Regime push for ‘Thainess’ turns sinister

‘Thainess”, or Thai niyom, has become the moniker attached to the latest fad of Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and his government. First, the premier floated the idea of “Thai-style democracy”, on Children’s Day.

This week, “sustainable Thainess”, or Thai niyom yangyuen, has become the government’s catchphrase for his new campaign.

This one is also the brainchild of our prime minister. On Tuesday, he signed an order to form a Thai niyom yangyuen Steering Committee and sub-committees at provincial, district and sub-district levels across the country.

In a nutshell, this new campaign will see 7,800 teams sent to all sub-districts to listen to people’s gripes and demands.

The aim is to make state agencies pool efforts and lift the people’s standard of living to achieve the military government’s 20-year national strategy.

At first, the phrase Thai niyom reminded me of rattha niyom (or Thai cultural mandates), which was a nationalistic campaign that was adopted by Field Marshal Plaek Phibulsonggram more than 70 years ago.

Designed to unite the country by stoking nationalism, the campaign prescribed nationalistic concepts — fashion, “good deed” norms, policies such as foreign exclusion (the campaign banned the sale of land to foreigners), and last but not least changed the name of the country from Siam to Thailand.

But this latest campaign goes beyond reviving nationalism. I find it a bit dubious and think it undermines the wellbeing of a democratic society.

Indeed, I wonder why the military government needs to create these 7,800 teams when the country is gearing up for local and national polls this year and next.

If the military government has its way, we will see the committee’s teams visiting a similar number of sub-districts.

Each team’s mission has multiple goals aimed at improving the lives of people economically and socially while bringing about national security. One of its duties is to promote democratic behaviour.

The structure of the campaign is typically bureaucratic. At the national steering committee level, there are 61 members including PM Prayut, the deputy prime ministers and other highranking government officials.

At provincial and district levels, members are appointed and originate from state authorities. At the sub-district level, there will be 7-12 members — state officials, academic representatives, security officials, volunteers and village scholars.

Needless to say, these members must be appointed, not elected.

But more than that, I doubt whether these committees will exert influence over local communities, given that the majority of their members are state officials, including the presence of national security officials such as soldiers and police officers.

So, we are likely to see elements of the state apparatus in every nook and cranny.

Critics say the real aim of this new venture is to help the regime garner political support ahead of the general election while still keeping its political ban barring political parties from holding such outreach activities.

I agreed with the critics. But I fear the Thai niyom yangyuen campaign could be more sinister than that.

If this campaign is allowed to take root, it will create a new form of state control from the grassroots level straight to the top. In future, it is possible that the state will interact with local communities directly.

What would be the necessity of having elected politicians if we are able to communicate directly with state officials and soldiers in our tambon? What is the use of having those noisy NGOs when we have volunteers and scholars in our communities?

Not much it seems. But under the Thai niyom yangyuen model we might have nothing to worry about. Everything will be controlled and provided by the state. Security people will also be accessible to us.

But what will happen to those who dare to make a stand of defiance? The state’s response to the dern mittraphap

civil march to Khon Kaen can give us an answer.

Members of the march are activists who plan to share ideas and talk to communities about democratic rights and state policies on farm and food security, healthcare and natural resource management.

The response has been for the police to seek arrest warrants against them for violating the regime’s ban on political gatherings.