Are the Thai people really apathetic and docile?
In every country, history books are cleaned for schools, in the past more than now, but in Thailand this takes on bizarre forms. All blemishes are carefully brushed away. What remains is a hymn to the triumphal march of the Thai people, always relying on the three pillars of king, nation and religion. All enemies, foreign and domestic, are eventually defeated. Harmony, respect and loyalty are restored.
Ideologies
That this is an ideology from above and not based on any reality and serves to maintain the existing powers will be clear. The people have always been well taken care of and those who deny this must have bad and dark intentions, the elite reason (and reasoned) and the state then has a duty to suppress feelings of unjustified dissatisfaction, fueled by foreign forces. to push. And if the insurgents have no evil intentions, it is at least ignorance. History has proven that the people do not always accept these views.
Rosy image
That rosy picture of an ideal bond between leaders and people begins with Sukhothai, in the mid thirteenth century. The famous Ramkhamhaeng inscription (about 1280) on a column discovered by King Mongkut (and the authenticity of which some bad guys dispute) says the following:
“… …the land of Sukhothai prospers.. there are fish in the water and rice in the fields…The lord raises no taxes….When one dies only his son inherits…one with grievances need only ring the bell over the gate and the lord will judge…”
And so on. An idyllic country. Then we come to Ayuttaya and its heroic struggle against the Burmese, finally won by King Taaksin (not to be confused with Thaksin), the repulsion of colonial powers in the 19th century, the benefactions of Rama V, and the bestowal of a constitution by King Rama VII to the Thai people. Do the kids at school believe all that? I wouldn't put my hand in the fire for it, maybe they see it as a fairy tale.
Rebellions in Thailand in the 20th century
Let me then note a few things that detract from this beautiful image. I leave aside the often bloody succession battle for the throne in Ayutthaya. I limit myself to the social and political upheavals of the 20th century and something else.
- An uprising in Isan in 1902.
- The Revolution of 1932, where absolute kingship was converted into constitutional kingship.
- The struggle for democracy and against the dictatorship of Field Marshal Thanom, his son Colonel Narong and Narong's father-in-law General Praphas ('the Three Tyrants') in 1973.
- The 1974 Chiang Mai Peasant Revolt, when 46 peasant leaders were assassinated.
- The extremely bloody suppression of freedom in 1976, with hundreds of deaths, especially at Thammasaat University (photo homepage, photo right).
- The subsequent (communist) resurrection centers in the north and in Isan until 1981.
- Demonstration in 1992 during the fight against the dictator, General Suchinda (Black May) resulting in hundreds of deaths when the army fired on demonstrators with live ammunition.
- Song Crane Rebellion in 2010.
That is every 12 years an (sometimes successful) attempt at a social and/or political revolution.
Conclusion
What do I mean with all this? That the often evoked image of an apathetic and docile Thai population, paternally led by a benevolent elite, is incorrect. This officially propagated image has also been adopted by many foreigners.
I would venture to say that Thailand has had more uprisings and unrest in the 20th century than many other countries. We may wonder why it has so far failed to establish real democracy and social justice in Thailand. But there has been no lack of attempts to do so, that's for sure.
Thais are not docile and docile. They do not always conform to a hierarchical social structure as the official culture prescribes. The Thai yearn for real control, freedom and social justice as much as any other people. And history proves that they have already made many sacrifices for this. And I expect there will be more sacrifices before the Thai people get what they deserve.
With the illustration: History book from the third grade primary school. Thai history books describe Thai history as a long triumphal march in which all foreign and domestic enemies are defeated after a heroic battle. Kings with raised sword on a horse or elephant is a popular illustration. Painful moments in history are avoided or placed in a benevolent light. For example, it is said that in 1932, King Rama VII graciously bestowed a Constitution on the people, when in reality the King was more or less forced to adopt the Constitution.
Mentioning a large number of uprisings does not mean to me that the statement has been proven. Just look at the photos: in the first, a woman stands meekly and unresistingly waiting for someone to incite her to smash her skull with a chair-like object - a large crowd watching passively. In the second photo a large number of victims in a heap, and again a large crowd of spectators without any urge for protest or resistance. I have the impression of the ZOA region that people will follow the great, strong leader, as has been done for many a century. And of course that is converted into historiography. And of course there has been violent resistance in past centuries, and certainly in recent decades. It was pressed in the head. By the ruling powers. Allowed by their vast docile population. In that sense, one is passively watching and docile. The history of the region has also shown that nations are capable of inflicting horrific atrocities on each other. In that sense, people have also followed “great” leaders. And even under such circumstances, one continues to undergo. Of course there is also a great desire for social justice, equality, say. But the interpretation of this is different from that in accordance with the Western model. Just look at how the Chinese model was shaped.
Both photos were taken on October 6, 1976 on the grounds of Thammasaat University. The rebellious students were attacked that day by right-wing groups such as the Village Scouts and the Red Gaurs, aided by the military. October 6, hog tula in Thai, is a day that many elderly Thais still remember. The first photo shows a student hanging from a tree who is then beaten again. The other photo shows students guarded by a soldier. I think your interpretation of the bystanders is incorrect. It is my people who participate in the killing and torture. It was a lynch party. More gruesome photos from that day at this link.
http://www.prachatai3.info/english/node/2814
Dear KhunRudolf, you seem to expect the people to arm themselves and march to Bangkok to overthrow the government. You talk about the Western model, but how many people in Europe in the twentieth century let themselves be taken to the slaughterhouse during wars and uprisings, while entire watching populations.
I totally agree with Tino's statement, I think most people in Thailand would like changes, but they also have families and children to take care of and can't risk revolting.
In my opinion it will be a slow process leading to changes starting with the youth.
Yes, is true in Thailand. I can remember that in the 50s the history books with us did not look any different. One and all glorious homeland.
Looking for criticism. We may only have to wait a few more years before the history books are also adjusted here.
I welcome to the Thailand blog a series where these eight revolts are discussed in more detail.
For years I have been waiting for mass demonstrations demanding better education for everyone, or a million people on their feet against the thoroughly corrupt system, or against income inequality and so on. I don't see happening.
Indeed Mr Verhoef, that will be a long wait, so docile and docile after all. But a lack of ideology, charisma and leadership, as described by Ho Chi Min, for example, also play a role. The inability to create a good solution in South Thailand that will bring peace to that area also has to do with this. Let it go on and on, a human life is worth little in this culture. Corruption and differences between rich and poor, keep it up!
But Thailand had an ideologically driven and charismatic leader! A true leader like Ho Chi Min! Do you want him to return? Give me his younger sister.
Ah, and there we have the culture again! A human life is worth little in this culture, you say? I always thought that Thailand has a Buddhist culture where life is sacred, you are not allowed to kill a mosquito yet. Now I know better. I was wrong again when it came to culture. Thank you for your opinion.
you could just as well say that many of those revolts were not so much caused by democratic motives, but by the same desire as that of the elite: a (larger) slice of the pie. Or was it not sometimes the disinherited part of the elite who rebelled?
If you look at it very cynically, greed remains the most determining factor.
But as always I have great appreciation for anyone who wants to present a different view and thereby shows that they at least want to think.
Sorry Tina,
Of course I meant “A human life does not count in this country” and since Muslims are set on fire in Myanmar by Buddhists, I no longer have much respect for the Buddhist culture that does not kill mosquitoes. According to wikipedia, the 1902 uprising in the Isarn was caused by land reforms that left the nobility behind and put the poor peasants under their belts. In other words “Nothing new under the tropical sun”
The next time I visit a cremation I will quote your comment 'Do not grieve, because a human life counts not in this country' for the comfort of the bereaved.
You are right about Myanmar. I always claimed that Buddhism was a peace-loving religion, but there you see how belief and superstition can be destructive.
It is very tempting to make everything look better than it is (note all advertising photos and videos, made 25 years ago)
Recently I read a new history book: A History of Phuket and the surrounding area, By Colin McKay. That gives a better and more real picture of many things!
Revolt or no revolt? That is a valid and important question. It must of course involve a large group of people, but I think the purpose of the demonstrations is more important. The official demands of the red shirts were the dissolution of parliament and new elections. The speeches of the red shirt leaders went much further, 'revolution', power to the 'reds'. Banners read 'down with the elite'. I can't repeat the slogans of the demonstrators because then I'll get Article 112 on my pants. It was more of an occupation and there was extreme violence, also in the North and the North-East. It was a very broad movement with far-reaching political and social demands. Almost a revolt is also allowed by me.
@Marco, please don't take my words out of context. People are already moving towards Bkk on many occasions, which NMI does not mean that this movement can be classed as one of the motives as stated in the article. Where I use the words Western model, I refer to a population's pursuit of democracy, which can be interpreted as self-determination, freedom, justice and many more achievements.
Furthermore, in East Asia, and certainly in our ZOA region, the question is whether there can be a (development towards) democracy according to the Western model. See the Great Upper Neighbour, but certainly also see the development of the neighboring countries. The history of the entire region has taken place on completely different foundations. This means that it remains to be seen whether people want democratic development, or whether they consider it more than sufficient that there is good and just governance that is able to guarantee the quality of life. It does not matter how this administration is established. Feel free to start from a strong leader, a dominant ideology, an authoritarian party structure. Please note: Asian people are even more group people than Western people. So was the West, but individualized for all sorts of reasons.
The Thai (ZOA) society structure consists of groups and networks. You see this in family and family relationships, at school, at friends clubs, at offices and companies, in shopping malls, on the street, in restaurants, etc etc etc. Where the crowd moves, it only swells. This is done by the (still existing) intrinsic strong tendency to conform to the group (goals) and to the (supposed formal or informal) leadership. That less pleasant things are being settled and settled is one of the other expressions, but further elaboration is off-topic. The fact that a lot of aggression lurks in the crowd (but also in individuals) is another phenomenon, but the same is not the subject of discussion in this context.
a few notes:
1. I don't think it is very interesting whether Thailand is the country with the most uprisings in the 20th century, although I also doubt that statement. (other countries: the fight against discrimination against blacks in the USA, the uprisings in Iran led by the ayatollahs, the uprisings against the colonel's regimes in many South American countries such as Argentina, the uprisings in Northern Ireland, the uprisings in former communist countries as Poland, Yugoslavia and Russia, the 70s student uprisings in Europe).
2. more important is the question of why uprisings succeed or fail. I did not study there, but I was part of the student uprisings in the Netherlands in the 70s. For myself, there are (in retrospect) four reasons for realizing the demands of the movement: a. there was a good analysis of what was going on in society and the opposing party (the political elite) was constantly confronted with this data; b. the leaders of the movement were credible interlocutors for the opposing side; 3. the movement was ideological in nature; 4. Slowly public opinion turned to the side of the 'insurgents'.
Look at the uprisings in Thailand and see that some of these conditions are not met. Generalizing:
– many riots are about money (demonstrators even receive daily allowances for demonstrating);
– the analysis is not good or complete, or even missing;
– some leaders are not credible (it is difficult to fight the elite with a multimillionaire as a leader who then makes the other leaders millionaires);
– the uprising was not aimed at mobilizing public opinion (in and outside Thailand).
Perhaps it is interesting to know whether you, Chris, also find the Thai population apathetic, docile and docile? You often hear that.
I'll tell you the main reason why uprisings failed in Thailand: repression. The other things you mentioned also play a role, of course.
We close the comment option.