Historian Nidhi Eoseewong on class divisions looming in Thailand's future
By Jon Fernquest[Introduction|Article]
[Reading Questions|Answers]
 |
The author of today's article is one of Thailand's leading public intellectuals and the author of probably the most insightful intellectual history of pre-20th century Thailand: Pen & Sail: Literature and History in Early Bangkok, Silkworm Books, Chiang Mai (2005). The book's promotional blurb from the Silkworm Book website says it all:
"Nidhi Eoseewong is the most innovative, famed, and controversial Thai historian of his generation. This book founded his reputation. On its first appearance in Thai, he was immediately hailed as "a major historian, the most capable of the present era."Pen & Sail combines intellectual history and economic history. Nidhi argues that the emergence of a market economy in the early Bangkok era (1782–1855) was the driving force behind a major change in mentality and worldview seen in poetry, early prose works, biographies of the Buddha, scripts for chanting the Jataka tales, language primers, manuals of behavior, and revisions of the royal chronicles.
Nidhi aimed not only to rewrite Siam’s nineteenth-century history, but to wrestle the study of history and literature away from the conservative old guard. This ambition provoked both passionate support and angry criticism." (Source: Silkworm Books, Chiang Mai)
Nidhi Eoseewong also won the Fukuoka Asia Prize in 2000. [about prizes, lectures]
|
For a translation into English of Nidhi Eoseewong’s The Culture of Poverty? see Sarinee Achavanuntakul's fringer.org [translation, article on Nidhi Eoseewong]
For further reading, check out numerical comparisons of inequality in western countries using Gini coefficients in the paper: "Cross-Country Comparisons of Inequality in Market and Disposable Income: Policy Matters"
posted today at Economist's View Blog.
looming - might happen soon (a bad event)
class - division of people in a society into groups according to their social status
public intellectual - an intellectual (e.g. university professor, journalist, activist) who actively campaigns in public for social change
a blurb - a small bit of writing
Jataka tales - the stories of the Buddha's previous lives before he became the Buddha
Reading Questions
Here are some questions to guide your reading (See answers at end):1. Are all the voters who voted against the referendum in the North and Northeast?
2. Was the percentage of no votes in Bangkok high?
3. What are the poorest areas in Thailand?
4. What social division might the large no votes in the referendum reflect?
5. Is it possible to be different but not divisive?
(Express your opinion)
6. Will stressing reconciliation, unity, and harmony help solve the social divisions that currently exist in Thai society? (Express your opinion)
7. What serious efforts could be made to lessen the gigantic economic gaps in society? (Express your opinion)
8. How could Thaksin's populist programs be improved to eliminate their shortcomings? (Express your opinion)
9. What steps should the next elected government take to avoid the confrontation and protests before the coup of 2006? (Express your opinion)
10. What have differences in political parties been based on in the past?
11. What might political parties be based on in the future?
12. Is it possible to have government policies that serve both the rich and the poor? Is a compromise possible? (Express your opinion)
13. What kind of government does the new constitution favour?
14. What will any future coalition government have to spend most of its time doing?
15. Will it be able to solve the problems at the root of the pressing social division in Thai society?
16. What are some of the socially divisive issues that the next elected government will have to deal with?
17. What other use of the government budget competes with programmes that could heal social divisions?
18. Should the next elected government change the consitution in any way? If yes, in what way? (Express your opinion)
19. Will the next elected government be strong enough to handle all the issues it must handle to put the country in better shape? (Express your opinion)
20. How has the power of the Prime Minister traditionally compared to the power of the bureacracy (civil service) ?
21. Which way did the bureaucracy tried to get people to vote on the recent referendum? Why?
Bangkok Post Article August 29, 2007
ANALYSIS / CHALLENGES FOR THE NEXT GOVERNMENTThe changing face of Thai politics
Party support based on class rather than area or region is likely to emerge after the next electionBy NIDHI EOSEEWONG
What can the 10 million voices that said "No" to the constitution tell us about the political landscape of the future? We are not counting the 16 million people who did not vote in the Aug 19 referendum. If we apply the known yes/no ratio to the absentees, then there could be almost seven million more no-voters. By this rough calculation, the final tally could be that up to 17 million people voted to turn down the constitution. That represents a substantial number of votes.
The onus is on the political parties that favoured the adoption of the 2007 constitution - the Democrats, Chat Thai, Mahachon and Pracharat. They will have to give the situation careful analysis and come up with an explanation that is good enough to convince the nay-sayers. Or they risk losing all these voters.
absentees - people who were not there, people who did not vote
onus is on - the duty or responsibility belongs to
nay-sayers - people who said no, people who voted against the referendum
It's true that the charter opponents are concentrated in the Northeast and upper areas of the North. If we look more carefully at the overall vote pattern, however, we find that they were scattered in large blocs all around the country, except in the South.
Even in Bangkok, the percentage of the "no" voters was as high as 37%, or about 1.5 million people.
The often-cited reason for the concentration of anti-charter votes in the North and Northeast is that these areas were strongholds of the now-defunct Thai Rak Thai party - the power base of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. This explanation is only partially true, however, because if we look back to the result of the 2005 election, the area where the TRT group won was actually much larger than the North and Northeast. There is room for other explanations from different perspectives. (Questions 1-2)
concentrated in - located mostly in
blocs - areas
often-cited - referred to often
strongholds - places where it continues to exist in strength, not yet defeated
defunct - does not exist anymore
ousted - removed from office forceably
One possibility which I think is worth considering is that the upper North and Northeast are actually areas where the average income is lowest in the country. Can it be that the result of the referendum reflects the different voices of the haves and haves-not? Between people in the farming and non-formal sector and those in the formal one? Between the deserted and those who maintain a stake in centralised politics?
In short, the result might mirror the differences in the structure of our population.
It would be soothing to say that we can be different but not divisive - that would be in the spirit of government-promoted national reconciliation, as well. The problem is I have never witnessed such a wide structural divergence that failed to cause a social rift. Nothing, no sweet words be they reconciliation, unity, harmony or serving as the middle link in the political chain, will allay the social division unless serious attempts are made to lessen the gigantic gaps - to make these different groups of people more equal. (Questions 3-7)
haves and have nots - rich people (haves) and poor people (have nots)
non-formal sector - people who have low-paying temporary work without benefits or small-time street or market vendors, who often migrate from rural areas to Bangkok outside of the harvest season (See previous article by Dr. Pasuk)
deserted - abandoned, no permanent job with large employer to look afer them
maintain a stake in - participates in and gains from this participation
soothing - make you feel good
reconciliation - solving differences and getting back together
witnessed - experienced firsthand (in one's life)
structural divergence - when two parts of society go in different directions
social rift - division between parts of society
allay - put an end to or reduce (something bad)
Most critics agree that people in the North and Northeast are still enamoured with the so-called "populist" policies of the TRT administration. They voted in the referendum with hope that such a policy would be somehow revived (either by the next government led by the former TRT members or by members of other parties who would surrender to their demand). If that is the case, then the division we are talking about is not limited only to the economic, social and cultural dimensions but also includes a fierce contest to control the government's public policy.
The multi-million-baht question is how would a new government, whatever form it takes, handle this division which, if mismanaged, could escalate into confrontation or violence? (Questions 8-9)
enamoured with - like a lot, love
revived - brought back to life
fierce - done strongly, with aggresion and intensity,
If the People's Power party [PPP] managed to sweep most of the seats in these "no-to-charter" areas, then we would have an opposition party that is based on "class" (in a loose sense of the word). This is in contrast to what political parties have been. Support for the Democrats, for example, has always been based on areas or regions of the country.
I would say this shift in garnering support for political parties would be unprecedented in Thai politics. (Questions 10-11)
sweep most of the seats - win most of the positions in the legislature
class - division of people in a society into groups according to their social status
loose sense of the word - approximate meaning, not exact, only rough
How would the new government respond to a class-based opposition? This could be a dilemma. If it tries to please this financially less-privileged group of people, it would risk losing their traditional support because they wouldn't be able to get over a conflict in policies - whether they are for the rich or for the poor?
If they choose to stick to their original base, it would give the opposition an opportunity to tighten its grip on the "class" campaign, with a possibility of expanding its influence to the urban poor and underprivileged. That is a lot of opportunity for growth and for votes. (Question 12)
dilemma - difficult decision
less-privileged - poor people
stick to - not change, maintain
original base - the group of people that the party was founded to serve
under privileged - poor people
The new constitution seems to favour a coalition government of many parties. Each party in a coalition has its own supporters who it will have to consider when coming up with policies or projects. Of course, no one will admit it, but it's part of the reality of politics here. It would be hard enough for political parties in the next coalition government to settle their conflicts among themselves. They wouldn't have enough time or energy to address a deepening structural division.
So, next year will be the year of harmony and unity, or so we are sure to be reminded by posters and banners that crop up on every electricity pole or empty space available as per election campaign tradition. The public relations efforts, however, are unlikely to cover up the widening cracks in our social structure. (Questions 13-15)
coalition - combining two or more groups
as per - following, in accordance with
The next government will not be short of contentious issues. It will have to decide whether to continue with the "populist" projects and, if so, how.
Would it want to inject a lot of money in improving the universal health-care scheme, or let it die a natural death? What would it do with the village bank or village fund programmes? If it wishes them to bear fruit, it would have to invest more on education and training as well as loans. Would it further delay the repaying of farm debts, or allocate more money to the sector to give farmers a long-term ability to take care of themselves and service their debts? How would it make free education a reality at the secondary level without sacrificing quality?
All these questions are tied to only one thing - budget. And the next government would be hard pressed to choose between pleasing the army and Internal Security Operations Command or financing these projects to accomplish them. (Question 16-17)
contentious - causing argument
bear fruit - have benefits
hard pressed - find it difficult to do
Don't forget that another major task for the next government will be to amend the constitution. How would they want to change it? To whom would it listen: politicians, bureaucrats, the military, the middle-class or the lower class?
And don't forget that the interim government has sat on or cooked up several other policy issues that could explode anytime they are put on the table for decision, namely the push for coal and nuclear power plants and a more centralised water management system.
How will the next government, likely to be a weak and shaky coalition with its hands full ensuring its own survival, handle these possible conflicts so that there is something for all stake-holders? (Questions 18-19)
amend - change
sat on - not taken actin on, not done anything about
cooked up - created
put on the table - make available for debate, revision, anc action
stake-holders - people who have an interest in the outcome of events, who will gain or loose depending on this outcome
What Thai election specialists have done in the past is to hold on tightly to the bureaucracy, to the point that the prime minister often serves in reality as the country's permanent secretary.
The problem with this strategy is seen in the result of the referendum. Even though the bureacracy put all its effort into persuading the public to vote the way it wished, its power was futile against a large segment of population that was once the most powerless in the country.
For the next government then, the traditional panacea of the civil service won't solve its problems. (Questions 20-21)
futile - useless, not worth doing
panacea - something actually believed to solve all problems but actually does not
Answer Key:
1. Are all the voters who voted against the referendum in the North and Northeast?
No, these areas had the highest percentage of no-voters, but no-voters were scattered all over the country.
2. Was the percentage of no votes in Bangkok high?
Yes, 37% is a high percentage.
3. What are the poorest areas in Thailand?
The North and Northeast.
4. What social division might the large no votes in the referendum reflect?
The division between the poor and the richer middle class, between the haves and have-nots, between the farming and informal sector and the formal sector.
5. Is it possible to be different but not divisive?
(Express your opinion)
6. Will stressing reconciliation, unity, and harmony help solve the social divisions that currently exist in Thai society? (Express your opinion)
7. What serious efforts could be made to lessen the gigantic economic gaps in society? (Express your opinion)
8. How could Thaksin's populist programs be improved to eliminate their shortcomings? (Express your opinion)
9. What steps should the next elected government take to avoid the confrontation and protests before the coup of 2006? (Express your opinion)
10. What have differences in political parties been based on in the past?
Different regions of the country.
11. What might political parties be based on in the future?
Socio-economic class.
12. Is it possible to have government policies that serve both the rich and the poor? Is a compromise possible? (Express your opinion)
13. What kind of government does the new constitution favour?
It favours a coalition government composed of many parties.
14. What will any future coalition government have to spend most of its time doing?
Settling the conflicts that arise among the many parties in the coalition.
15. Will it be able to solve the problems at the root of the pressing social division in Thai society?
No.
16. What are some of the socially divisive issues that the next elected government will have to deal with?
a. The populist projects of the Thaksin adminstration
b. The universal healthcare scheme.
c. The village bank and village fund programmes.
d. Investment in education and training.
e. The repaying of farm debts
f. Free secondary education.
17. What other use of the government budget competes with programmes that could heal social divisions?
18. Should the next elected government change the consitution in any way? If yes, in what way? (Express your opinion)
19. Will the next elected government be strong enough to handle all the issues it must handle to put the country in better shape? (Express your opinion)
20. How has the power of the Prime Minister traditionally compared to the power of the bureacracy (civil service) ?
The bureaucracy has traditionally been more powerful than the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has served effectively as a weak "permanent secretary" for the country.
Professor Nidhi Eoseewong is an historian who started the alternative educational forum, the Midnight University.
21. Which way did the bureaucracy tried to get people to vote on the recent referendum? Why?
The bureaucracy tried to get people to vote for the referendum because they would gain power from the new constitution.
