In search of Thai national values

It was the first time since 1988 we had witnessed a Thai leader speak out in such a manner against the Kingdom's much-feared neighbour.

Surayud's strong condemnation was a rare example of Thailand expressing its national values. In normal circumstances, it is impossible to hear a Thai leader holding forth with such strong feeling. It is highlighted here simply because it was a remarkable statement, coming from a government set up by leaders of the 2006 coup.

All Thai citizens are taught that "chat, satsana, phra mahakasart" (nation, religion and monarchy) are the three pillars of Thailand's intrinsic national values. These norms were established and accepted without any elaboration.

However, the political developments and periodic turmoil that have characterised the past four decades of Thai history (some would say since 1932), and been sharpened in the past few years by a polarisation of the country's mass organisations, raises an interesting question over Thailand's national values. Does the country have a set of national values that all stakeholders can identify with? Without these intrinsic national values, the oft-cited claim - repeated every few minutes, it seems, by the current power wielders - of authorities that they are protecting our national interests would lose its legitimacy.

After its landslide election win in early July, the Pheu Thai Party set up a new government with a set of self-declared national interests, which, according to Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung, are extracted from long-held national values, based in respect for the monarchy.

During his first week in office, Chalerm declared that the government would not relent on the lese majeste law; anybody caught violating this taboo would be put in jail. There has been no loosening up of the monitoring of Internet use. The government is spending an average of Bt1.7 million a day to spot netizens who might not agree with Chalerm. Talk about changes and real changes.

In addition, the Yingluck government has exercised its power in the past few weeks over all strata of Thai bureaucracy, especially those senior officials deemed partisan and unfriendly to the new administration.

This has been the biggest such reshuffle effort we have ever witnessed. Unfortunately, the Foreign Ministry sustained the highest toll. Key negotiators of the Thai-Cambodian conflict over Khao Phra Viharn/Preah Vihear, for instance, have been removed to pave the way for the Pheu Thai Party's own group of experts. Every time there are changes in officials, both Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and Foreign Minister Surapong Towichukchaikul say it will not affect the national interests. For laypersons, it is hard to see how it is in the national interest to handle this quite complicated border issue by continually changing negotiators, bringing in those who have no expertise but show high loyalty to former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

In 2001-2006, when the Thaksin government reigned, the notion that he and his government were doing their utmost to protect the national interests, which essentially derived from the party's own platforms, was highly questionable, as lots of cases ended in court proceedings.

Now that his sister and associates are in power, just look around at the ideas they are implementing: rice mortgages, the Bt300 minimum wage, the Bt15,000 salary scheme, etc. These interests may not be congruent with the Thai national values of nation, religion and monarch. But never mind. After all, the three pillars have been shaken to the core amid rapid changes in Thai politics and the Thai people's state of mind.

On the surface, Thailand seems to have strong national values. Foreigners visiting this country are impressed with what they see and encounter personally. But that can be an illusion, because when it comes down to identifying national values and interests, the Thai people are completely at a loss. They really do not know what these values and interests are, or how to form a consensus around such values.

That helps explain why all this talk about national reconciliation, which has been going on for years now, is going nowhere. Sad but true, after all the intensive mass-mobilisation and conflicts involving people of all walks of life, Thai people still cannot agree on a set of national values. It is still all just so much mumbo jumbo.

By contrast, other Asean countries such as Singapore and Indonesia have a strong sense of their national values.

Since independence, the island republic has placed nation before community, and society above self. Those in power also take a "consensus not conflict" approach, and advocate racial and religious harmony. These national values serve as foundations for the country, enabling it to grow with a strong sense of purpose. Nobody would deny that when it comes to protecting its national interest, Singapore is the fiercest.

Indonesia is equally distinctive in this sense, especially when comes to its sense of a just and civilised society. Since the revolt in 1998, Indonesian society has been guided by principles of democracy and social justice. That helps explain why Indonesia has over the past decade become very self-assured in its future direction. Beyond Asean, the US is another good example of a country that has a set of national values based in democracy and human rights.

For the European Union, the same values prevail as in the US, but with more diversity and collective wisdom. When a country understands and agrees on its national values, which normally don't change when governments do, then and only then can national interests be articulated and subsequently protected. Somehow, what happens in this country does not resemble any one of the above-mentioned examples.