Prettier words won’t disguise the discord
What is in a name? Will a new proposal to stop using the word salim, literally referring to a multi-coloured traditional Thai dessert but later used to describe a pro-coup, pro-elite, conservative group of people, especially those who prefer to overlook social injustice to maintain bourgeois lifestyles, help with reconciliation?
In the same vein, if words like kwai daeng or red buffaloes often used by conservatives to refer to pro-Thaksin, prodemocracy supporters are abolished, will Thai people feel friendlier towards people who stand opposite them politically? The dialectal suggestion may seem out of place coming when tension between activists rallying for an early election and the military regime that keeps postponing the promised return to democracy is constantly rising.
Even though dozens of “people who want to go to the poll” have been arrested and charged, the activists have planned yet another major rally for May. The month carries a significant political overtone as it marks both a fourth-year anniversary of the 2014 coup and 1992 Black May incident when people who rose up against the unelected former prime minister Gen Suchinda Kraprayoon were suppressed by authorities, resulting in heavy casualties.
The spectre of the past is strong enough to prompt army commander and secretary-general of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) Gen Chalermchai Sitthisad, to plead for all sides to put the national interest first.
Politics is definitely heating up. Thailand may be heading towards another conflict between the military regime and those who oppose it. Under the circumstances, why should anyone care about dialectics and name-calling? For one thing, the diatribes belie deep divisions in the society represented by conflicting attitudes towards the regime, democracy, election, corruption, social inequality, undeclared luxury watches, the killing of a black panther inside a wildlife sanctuary, or mostly everything.
The rift might start off as being mainly about politics, the elites versus common people that prevailed after the fall of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra following the 1994 military coup. Soon, however, it evolved to polarise what people think about social inequalities, double standards and democracy.
The 2014 coup was supposed to be an attempt to end corruption allegedly prevalent among politicians. The premise seemed to work at first. Cheers were loud and support strong for the regime that promised stability, transparency and reform. After four years and the case of undeclared 25 luxury watches, however, the regime seems to have foregone its own promise about corruption and ended up polarising the idea itself by trying to look over Deputy Prime Minister Gen Prawit Wongsuwon’s borrowed timepieces.
For a long time, intolerance towards corruption offered the only hope for a belligerent Thai society to possibly unite again. It was expected that despite different attitudes about what constitutes democracy, social justice or peace, people would at least agree that corruption is not to be tolerated.
Amid fault lines that run everywhere and along every ideological camp, it was hoped that corruption would serve as a starting place to build a grand alliance, a common ground where people, no matter of what political colours or affiliations, come together and forge a shared future.
Prime Minister Gen Prayut Chan-ocha’s failure to take a clear stance in the case of Gen Prawit’s luxury watches has ruined that possible path for reconciliation. As Gen Prawit vowed to stay on despite the watches scandal, what constitutes an act of corruption has become murky. An otherwise united attempt to battle vice has thus weakened, apparently falling victim to the country’s prolonged and entrenched political conflicts.
At this point, the timing of an election has become a “ground zero” for pro- and anti-military groups. As pro-election activists revved up their protests, debates about what exactly democracy is have also emerged. One supporter of the regime, songwriter Nitipong Hornak, even suggested democracy is but “a form of dictatorship, with a nice package”, an opinion that has stirred a backlash from pro-election groups.
It’s curious that against the bubbling up of old political woes, the proposal to stop factious name-calling appeared. It’s probably well intended, but will it lead to reconciliation? The hardening up of the military regime and increasing resistance among pro-election protesters foretells a coming battle more than it does a time of unity.