I am currently working on an edited collection that examines contemporary ideas about “community” in the Thai/Tai world. Tentatively titled “Modern Tai Community”, the book is an attempt to rescue the concept of “community” from its immersion in notions of tradition, subsistence livelihoods and local wisdom. All too often “community” is seen as standing opposed to the modern state and the capitalist market. Modern Tai Community will explore the ways in which community is creatively reworked in modern political and economic contexts.
A rather traditionalist approach to community was present in Thailand’s 1997 constitution. In the much cited Article 46 “rights to participate in the management, maintenance, care and use of benefits from natural resources and the environment” were granted to “persons assembling as an original local community.” These “original local communities” were also given rights to preserve their customs, traditions, local knowledge and culture.
There has been in interesting shift in the proposed post-coup constitution. The draft Article 65 appears to grant the same rights as the previous Article 46. But the wording in relation to community is broader. “Original local communities” are granted these rights but so too are “local communities” and just plain old “communities.”
I have no idea if this broader wording would have any more effect than the rather impotent (and misguided) Article 46. But it does represent a small sign of common sense in a constitutional drafting process that seems to be spooked both by the ghost of Thaksin and the power of the electorate.
Who knows, there may even be a glimmer of acknowledgement amongst Bangkok’s wise elite that the culture to be “preserved” or “revived” by “communities” may be broad and dynamic enough to include coyote dancers, mobile phones and even, god forbid, political opinions.
6 responses so far ↓
1 Srithanonchai // Apr 24, 2007 at 6:43 pm
In the CDC’s summary, we read that community rights are expanded by the addition of local community (chumchon thongthin) rights in order to include cases of people who join together to establish a community. For this, it is not necessary for them to have been together for a long time.
The inclusion of such “local communities” might respond to CODI’s work under Phaiboon Watthanasiritham, currently the military-appointed minister for social development and human security. His first priority is to push through the already-drafted Local Community Assembly Act (phoropo sapha chumchon thongthin). “Local communities” here are self-organized “groups” set up in order to increase public participation versus the monopolized and monetized area of official local politics and local authorities, such as TAOs. The leaders of all the groups in one tambon form the assembly—under the chairmanship of the kamnan! The MoI does not seem to be happy with the draft law, because they see that council as a competition of the TAOs, which they supervise.
One might also ask what actually the difference is between the local groups under CODI’s supervision, and the local groups set up by the MoI’s department of community development.
2 fall // Apr 24, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Sorry for going off topic, but there is a little poll done by Time on “The Most Influential figure”.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/time100walkup/article/0,28804,1611030_1610841_1610324,00.html
Now, this seem a common enough poll, but for the little “PRO&CON” caption is so painfully straight-forward that some might deem offensive.
It would be interesting to see if this Time issue would be banned from publishing in Thailand and the polling website blocked.
Would someone willing to start a betting pool if this would turn into another international lese-majeste fiasco?
3 observer // Apr 24, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Khun Paiboon was not appointed by the military. He was appointed by Prime Minister Surayud (who was appointed by the military).
I don’t see any evidence that the current government ministers have had any role in drafting the constitution. It seemed to be done largely in secret by a small group of semi-military cronies.
I think it is going to be more and more important to distinguish between what the military controls (the South, the constitution, the parliment) and what the government controls (ministers, the ability to initiate legislation, not much).
One of the reasons this government has been ineffective is that they don’t control many of the things that typical governments control. TRT had a majority of the parliment, of course Thaksin could do more than Surayud, who has no memebers of parliment.
I know this is only tangentally relevant to your point. But I wanted to make clear that Khun Paiboon is not a military stooge. As I noted above, I think it will become increasinly clear that the “government” and the military are two separate entities with what could be very different agendas.
Again, i don’t see that the government has had much to do with the constitution or the South. As those issues become contentious, it will be important to see clearly who was behind them.
4 Jon Fernquest // Apr 24, 2007 at 10:19 pm
““Local communities” here are self-organized “groups” set up in order to increase public participation versus the monopolized and monetized area of official local politics and local authorities, such as TAOs.”
Is “monetised” bad? Doesn’t extending public water to a village require money whether by grant or loan?
To my understanding TAOs were an essential part of decentralisation of government under the 1997 constitution, the sort of decentralisation that might meet local needs like water supply. I guess all of this ended abruptly with the coup?
5 Jon Fernquest // Apr 24, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Certainly subsistence pressures make “local communities” a lot less relevant with people relocating from rural to urban contexts seasonally for working purposes like taxi drivers seem to do.
Certainly the vagaries of real estate prices (e.g. liquidating a house and distributing inheritance) and rental rates (much lower on the city periphery), migration (daughter marries someone in a far-off province, mother moves there to look after the baby), there are so many pressures making merely “living in local proximity” a lot less important than it once was.
Maybe even there are still local communities impenetrable to outsiders, or penetrable only with great psychological cost of always being the outsider, which I witnessed in more traditional Burma, an ethnic Burmese living with her son among the Inthas at Inle lake near Taungyi, for instance.
6 Srithanonchai // Apr 25, 2007 at 12:42 am
Jon:
“Monetized” in this sort of discourse is part of the ethical rejection of vote-buying, corruption etc. This also includes the assumption of political exclusion, that is the non-existence of responsiveness and accountability. Thus the perceived need for extra-political, “people’s sector” organizations.
TAOs had existed before the 1997 Constitution, and the coup did not end anything abruptly in this area.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate but we reserve the right to reject or edit comments that contain material that is offensive, irrelevant, overly repetitious or involves personal attack rather than a discussion of the issues. And please avoid long quotes from other online sources - just provide the link!