Loading...
All images courtesy of Aram Niakan and Amanda Bunga Gracia
| Thailand or the ‘Land of Smiles’ has always been popularly known for its friendliness and charm that both the people and the country offer. And although famous for their ‘mai pen rai’ (it doesn’t matter) attitude, Thailand’s political situation has gone through a series of turbulence with their alarming history of coup d’état – with focus on the recent 2006 coup of former Prime Minister and business tycoon, Thaksin Shinawatra that created the political insurgency by the movement of his supporters – the ‘Red-Shirts’. Even though the calamity has receded and the state of normalcy has beckoned, Whiteboard Journal interviewed both foreigners and the local residents of Thailand to gain an insight of the situation from the root of the conflict to the impact of the event to its creative industry. ……………………………………………………………………………………………….
Alban Sciascia - Nationality: French PhD candidate and researcher in politics with focus in conflict in South East Asia/United States, previously lived in Bangkok for 3 months and currently resides in Yogyakarta. W: Thailand has always been a considered a peaceful place. People go about living with no fear. But all order broke loose and mayhem occurred during April – May. What do you think are the roots of this conflict? A: The first thing I can say is perhaps that I’m not really surprised by the events of April-May 2010. Since several years, tensions increased between two main clans, the Bangkok society and the rest of the country. If the red people are often considered as coming from Issan area, they can count on more supporters from other regions of Thailand. The Bangkok society – symbolized by the yellow – then multicolored – shirts always seems to be oblivious about the reality that the rest of the country have to face. Election of Thaksin was considered as a change for countryside people. We all know what happened after that. Concerning the roots, we can talk about the dissimilar economic development known in Thailand, the increase of poverty – without any real public policy for countryside people, etc. But I remember an editorial on the web version of the Bangkok Post. The journalist ask in his article on “What is the real meaning of being Thai?” Since years, successive governments try to develop what they called “Thai-ness”, trying to create and consolidate a national identity and unity which is totally artificial. In his article the journalist asked: don’t we see that there’s no much different than a man from Issan than a man from Bangkok? In southern Thailand, Thai people leaving in South Islands have more in common with farang (foreigners) than with people of Chiang Mai. And what about people in Pattani and Yala province? This situation – I hope you won’t take the wrong way – made me draw a parallel with the Indonesian unity: a central power centered on one kind pf population who owns the political power (Bangkok Society/Javanese Society) and several ethnicity/populations who are politically ruled by a central power who develop different aspirations concerning policy making and populations needs. Of course, like in Indonesia, Thailand unity has been “protected” by nationalist politics and reference to an emblematic leader (The King of Thailand). Last, but not least, the different parties who struggle for power in Bangkok has surely played a huge role. W: A lot of floating terms are coining the situation as a civil war, would you considered it to be so? A: It depends on what we refer as civil war. Of course, we have seen urban battles scenarios during the riots. |
Of course, we also can find a strong opposition between two parts . Moreover, we have seen several soldiers, representative of the state whom have developed sympathy for the rioters. If we take all these ingredients, we can draw the portray of a typical civil war. But, the duration of the riots and their intensity cannot be consider as a civil war as what we have seen in several places in the world during the last years. Failure of unity could be a better qualification than civil war.
W: What are the effects of the riot towards maintaining and enhancing a secure community in Tha iland as well as in the Asia-Pacific region? A: The violence of the riots surprised a lot of observers. I remember how the information was treated by western medias. Of course, they all sell Thailand as the perfect destination for tourism. During first days, they did not talk about what happened. I remember that I received more accurate information from a friend in Bangkok who sent me a lot of pictures of the riots and the army deployment in Silom. It was totally different with what I can see on CNN, BBC or LCI (French Information Channel). I think that the main consequence for Asia Pacific region was the increase of tourists in Indonesia and Malaysia. We can take the example of Bali, who became the great winner of the Thai riots. To get back on a political perspective, a lot of observers have been surprised. indeed, Thailand still is considered as one of the more stable country of the area (as Vietnam and Singapore). For the Thai secure community, you can go back to my first answer: unity of the country has been hit hard. Concerning other consequences, the effects could be a decrease of foreign investments in Thailand ( Malaysia and Vietnam could win a lot on this side), a loss of trust for Thailand partners. On a security view, effects are limited. Even the Southern insurgents in Thailand stayed quiet during the riots. I don’t think the security balance of the area could be really by the events. If the enhancing of a secure community in Asia Pacific is a long process, it is not really disturbed by internals problems. In my opinion, regular tensions between Indonesia and Malaysia are more threatening events. |
