New Mandala

29 responses so far ↓

• 1 Bob // Nov 12, 2007 at 11:56 pm

  Here is the document in question …
  http://www.m-culture.go.th/culture01/culture01-uploads/libs/document/b0773f58d1.pdf

• 2 Nicholas Farrelly // Nov 13, 2007 at 12:38 am

  Thanks Bob,

  The link is very useful - thanks for passing it on. As the preface notes:
  “Since decades ago, places all over Thailand, not only Bangkok, have been attracting foreigners from all parts of the world, from ordinary tourists to scholars, business personnel, government officials, royal families, monarchs, prime ministers and presidents. To ensure smooth relationships between and among hosts and visitors, it is deemed necessary to publish this small book on Thai social etiquette for their information and consideration.”

  For lots of reasons, it is worth a read in full.

  Best wishes to all,

  Nicholas

• 3 Republican // Nov 13, 2007 at 4:05 am

  Interesting subject, but I’m not sure whether “Behaving bureaucratically” is quite the right title for it. Bureaucracies can be used to implement either radical or conservative agendas. The question is who is ultimately in control of this conservative agenda. It’s not the Culture Ministry, as Chang Noi argues. I wonder why Chang Noi does not mention the real source.

  I’ve posted a reply along these lines on Bangkok Pundit’s blog where I first saw the article referred to. I have to thank BP for actually accepting the comment as I understand that his website is in Thailand and that some of the content of the post might be a little sensitive.

  For any NM bloggers who may be interested here is the link: http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/2007/11/ministry-of-culture-watch.html#comment-c394422508784233946

  Just one other point.

  For anyone who may be under the wrong impression that an English degree and overseas experience may be enough to liberate Thai students from their royalist indoctrination and bring them into the 20th century (it may take a little more to catch up to the 21st) think again. All three authors of this manners manual either graduated in or teach university level English and have overseas degrees. It confirms my own observation that English teachers, whom one would normally think would be the most open and progressive, are by and large perhaps the single most conservative element in the university. But how do we explain it?

• 4 polo // Nov 13, 2007 at 4:12 am

  Interesting points in the first glance:
  1. It includes only Buddhism as a religion (page 3 and other places, such as mentions of who to pay respect to)
  2. It leaves no alternative to prostrating one’s self to royalty if there are no chairs present (p. 5)
  3. People are probably most likely to go to a concert of Thai classical music (p 24)
  4. Use a fork and knife to eat durian (p. 36). Blasphemy, someone call Bob Halliday.

  On second thought, perhaps the absurd “stinkless” durian is appropriate for a knife and fork.

• 5 Teth // Nov 13, 2007 at 10:12 am

  How absurd.

• 6 jonfernquest // Nov 13, 2007 at 2:20 pm

  “It confirms my own observation that English teachers, whom one would normally think would be the most open and progressive, are by and large perhaps the single most conservative element in the university. But how do we explain it?”

  A stewardess (or steward) serves drinks and peanuts, and smiles.

• 7 Srithanonchai // Nov 13, 2007 at 5:41 pm

  Already the cover makes me want to vomit!!

• 8 Sidh S. // Nov 14, 2007 at 12:05 pm

  Talking about ‘etiquette’, I just notice an article in the opinion section of The Age:

  “Loveable larrikin morphs into ugly Australian”

  http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/loveable-larrikin-morphs-into-ugly-australian/2007/11/12/1194766588114.html

  The establishment of the ‘Ministry of Culture’ and the publishing of the Thai etiquette book is a reflection of perceived and real cultural loss as well as insecurity - a natural response to aggressive, irresistable, unstoppable globalization. It is a losing battle and people who have had the chance to travel around the world and experience the youth cultures, there is an increased homogenization in both form and attitude. We’ve heard about ‘ugly Americans’ before, now we are hearing “ugly Australians” - I won’t be surprised if one day we’ll meet ‘ugly Thais’. But by then, it won’t be ugly anymore as the notion of etiquette would have also shifted as a whole new generation takes over.

• 9 Sidh S. // Nov 14, 2007 at 12:26 pm

  Republican and jonfernquest, I don’t think it is surprising that Thais with a better grasp of English are the more ‘conservative’ elements once they find that what foriegners say or write is negative and/or critical of their culture, they are naturally ‘defensive’. I have heard seasoned Thai diplomats (with good understanding of foriegn languages) observe something along the line of “no matter what, richer societies will always look down on poorer societies”. Those who understand another language, particularly English, understands that fact with very greater clarity.

• 10 Republican // Nov 14, 2007 at 5:37 pm

  Sidh S: you need to read more carefully. I referred to “English teachers”, not to “Thais with a better grasp of English” generally.

  The problem with the English teachers / English language degree students is that they have been deliberately educated to have no social science knowledge or critical thinking skills. In other words they have no intellectual defense against royalist propaganda. And so they have been totally indoctrinated by the royalist ideology that has permeated the universities particularly after October 1976, when the royalists realized the danger that the universities posed to their domination of Thai politics and moved to totally control them. The result is that Thai universities are definitely NOT the place where anyone should look for sources of progressive political change, since the royalists have turned them into one of the most conservative institutions in the country. In fact, as we saw before and after September 19, Thai academics and most of their Western counterparts lined up with the movement fighting Thaksin and his democratically-elected government and welcomed its demise, even if not all of them were honest enough to display their feelings openly.

  I had to laugh at your anecdote about the Thai diplomats. As we know, the Foreign Ministry and the Embassies are close to the heart of network monarchy since their very important job is to manage the monarchy’s image abroad. They are controlled for the most part by a small number of elite families with good royal connections. They seem to spend most of their time taking the royals for “thiao” at the Thai taxpayer’s expense and organizing royal ceremonies overseas. Their world view has NOTHING to do with their English language proficiency and everything to do with their elite position in Thai society and sense of feudal privilege. How the Embassies howled when Thaksin tried to reform them. But you portray them as representing Thailand!

  Their problem – which sounds like it might be your problem as well - with life in the West is that its egalitarian ethos grates on their sense of aristocratic privilege. The problem has nothing to do with their being looked down upon, but rather that they are looked upon at the same level as everyone else - something they are certainly not used to in their own country, whose royalist bureaucracy forces its subjects to practice a feudal form of manners taught in textbooks like the Culture Ministry’s one that is the subject of this series of posts. Egalitarianism is like poison to feudal culture so it is not a surprise that your diplomat fellows should react in this way.

  In fact, the monarchy and the royalists have everything to be grateful for to the West – a gullible media (who can’t see a royalist coup even when it pokes them in the eye), royalist academics who are willing to celebrate the King’s birthday at conferences (and actually pay for the privilege! One would think that out of his $40 billion the king could pay for his own propaganda), and long-standing international political support for the throne. Think about it: 60 years and just one critical biography of the king! If anything your diplomat fellows should be criticized for their lack of gratitude for the West’s support for their privileged status in Thai society. Shows a lack of breeding if you ask me.

• 11 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Nov 14, 2007 at 7:50 pm

  re: Sidh>
  The establishment of the ‘Ministry of Culture’ and the publishing of the Thai etiquette book is a reflection of perceived and real cultural loss as well as insecurity - a natural response to aggressive, irresistable, unstoppable globalization.

  Indeed. It’s a shame that the “Thai” etiquette book has nothing to do with authentic Thai culture, but, rather, it is a relic of a past wave of globalization, about 150 years ago, when the Thai ‘hi-so’ saw it fit to ape the Victorian-era mores of the Western diplomats and missionaries.

• 12 jonfernquest // Nov 14, 2007 at 9:55 pm

  I can’t look at the handbook referred to because the link is dead, but I think it may be part of the
  mandatory two week culture training course mandated as part of the 2003 Teachers Council and Educational Personnel Act.

  I think the problems run much deeper than Republican suspects but perhaps in a different way. For instance, at the university I worked at:
  1. No math department?
  2. A software engineering professor who can’t program?

  Part of the problem seems to be that everyone gets the same salary. You start at a university and you stay there for the rest of your life. There was no incentive for people to work or perform. One very smart former president of Naresuan was trying to change that with a teacher portfolio. But research? What research? There was no one expert enough to mentor research in linguistics. If someone wanted to make a difference, they couldn’t. The only hope is if the Democratic party wins, Abhisit has already pledged that the Democrats will maintain control of the Education Ministry in the cabinet. He will change things.

• 13 Srithanonchai // Nov 14, 2007 at 10:18 pm

  I am not so sure about Abhisit. He was one of those who messed up the educational policy-making in the drafting of the National Education Act and the Decentralization Act back in 1998. Not sure whether he has learned anything from what resulted from the mess he was involved in.

• 14 Sidh S. // Nov 15, 2007 at 3:33 pm

  Republican, the Thai diplomat further illustrated the previous statement something along the line: “Farangs from richer countries will look down on Thais like Thais look down on people from poorer countries like our neighbors. It’s also like Bangkokians look down on people from the provinces. This is unfortunate but is the way things are”.

  I’ve been living in a rich, Western country long enough to know that ‘egalitarianism’ is merely another ideal generally incompatible with aggressive capitalism and is particularly complicated when different cultures and skin colors are factored in.

  Republican, please also do not assume too much about me unless you are a Thai who have been through a Thai university education and/or a Thai who has lived, studied and work in a Western country for more than 10 years. If you are either, then accept my apologies.

• 15 jonfernquest // Nov 15, 2007 at 6:13 pm

  Finally got the etiquette book. What is considered acceptable social behaviour **differs by social class** should be acknowledged. This book seems like it is written for formal occasions such as meeting diplomats, royalty, or the elite. Certain situations in the west have pretty strict protocols and etiquette too. Some of the things are useful, like the exact way to perform special rituals, like moving your hand up and down when you receive a diploma. When you have to do this, this manual could prove useful.

  There would have been a fundamental disconnect if the manual was used with the foreigners at my university. What is the proper etiquette when you see the dean sliipping into a massage parlour, or the president dining with his mistress, or when Matichon a major national daily reports that the vice president has just been arrested for running a child prostitution ring in collusion with a local used car dealer? “Be very careful about every word you say,” or pretend that they have high moral standards, I guess is the best solution to this etiquette conundrum.

  The history of Thai Social Etiquette is a interesting topic and a lot of it probably falls into Eric Hobsbawm’s invented traditions like Craig Reynolds mentions in that paper, but some of it is pretty ancient. A little history with citations to the relevant older sources mentioned would have been useful to see how ancient it actually is.

  [Anyway, old history books are full of these sorts of etiquette issues. For example, I was translating a section from the Mon epic Rajadhirat last night in which one commander didn't immediately have the normal audience with the king when he arrived back from campaigning. When the king called the commander to his presence, he found out that it was because he was embarassed about reporting too few captives taken after the battle, but it was because the other general (Lagunein) had swept in after his success and taken captives, after messing up the battle initially. The captives weren't really his to claim. The general who falsely represented his contribution was severely upbraided and the king likened him (Lagunein) to a cowherd. Anyway, Lagunein has a continual problem with self-control in critical situations, like blurting out to people that they are about to be ambushed. He spends most of the time carrying out heroic acts to repent for these outbursts and lack of self-control, like sneaking into the Burmese king's bedroom to kill him, but he steals his betel box instead, because it's wrong to kill a sovereign king, even if it's the enemy. His heroic acts are scenes in a Thai drama written from the Mon epic dating from the early 19th centuryu and staged after the Mon history conference at Chulalongkorn last month. To conclude, ancient etiquette can be fun and interesting.]

• 16 Republican // Nov 15, 2007 at 8:28 pm

  I get very impatient with the assorted royalists, academics and NGOs going on about “aggressive capitalism” and the terrible crime of “globalization” when they in fact have been the main beneficiaries of these processes, while at the same time they are silent on the “aggressive royalist militarism” that has murdered thousands of Thais over the last 50 years. When did the “aggressive capitalists” butcher and torture students in the streets as the king’s security forces and paramilitaries did in October 1976? When did “aggressive capitalists” burn people alive in 44 gallon drums like the king’s security forces did in Phatthalung during the 1970s? Why are you people silent on the king’s implication in these crimes against humanity? Not only silent but join in the cult of the king as some kind of morally perfect being, “highly revered by the Thai people”.

• 17 Republican // Nov 16, 2007 at 6:19 pm

  When I try to understand the conservative political stance of overseas Thais (and perhaps also a considerable number of Thai Studies academics working in overseas universities) I’m reminded of what was once called the “conservative migrant syndrome”.

  This is a phenomenon that is widely found amongst migrant communities around the world, where the culture, mores and world-view of the migrant community is stuck in a time-warp dating from the time they left their homelands. The principle reason for the persistence of these earlier cultural and moral values is the close-knittedness of new migrant communities, which is needed for survival in the new country. It is also a kind of reflexive reaction to the desire to retain one’s sense of cultural identity amidst the pressures of assimilation, alienation from the foreign culture, cultural stress, etc.

  Meanwhile, in the two, three, or four decades since these migrants left their homeland the culture, mores and world-views of their homeland have experienced huge changes. To take an extreme example: the case of an Italian migrant family in a Western country which will not let their daughters out after 7pm, while meanwhile in Italy they are electing former porn actresses as MPs.

  That is why I never buy into this idea that criticism of the monarchy is a Western plot or restricted to overseas educated Thais. In fact, it is the opposite.

  There are many, many more republicans in Thailand than there are outside it. The only difference is that they are not allowed to express their opinions. Basically I think Thais are pretty radical politically.

  PART TWO IN THIS SERIES: For my next trick I will try to explain why farang expats on the whole tend to be so loyal to the throne. A kind of flip-side to the “conservative migrant syndrom”. TO BE CONTINUED.

• 18 bangkokpundit // Nov 16, 2007 at 8:23 pm

  Republican:

  I’ve posted a reply along these lines on Bangkok Pundit’s blog where I first saw the article referred to. I have to thank BP for actually accepting the comment as I understand that his website is in Thailand and that some of the content of the post might be a little sensitive.

  One never knows where to draw the line. Well, the last sentence of your comment I was unsure about. It is not to do with my website being in Thailand as it isn’t - blogspot is not hosted in Thailand. The Computer Crimes Act and Lese Majeste apply to anyone everywhere in the world. I could set foot in Thailand and be whisked away, so to speak. Given the other two bloggers who were recently arrested this is not just being paranoid.

  I have actually deleted/not approved a dozen or so comments over the time I have had the blog. I would rather not do so, but being hauled off by the police for a hobby is not my idea of fun.

• 19 Teth // Nov 17, 2007 at 2:10 am

  Republican, are you Thai, by the way?

  Because if you are, this quote tells clearly shows the level of frustration you have with Thailand and perhaps excuses your idealization of the ‘perfect farang world.’

  Which sounds like it might be your problem as well - with life in the West is that its egalitarian ethos grates on their sense of aristocratic privilege. The problem has nothing to do with their being looked down upon, but rather that they are looked upon at the same level as everyone else - something they are certainly not used to in their own country

  If you’re not Thai, then I ask you to consider that statement again because you talk as if snobs have been eliminated in the West and that it is a society with perfect harmony and equality.

• 20 jonfernquest // Nov 17, 2007 at 1:29 pm

  I would hardly wish to be an apologist for right wing thugs or gangsters. In fact one of the most burning issues in Thailand is the absence of a local media that documents things like the burning people in gas cans in Phattalung that you cite, the most recent case being the death lists and extrajudicial assassinations of Thaksin’s drug wars. (Please document or cite where the Phattalung case is discussed in further detail.)

  You can always pin things on your own culture looking at it in isolation. Look at these pictures of the Kwangju massacre in South Korea. Some places like Cambodia and Indonesia had incomprehensible suffering in the cold war, a local “forgetting” of the insane carnage to get on with life being the normal but paradoxical response (cf. Franco in Spain) , but body count comparisons perhaps are a little futile. However Thailand got to where it is now, life here is a lot better than anything nearby. The last place I lived was Yangon, Burma and it was virtually impossible for people to make a living there and that was four years ago.

  The Royalism of many expats who live in Thailand a little while may originate in the fact that they have lived in so many places and have seen so many cultures repeating the same mind-numbing patterns over and over again, like history as some gigantic chaotic whirlpool, that when they see an anchor that holds things down they have respect for it.

• 21 Republican // Nov 18, 2007 at 3:18 am

  JF, hold your horses, I will get to you and the expats and their ridiculous and rather pathetic royalist bias in good time.

  I have no doubt that Thailand is a nice place to live for you, as it is for most expats. Where else in the world can the farang be treated quite as respectfully by people you’ve never met, on a daily basis, as in Thailand? What is funny is that you attribute this to “the anchor”. But maybe Thailand is not quite such a nice place, for example, for the families of students massacred in 1976 by royalist forces, or for so many others of the king’s enemies.

  As has been pointed out numerous times on this blog, the king gave more than a green light, but active encouragement, to the killings of suspected drug dealers, in the war on drugs. This has all been documented, it’s not a secret. The only reason people don’t make the point is, once again, because of lese majeste. The drug problem had long been of particular interest to the king, at least as early as 1996 as I remember - well before Thaksin. Of course, this is entirely in keeping with the king’s veiled ruthlessness that has been a prominent feature of his reign over the last 50 years at least. Again, don’t trust me on this, all you have to do is read his speeches and books and even songs - “เราสู้” for example, as Somsak as so excellently described in his ประวัตืศาสตร์ที่เพิ่งสร้าง , the most important book of history published in the last ten years - and you can put 2 and 2 together for yourself. This is a politician - and all kings are politicians, not shining knights at Camelot as many Americans today tend to think - who time after time has been shown to be willing to use extreme violence to ensure his hold on power. What other ruler in the world treats his subjects as metaphorical “specks of dust under the royal foot”?

  So if you are to be intellectually honest with yourself, if you are going to blame Thaksin for the drug dealer killings then you can hardly avoid implicating the king.

  On the “thang daeng” massacres, here’s a start: http://www.thaingo.org/story3/red_tang.htm

  “Thang daeng” is not any secret. The problem is not documentation. In fact, the local media and local researchers have been very active on this issue. There are research projects into it, and a monument to those who died has just been erected. The problem, as in the case of 6 October 1976, is bringing to justice those who perpetrated this savagery, this barbarity. This of course will never happen during the reign of your “anchor”.

  For you the king is an anchor; for me he is a blood-soaked hammer, having crushed his enemies and set up, with his allies in the military, one of the most remarkable dictatorships in the world of the last 50 years.

  I understand from your posts that you are an historian. Then judge the king on his record - and I don’t mean the record we see on the 8pm news.

• 22 Republican // Nov 18, 2007 at 3:34 am

  Reply to Sidh S. - 555, no, I have no illusions about a ‘perfect farang world.’ But in a farang country - no, just a developed, civilized, free country - one can criticize the government without being burned alive and publicly mutilated by paramilitaries working for the monarchy.

• 23 Republican // Nov 18, 2007 at 4:12 am

  Further to the “Thang daeng” massacres, with some English text (scroll down): http://topicstock.pantip.com/rajdumnern/topicstock/P2495635/P2495635.html

  Note the role of Thanom in the massacres, as reported only a few years ago in the print media.

  Note that the *estimated* number of those killed just in this region of Thailand in the early 1970s was over 3000.

  Note especially what “communism” essentially meant in the Thai context: the single most dangerous threat to the monarchy, since republicanism was the sine qua non of communism.

  Note the similarity between the savagery of “thang daeng” and the savagery of 6 October.

  Note that Thanom was given a royally-sponsored cremation, soon after the September 19 2006 coup. Coincidence? See http://www.naewna.com/news.asp?ID=51304

  Look at the faces of the people at the cremation (apart from the Queen, the princess) - Suchinda, Anand Panyarachun, etc. It’s almost a who’s who of network monarchy.

  Who do you think is in control of Thailand now?

  Murderers.

• 24 Republican // Nov 18, 2007 at 4:46 am

  To my knowledge (and I could be wrong) “thang daeng” only became more widely talked about in the national media quite recently. The newspaper article referred to above was published in 2003 - three decades after the events.

  There is a very graphic and quite controversial documentary (about 45 minutes long) of the 6th October massacre that was aired on Thai TV in late 2001, I think produced by (the now defunct) ITV (here I could be wrong). Its main theme, very poignantly expressed by the families of the students who were slaughtered, was for the truth of the history of October 6 1976 to be revealed. I do not recall such a documentary on 6 October appearing on national TV before then.

  My hypothesis: the Thaksin government (or more precisely its leftist wing of former radical students of the 1970s - Jaturon, Sutham, Mor Ming, Adisorn, etc. - who may have long memories) which came to power in early 2001, was the key factor in allowing such extremely controversial issues to be so publically discussed.

  Can anyone still not understand who was behind September 19 2006, and why?

• 25 Republican // Nov 18, 2007 at 5:07 am

  For those of you attending the 10th ICTS organized “to celebrate the auspicious occasion of the 80th birth anniversary of His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej in recognition of His Majesty’s great benevolence and life-long work for the well-being of the Thai people”, as you join forces with the propaganda machine designed to promote the king’s academic genius to his subjects, which will be visibly demonstrated by the attendence of so many “distinguished foreign scholars” at this event to honour the king, as you listen to the Princess’s opening address, as you flick through the earnest papers on “sufficiency economy”, spare a thought for the victims of “thang daeng” and 6 October.

• 26 Republican // Nov 18, 2007 at 5:46 am

  Finally, I can easily understand why people could dislike Thaksin. But what I have often wondered at is the reason for the irrational, visceral hatred of him expressed by so many royalists.

  Then I think of “thang daeng”, 6 October 1976, and it suddenly makes sense.

• 27 nganadeeleg // Nov 18, 2007 at 10:48 am

  Republican, thanks for those links - it sure is scary the things people can do, all in the name of fighting a perceived enemy.

  Hopefully we all become more enlightened over time, and there is probably some reason for hope because this latest military dictatorship appears much less brutal than previous dictatorships, and to date they appear even less ruthless than the elected PM they overthrew (and also the leading candidate for PM in the next election)

  Let me get this straight:

  - Thanom apparently had the support of an anchor during his anti communist rampage.

  - Thaksin apparently had the support of an anchor during his anti drug extra-judicial killing spree.

  - You lament the demise of Thaksin.

  So, if Thanom had been elected, would it all have been OK ?

• 28 Historicus // Nov 18, 2007 at 10:59 am

  Republican asks “the reason for the irrational, visceral hatred of him expressed by so many royalists.” An adequate answer requires considerable research and more thought, but here are some initial conjectures: (i) Thaksin’s model of business challenged the special position of the Crown Property Bureau because of his linking of political and economic power (this needs a lot of extra research); (ii)
  the king personally disliked Thaksin (he criticized Thaksin from the mid-1990s); and most significant,(iii) Thaksin challenged the palace’s assumed right to control the hearts and minds of the masses. An ideological element of the monarchy’s position is that the king is the champion of the poor. All those rural projects are the symbol of the king’s supposed connection to the masses. The palace portrays itself as the savior of poor peasants, through notions of sufficiency – doing better with what one already has – and palace charity. Thaksin offered a different approach to the same constituency. Don’t go back to the farm and rural sufficiency, but get ahead by being entrepreneurial. Thaksin’s and TRT’s mix of social welfare (the king hates state welfare for making people “lazy”) , grassroots capitalism and their resulting appeal to those the royalists saw as the monarchy’s “natural” constituency caused great concern.

• 29 Sidh S. // Nov 19, 2007 at 4:55 pm

  “Reply to Sidh S. - 555, no, I have no illusions about a ‘perfect farang world.’ But in a farang country - no, just a developed, civilized, free country - one can criticize the government without being burned alive and publicly mutilated by paramilitaries working for the monarchy.”

  Republican, Teth coined ‘perfect farang world’ and I maintain that you still ‘have illusions’. By the standards that you want to subject to your own country Thailand (I will take the liberty to assume you are Thai while you avoid answering Teth’s and my question), George W. Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard etal., have been and still is by far more murderous in the name of ‘War on Terror’… You believe that “Smart Bombs” are ’smart’, Republican?

  And you want to go back to the THOUSANDS “Thang daeng” deaths - as Nixon has passed away, let’s get Henry Kissinger etal for the MILLIONS of Vietnamese, Laotian Cambodian deaths (not to mention the tens of thousands young Americans - and hundreds or thousands of their Thai allies) during the Vietnam War - for precisely the same fear of Communist ideology. ‘Thang daeng’ is horrendous, no debates there, do you reckon “Napalm” was fine???

  Last I checked, they all still lived with impunity in “developed, civilized, free” countries. Please open your Thai eyes, Republican… It’s so easy to be blinded by hate - we all suffer from that in our day to day existence. If we try to decrease it a bit (I have had the occasional success), we can see the world in a different light (albeit less humane, less ideal)…

Leave a Comment