEAN is broadening and with the sharing of ideas and knowledge both cultures can benefit from each other.
I hope I haven’t offended any Thai contributors. My interest as a visual artist is the preservation of of traditional culture especially in the marginalized regions of Thailand where the culture is debased due to influence of those Thais from central regions who through their misguided sense of ‘superiority’ consider these regions to be populated by the uneducated and of no cultural importance.
These cultures must be preserved as they are together with the central regions all major contributors to what it means to be Thai.
a thoughtful piece; the implication being how come it was reintroduced in the twentieth century under the current king as court practice? This came about during Sarit’s time with a new compact between the palace and regime was formed which essentially re-sacralised the monarch. This was undertaken in the interests of the amaat regime (flapping in the wings since 1932!) to regain real control over society, culture, politics, and economy…the rest, as they say, is history.
To those of you, on various threads, who are involved in the Nattavud Pimpa debating society: can I ask that you all sit back, relax, don’t try to respond to every single point and, most importantly, let other discussions and points of view emerge. These bilateral exchanges are boring. It is also boring when the same voices pop up on multiple discussion threads.
There is no need to jump in to discussions all the time. Often you will find that others take up the points you are so keen to make. When points are made by a range of people they are usually more effective than when they are made, repeatedly, by the same person. Watch the conversation for a few days, see how it ebbs and flows and then, if you still think it is necessary, make an original intervention. If you don’t feel you can do this, I will help you with my moderation. AW
What it is I feel sorry for Somsak about? A number of issues and I think it is pretty much similar to those who went to support him at р╕Щр╕▓р╕Зр╣Ар╕ер╕┤р╣Йр╕З
Good questions! Now I have answers for your questions
– The Thai embassy has nothing to do with all academic aspects of the conference. They only sponsor food and drinks. That’s why I don’t understand why some people here went on and on about sponsorship without asking question such as yours.
– The politics track will be reviewed by my colleagues from RMIT’s GSSSP, La Trobe University, ANU (yes, some ANU people agreed to help) and Chulalongkorn University. As a universal norm of practice and courtesy, I can’t write the name of the reviewers until the end of the peer-reviewed process.
Agree that some Thai do not like confrontation, but some do not mind it.
A lot of cultural studies (i.e. GLOBE project, Hofsteded etc.) really discuss issues on conflict avoidance and they claim Thais (or the majority of Thai do not see conflict and change as positive signs).
At the conference, we will see disagreements and agreements in idea and as an academic who regularly participated in eclectic types of conference, I have witnessed it and love it.
Are you in Australia? You should come and join our conference because your interests in Thailand will bring different angles to this event,
This report was today published in “The Nation” newspaper:
Amnesty International names Thailand’s first ‘prisoner of conscience:
For the first time in several years, Amnesty International acknowledged yesterday that there was at least one prisoner of conscience in Thailand. This was declared in the agency’s recently released 2011 report on human rights, which details how the freedom of expression is being curbed through the use of the emergency decree, the lese majeste law and the Computer Crime Act.
I realise that this is probably a bit off topic (and its also become much longer than I first planned it to be…) since this threads supposed to be about an academic conference but I find the question raised in 44 interesting… why do academics (and also Thai people in general…) avoid discussing / producing research on the recent protests?
I might be stating the blindingly obvious here – apologies in advance if I am… Here are just a few (or maybe a lot) of my thoughts based on what I experienced over the last 2 years. When I generalise about ‘Thai’ people, I mean the locals that I lived and worked with..
I’m not an academic either (my interest in Thailand stems from a couple of years teaching English in a provincial primary school and the experiences I had living there.) But, around this time last year I was thinking about studying some kind of course in S E Asia studies and I started trying to find more serious (eg.not the Thai visa ex-pat forum) articles and information about Thai politics and society. Thailand unhinged (something which to my knowledge no one has critiqued/challenged) aside there aren’t that many. I also wondered why…
Its not just that academics don’t write about it. People also shy away from discussing what they think about the whole red/yellow issue. One friend in BKK, studying for a Phd in Politics refused to discuss anything political. ‘Red, yellow… no good.. better we talk about…’ cue change of subject to how fat I’m becoming or what and where to eat next… and I’m not joking – supposedly ‘educated’ people take things like size /weight/food more seriously than the fact that their govt let the army shoot its own citizens…
At first I thought that there was probably a lot of self censorship within the academic community. Not just because of strict leste majesty laws etc but also because of the fear or reprisals / cutting of research funding etc. But, now I think that maybe academics aren’t interested because (unlike many foreigners living in Thailand – sorry to bring the whole ‘Thai V Farang’ thing up again but there are big differences in the way the 2 groups see the world….) they themsleves don’t find it interesting, or understand why it is, and could be seen as being interesting to anyone else.
A lot of people I used to talk to in the town where I lived, teachers at school, vendors in the market, my bike group used to dismiss it as being unimportant, or boring, say that there was more to Thailand than Red V Yellow, and change the subject to something that showed Thailand in a more positive light.
Thai media/society doesn’t see it as being that important (and the things that are eg. channel 3 soaps, food, european football, korean boybands, the shame of girls dancing topless at songkran etc… are things most westerners would probably dismiss as being irrelevant) Why is that? self censorship? a reflection of their audience’s percieved ignorance/lack of interest? To what extent is the content they produce a refelection of what they think their audience wants to see/believe ? or, is it an attempt to force their own ideas and political propoganda (eg. reds = anti royal…) onto them???
That the 2 main – maybe only – English language newspapers in BKK gave the yellows – and their royalist, anti-democratic agenda – positive coverage whilst saying very little about the actual politics and policies of the reds (eg. the reds were portrayed as upcountry thugs holding a city to ransom whilst the yellows were portrayed as nice educated people staging a peaceful sit in at the airport… truth is both had heavily armed guards, both paid protesters at various times and that there were both thuggish, and articulate, educated people supporting both sides…) would also be worth investiagting.
Unlike westerners who instantly form lots of why.. questions (eg. why did the govt do what it did (I would have never expected that the supposedly democrat’ govt would tell the army to fire on its own citizens…)? why has there been no proper investigations into what happened? why do thai people seem to dismiss /change the subject when you talk to them about it?… etc) Thai people tend to accept whant they’re told, and to keep their disagreements and opinions to themselves. They seem to be very wary of challenging authority/official views. Many still see the news on TV, the radio etc. as being the truth. They don’t know how much of what’s presented to them as ‘truth’ has been manipulated, and the ways in which their media is censored. Both the yellows (though ASTV) and the reds (though local radio stations) have been seen by their supporters as presenting the ‘real’ news and the ‘truth’ about what is happening in Thailand at various times. And, attempting to try and tell someone this ends up back in a series of pointless ‘you’re not thai.. you will never understand our culture’ (though have to admit, they’re probably right about that one…) arguements
From what I’ve experienced, Thai culture tends to be very non-confrontational. It also tends to be very patriotic / pro Thai. Maybe research into conflict/confrontation would put the academic an awkward position personally, as they would be producing material that shows that Thailand is not quite the wonderful place Thai people like to present it as, and, even without the need to tiptoe around the leste majesty laws, would be very critical of influential people and key instutions (army, police, central govt etc…)
The Thai Media itself has also failed to ask a lot of the questions that westerners were expecting it to, and provide the analysis that we would expect. Again, self censorship? or a refusal to confront contentious issues? who knows… but Thai Academics ought to be asking why this is the case, and analysing all aspects of society, not just the parts that make it (and themselves) look good. Their job should be to use the knowledge they have to explain whats been going on over the last 5 years, and to suggest reasons why…
There’s also another issue. Westerners analyse things, learn from them and move on. Thai people just move on. Look at the Chiang Mai governers dismissal of the deaths at the downtown inn, or the way bus/car/ even the 1 to 2 plane crash in Phuket a few years ago are rarely investiagted properly, and that, when they are, its usually because of pressure from the west. People who push for explanations for why something occured are usually seen in a neagitive way, as people who can’t ‘let go’. Taking/admitting responsibility for actions, justice, reflection and reconciliation, things we westerners expect after any kind of tragedy/mishap has occured seem to be very much western concepts.
Back in November, a yellow supporter I knew in Nan told me that they wished the reds would stop, that the deaths happened months ago, that the reds were making Thailand look bad, that what they have done will be bad for tourism and that they have ruined the country. I asked them why they thought that this way . Their answer… They don’t like the country, or my king. They cause problems for people in Bangkok and they still cause problems now. I asked them why they thought that the protesters did not like the king. They couldn’t answer. They were just repeating what they had heard on TV. Challenging them, and asking them to provide what a westerner would see as logical evidence for their views, led to me being accused of being a red.
For people who will talk about the protests, and their support for one colour or the other, it seems to be a very black and white issue. You’re either red or yellow (though the 2 last posts on this thread proves that sometimes, for people who do take time to think about and analyse things, its not always the case…) Unlike in the UK, there doesn’t seem to be any middle ground or discussion. You either listen and agree (and agreeing means agreeing with everything the leader(s) support(s)) or you listen and, instead of showing your disagreement, change the subject and ignore whats been said. Most ‘ordinary’ people don’t seem that willing to share their views. Again, their attitudes towards politics and the way that they express, or feel wary of expressing their opinion, and why, is something that ought to be researched.
Maybe the locals realise that the people attending the protests are just pawns in a bigger, more important power struggle (as this kind of thing happens at local level every so often… hired mobs can be used to help the local big wigs get what they want…), and wanted to stay away from discussing it for this reason… they don’t want to be seen as taking sides… Or, that their apapthy comes from the fact that the result (and the results of elections etc.. too) are likely to have very little effect on their every day life. At local level, the same people are normally elected back into office, get their share of the public money etc… as usual.
Thai society, Thai communities and the powerful people who live in them have their own ways of dealing with people who don’t fit in or critise the way in which things are managed. I remember reading an article (I think it may have been from one of Andrew Walker’s… I can’t remember the exact details… books) that mentioned, in passing, the way in which a monk was kicked out of his community because someone planted his underwear in a dying abbot’s room. At times, some of the things some Thai people will do to achieve the result they want (in that case someone wanted to make sure that the monk would not get the abbot’s job) would make the plots of channel 3 soaps look believeable. There’s no empirical evidence for this, but in small communities anecdotal evidence (gossip) is everywhere.
Locals in Nan seemed resigned to the fact that the people who already have money, power and influence there use this to obtain even more.
People are easily manipulated by local big-wigs, not just in terms of the vote buying etc. but also in terms of being asked or expected to join certain groups or campaigns for or against something / certain people. The way that local authorities bully people and use peer pressure / the local community against those who challenge authority, percieved wrong do-ing etc. probably has a big effect on whether ordinary people decide to air their political views / get publicly involved in politics or not.
Last year a teenage student in Nan took photos of policeman ‘fining’ students (it was the usual end of the month thing… the police need to get money for their boses so they stand near the local college and stop and fine students who are riding motorbikes without helmets….) and posted it onto a popular local website. Both the webmaster and the student were ‘visited’ by the police, and the article was (for a while) taken off line. The police (so I was told) also wanted his school to take action against him. I don’t know what, if anything the school did but some people mentioned that he might have to move schools.
In a family / community orientated society being singled out, intimidated and/or ostracised, and having to deal with the loss of face that goes with it can’t be nice. Getting involved in politics or any kind of challenge to the established power structures could lead to that. The fact that people are getting involved and attending the protests, despite this is definitely something that should be investigated.
Sorry guys, this has turned out to be much, much, much longer than I first thought it would be. Anyway… summary….
Analysis of the political crisis is something that definitely needs to be done, but I think someone also needs to research and analsye the social structures that influence people’s political attitudes and behaviour, if (and how and why) these have changed over the last 5 years, and how they are likely to change and develop in future. eg. why some groups, like the bar girls that Nick mentions who, stereptypically wouldn’t normally be expected to care about or show an interest in political fights and protests went to the red demo. after work each night. The reasons why people choose (or refuse) to support the reds goes far beyond the media’s / yellows simplistc ‘they’re being paid to…’ arguements… And why other groups are just as desperate to avoid being brought into discussing the conflict, or showing where they stand.
If anyone’s still awake after reading all this, I’m still interested in finding out more about Thai attitudes to like confrontation / the political crisis. Since I’m not an academic, if anyone can point me in the direction of interesting articles / books on these areas I’d be very, very grateful.
I live here and have lived here for ten years. I like it here and I like to complain about things and rejoice in things as I see fit. I have a one year old son who lives here and was born here and I would hope that he can grow up and say what he thinks. If I don’t claim all the space for free expression that I can, I will be shrinking his.
Maybe it won’t change anything but I like to say what I think . It makes me feel good. And it makes me feel free. If people don’t say what they think because of fear of persecution, a feeling that free expression is futile, or because of any number of strategic or tactical reasons, then they are giving up their freedom. Whenever people don’t say something for any of these reasons, they become less free. Mind you, I also don’t say everything I would like to say and inasmuch as I do that, I have become less free.
Great attitude! action is much louder and I think any forms of academic mind is welcome at an event such as this Thai studies conference.
Some examples of the submitted abstract:
– Public health issues among refugees in Thailand
– Corporate Social Responsibilities and commercialization of Thai SMEs
– Internationalisation of Thai higher education
I’m curious as to what it is you feel sorry for Somsak about? Because he is facing charges or because he is being dragged into the squalor of Thai royal politics? Do I take it from your ‘sorrow’ that you recognise that Somsak did nothing wrong?
I really enjoyed your post, and hope you post more regarding your thoughts.
I think I’m on a very similar page as you, except in Sept of 2006 I did support the coup, and was quite a defender of it on the pages of New Mandala.
Although I’ve never liked the Democrats, I voted Chart Thai in 2007 election due to a Chuwit Kamolvisit (I figured that Thai politics was a joke anyways, why not vote a real joker) because as much as I hated Thaksin I can’t stomach the Democrats in their ivory towers.
I then realized that Samak was providing the very leadership required to bring this country forward. Then I started seeing that the PAD had gone nuts. There was no excuse to sit in government house for so long. The takeover of Suwannaphoom broke the camel’s back for me.
It was nasty.
When the government changed to Abhisit in late 2008, I was hopeful, when red shirts protested, I thought it was misguided, better to take their anger out at the Bhumjai Thai crew, those who betrayed rather than the government I felt. I still feel that way, that both the protests of 2009 and 2010 was bad for the country.
But a year and a half of a very incompetent government with corruption so rampant Thaksin looks like mr. Clean, slow and indecisive movements, but worse off, the worst destruction of personal freedom since I have been born and lived here in Thailand, I realize that this cannot go on.
They really don’t realize that every decree they use, every hard tactic they play can be used against them once they lose the power. In that sense, as a ‘neutral’ gear government under Surayuth Chulanont was still better than this regressive reactive government right now. There is no vision, what is the dream for Thailand? Where are we going? What is the national discourse? <– none.
Thaksin, for all his faults, can lay out a plan, a vision, and then execute it. Since corruption will be similar regardless of the option, then Phuea Thai is a much better option.
And if you're uncomfortable with that, you can always vote Rak Pratet Thai of Chuwit 🙂
or if the link doesn’t work, go to google and enter: р╕Ир╕╕р╕мр╕▓р╕ар╕гр╕Ур╕зр╕ер╕▒р╕вр╕ер╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕Ур╣М р╕кр╕бр╕ир╕▒р╕Бр╕Фр╕┤р╣М
At time of posting the article was the top-ranked result. It’s in Thai. Not sure whether available in English.
To crudely summarise, Somsak argues in this open letter to the Princess that her plea for “fairness” for the King and Queen was itself not a “fair” request in the normal sense of the word, given the status quo of one-sided information on the palace, lack of transparency or accountability for such a public institution, lese majeste law, and so on.
I thought you do because in you post, I saw that big word in the question. Thus, my question. Perhaps, our interpretation of mainstream is dissimilar. or perhaps, our intentions to post on this forum are dissimilar.
Then came the landslide victory by TRT in 2006 in which the Democrats “Boycotted” the election. At the time, still anti-Thaksin, I noted to a colleague that by boycotting the election, the Democrats had made themselves irrelevant in the democratic process.
I did not look forward to 5 more years of TRT rule.
And then came the nullification. Which I felt uneasy about. But Thaksin did the right thing and called a new election.
Perhaps this one will not be “boycotted”and the opposition Democrat Party will attempt to engage TRT in a way that opposition parties are supposed to in attempt to unseat majority parties.
Sadly, that election never happened.
We got a coup a month before the election was to be held.
Then a new constitution, written for the benefit of the coup makers was forced upon the Thai public.
The most dynamic and important political leaders of the majority party were sidelined (111) and stripped of their political rights.
Then an election was held and the majority party was again brought back into power.
Then a renegade group with ties to the minority party, instigated violence, took over government house, and closed the airports.
The institutions that should have enforced the right of the majority party (judicial, police, military) to rule were instead involved in a game to keep Thaksin and his TRT from running the country even though they clearly had the right and a mandate to do so.
I submit that this all began because of an ill-conceived boycott.
Now back to this conference, I am opposed to a boycott. As we have seen, boycotts do not always provide the solution to a problem.
Rather it is better to engage the opposition.
So at the Thai conference, I would rather see the likes of academics wearing buttons and red armbands saying Free Sombat rather than standing outside saying boycott the conference.
By the way, I would look forward to 5 more years of TRT/PPP/PT rule so that I can once again criticize Thaksin. But it will be harder to do if/when he returns, seeing how badly the party that I once supported has screwed things up.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Chulalongkorn abolished prostration
Let’s not forget too that King Rama VII ROSE to meet the leaders of the People’s Party: “I rise in honour of the Khana Ratsadorn.”
Why don’t we see this image plastered throughout the Kingdom? This moment was a moment of truth for Thailand discarded to make way for the Royalist Restoration after ’32.
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
John:- You don’t give your surname. I’d be interested in reading your research.
Nattavud:- I’m not , though if I am (and its not too expensive) I would be interested in attending. Hopefully the event will be podcast or a summary of the sessions will be put on line…
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
I agree with Andrew Walker’s statement “The more discussion we have on Thailand here in Australia the better.”.
I do hope the event is pod casted as it will be difficult for me to attend.
In my own research over ten years dealing with Thai social norms, I have constantly come up against barriers when I question the lack of openness, transparency and accountability of those in authority in Thailand.
It is to be expected as western and Thai social cultures are diametrically different. That Thai social culture is paternalistic, hierarchical, with authority centralized due to the ‘inferiors dependence on the superior’ makes research for a westerner problematic but non the less more intriguing .
In liberal western democracies we are given the opportunity to question authority where as in Thailand quite the opposite occurs.
For over three decades Thais from the middle and lower classes have come out in protest over the autocratic control of the country by not only the establishment but the security forces who seemingly have willingly supported the status quo.
If Thailand is to move towards a more liberal democracy and truly make an effort to join the wider democratic global community there must be a real effort to reform the entrenched ‘hierarchical and centralized nature of authority as it is the major barrier that keeps double standards in place.
There should be real opportunity for the so called inferior to not only question and argue for openness and transparency but for real accountability for those that lead and govern.
Dialogue between countries that have many Thai expats is healthy, especially in Australia as our role in ASEAN is broadening and with the sharing of ideas and knowledge both cultures can benefit from each other.
I hope I haven’t offended any Thai contributors. My interest as a visual artist is the preservation of of traditional culture especially in the marginalized regions of Thailand where the culture is debased due to influence of those Thais from central regions who through their misguided sense of ‘superiority’ consider these regions to be populated by the uneducated and of no cultural importance.
These cultures must be preserved as they are together with the central regions all major contributors to what it means to be Thai.
Chulalongkorn abolished prostration
a thoughtful piece; the implication being how come it was reintroduced in the twentieth century under the current king as court practice? This came about during Sarit’s time with a new compact between the palace and regime was formed which essentially re-sacralised the monarch. This was undertaken in the interests of the amaat regime (flapping in the wings since 1932!) to regain real control over society, culture, politics, and economy…the rest, as they say, is history.
Chulalongkorn abolished prostration
Very interesting article. Thank you. Where did you get copies of the 1873 Gazette?
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
To those of you, on various threads, who are involved in the Nattavud Pimpa debating society: can I ask that you all sit back, relax, don’t try to respond to every single point and, most importantly, let other discussions and points of view emerge. These bilateral exchanges are boring. It is also boring when the same voices pop up on multiple discussion threads.
There is no need to jump in to discussions all the time. Often you will find that others take up the points you are so keen to make. When points are made by a range of people they are usually more effective than when they are made, repeatedly, by the same person. Watch the conversation for a few days, see how it ebbs and flows and then, if you still think it is necessary, make an original intervention. If you don’t feel you can do this, I will help you with my moderation. AW
Support for Somsak at Nang Lerng
billyd,
What it is I feel sorry for Somsak about? A number of issues and I think it is pretty much similar to those who went to support him at р╕Щр╕▓р╕Зр╣Ар╕ер╕┤р╣Йр╕З
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
Billyd,
Good questions! Now I have answers for your questions
– The Thai embassy has nothing to do with all academic aspects of the conference. They only sponsor food and drinks. That’s why I don’t understand why some people here went on and on about sponsorship without asking question such as yours.
– The politics track will be reviewed by my colleagues from RMIT’s GSSSP, La Trobe University, ANU (yes, some ANU people agreed to help) and Chulalongkorn University. As a universal norm of practice and courtesy, I can’t write the name of the reviewers until the end of the peer-reviewed process.
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
Dear Kerrie,
Good points you have raised!
Agree that some Thai do not like confrontation, but some do not mind it.
A lot of cultural studies (i.e. GLOBE project, Hofsteded etc.) really discuss issues on conflict avoidance and they claim Thais (or the majority of Thai do not see conflict and change as positive signs).
At the conference, we will see disagreements and agreements in idea and as an academic who regularly participated in eclectic types of conference, I have witnessed it and love it.
Are you in Australia? You should come and join our conference because your interests in Thailand will bring different angles to this event,
Open letter: Amnesty International in Thailand
This report was today published in “The Nation” newspaper:
Amnesty International names Thailand’s first ‘prisoner of conscience:
For the first time in several years, Amnesty International acknowledged yesterday that there was at least one prisoner of conscience in Thailand. This was declared in the agency’s recently released 2011 report on human rights, which details how the freedom of expression is being curbed through the use of the emergency decree, the lese majeste law and the Computer Crime Act.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/05/14/national/Amnesty-International-names-Thailands-first-prison-30155366.html
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
Hi guys.
I realise that this is probably a bit off topic (and its also become much longer than I first planned it to be…) since this threads supposed to be about an academic conference but I find the question raised in 44 interesting… why do academics (and also Thai people in general…) avoid discussing / producing research on the recent protests?
I might be stating the blindingly obvious here – apologies in advance if I am… Here are just a few (or maybe a lot) of my thoughts based on what I experienced over the last 2 years. When I generalise about ‘Thai’ people, I mean the locals that I lived and worked with..
I’m not an academic either (my interest in Thailand stems from a couple of years teaching English in a provincial primary school and the experiences I had living there.) But, around this time last year I was thinking about studying some kind of course in S E Asia studies and I started trying to find more serious (eg.not the Thai visa ex-pat forum) articles and information about Thai politics and society. Thailand unhinged (something which to my knowledge no one has critiqued/challenged) aside there aren’t that many. I also wondered why…
Its not just that academics don’t write about it. People also shy away from discussing what they think about the whole red/yellow issue. One friend in BKK, studying for a Phd in Politics refused to discuss anything political. ‘Red, yellow… no good.. better we talk about…’ cue change of subject to how fat I’m becoming or what and where to eat next… and I’m not joking – supposedly ‘educated’ people take things like size /weight/food more seriously than the fact that their govt let the army shoot its own citizens…
At first I thought that there was probably a lot of self censorship within the academic community. Not just because of strict leste majesty laws etc but also because of the fear or reprisals / cutting of research funding etc. But, now I think that maybe academics aren’t interested because (unlike many foreigners living in Thailand – sorry to bring the whole ‘Thai V Farang’ thing up again but there are big differences in the way the 2 groups see the world….) they themsleves don’t find it interesting, or understand why it is, and could be seen as being interesting to anyone else.
A lot of people I used to talk to in the town where I lived, teachers at school, vendors in the market, my bike group used to dismiss it as being unimportant, or boring, say that there was more to Thailand than Red V Yellow, and change the subject to something that showed Thailand in a more positive light.
Thai media/society doesn’t see it as being that important (and the things that are eg. channel 3 soaps, food, european football, korean boybands, the shame of girls dancing topless at songkran etc… are things most westerners would probably dismiss as being irrelevant) Why is that? self censorship? a reflection of their audience’s percieved ignorance/lack of interest? To what extent is the content they produce a refelection of what they think their audience wants to see/believe ? or, is it an attempt to force their own ideas and political propoganda (eg. reds = anti royal…) onto them???
That the 2 main – maybe only – English language newspapers in BKK gave the yellows – and their royalist, anti-democratic agenda – positive coverage whilst saying very little about the actual politics and policies of the reds (eg. the reds were portrayed as upcountry thugs holding a city to ransom whilst the yellows were portrayed as nice educated people staging a peaceful sit in at the airport… truth is both had heavily armed guards, both paid protesters at various times and that there were both thuggish, and articulate, educated people supporting both sides…) would also be worth investiagting.
Unlike westerners who instantly form lots of why.. questions (eg. why did the govt do what it did (I would have never expected that the supposedly democrat’ govt would tell the army to fire on its own citizens…)? why has there been no proper investigations into what happened? why do thai people seem to dismiss /change the subject when you talk to them about it?… etc) Thai people tend to accept whant they’re told, and to keep their disagreements and opinions to themselves. They seem to be very wary of challenging authority/official views. Many still see the news on TV, the radio etc. as being the truth. They don’t know how much of what’s presented to them as ‘truth’ has been manipulated, and the ways in which their media is censored. Both the yellows (though ASTV) and the reds (though local radio stations) have been seen by their supporters as presenting the ‘real’ news and the ‘truth’ about what is happening in Thailand at various times. And, attempting to try and tell someone this ends up back in a series of pointless ‘you’re not thai.. you will never understand our culture’ (though have to admit, they’re probably right about that one…) arguements
From what I’ve experienced, Thai culture tends to be very non-confrontational. It also tends to be very patriotic / pro Thai. Maybe research into conflict/confrontation would put the academic an awkward position personally, as they would be producing material that shows that Thailand is not quite the wonderful place Thai people like to present it as, and, even without the need to tiptoe around the leste majesty laws, would be very critical of influential people and key instutions (army, police, central govt etc…)
The Thai Media itself has also failed to ask a lot of the questions that westerners were expecting it to, and provide the analysis that we would expect. Again, self censorship? or a refusal to confront contentious issues? who knows… but Thai Academics ought to be asking why this is the case, and analysing all aspects of society, not just the parts that make it (and themselves) look good. Their job should be to use the knowledge they have to explain whats been going on over the last 5 years, and to suggest reasons why…
There’s also another issue. Westerners analyse things, learn from them and move on. Thai people just move on. Look at the Chiang Mai governers dismissal of the deaths at the downtown inn, or the way bus/car/ even the 1 to 2 plane crash in Phuket a few years ago are rarely investiagted properly, and that, when they are, its usually because of pressure from the west. People who push for explanations for why something occured are usually seen in a neagitive way, as people who can’t ‘let go’. Taking/admitting responsibility for actions, justice, reflection and reconciliation, things we westerners expect after any kind of tragedy/mishap has occured seem to be very much western concepts.
Back in November, a yellow supporter I knew in Nan told me that they wished the reds would stop, that the deaths happened months ago, that the reds were making Thailand look bad, that what they have done will be bad for tourism and that they have ruined the country. I asked them why they thought that this way . Their answer… They don’t like the country, or my king. They cause problems for people in Bangkok and they still cause problems now. I asked them why they thought that the protesters did not like the king. They couldn’t answer. They were just repeating what they had heard on TV. Challenging them, and asking them to provide what a westerner would see as logical evidence for their views, led to me being accused of being a red.
For people who will talk about the protests, and their support for one colour or the other, it seems to be a very black and white issue. You’re either red or yellow (though the 2 last posts on this thread proves that sometimes, for people who do take time to think about and analyse things, its not always the case…) Unlike in the UK, there doesn’t seem to be any middle ground or discussion. You either listen and agree (and agreeing means agreeing with everything the leader(s) support(s)) or you listen and, instead of showing your disagreement, change the subject and ignore whats been said. Most ‘ordinary’ people don’t seem that willing to share their views. Again, their attitudes towards politics and the way that they express, or feel wary of expressing their opinion, and why, is something that ought to be researched.
Maybe the locals realise that the people attending the protests are just pawns in a bigger, more important power struggle (as this kind of thing happens at local level every so often… hired mobs can be used to help the local big wigs get what they want…), and wanted to stay away from discussing it for this reason… they don’t want to be seen as taking sides… Or, that their apapthy comes from the fact that the result (and the results of elections etc.. too) are likely to have very little effect on their every day life. At local level, the same people are normally elected back into office, get their share of the public money etc… as usual.
Thai society, Thai communities and the powerful people who live in them have their own ways of dealing with people who don’t fit in or critise the way in which things are managed. I remember reading an article (I think it may have been from one of Andrew Walker’s… I can’t remember the exact details… books) that mentioned, in passing, the way in which a monk was kicked out of his community because someone planted his underwear in a dying abbot’s room. At times, some of the things some Thai people will do to achieve the result they want (in that case someone wanted to make sure that the monk would not get the abbot’s job) would make the plots of channel 3 soaps look believeable. There’s no empirical evidence for this, but in small communities anecdotal evidence (gossip) is everywhere.
Locals in Nan seemed resigned to the fact that the people who already have money, power and influence there use this to obtain even more.
People are easily manipulated by local big-wigs, not just in terms of the vote buying etc. but also in terms of being asked or expected to join certain groups or campaigns for or against something / certain people. The way that local authorities bully people and use peer pressure / the local community against those who challenge authority, percieved wrong do-ing etc. probably has a big effect on whether ordinary people decide to air their political views / get publicly involved in politics or not.
Last year a teenage student in Nan took photos of policeman ‘fining’ students (it was the usual end of the month thing… the police need to get money for their boses so they stand near the local college and stop and fine students who are riding motorbikes without helmets….) and posted it onto a popular local website. Both the webmaster and the student were ‘visited’ by the police, and the article was (for a while) taken off line. The police (so I was told) also wanted his school to take action against him. I don’t know what, if anything the school did but some people mentioned that he might have to move schools.
In a family / community orientated society being singled out, intimidated and/or ostracised, and having to deal with the loss of face that goes with it can’t be nice. Getting involved in politics or any kind of challenge to the established power structures could lead to that. The fact that people are getting involved and attending the protests, despite this is definitely something that should be investigated.
Sorry guys, this has turned out to be much, much, much longer than I first thought it would be. Anyway… summary….
Analysis of the political crisis is something that definitely needs to be done, but I think someone also needs to research and analsye the social structures that influence people’s political attitudes and behaviour, if (and how and why) these have changed over the last 5 years, and how they are likely to change and develop in future. eg. why some groups, like the bar girls that Nick mentions who, stereptypically wouldn’t normally be expected to care about or show an interest in political fights and protests went to the red demo. after work each night. The reasons why people choose (or refuse) to support the reds goes far beyond the media’s / yellows simplistc ‘they’re being paid to…’ arguements… And why other groups are just as desperate to avoid being brought into discussing the conflict, or showing where they stand.
If anyone’s still awake after reading all this, I’m still interested in finding out more about Thai attitudes to like confrontation / the political crisis. Since I’m not an academic, if anyone can point me in the direction of interesting articles / books on these areas I’d be very, very grateful.
Lese embassy!
Dear Name,
I live here and have lived here for ten years. I like it here and I like to complain about things and rejoice in things as I see fit. I have a one year old son who lives here and was born here and I would hope that he can grow up and say what he thinks. If I don’t claim all the space for free expression that I can, I will be shrinking his.
Maybe it won’t change anything but I like to say what I think . It makes me feel good. And it makes me feel free. If people don’t say what they think because of fear of persecution, a feeling that free expression is futile, or because of any number of strategic or tactical reasons, then they are giving up their freedom. Whenever people don’t say something for any of these reasons, they become less free. Mind you, I also don’t say everything I would like to say and inasmuch as I do that, I have become less free.
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
Dear Witheld,
Great attitude! action is much louder and I think any forms of academic mind is welcome at an event such as this Thai studies conference.
Some examples of the submitted abstract:
– Public health issues among refugees in Thailand
– Corporate Social Responsibilities and commercialization of Thai SMEs
– Internationalisation of Thai higher education
Very interesting issues!
Support for Somsak at Nang Lerng
nattavud,
I’m curious as to what it is you feel sorry for Somsak about? Because he is facing charges or because he is being dragged into the squalor of Thai royal politics? Do I take it from your ‘sorrow’ that you recognise that Somsak did nothing wrong?
Support for Somsak at Nang Lerng
Nattavud Pimpa – 4
I do feel sorry for him and hope he will not be misjudged.
It is absurd enough that he has to be judge at all.
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
Dear Witheld,
I really enjoyed your post, and hope you post more regarding your thoughts.
I think I’m on a very similar page as you, except in Sept of 2006 I did support the coup, and was quite a defender of it on the pages of New Mandala.
Although I’ve never liked the Democrats, I voted Chart Thai in 2007 election due to a Chuwit Kamolvisit (I figured that Thai politics was a joke anyways, why not vote a real joker) because as much as I hated Thaksin I can’t stomach the Democrats in their ivory towers.
I then realized that Samak was providing the very leadership required to bring this country forward. Then I started seeing that the PAD had gone nuts. There was no excuse to sit in government house for so long. The takeover of Suwannaphoom broke the camel’s back for me.
It was nasty.
When the government changed to Abhisit in late 2008, I was hopeful, when red shirts protested, I thought it was misguided, better to take their anger out at the Bhumjai Thai crew, those who betrayed rather than the government I felt. I still feel that way, that both the protests of 2009 and 2010 was bad for the country.
But a year and a half of a very incompetent government with corruption so rampant Thaksin looks like mr. Clean, slow and indecisive movements, but worse off, the worst destruction of personal freedom since I have been born and lived here in Thailand, I realize that this cannot go on.
They really don’t realize that every decree they use, every hard tactic they play can be used against them once they lose the power. In that sense, as a ‘neutral’ gear government under Surayuth Chulanont was still better than this regressive reactive government right now. There is no vision, what is the dream for Thailand? Where are we going? What is the national discourse? <– none.
Thaksin, for all his faults, can lay out a plan, a vision, and then execute it. Since corruption will be similar regardless of the option, then Phuea Thai is a much better option.
And if you're uncomfortable with that, you can always vote Rak Pratet Thai of Chuwit 🙂
Dickie
Thanapol on lese majeste
http://www.prachatai.com/journal/2011/03/33810
or if the link doesn’t work, go to google and enter: р╕Ир╕╕р╕мр╕▓р╕ар╕гр╕Ур╕зр╕ер╕▒р╕вр╕ер╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕Ур╣М р╕кр╕бр╕ир╕▒р╕Бр╕Фр╕┤р╣М
At time of posting the article was the top-ranked result. It’s in Thai. Not sure whether available in English.
To crudely summarise, Somsak argues in this open letter to the Princess that her plea for “fairness” for the King and Queen was itself not a “fair” request in the normal sense of the word, given the status quo of one-sided information on the palace, lack of transparency or accountability for such a public institution, lese majeste law, and so on.
News from northeast Thailand
Nattavud Pimpa
I think we can do without the rhetorical questions. Like sarcasm, they are the last resort of the dim.
News from northeast Thailand
Stuart,
you don’t know? Really?
I thought you do because in you post, I saw that big word in the question. Thus, my question. Perhaps, our interpretation of mainstream is dissimilar. or perhaps, our intentions to post on this forum are dissimilar.
what do you think?
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
I used to be anti-Thaksin and pro-Democrat.
Then came the landslide victory by TRT in 2006 in which the Democrats “Boycotted” the election. At the time, still anti-Thaksin, I noted to a colleague that by boycotting the election, the Democrats had made themselves irrelevant in the democratic process.
I did not look forward to 5 more years of TRT rule.
And then came the nullification. Which I felt uneasy about. But Thaksin did the right thing and called a new election.
Perhaps this one will not be “boycotted”and the opposition Democrat Party will attempt to engage TRT in a way that opposition parties are supposed to in attempt to unseat majority parties.
Sadly, that election never happened.
We got a coup a month before the election was to be held.
Then a new constitution, written for the benefit of the coup makers was forced upon the Thai public.
The most dynamic and important political leaders of the majority party were sidelined (111) and stripped of their political rights.
Then an election was held and the majority party was again brought back into power.
Then a renegade group with ties to the minority party, instigated violence, took over government house, and closed the airports.
The institutions that should have enforced the right of the majority party (judicial, police, military) to rule were instead involved in a game to keep Thaksin and his TRT from running the country even though they clearly had the right and a mandate to do so.
I submit that this all began because of an ill-conceived boycott.
Now back to this conference, I am opposed to a boycott. As we have seen, boycotts do not always provide the solution to a problem.
Rather it is better to engage the opposition.
So at the Thai conference, I would rather see the likes of academics wearing buttons and red armbands saying Free Sombat rather than standing outside saying boycott the conference.
By the way, I would look forward to 5 more years of TRT/PPP/PT rule so that I can once again criticize Thaksin. But it will be harder to do if/when he returns, seeing how badly the party that I once supported has screwed things up.