Font size:

There is a sizeable faction of both locals and expatriates living in Thailand that share a single opinion – foreigners should keep a low profile and avoid involving themselves in Thai affairs. This ethic originates from two government-enforced mores: an orchestrated “anti-different” syndrome among the masses, and a corresponding realization on the part of foreigners that they are guests in the kingdom and must not say or do anything that could be construed as “colonial.”

Thai government and society have effectively put across to all that they do not welcome differences and will make problems for people who don’t conform, whether foreigner or not. It’s OK, on the one hand, to be white, over 65, holding a cold beer and ogling young Thai women passing by, commenting to like-minded foreigners on the merits of the passing beauty. That is how foreigners are too often perceived in Thailand, and that is how they too often behave.

On the other hand, it is not OK to speak in public about local village or district leaders taking bribes, government officials being involved in project corruption, or to comment about sacred things – unless in a very positive light, of course.

The anti-foreign sentiment, accompanied by an unsurprising foreigner compliance with such social restrictions, makes living in the kingdom a challenge for those with a conscience and feeling of obligation that as a member of society one should speak and act in accordance with that conscience – foreigner and Thai alike.

The imposed social conventions inhibit legitimate free inquiry and restrict people’s right to exercise nonconformity, even in such areas as the academic sector. Academics are rightfully fearful of exploring taboo subject areas because they have seen what happens to their peers when valor gets the better part of discretion.

Some time ago, for example, a Thai university professor posed several questions to his students in a written examination asking what they felt the role of the monarchy was and what it should be in a democratic form of government. A fellow academic turned the professor in to the police, who then demanded to see the questions as well as all the answers from the students. Fortunately the professor refused to supply the requested answers, taking a brave position for himself and protecting his students at the same time.

Current Thai officialdom is demanding, across many media and forums, that such inquiries into the role of the monarchy be deemed encroaching on or disparaging to the monarchy, and thus should be considered lesé majesté, or illegally insulting the royal family. Officials are dictating that no effort be spared to “encourage” people not to be so foolish in their choice of legitimate academic inquiry.

For observers who feel that these deeply ingrained and nationally orchestrated actions against legitimate inquiry are temporary and will pass in time, perhaps a comparable reminder in the political sphere will send a note of caution through the wandering mind.

Recently, just after democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi was given another 18 months of house arrest by the military junta in Burma, Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva addressed the media on the issue, helping to insure that non-democratic institutions in Burma and Thailand remain alive and well. He hemmed and hawed about the wrongfulness of the sentencing, instead choosing to dawdle on how important relations were between the two very close friendly neighboring countries, Thailand and Burma, and how the Burmese junta should be given every possible opportunity to pursue its difficult trek toward its “roadmap to democracy.”

The prime minister did not mention Thailand’s own similar approach in this area, having in its own nine-decade experiment with constitutional democracy smashed 17 constitutions and uprooted the early beginnings of democracy in the name of national security.

One may wonder why the Thai government and politicians are so tolerant of the Burmese dictatorship. But the wondering stops when one considers what the power-holders in both countries have to lose should democracy really come to pass. This harsh reality is what cements Thailand and Burma more closely than any professed regional brotherly love.

--

(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.)