By Frank G. AndersonNakhonratchasima, Thailand — Thailand’s social, academic and political leadership seems to agree that the country has political woes, but in fact political woes are not the problem, only a symptom. The cause is a corrupt society.
There is also a corresponding lack of public responsibility on the part of the individual Thai, making positive reform more challenging and difficult. Finally, the nail in the coffin is a strict adherence to the belief that Thais must remain monolithic, “non-divisive,” committed to the monarchy and forever permitting elected politicians to do what they seem to do best -- personally benefit from corruption.
It’s not a pretty picture by any means. Incidental foreign visitors to the Land of Smiles and even, perhaps, the majority of expatriates within the kingdom, may not express blanket agreement with such a negative assessment. But what is the reason for their reluctance?
It is very possible that in adapting to their new home by adopting the cultural mores, foreigners have learned to submit to the collective will of the apathetic public and adopt a distorted version of the philosophy of the Noble Truths in the unique way that most Thais have adapted as they are brought up in their own society. In short, these foreigners may have “gone native” and thus can no longer differentiate what they once knew as the difference between right and wrong.
It sounds condescending, of course. But for those in Thailand who have long been privy to hundreds of private conversations, public heated discussions, leaked intelligence and unspoken yet accepted social practices -- generally through language proficiency -- for those who have learned to “think like a Thai” and forget general cultural references, the ability to use peripheral vision in thought, speech and action is diminished.
An example one often experiences among professional Thai translators is their reluctance to translate material from English to Thai or Thai to English that places Thailand, Thai culture or Thai society in a harshly critical light. One foreign Thai-fluent writer, for example, was contacted by a Thai living in San Francisco over a year ago to help translate sensitive language into English for a book about Thai culture and the monarchy. Some of the material hinted at criticism of the monarchy, or more accurately, highlighted situations that Thais steer away from because they somehow involve the monarchy or have been shown in the past to be deemed to be on sensitive ground. The Thai that sent the material to the foreigner in Thailand to translate told the foreigner that no Thai in the San Francisco area was willing to do the job.
Compare this to several instances here in Thailand where a foreigner needed to have translations of English language editorials into Thai. Most of these editorials did not involve the monarchy, but were critical accounts of Thai society and/or social practices he felt were out of touch with the values of Buddhism and democracy. When Thai translators were asked to convert these essays into Thai, they quickly refused.
In one case, the translator falsely let the foreigner believe he would do the work but a week later, when it should have been ready, the translator said he could no longer accept that or any other translation work.
The reluctance to even speak about material critical of Thai society, not just originate it, also occurs on the foreigner side. While working on a book about Thailand, another foreigner asked a long-time colleague from England to write a foreword on the author’s behalf. Having written at least two books himself about Thailand, the colleague emailed back quickly that he felt he was the wrong person to do the job. The overtone, however, was that the material in the book was critical of Thailand and that he would rather not become involved with it.
Needless to say, his own books were polite tourism surveys and lent nothing to important commentary on Thai society.
In an online interview, “The King Never Smiles” author Paul Handley commented, when the interviewer asked him why he had written such a book that was seen by many -- especially the Thai government -- to be critical of the Thai monarchy, Handley replied, “The question to ask is why such a book was not written before.”
Handley hit the nail on the head in a sense. Given ingrained and inculcated reluctance by the individual Thai to criticize anything -- although this is often not the actual situation -- important books that really detail Thai social character and Thai society in depth, up to and including the monarchy, are automatically discouraged. Somehow, it’s just not kosher. So Thais comply and foreigners who decide they need to keep a low profile go along with the flow. Important reportage, in-depth coverage of personalities and events, especially of social upheaval and a meaningful prognosis for Thailand’s future, are all rendered meaningless because they are never written.
Any serious foreigner writing about Thai social developments -- whether they are political, reflect on the monarchy or the country’s wayward practices of Buddhism -- are usually nipped in the bud before they start. There are too many conflicting vested interests afloat to generate truly serious commentary about the Land of Smiles. After all, if you keep your mouth shut, go into business with a local Thai who has had the government “lock the specs” on a product with a guaranteed market that only you are allowed to import into Thailand, and you bought a nice condo on the beach and have a really beautiful Thai wife or girlfriend, are making lots of money, and have friends and relative immunity from the police, then why rock the boat?
Author Paul Findley went ahead anyhow and rocked the boat. He does not expect to be welcomed back into Thailand anytime in the near future. But his book, “The King Never Smiles,” tells an important story and not only about certain aspects of the country’s revered monarchy. It is about Thai society in a more general way, a meaningful way. But in the land of illusion, this kind of revelation is viewed by the elite as divisive and unwanted, and they will always fight to preserve the status quo.
Yet, even as this column is being written, the People’s Alliance for Democracy will gather at Bangkok’s Victory Monument this Sunday, May 25, to protest government mandated changes to last year’s Constitution. Also, on Monday the Thai government spokesman and minister assigned to the Prime Minister’s Office, Jakrapob Phenkair, is scheduled to hold a press conference where he will try to explain his own acts of lese majeste while in Los Angeles on Nov. 10, 2007, as well as at a Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand seminar. Despite the illusions of social unity and joint purpose, despite the cultural pressures that impose silence on those who would speak, there are still those who will speak, Thai or foreigner.
--
(Frank G. Anderson is the Thailand representative of American Citizens Abroad. He was a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer to Thailand from 1965-67, working in community development. A freelance writer and founder of northeast Thailand's first local English language newspaper, the Korat Post -- www.thekoratpost.com -- he has spent over eight years in Thailand "embedded" with the local media. He has an MBA in information management and an associate degree in construction technology. ©Copyright Frank G. Anderson.)
On Sept. 20, 2007, Khun Chotisak Onsoong attended a cinema in Bangkok. When it came time, as is the custom, for patrons to rise at the beginning of the movie for the royal anthem, Chotisak remained seated. Another patron nearby, Nawamin Witthayakul, noticed and told Chotisak to rise. The latter refused, considering that it was a matter of personal choice as to how people should demonstrate their respect for the anthem and the monarchy. Afterwards Nawamin went to the theater management and demanded that they take action, but they refused.