NCPO props up ‘wall’ that divides Thais
The scandal regarding motivational speaker Orapim “Best” Raksapon may be just another small brick but it could go a long way in reinforcing the wall of divisiveness that continues to rise in Thai society.
Ms Orapim’s careless remark, made during one of her talks earlier this year, implying that Isan people do not love His Majesty the late King Bhumibol Adulyadej is stirring criticism that she used the highly revered institution of the monarchy for her personal gains, while at the same time driving a wedge of hatred deeper into Thai society.
The self-styled “speaker for the royal Father” has apologised on TV for the controversial remark but insisted the point might have been taken out of context.
As troublesome as her comment was, Ms Orapim’s slip-up may have been allowed to die down had another aspect of the controversy not been unearthed.
Ms Orapim’s careless and overly simplistic opinion became a much larger stone of contention when it was later revealed that the speaker had been employed by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), supposedly to promote its own work, national unity and love for the monarchy.
Suddenly, what could have passed as a simple act of individual ignorance is turning out to be a possible institutionalised propaganda campaign complete with an underlying belief in narrow-minded nationalism.
The military regime’s reaction to the scandalous comments may be indicative of the state of its own “information operation”.
In haste to distance itself from the controversy, the army, through spokesman Winthai Suvaree, dismissed any possible link between the military and the motivational speaker. The army spokesman went as far as to deny the army hired Ms Orapim.
The army’s denial was immediately met with a photo shared on social media showing Ms Orapim being escorted by soldiers to an army helicopter and a video of a lecture at the army’s headquarters promoting NCPO missions.
The next day, NCPO spokesman Piyapong Klinphan did an about-turn and said the military regime did hire Ms Orapim to speak at several events, including some for the army.
While Col Piyapong declined to reveal how much the NCPO paid the speaker — her fees are reported to be as high as 30,000 baht per hour — he defended her as a courageous woman who can effectively convey her loyalty to the monarchy.
He insisted Ms Orapim was not an army propagandist.
Then what is she? What are the other people who Col Piyapong said the NCPO “invited” to speak at events and manifest their deep love for the monarchy?
It’s understandable that the military regime would employ charismatic and professional speakers to promote its causes, as these people could be more effective in communicating with socially and culturally diverse crowds.
The scandal about Ms Orapim’s us-versus-them remark, however, raises the question of whether the regime is doing the right thing.
After all, people’s love and loyalty towards His Majesty the late King and the monarchy is a deeply personal affair that should be left for each individual to define. It should not be strictly prescribed through Ms Orapim’s lectures.
Even without the unfair Isan-people-don’t-love-the-King generalisation, Ms Orapim’s talk was based on the idea that the nation can only be unified when there is no dissent at all among its people. Absolute conformity seems to be an underlying message of what the motivational speaker called for when she roused people to do their duty for the country.
Considering where Ms Orapim is coming from, it’s not a surprise that she let slip the slight against Isan people. When people set up a monopoly on faith or loyalty, they automatically segregate those they deem to be less loyal.
When Ms Orapim, or the army and NCPO that stand behind her, set out to lecture the public about how to love the monarchy or what people should do for the sake of the nation’s unity, the assumption is made that those lecturing are in possession of superior knowledge, that their faith is stronger and their expression of it more correct.
Ms Orapim’s contentious remark will definitely contribute to the the continued rising of the wall of hatred and divisiveness but it’s the mentality behind it, an attitude apparently espoused by the military — that there can be no space for dissent or critical thinking in the name of loyalty and national unity — that began to erect the wall and ensure it will stand high as it keeps us divided.